TheAgitator.com
That Ain’t Right
Sunday, December 28th, 2008So depending on how today’s games break, it’s possible that the Chargers could get into the playoffs with an 8-8 record, while New England stays home at 11-5. I can’t remember a season with that big of a disparity in record between the last team in and the first team out.
Worse, not only will a win tonight get the Chargers get in, they’ll get to host a game against my 12-4 Colts. That’s their reward, I guess, for winning a crappy division.
NFL: Fix this, please.
But what do you suggest as a solution?
The AFC East this year got to play the AFC west AND the NFC west – since those are the worst two divisons by a huge margin do we discount some of those wins? Are the Pats 11 wins really the same as the Colts 11/12 wins when we played the NFC North and AFC North (ok perhaps) – But what if we had played the NFC East….
Since the creation of the 4th divison in each league the scheldules within each divison is much much better. AND unlike before each team in the leauge will face each team at least once every 3 years.
I just don’t see what would be a better system. Two more teams? That would mean that half the teams make the playoffs…
Sure it sucks for the Pats – but all in all this does seem better than alternatives… at least ones i can think of…
The top 6 records?
I’m fine with division winners (even crappy division winners) getting a spot in the playoffs, but record should determine seeding and home-field advantage.
This IS the fix. The NFL decided to reward the division-winners and not seed the first round by record. The complaint used to be that winning one’s division was not rewarded in the playoffs.
Unfortunately, this system punishes those who play in good divisions at the expense of those who play in bad divisions (I’m looking at you Arizona!). One alternative would be to ignore the divisions and just take the top 8 and seed them by record, but that still punishes the teams that play in good divisions and rewards those with a favorable schedule.
It may be that the real problem is the proliferation of divisions. It was harder for this to happen when there were three divisions versus four in each conference, and it would be even harder if they had two divisions in each conference, but that would make scheduling harder and eliminate a lot of “rivalry” games that really drive revenues. In a closed-end league like the NFL, I don’t think there really is a solution (remember when the league used to make schedules based on how well the team did the year before?).
The real “solution” is to understand that the system isn’t designed to cut to the best 12 teams, but to find the best team in each conference. Looking at it that way, cutting to the winner of each division is probably just as good as any other system, since a team that didn’t win its division is more likely than not, not the best team in that division, a fortiori, it is not the best team in the conference.
Being a Pats fan, I hate that teams like SD or Den could get a playoff spot while the Pats could sit home (Pats are up right now 10-0, would need Dolphins or Ravens to lose). But I’m not sure how this could be fixed. The only fair thing is seed the top 8 records in a conference… but even that has drawbacks.
I’m not sure it’s broken. The NFL certainly knew of this potential when it created this scheduling scheme, and while a three game spread seems high, it’s not unprecedented. The NFL has decided that winning a division has value and should place that team in the playoffs. One of the reasons is schedule differential. San Diego has played 12 of its games against teams that will finish .500 or better. New England has played 9. San Diego won the head to head matchup by 20. I’m not all that offended by this outcome.
As for the Colts-Chargers issue, I think an NBA-style solution would be in order. At least back when I followed the NBA, the division winners were given the top seeds, but an at-large team with a better record had home court. In other words, I would slot and seed the NFL playoffs as is done now, but I would let the team with the better record or tiebreaker advantage have homefield in the wild card round and the championship round. So the Colts would have SD or Denver at home next week, and Baltimore might well host the AFC East champ.
The fix is, “Win your division.”
Wall Street JournalHeadline in the not-too-distant future:
NFL RECEIVES $20 BILLION BAILOUT: PROMISES TO FIX PLAYOFFS
From NFL.com
But even if the Patriots win their final two games, they could become the second team to miss the postseason at 11-5. The 1985 Denver Broncos didn’t make the playoffs after posting that record.
What is old is new again.
Radley…. did you just… did you just show some compassion for my Patriots?
Seeing as how, even now, I’m being forced to root for the hated Jets, that means a lot.
Enemies all over the NFL coming together. What’s the world coming to, eh? :)
Seriously, with all of the major injuries week after week that the Pats have experienced, I’m going to be crushed if we miss out on the Playoffs. It’s just not fair.
The Jets/Fins game is still tied at zero in the 2nd. I’m holding out hope. But a Miami win would be a brutally frustrating end to a frustrating season.
post note: just before I was about to hit submit, the Jets got a TD and missed the PAT. This is going to be a long evening.
