PDA

View Full Version : If the playoffs were today, Broncos would be the 5 seed and the Chiefs the 1???



Army Bronco
10-15-2013, 05:23 PM
What is up with this? The NFL.com site puts Denver as a 5 seed with a 6-0 record but the Chiefs a 1 seed with the same record. Doesn't make sense to me. I know its too early but this is stupid.

http://www.nfl.com/playoffs/playoff-picture

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 05:27 PM
I think they messed it up. They probably put strength of schedule ahead of strength of victory.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 05:27 PM
What is up with this? The NFL.com site puts Denver as a 5 seed with a 6-0 record but the Chiefs a 1 seed with the same record. Doesn't make sense to me. I know its too early but this is stupid.

http://www.nfl.com/playoffs/playoff-picture

Probably the strength of schedule tiebreaker, because both are 1-0 in the division, 3-0 in the conference and haven't played each other. Chiefs win the division, the other three division winners get the 2-4 seeds, and the Broncos would be the top wild card.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 05:38 PM
Nevermind....they got it right. Chiefs have a better strength of victory because their opponents' win percentage is higher than the Broncos' opponents. Hence, Chiefs win tiebreaker.

Army Bronco
10-15-2013, 05:44 PM
So its a headline grabbing article? Didn't read into it cause I'm at work...lol Gov shut down so why not me?

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 05:45 PM
So its a headline grabbing article? Didn't read into it cause I'm at work...lol Gov shut down so why not me?

The headline I see is Playoff Picture if the Season Ended Today, so not sure what you're seeing.

AlaskanBronco
10-15-2013, 05:47 PM
Nevermind....they got it right. Chiefs have a better strength of victory because their opponents' win percentage is higher than the Broncos' opponents. Hence, Chiefs win tiebreaker.

No they didnt. They have 5 common opponents, so same w/l after that. Difference is Titans and Ravens. Both 3-3. Same strength of victory.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 05:49 PM
Nevermind....they got it right. Chiefs have a better strength of victory because their opponents' win percentage is higher than the Broncos' opponents. Hence, Chiefs win tiebreaker.

This can't be right... we've played the same teams except we played the ravens and they played the titans. Both are 3-3

LawDog
10-15-2013, 05:50 PM
Nevermind....they got it right. Chiefs have a better strength of victory because their opponents' win percentage is higher than the Broncos' opponents. Hence, Chiefs win tiebreaker.

Incorrect, the only opponents they do not have in common is the Ravens for Denver and the Titans for KC - both of which are at 3-3 so strength of victory is identical. The next tiebreaker on the list is strength of schedule which Denver loses with the lowest opponent winning percentage in the league of .430 for last season. KC is only a few spots above them on the board, but that is enough to break the tie. If both teams should win this coming weekend, Denver would take over the #1 seed and KC would drop to #5 as the Colts would be at 4-3 and the Texans at 2-5 so the tiebreaker would move back up to strength of victory.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 05:51 PM
No they didnt. They have 5 common opponents, all same record. Difference is Titans and Ravens. Both 3-3. Same strength of victory.

Edited post. You guys are right. SOS goes to Chiefs.

AlaskanBronco
10-15-2013, 05:55 PM
Cant be SoS from last year. Once the season starts they switch to this years SoS (which is why teams can switch while still having the first 5 tied) and it goes in Denvers favor.

LawDog
10-15-2013, 05:57 PM
Cant be SoS from last year. Once the season starts they switch to this years SoS (which is why teams can switch while still having the first 5 tied) and it goes in Denvers favor.

And you are basing this on what? So strength of schedule is a sliding scale that changes each week and projects out to the end of the season based on each team's win loss to that point in the season?

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 05:57 PM
ESPN says the combined rankings tiebreaker.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/playoffs

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 05:59 PM
ESPN says the combined rankings tiebreaker.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/playoffs

Interesting. I read this excerpt from SBNation: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2013/10/14/4836848/kansas-city-chiefs-strength-of-schedule-denver-broncos-week-6

I'm just not sure how Pro Football Reference calculated the SOS.

