Talk:2021 NFL season

Greg Olsen
It's the time of year when this get litigated again. I think the consensus and the hidden instructions need to be a little clearer. Is it 4 separate seasons with Pro Bowl and/or All Pro, and therefore Olsen does not qualify because his PB and AP years overlapped. Or, it it 4 Pro Bowl and/or All Pro selections, regardless of whether there is overlap? I tend to think it should be the latter, but either way we need to clarify to avoid edit warring. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely needs to be four separate seasons, otherwise this list will be far too long. Under your proposal, a player who has only two seasons with Pro Bowl and All Pro designation would qualify for this list, which should be reserved for the "best of the best."  Another proposal which would be easier to maintain is to simply have four Pro Bowl selections, since usually (but not always) All-Pro selections also make the Pro Bowl roster.  This would also eliminate Davis from the list.  If my proposal was used for prior seasons as well, the 2020 list would almost remain the same (eight of the nine players on that list would remain, with only Sproles being removed).  Frank Anchor Talk 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is totally fine. I was just pointing out what might be the source of confusion and the resulting back and forth editing. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is understood (particularly where he has similar credentials to Davis, who had three PBs and two APs, though spread out over four seasons). I just don't want a lengthy list, where over third of the retirees are on the "notable" list.  This was the case prior to these criteria being implemented in 2020.  Frank Anchor Talk 20:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Even though he doesn't fit the arbitrary criteria, I think that Julian Edelman should be considered a notable retirement, as he was the Super Bowl LIII MVP. Also, in my opinion, Greg Olson should be considered a notable retirement too, even though he doesn't fit the arbitrary criteria, as he has the fifth-most receptions, the fifth-most yards, and the eighth-most touchdowns by a tight end in NFL history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JumperZ69666420 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. a SB MVP should def make the list, even though they don't have pro bowls. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a SB MVP (or regular season MVP) is reasonable. Usually this doesn't come up, because they generally have the 4+ pro bowls anyway.  Frank Anchor Talk 23:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To address User:JumperZ69666420's other point, the four Pro Bowl threshold is necessary as it is objective and exclusive. Otherwise, over one third of the retirements would be on this list, which should be the best of the best.  Pro Bowl or All Pro selections over four years means a player was among the best at his position for a significant amount of time.  In my opinion,  Super Bowl MVP or regular season MVP is a notable exception, as I stated above.  Other notable exceptions can probably come up, but Olsen is not one of these.  (Seriously, eighth in receiving TDs at his position, which is generally and historically more known for blocking than receiving?  Not that big of a deal)  Frank Anchor Talk 23:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So should we add Edleman or not? People have been making cases (stupid ones in my opinion) for him to be in the Hall of Fame. Plus, he does have that SB MVP he won for being the only player to do things in Super Bowl LIII. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, these types of moves are held back for a few days to a week to allow for discussion. In this case it appears consensus is headed toward adding Mr. Edelman to the "notable retirees" list as a Super Bowl MVP.  I would probably go in sometime around April 18 or 19 if consensus remains that way.  However, this is not a set-in-stone policy and any user can make this change they feel it is the right move.  Frank Anchor Talk 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just so you know Frank. I am in support of Edleman being included in the "notable retirees" section.Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Washington Football Team
I think this will need a section, like in the 2020 article. To just put it in the open doesn't make sense. Ask Frank Anchor said, we have no idea if they will get a name this year or stay with WFT. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been confirmed to say that Washington will keep the “Football Team” name for this season and transition to a new name in 2022, so this type of section should apply to next season Cowboys42119 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of Playoffs and Super Bowl
A discussion has been started here regarding what should be listed as the date of the Super Bowl and by extension the date for the playoffs. Please contribute views there accordingly. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that until we know for certain, we should put “TBD.” Hopefully we can stop an edit war from happening. Cowboys42119 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notable Players
I find the whole only add notable players thing to be very vague and not clear. Also, Why is Mitch Trubisky added when I couldn't include Flacco? Mitch is going to be a backup with the Bills. He isn't unseating Josh Allen. Besides, Joe Flacco won a Super Bowl and its MVP. How is he not notable? I feel like the word notable needs to go. Notable can mean a lot of different things. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The criteria of being "notable" is vague and that is likely by intent. At this point in Flacco's career, he is not notable. He is a washed up journeyman.  The fact that he was the Super Bowl MVP nine years ago is not relevant to the Flacco of today. In my opinion, the standard for a QB should be if they were either a primary starter for a significant part of 2020 (like Trubisky who started nine games) and/or if there is a reasonable expectation for them to be the primary starter in 2021. Any discussion on the topic is welcome.  Frank Anchor Talk 11:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But is he elite? JumperZ69666420 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * He may be elite, but because the Jets mostly started Sam Darnold and not Flacco, he is not notable. Also, him signing with the Philadelphia Eagles does not make him notable either. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Julian Edelman
Do you think we should put Julian Edelman on notable retirements? He won Super Bowl MVP, which is a very rare achievement.
 * There is discussion about Edelman in the Greg Olsen section above. The early consensus (among three editors including myself) is that Edelman could be included Frank Anchor Talk 03:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. So should I delete this? SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to, I was just making you aware that a discussion about Mr. Edelman was already in progress. IMO, someone wanting to discuss his inclusion as a "notable retiree" would be more likely to look into a section titled "Julian Edelman" than one titled "Greg Olsen." `  Frank Anchor Talk