How about a team must have a winning record to advance to the post season?
It won’t fix everything but it would keep an 8-8 division winner from bumping out a team that has a better record.
Or maybe redo the system altogether:
Almost everyone makes the playoffs. The worst four teams are left out, the top four teams get a bye. The other 24 play seeded (top seed vs. bottom seed. 2nd seed vs. next to last etc.), the next week the bye week teams are added making for a sweet sixteen. Seeded play continues until the Superbowl pairing is decided.
Of course that adds two weeks to the post-season, so deduct two exhibiton games and the season remains the same lenght.
I’m sure the NFL would make more money with extra playoff rounds than they do with pre-season games, because who really watches the pre-season?
Brett Favre will stop this tragedy from happening. Man, its going to suck ass if I’m wrong tomorrow.
I hate you Jets. I hate you Favre.
I HATE YOU MIAMI.
An 11-5 injury-a-week plagued season. All for nothing.
Favre is sucking and injured and Miami just broke out. And there’s no chance Baltimore loses.
I hate life.
What sport is this in reference to?
Unlike the college system (judging based on polls mixed with computer models, only top two “perceived” teams play for championship), the NFL system has a well defined way of getting into the playoffs and is in no way “broken.” Sometimes it can appear biased (ask anyone not a 49ers fan during the years they got to play 6 games against their division rivals and start off with a 6-0 record before playing anyone else). Every team knows these rules going in, and that’s why they fight hard to win their division (guaranteed playoff spot) rather than settling for Wild Cards.
If the Chargers win, they win their division, and they get the home field against a Wild Card. Colts did not win their division but managed to get a wild card, so they get to go into the playoffs, but they have to travel. Perfectly fair.
BTW, the Miami story is a great story. NE fans (who have in some cases become far worse than the stereotyped Yankee fans in the past couple of years) have developed a overblown sense of entitlement and really need to get over it.
Radley,
A kind word for the Pats- are you ok?
The Pats will sit this one out- it is ok- we won’t wilt.
Good season all in all.
Let’s root for the Colts and even if they don’t win the Superbowl, Peyton Manning deserves the MVP- he looked and played like a scarecrow his first 3 games and then he hit stride.
Try to make it through the day tomorrow, Mattocracy.
There is always next year and Brady will be back in fine fashion.
If the Pats were good enough to win their division, this wouldn’t be an issue, would it?
Same goes for the Colts.
I think the system is just fine. I’d prefer 3 divisions and 3 wild cards, personally, but this works, too.
Go Vikings!!! :D
And the (apparently) lone voice from South Florida says, YEAH!
But it could be worse for you guys.
You could be Detroit fans.
If a division winner has a worse record than the first team out, perhaps you could have a play-in game between the two? Feel free to tear my idea to shreds.
PS: But really how often does this situation arise?
PPS: Besides, it’s the freakin’ Patriots! It’s not like they’re suffering a lack of post-season appearances lately. Now if this happens to Detroit next year, I expect more than a few Lions fans will attempt to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet.
PPPS: I’ve got money on John Kerry leading a congressional investigation concerning the fairness of the NFL playoff system.
With a little bit of expansion, you can have three 12-team leagues each competing in a home-and-away round robin for a total of 22 weeks of Football (about the same length as the current season). Connect the leagues by promotion and relegation and you will have interest at all levels.
Q: Whats the hardest part about being a (insert team name here) fan?
A: Telling your parents your gay.
No “fix” is needed. This is the game. This scenario comes up so often you ought to be used to it by now. Rule 1 to getting into the playoffs is WIN YOUR DIVISION!! If you don’t do that, you’re putting yourself in a position to get burned. I have no sympathy for any team that misses. It’s happened to my team in the past. Yes, I groused about it, but not for long, and I sure didn’t want to see them change the rules. This is like government stuff, any “fixes” will probably make it worse. I don’t think there is a system that can be created that will be bulletproof. It’s part of the joy of sports.
I look forward to next weeks column after the lowly 8-8 Chargers destroy the Colts.
The problem Radley, is the weighted schedules. It’s pointless to play 3 teams in your division twice per season if those games mean nothing compared to the rest of your games. The Pats had a ridiculous cream-puff schedule (they beat almost exclusively crappy teams, or teams with injured superstars or no motivation to play – see Arizona).