DenBronx
10-15-2013, 05:59 PM
I saw this last night.

Can't wait to play these Chiefs. There is no way the can get into a scoring match with us. Their defense is the only thing keeping them in this and they are yet to play an offense like ours.

NE will be a tougher game then the Chiefs.

LawDog
10-15-2013, 06:01 PM
ESPN says the combined rankings tiebreaker.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/playoffs

Based on that article, strength of schedule and strength of victory come out the same this week because of the opponents in common and the same win/loss record between the Ravens and Titans...

AlaskanBronco
10-15-2013, 06:02 PM
I am going by what a couple NFL analysts told me when I noticed this and asked them. Doesnt make sense to me thats just what I was told by a guy who knows more than I do.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 06:02 PM
Interesting. I read this excerpt from SBNation: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2013/10/14/4836848/kansas-city-chiefs-strength-of-schedule-denver-broncos-week-6

I'm just not sure how Pro Football Reference calculated the SOS.

I'm not sure what that guy is calculating. Strength of victory is the combined winning percentage of the teams you've beat and strength of schedule is the combined winning percentage of all the teams you've played.

I was wrong earlier, but I hadn't looked it up, I was just guessing.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 06:04 PM
I'm not sure what that guy is calculating. Strength of victory is the combined winning percentage of the teams you've beat and strength of schedule is the combined winning percentage of all the teams you've played.

I was wrong earlier, but I hadn't looked it up, I was just guessing.

That makes sense. I was getting confused on the difference between Strength of Victory and SOS. I think that's because both teams are currently undefeated, which means (and correct me if I'm wrong because I probably am) SOS and Strength of Victory are the same.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 06:05 PM
That makes sense. I was getting confused on the difference between Strength of Victory and SOS. I think that's because both teams are currently undefeated, which means (and correct me if I'm wrong because I probably am) SOS and Strength of Victory are the same.

Yup. I had to do the math myself to realize that, but that's exactly what it means. For example, Jacksonville's strength of victory is .000 and their strength of schedule is .722.

Joel
10-15-2013, 06:16 PM
And you are basing this on what? So strength of schedule is a sliding scale that changes each week and projects out to the end of the season based on each team's win loss to that point in the season?
Playoff rankings don't matter till after week 17, so every "if the season ended today" scenario projects the current situation through seasons end. That's what makes is so annoying when the only thing separating two teams near the end of the season is SoS: Projecting all possible scenarios requires projecting not just what the teams in question do each week, but what all their past and present opponents do each week.

We flirted with that in 2011, but fortunately reached the point about 2 weeks out that it was almost impossible for any AFCW to match/exceed our record against common opponents. I vividly remember doing all the permutations and concluding that 1) it was EXTREMELY unlikely the division would come down to SoS and therefore 2) it wasn't worth the headache of calculating all the possibilities that would create.

Joel
10-15-2013, 06:29 PM
What it comes down to is neither our 6-0 record nor KCs mean much because neither of us have played a winning team. It's ike last year; sure we were 13-3, but the only WINNING teams we beat were Baltimore and Cincy—one of which returned the favor in the playoffs. That sort of thing's more likely as the number of teams increase while the seasons length remains steady; it's why many people don't respect the SECAA.

Before the merger each team could play all the others each year (the old AAFC teams played their division twice and the other once,) but that's no longer an option unless we dramatically reduce the number of teams or expand the season. That means it's no longer an option, period, so we often NEED the many tiebreaks. I'm just glad it's never come down to a coin flip. :tongue:

Army Bronco
10-15-2013, 06:34 PM
So its a headline grabbing article? Didn't read into it cause I'm at work...lol Gov shut down so why not me?

The headline I see is Playoff Picture if the Season Ended Today, so not sure what you're seeing. I'm seeing jack sheizer. I'm stupid, you all are smart. Done.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-15-2013, 06:40 PM
Yesterday, I got on the NFL site, and checked standings. In the AFC West, KC is listed first, the Broncos are listed second. I then clicked on Kansas City, and it showed them #1 in the AFC West, clicked on the Broncos, and it showed them #2 in the AFC West. Last night, I was talking with one of my sons, and told him what the NFL had, and he said is everything the same, and I said yes. He then said that it might be because, between common opponents, KC has beat the teams by a larger point margin than the Broncos. That is all he could think of.

Nomad
10-15-2013, 06:50 PM
:lol: Why are people getting wound up? BRONCOS need to keep winning and kick the crap out of KC in a few weeks.

TXBRONC
10-15-2013, 06:58 PM
The Chiefs fans have this same thing up on Chiefs Planet and the hold the seventh tiebreaking over the Broncos that's why if season ended today Denver the 5th seed in the playoffs.

MasterShake
10-15-2013, 07:01 PM
They get earlier and earlier with this crap every year. They should do it at the very earliest AFTER week 8.

Nomad
10-15-2013, 07:02 PM
They get earlier and earlier with this crap every year. They should do it at the very earliest AFTER week 8.

I think they should start after the preseason:D

Broncolingus
10-15-2013, 07:02 PM
...and a better defense (right now anyway).

Denver Native (Carol)
10-15-2013, 07:38 PM
The Chiefs fans have this same thing up on Chiefs Planet and the hold the seventh tiebreaking over the Broncos that's why if season ended today Denver the 5th seed in the playoffs.

So, it must be the following:

Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

BroncoWave
10-15-2013, 07:45 PM
ESPN says the combined rankings tiebreaker.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/playoffs

I have never even heard of that tiebreaker.

nevcraw
10-15-2013, 08:45 PM
chickens / Hatch. 10 more weeks before end of reg. season.. enjoy the ride!!
sorry Thread starter -- but can't believe someone is already bitching about a completely hypothetical playoff situation. This is as redic as being mad that broncos only scored 16 more points than the Jags.

Broncolingus
10-15-2013, 08:57 PM
...stoopid thread started by yet another 'nothing to do' writer/team.

Next year, they'll be posting playoff status after the second week...

...yawn.

Magnificent Seven
10-15-2013, 09:00 PM
What is up with this? The NFL.com site puts Denver as a 5 seed with a 6-0 record but the Chiefs a 1 seed with the same record. Doesn't make sense to me. I know its too early but this is stupid.

http://www.nfl.com/playoffs/playoff-picture

I guess someone hates Broncos.

Army Bronco
10-15-2013, 09:06 PM
chickens / Hatch. 10 more weeks before end of reg. season.. enjoy the ride!!
sorry Thread starter -- but can't believe someone is already bitching about a completely hypothetical playoff situation. This is as redic as being mad that broncos only scored 16 more points than the Jags.lmao..Thank you.

Army Bronco
10-15-2013, 09:10 PM
ESPN says the combined rankings tiebreaker.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/type/playoffs

I have never even heard of that tiebreaker.That was what I didn't understand. Just thought it would be an alright topic. I guess some people immediately have to react as if someone doesn't have the same football knowledge, then they shouldn't post.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 09:22 PM
I have never even heard of that tiebreaker.

I knew it was down there, but I don't even know how it's calculated or what it really means.

This will all end at the end of November when Denver is 2-0 against them, anyway.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 09:30 PM
Incorrect, the only opponents they do not have in common is the Ravens for Denver and the Titans for KC - both of which are at 3-3 so strength of victory is identical. The next tiebreaker on the list is strength of schedule which Denver loses with the lowest opponent winning percentage in the league of .430 for last season. KC is only a few spots above them on the board, but that is enough to break the tie. If both teams should win this coming weekend, Denver would take over the #1 seed and KC would drop to #5 as the Colts would be at 4-3 and the Texans at 2-5 so the tiebreaker would move back up to strength of victory.