When you can’t play all the teams, or play an unweighted schedule, division winner has to mean at least a playoff berth. As it stands now, 14 out of 16 games are either against division opponents or against teams that the other teams in your division will also play. (Actually #3 2 games per season ARE based on how well the team did the year before). So, in a way, having the best record in your division is a fair comparison amongst teams hwo played almost identical schedules. AFC East teams had the easiest schedule of any division I think, so 11 wins isn’t all that dominating.
Brady may not be back.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28399629/
[...] It does seem cheap that New England will miss the playoffs with an 11-5 [...]
“NFL: Fix this, please.”
Heh. Spoken like a true Washingtonian — Declare there is a problem where none exists and demand an arbitrary solution.
You youngsters!
The Pats lost 5 games and didn’t make the playoffs … Boo-hoo. You wanna’ know what started my warpage?
The greatest Colt team of all time was 1967. UNDEFEATED going into the final week. The Rams creamed them, they both went 11-1-2. No playoffs for the Colts.
9-5 Packers won Super Bowl II. Johnny U whupped them after trailing 10-0 with 2 minutes left that year.
That was after they got screwed in ’65 over that phony field goal. Sammy Baugh said he wouldn’t wish the Colts’ fate on a dog. Johnny U cried on the way home. Everybody remembers Super Bowl III, but for me, 1967 was worse.
There’s probably some 10 year old Pat fan who’s going to stay home from school tomorrow just like I did….
There is a reason it’s call the ‘wildcard’ (b****s)
Oh happy day. The Patriots, Cowboys, Gruden, Farve and Shanahan all miss the playoffs.
I agree with Nick here, with weighted schedules the division winners must make the playoffs. However for the same reason that the 8-8 division winner makes the playoffs and an 11-5 team sits out, there doesn’t seem to be much call for the #1 and #2 seeds to get a first round bye in the playoffs. Hypotheticaly the #1 seed with a 14-2 record could be coming from a creampuff division, so why award them a bye?
So opening up the system to award 4 wildcard slots wouldn’t add any extra time to the playoff format and doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
As for the patriots, I have plenty enough sports to watch this season as both the Celtics and Bruins are topping their division.
Radley,
I see you suggest that the system is broken but you didn’t post any possible solutions.
I don’t think the system is broken at all. Within your division, 14 out of 16 games are played against common opponents. The other two are played against opponents chosen based on your success the previous year (the better you did, the harder these games are). This gives those teams that didn’t do as well the previous year a chance to catch up. This sounds fair to me.
Would you rather just seed the top 8 records? That could leave a division winner (and this year it WOULD leave one) out of the playoffs. If you’re going to do that, then why bother having divisions if winning one doesn’t matter? Or, are you suggesting that we keep the same system as far as who makes the playoffs and then seed them by record? That’s cool, except that the team that won its division now gets no compensation over one that didn’t win and made the playoffs as a wild card.
There is no perfect system and, no matter what, there will always be someone complaining about it.
I began to notice something about NFL games oh, back in the late 1980′s. They tend to be boring.
Watch a game on TV and 80% of it is commercials or interminable announcer yapping with nothing going on on the field. And what actually did go on on the field was only occasionally interesting. You’ve seen one incomplete pass, one stumble into the pigpile for a yard and a half, or one camera shot of coaches pacing up and down the sidelines looking oh-so-concerned, you have seen them all. After decades of watching several NFL games a week, I quit watching it in 1989. Haven’t missed the snoozefest one bit.
Ron,
Tivo is the answer. I can normally watch an NFL game in about an hour and it is much more interesting. No commercials, and no waiting to line up for a play.
I’m a Pat’s fan and don’t feel screwed at all, nor do I think they should change anything (becasue whatever they do will probably make it worse). Would I have liked to see the Pat’s in the playoffs, absolutely, but it is what it is, everyone knows the rules going in. Don’t complain, win more games, score more points and you don’t have to worry about tie-breakers and umpires.
The Pat’s played remarkably well considering all of the injuries and came within an overtime loss to the Jets and a late loss to the Colts of being 13-3.