First of all, the Strength of Schedule, as ALL of the tie breaking procedures, are for the results of THIS YEAR, not last year.

Secondly, Strength of Victory refers, I believe, to the margin of victory over their common opponents, and not the w/l record of those teams (that would have more to do with Strength of Schedule).

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 09:31 PM
Secondly, Strength of Victory refers, I believe, to the margin of victory over their common opponents, and not the w/l record of those teams (that would have more to do with Strength of Schedule.

No. It doesn't. But thanks for the input.

chazoe60
10-15-2013, 09:35 PM
Who cares? We're going to embarrass the chefs twice.

BroncoWave
10-15-2013, 09:35 PM
I knew it was down there, but I don't even know how it's calculated or what it really means.

This will all end at the end of November when Denver is 2-0 against them, anyway.

I think they add out points scored rank and our points allowed rank compare it to the combined rank of the Chiefs. Whichever is the lower number gets it.

Also, I think even splitting with them will be enough. If we go 14-2, I have a hard time believing they will match it.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 09:37 PM
I think even splitting with them will be enough. If we go 14-2, I have a hard time believing they will match it.

Probably. But, their schedule sets up almost perfect for a 12 or 13 win season.

BroncoWave
10-15-2013, 09:41 PM
Probably. But, their schedule sets up almost perfect for a 12 or 13 win season.

Yeah, their schedule is really easy. I still think they drop a stupid game or two here or there. The more the win, the bigger the pressure will get, and the more seriously other teams will take them. A team like the Browns, for example, have been playing everyone tough and could give them a tough game. What's going to hurt KC is when a team gets up on them and they have to come back. They are not really build for that.

chazoe60
10-15-2013, 09:45 PM
3 things are guaranteed in life: death, taxes, and the chefs not winning in playoff games.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 09:45 PM
The Chiefs are last years Texans without as good of an offense. I think we sweep them and they drop a game to the Chargers. Hell, it looked as though the Raiders could've beat them at Arrowhead last week.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 09:47 PM
Probably. But, their schedule sets up almost perfect for a 12 or 13 win season.

If they can stay healthy on Defense. They lose a few key guys and I'm not sure Alex Smith can pull out games for them if they get behind.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 09:52 PM
If they can stay healthy on Defense. They lose a few key guys and I'm not sure Alex Smith can pull out games for them if they get behind.

Probably true, as well. Even with their defense healthy, I don't think they can overcome much of a deficit with that offense.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 09:59 PM
Probably true, as well. Even with their defense healthy, I don't think they can overcome much of a deficit with that offense.

Agreed. I guess saying that key guys need to stay healthy is true of almost any team, I really think KC is worse off than others in this regard. I think the first time they allow 3 TDs will be their first loss.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 09:59 PM
No. It doesn't. But thanks for the input.

MO, since you insist on being a complete ***, I'll have to embarrass you again.

KC gets the Division at this point because, as someone's post cited "Wins tie break over Denver based on best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.>

Denver is currently ranked #1 in scoring (265 points) and #26 in points allowed (158 points), while KC is ranked #8 in scoring (152 points) and #1 in points allowed (65 points).

Now, combine the two rankings (You can do that, can't you?), as the tie breaker instructs, and THAT is why KC would win the Division and Denver get the WC.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 10:03 PM
MO, since you insist on being a complete ***, I'll have to embarrass you again.

KC gets the Division at this point because, as someone's post cited "Wins tie break over Denver based on best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.>

Denver is currently ranked #1 in scoring (265 points) and #26 in points allowed (158 points), while KC is ranked #8 in scoring (152 points) and #1 in points allowed (65 points).

Now, combine the two rankings (You can do that, can't you?), as the tie breaker instructs, and THAT is why KC would win the Division and Denver get the WC.

Right.

But, see, what you said was...


Secondly, Strength of Victory refers, I believe, to the margin of victory over their common opponents, and not the w/l record of those teams (that would have more to do with Strength of Schedule).

Which is wrong.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 10:03 PM
MO, since you insist on being a complete ***, I'll have to embarrass you again.

KC gets the Division at this point because, as someone's post cited "Wins tie break over Denver based on best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.>

Denver is currently ranked #1 in scoring (265 points) and #26 in points allowed (158 points), while KC is ranked #8 in scoring (152 points) and #1 in points allowed (65 points).

Now, combine the two rankings (You can do that, can't you?), as the tie breaker instructs, and THAT is why KC would win the Division and Denver get the WC.

From my interpretation, you just embarrassed yourself. I think MO was pointing to the fact that you were wrong on how Strength of Victory was calculated, which IMO you were.

I thought that this irrelevant topic at this point of the season was settled by this point anyway.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 10:08 PM
A little over a third the way through and folks are calculating tiebreakers with vehement passion. Lmao.

MOtorboat
10-15-2013, 10:10 PM
A little over a third the way through and folks are calculating tiebreakers with vehement passion. Lmao.

I know.

Where we're going.

We don't need tiebreakers.

http://www.rentreplica.se/bilder/docglas2

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 10:18 PM
Right.

But, see, what you said was...



Which is wrong.

Yes, it is....now that I checked up on it....which is why I said "I believe...."

I was wrong. I was confusing it with the tiebreaker regarding net points in common games.


But I accept your apology.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 10:21 PM
From my interpretation, you just embarrassed yourself. I think MO was pointing to the fact that you were wrong on how Strength of Victory was calculated, which IMO you were.

I thought that this irrelevant topic at this point of the season was settled by this point anyway.

It may have appeared to have been settled, but it also appeared that no one actually understood the reason KC would get the nod.

Joel
10-15-2013, 10:23 PM
So, it must be the following:

Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
That's what the ESPN link MOtorboat posted says: KC is "AFC West Champ (Wins tie break over Denver based on best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.)"

#1 PF cancels #1 PA, but, in points, their #2 offense is MUCH better than our #14 defense. We can sneer at the former and excuse the latter, but stats just don't support us. That's likely fair: When two teams are #1 and #2 in scoring but one also #1 in points allowed and the other #14, the first should be seeded higher, especially against nearly identical opponents. Remember, that's AFC, not NFL, but even against the league (next tiebreaker) KCs offense is #8; our defense drops to 26th. I prefer ESPNs site to the NFLs because it loads faster; this is the relevant list: http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/sort/pointsFor/group/2

What's interesting is that by NET points (against common or ALL opponents, the next two tiebreaks) we'd be division champs and they'd be #5 seed: We're +85 against common opponents, +107 overall; KC is +78 and +87. Just to round things out, our 19 net TDs>KCs 10 net TDs (for that I did need NFL.com; offense:http://tinyurl.com/op76vbs, defense:http://tinyurl.com/od7pxdz.) Then coin toss; no edge there.

Going by combined conference or league ranking in PF/A rather than just net points effectively normalizes record-setting starts. This year, the difference between the conference/leagues #1 and #2/8 scoring offense (113 pts) is bigger than the difference between the #1 and #14/26 scoring D (93 pts.) Whether scoring the team that scored 113 more points is better than the one that ALLOWED 93 LESS—we'll see next month. If everyone's healthy, I like our chances, but against the leagues 8th best scoring offense, I'm more worried about our D than theirs, and glad we have stout run stoppers for Charles.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 10:27 PM
Yes, it is....now that I checked up on it....which is why I said "I believe...."

I was wrong. I was confusing it with the tiebreaker regarding net points in common games.


But I accept your apology.

It's big of you to be magnanimous in defeat...

wayninja
10-15-2013, 10:28 PM
It may have appeared to have been settled, but it also appeared that no one actually understood the reason KC would get the nod.

A big difference between no one understanding and one taking it even slightly seriously other than for a chuckle.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 10:32 PM
It's big of you to be magnanimous in defeat...