Mike,
The problems with your idea are 1) 8 teams from each conference means half the teams in the league make the playoffs. That just really damages the integrity of the sport. Back when there were 3 wildcard spots, some 8-8 teams made the playoffs in those spots, and there always seemed to be 9-7 teams in. That was still only 6 teams total, I think 8 would let some real crummy sneak in teams moreso than it would allow quality teams an opportunity. 4 divisions and only two WC slots has made it harder to get into the playoffs for most teams (see the Patriots) and emphasized division games. I don’t think the league should undo that.
Also, as for 1st round byes, despite recent history, having a week off is a huge help that all teams would love to have. You should reward teams who go 13-3 or 14-2 or something and encourage teams running away with their division or who are otherwise assured of a playoff spot to continue to play for one of those top seeds, rather than roll over and suck like the Cardinals did this year. Plus if you didn’t have first round byes we’d now be hearing the argument of how the Titans and Steelers get no real big advantage over the crummy Chargers because one of them would be hosting New England this weekend.
The only solution I would propose to the format is that homefield advantage and seeding is based on record. In other words, San Diego still gets in, but they would be a 6th seed and get no home games.
I enjoy watching the occasional NFL game, but Ron is right – for the most part, it’s booooring. Watching a full 3-hour game yields maybe a half-dozen truly exciting plays.
The other problem with the NFL here as it relates to the playoffs is that with each team only playing 16 games, you don’t really statistically know who the better teams are, because the events (games) aren’t repeated enough to “settle down” the relative frequency of the “values” (win/loss) that occur. If you flip a coin only 16 times, the relative frequency of “heads” might significantly vary from the frequency when the coin is flipped 82 or 162 times.
So I agree with some of the other posters: fix what exactly? Is this similar to those that suggest we “fix” the problem that someone can be elected president that wins the electoral vote but doesn’t win the popular vote? That’s a feature, not a bug! If you really want to know who the better NFL teams are, then I suggest that the NFL should play at least twice as many games as they currently do. Increase the sample set size of the independent events.
For removing the byes, I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where the best 3 teams in the NFL were all within one division, currently you would be garunteed that 1 of them would not make the playoffs, and the other two would most likely not be getting a first round bye because they were stuck playing games vs the other 2 good teams in their division. Some lessers team from a lesser division have a good shot at taking those byes.
So in that case it doesn’t seem really fair to award a bye due to an easy schedule. The same would I think go for awarding homefield advantage based solely on record. In general I like the current system as there is no way for teams accross the league to have a balanced schedule, so at least we can do it within a division. But if we are talking about the schedules being balanced within a division the overall record of a team shouldn’t matter once you get out of the division. I proposed another 2 wildcard spots just because mathmatically it’s easy todo and doesn’t add any additional weeks to the season.
You do have a valid point though in that it could potentially give some motivation to teams who are already in the playoffs for that last game or two. That seems like a TV Ratings benefit, but not a particularly fair thing todo if you want the best team to win the superbowl.
[...] if I were a Patriots fan I’d be outraged at the idea of missing the playoffs after an 11-5 record while an 8-8 team out of the NFC West gets in. And [...]
Mike,
3 teams from the same division can make the playoffs. This happened last year in the NFC East when the Giants and Redskins took the two wild-card spots. Had Tampa Bay won yesterday then both wildcards would have come from the NFC South, this year. But yes, only one fo them can get the first round bye, while the other team can be seeded no better than 5th.
It’s a very flawed system because of the problems Scott alludes to with sample size. I think you can’t get away from division winners getting in and I think you have to keep it to only 6 teams per conference. It’s not great but the alternatives suck.
Scott, the Electoral College is a nightmare with no real “features.” I don’t think that’s a fair comparison because the solution to that problem is readily apparent. And i imagine we would get a lot mroe debate on that topic here.
Scott, the Electoral College is a nightmare with no real “features.”
Actually, the EC provides a very important mathematical feature, it’s just that most people don’t understand it, which is why they incorrectly advocate for its removal.
The problem that i have with NE being out of the playoffs (though im not that broken up about it) is the really the amount of bad breaks. Against the Jets you have a bs holding call, which lead to overtime and then you get screwed by Dick Jauron’s play calling and Herm Edwards awesome time management skills. But like its been pointed out before, not all 8-8 teams are the same. Chargers seem to be hitting their stride.
I’m a Texas alum: We beat OU and they go to the Championship game.
I’m a Pats fan: 11-5 and we stay home while 11-5 Miami goes to the playoffs.