Of course....that's the civil and proper way to conduct yourself at all times. I am also humble in victory. A swell fellow, all around.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 10:36 PM
A big difference between no one understanding and one taking it even slightly seriously other than for a chuckle.

Other than Joel, they all seemed to be struggling over it, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say no one was taking the topic seriously.

It may never be necessary to worry about it this season, but surely you'd agree, it's nice to understand the mechanisms.

Joel
10-15-2013, 10:40 PM
MO, since you insist on being a complete ***, I'll have to embarrass you again.

KC gets the Division at this point because, as someone's post cited "Wins tie break over Denver based on best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.>
While Carol was the first to explicitly say that, the quote is from ESPNs page, which MOtorboat had previously (and first) linked.


Denver is currently ranked #1 in scoring (265 points) and #26 in points allowed (158 points), while KC is ranked #8 in scoring (152 points) and #1 in points allowed (65 points).

Now, combine the two rankings (You can do that, can't you?), as the tie breaker instructs, and THAT is why KC would win the Division and Denver get the WC.
Those are the LEAGUE rankings; they come immediately AFTER combined conference ranks (#1/14 vs. #1/2.) Not that that changes anything, I just want to be clear on what the tiebreaks are, in what order. It doesn't MATTER anyway; we still have both head-to-heads, 5 division, 9 common and 9 conference games left (if I did the math right,) plus all past and present opponents have 10 games left that will change both our SoV and SoS. For the record, Wikipedia (the only source I found on the subject) states:


Strength of victory (the combined won-lost-tied percentage of all the teams that a club has defeated).
Strength of schedule (the combined won-lost-tied percentage of all the teams that a club has played against).


For those who wonder why I overanalyze everything: Because of @$!# like this. ;)

wayninja
10-15-2013, 10:42 PM
Of course....that's the civil and proper way to conduct yourself at all times. I am also humble in victory. A swell fellow, all around.

Interesting. You'll have to ping me when that situation arises.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 10:45 PM
Other than Joel, they all seemed to be struggling over it, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say no one was taking the topic seriously.

It may never be necessary to worry about it this season, but surely you'd agree, it's nice to understand the mechanisms.

Not really. Considering how fickle the NFL is and how it's only really relevant in a handful of cases in 1 week of any given season. It's not all that important.

When there is a picture of christopher lloyd dressed in futuristic clothes designed in he 80's.... no one is taking this seriously, trust me.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 10:56 PM
Did I just see Joel confirm that MO's link settled the issue and then poke holes in Mr. Bojangles' tiebreaker analysis?

Must be getting too late here on the east coast...

Joel
10-15-2013, 11:08 PM
Did I just see Joel confirm that MO's link settled the issue and then poke holes in Mr. Bojangles' tiebreaker analysis?

Must be getting too late here on the east coast...
I was only clarifying an understandable minor oversight in his tiebreaker analysis, but, yeah, the link did settle the issue; the problem is seemingly no one bothered to click it. Like I say, the only reason I'm still responding is because Mr Bojangles is right it's important to understand specifically what the tiebreaks are, and in what order. It's not a given they'll never be relevant in week 17; again, the AFCW was almost decided by SoV as recently as 2011. The farther down we go the less likely a given tiebreaker will be needed, but I live in constant (if minor) fear of that coin flip....

wayninja
10-15-2013, 11:27 PM
but I live in constant (if minor) fear of that coin flip....

I know what you mean, it ranks right below robot apocalypse.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-15-2013, 11:28 PM
I was only clarifying an understandable minor oversight in his tiebreaker analysis, but, yeah, the link did settle the issue; the problem is seemingly no one bothered to click it. Like I say, the only reason I'm still responding is because Mr Bojangles is right it's important to understand specifically what the tiebreaks are, and in what order. It's not a given they'll never be relevant in week 17; again, the AFCW was almost decided by SoV as recently as 2011. The farther down we go the less likely a given tiebreaker will be needed, but I live in constant (if minor) fear of that coin flip....

With the luck we have holding on to the football and recovering it when we lose it, I think if it did come down to a coin flip, then we would lose it.

wayninja
10-15-2013, 11:29 PM
With the luck we have holding on to the football and recovering it when we lose it, I think if it did come down to a coin flip, then we would lose it.

Oh, dear lord. You are going to wake zbeg.

Mr Bojangles
10-15-2013, 11:54 PM
I was only clarifying an understandable minor oversight in his tiebreaker analysis, but, yeah, the link did settle the issue; the problem is seemingly no one bothered to click it. Like I say, the only reason I'm still responding is because Mr Bojangles is right it's important to understand specifically what the tiebreaks are, and in what order. It's not a given they'll never be relevant in week 17; again, the AFCW was almost decided by SoV as recently as 2011. The farther down we go the less likely a given tiebreaker will be needed, but I live in constant (if minor) fear of that coin flip....


I realized I had used League rankings rather than Conference after I pulled the numbers, but was too lazy to go back and look the other up, knowing that the point was the same in trying to outline how that tiebreaker functioned.

Joel
10-16-2013, 12:17 AM
With the luck we have holding on to the football and recovering it when we lose it, I think if it did come down to a coin flip, then we would lose it.
In the unlikely event it ever happens, WHOEVER loses will raise unholy Hell forever unless they win the Super Bowl anyway (probably even then.) It's one of those expected returns deals; low probability*high severity=something I don't like to consider, but can't entirely forget. At least the robot apocalypse would kill me outright instead of forcing me to listen to Raiders fans complain the NFL conspires against them.

TXBRONC
10-16-2013, 04:23 AM
chickens / Hatch. 10 more weeks before end of reg. season.. enjoy the ride!!
sorry Thread starter -- but can't believe someone is already bitching about a completely hypothetical playoff situation. This is as redic as being mad that broncos only scored 16 more points than the Jags.

I'm certainly enjoying the ride. I think some people just wondering how someone could come up with Denver being the 5th seed after just six weeks of football.

BroncoWave
10-16-2013, 07:16 AM
I'm certainly enjoying the ride. I think some people just wondering how someone could come up with Denver being the 5th seed after just six weeks of football.

I don't really like the tiebreaker rule that has us behind them at all. A team with a great offense like ours is penalized by the "combined points and points allowed rank" rule because with all of the massive leads we have had, we have relaxed late in games and put in backups and given up garbage time touchdowns. I think average margin of victory should be the tiebreaker there instead. I think that paints a better picture of how good a team is than whatever this "combined points and points allowed" nonsense is.

Having said all this, I fully realize the chances of an end of the season tiebreaker actually coming down to that are almost nil. But if we did get bumped to the 5 seed because of it, that would really suck.

Mr Bojangles
10-16-2013, 07:51 AM
I don't really like the tiebreaker rule that has us behind them at all. A team with a great offense like ours is penalized by the "combined points and points allowed rank" rule because with all of the massive leads we have had, we have relaxed late in games and put in backups and given up garbage time touchdowns. I think average margin of victory should be the tiebreaker there instead. I think that paints a better picture of how good a team is than whatever this "combined points and points allowed" nonsense is.

Having said all this, I fully realize the chances of an end of the season tiebreaker actually coming down to that are almost nil. But if we did get bumped to the 5 seed because of it, that would really suck.

Couldn't the same be said, in reverse, about KC, which has given up the fewest points and is ranked #1 in that category?

I'm sure whoever came up with the tiebreakers has given the subject a lot more thought than the average biased fan.

BroncoWave
10-16-2013, 07:55 AM
I'm sure whoever came up with the tiebreakers has given the subject a lot more thought than the average biased fan.

Well shit, I guess we should just stop discussing it then. Let's shut this board down!