Came in second place for fifth straight year in fantasy football.
I knew I would pay for Texas, Pats, Red Sox, and Celtics winning championships.
Radley,
As someone who has the odd distinction of being both a Pats fan and an Agitator fan, I’d say you’re half right.
It sucks incredably to have the Pats missing out on the playoffs, but there’s a certain logic in having the divisions actually mean something. Win your division and you’re in makes sense if you’re going to split the teams up by division in the first place. But forcing your 12-4 Colts to go to San Diego is ridiculous, as is having 11-5 Atlanta go to 9-7 Arizona and even 11-5 Baltimore going to 11-5 Miami (as Baltimore beat Miami during the season). Change the system around, but don’t eliminate the divisions, just stop the insanity of giving .500 teams home games.
Too true. Joe Buck, John Madden, et al need to STFU. If the league would simply broadcast the on-field sound and leave the commentary to that little voice in my brain all would be well.
Keep divisions, change Wildcard tiebreakers. The AFC East beat themselves up this year. Miami (11-5), NE (11-5), and the Jets (9-7) had very respectable records. The Dolphins lost to the Jets and Pats. The Jets lost to the Dolphins and the Pats. The Pats lost to the Dolphins and the Jets. The Wildcard tiebreaker should not be divisional record, as it only hurts teams who play a tougher divisional schedule and helps weaker teams from weaker divisions.
Considering how crappy the BCS system is for college, I don’t see a problem here. If the teams don’t really belong in the playoffs, they’ll lose in the first round. Seems fair to me.
And the Chargers seem to know how to play the Colts so I’d be careful with that game.
Um, Brian, the tie-breaker for the Wildcard is NEVER based on divisional record. Here’s a good breakdown: http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/standings/playoffrace/tiebreakers-explanation
But to summarize it goes: Head-to-head, conference record, common games, strength of victories, strength of schedule, then it has 5 more things based on points scored and allowed and total touchdowns until FINALLY you get to…… a coin toss.
In the case of the Pats, they went 7-5 in conference and the Ravens went 8-4. They both went 4-2 in division. Then the Pats had the luck of drawing the atrocious AFC West, and had the intended bad fortune of drawing the Steelers and Colts. Where the Ravens had the unluck of playing the strong AFC SOuth and the intended benefits of playing Oakland and Miami (although…)
And Scott, I don’t find that article particularly convincing. While the math is pretty fascinating the base assumptions are drastically oversimplified and I don’t agree with them. It begs the question all over the place, but that’s for another thread I suppose.
Well, the fact that you “don’t agree” and don’t find it “particularly convincing” doesn’t matter. The science of mathematics proves that it’s true, that with the EC your single vote has more power in almost all election situations than in a simple direct election.
Here, I found a great little simulator that shows the EC math in action.
Well I can say without a doubt that with the electoral college MY vote has far less power than it otherwise would. The article mentioned is interesting as a pure math experiment where it seems to fail is putting down historical trends with regards to the actual 51 districts we currently have.
Other than Regan and Eisenhower my district has voted Democrat since the 1920s. Prior to that it had always voted Republican. A republican (or even a democrat)’s vote has little power in my state. Honestly the presidential candiates don’t even bother running political adds once primary season is over. I hear more about the adds on CNN news stories than I do as actual commercials.
A valid solution might just be redistricting but as it stands I do not believe the current electoral college as implemented is as effective as it could be. At a minimum the electoral votes awarded via senator seats seem to be a very uneven way to grant power. I did not see this touched on in the article.
As far as the math “proving it is true” I am not sure I buy that argument. There is a fixed amount of voting ‘power’ we as a nation of roughly 300 million can elect 1 president every 4 years. So if things were equal your vote would be worth 1/300M. There is a fixed amount of voting power, the electoral college system absolutely gives more power to some individual voters/districts. However this power isn’t coming out of nowhere. It is taken from some other voters. There is no “free power” to give away. The way that article reads to me is that the system attempts to give more power to smaller minority blocs at the expense of larger minority blocs. It still seems debatable whether or not that is a good thing.
The solution is simple. Go back to 3 divisions and one wild card. With more teams in any single division the chances of an 8-8 team squeaking through diminish, and winning a division becomes meaningful again. We don’t need 6 playoff teams in each conference.