TXBRONC
10-16-2013, 08:48 AM
I don't really like the tiebreaker rule that has us behind them at all. A team with a great offense like ours is penalized by the "combined points and points allowed rank" rule because with all of the massive leads we have had, we have relaxed late in games and put in backups and given up garbage time touchdowns. I think average margin of victory should be the tiebreaker there instead. I think that paints a better picture of how good a team is than whatever this "combined points and points allowed" nonsense is.

Having said all this, I fully realize the chances of an end of the season tiebreaker actually coming down to that are almost nil. But if we did get bumped to the 5 seed because of it, that would really suck.

IIRC from the Chiefs website it listed as the 7th tiebreaker. So like you said it's highly improbable that comes down to that. Just the way the schedule is laid out more than likely keep that from happening.

TXBRONC
10-16-2013, 08:50 AM
Couldn't the same be said, in reverse, about KC, which has given up the fewest points and is ranked #1 in that category?

I'm sure whoever came up with the tiebreakers has given the subject a lot more thought than the average biased fan.

You're trolling again.

MasterShake
10-16-2013, 09:19 AM
I still think KC is going to have at least 2 losses this year and both will be to us so this is a moot point.

TXBRONC
10-16-2013, 09:24 AM
I still think KC is going to have at least 2 losses this year and both will be to us so this is a moot point.

I think there is also a very good chance they could lose to the Colts heck even the Texans are capable of taking them.

Joel
10-16-2013, 08:30 PM
I don't really like the tiebreaker rule that has us behind them at all. A team with a great offense like ours is penalized by the "combined points and points allowed rank" rule because with all of the massive leads we have had, we have relaxed late in games and put in backups and given up garbage time touchdowns. I think average margin of victory should be the tiebreaker there instead. I think that paints a better picture of how good a team is than whatever this "combined points and points allowed" nonsense is.

Having said all this, I fully realize the chances of an end of the season tiebreaker actually coming down to that are almost nil. But if we did get bumped to the 5 seed because of it, that would really suck.
Net points would be better, and I'd prefer it to combined PF/PA ranking, but the NFL didn't ask me. It's only speculation, but I think they probably did it in that order so a team that's the best on one side of the ball and the worst on the other isn't ahead of one that's AMONG the best on both. And, if that's the logic, I must say it's sound. How many times have we seen great offenses lose playoff games because they had no D? Or the opposite? Then there was SB XLI, where the first kind of team played the second kind; maybe the worst SB I've ever seen.

Sure, KC's D helps their offense by giving it the ball a lot, but as much as we have the ball we shouldn't be 14th out of 16 or 26th out of 32 in PA. Hopefully we won't be in another month, but right now our D is great against the run and awful against the pass, despite what's probably the NFLs best CB trio. That's bad for any team, but downright dangerous for one that routinely gets in shootouts that nullify our stellar run D.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
10-16-2013, 09:57 PM
Net points would be better, and I'd prefer it to combined PF/PA ranking, but the NFL didn't ask me. It's only speculation, but I think they probably did it in that order so a team that's the best on one side of the ball and the worst on the other isn't ahead of one that's AMONG the best on both. And, if that's the logic, I must say it's sound. How many times have we seen great offenses lose playoff games because they had no D? Or the opposite? Then there was SB XLI, where the first kind of team played the second kind; maybe the worst SB I've ever seen.

Sure, KC's D helps their offense by giving it the ball a lot, but as much as we have the ball we shouldn't be 14th out of 16 or 26th out of 32 in PA. Hopefully we won't be in another month, but right now our D is great against the run and awful against the pass, despite what's probably the NFLs best CB trio. That's bad for any team, but downright dangerous for one that routinely gets in shootouts that nullify our stellar run D.

Good points again Joel. Not a bad read for me when you aren't talking about switching players out of their natural position or Tebow.

I just think that the tiebreaker order is more about balancing style points against quality wins. Wins over stronger opponents speak more to me than how bad you shut down or destroy an opponent. That sounds more like college.