Adam Vinatieri
Should Adam Vinatieri be added to the notable retirements list? 3x Pro Bowl, 3x All-Pro, 4x Super Bowl champion, All-Time leading scorer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe an exception from the normal objective criteria can be made for Vinatieri. Being the all-time scoring leader is a very significant record (I was actually very surprised when I found out he only made 3 Pro Bowls).  Frank Anchor Talk 12:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added Vinatieri to the notable retirements list. Also, should Alex Smith be added as well? 3x Pro Bowl and 2020 Comeback Player of the Year award winner. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Smith should not be added. The Pro Bowl/All Pro threshold was set at 4 because the list of "notable" retirees would be too long if it was set to only 3 (for example, over 1/3 of the retirees would have been considered "notable" in 2020 using a 3 PB threshold). Also, Comeback Player of the Year is nice, but it is an award given out annually and does not necessarily correlate with a player's football skill or winning like an MVP award does.  And if that award was included, then a case could be made to include any player who won any end-of-season award.  Frank Anchor Talk 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Game Summaries for Preseason Games
I added game summaries to the Ravens' 2021 season page but was immediately unilaterally reverted. Anyone have a legitimate reason why they should not be there before I undo the reversion? Jdavi333 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Russell Wilson 100 wins
I (and at least one other person) think that the entry about 100 wins for Russell Wilson should be removed. It is definitely a great achievement, but I don't think that being #18 at something is significant enough to be mentioned in this section. Where else would it stop? In a "2080 NFL season" article, would you still write that "John Doe is #134 to reach 100 wins"? I feel like the unspoken agreement in these milestones is that we only write down top10 achievements. I'm sure there would be many more entries if we wrote stuff like "Matthew Stafford overtakes Vinny Testaverde to become #15 on the all-time passing leader list" (which also happened this week) Fynsta (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with Wilson's rank on the wins list. It has to do with the 100-win milestone. This has consistently been included in prior season pages when a player reaches 100 wins in the past (e.g. Alex Smith in 2020 including playoffs). I agree that only top ten is appropriate when someone PASSES another player on a yards/TD/wins/stats list but that is a vastly different thing.  Frank Anchor Talk 10:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, for what its worth, 100 wins is a very rare accomplishment, as having been done by only 18 men since 1950, and will likely only be reached once or twice over the next several years. Currently, only four active QBs have between 70-99 wins (Joe Flacco 98, Matthew Stafford 77, Andy Dalton 75, Cam Newton 75) and three of them are in the journeyman backup stage of their career (see List of National Football League career quarterback wins leaders for more information)  Frank Anchor Talk 12:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I do see your point. I think I might have thought of this section the wrong way. I felt like it was for "novel achievements", like records and things that only very few others have done before. But I do see that the section also contains "milestones", which definitely validates the inclusion Fynsta (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

100 wins is a notable achievement, i agree. but now with that logic we might as well add when Andy Dalton passes Tony Romo in passing yards. Russel Wilson is the 18th, We didnt add when matthew stafford overtook vinny testaverde in passing yards, so why should we add this. It should be removed 47.45.53.250 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it has nothing to do with him being 18th, it has to do with Wilson winning 100 games. I am not saying "Russell Wilson passed Alex smith for 18th in the all-time list of wins by a starting QB" (which also happened this week). Therefore, your example of comparing Wilson's 100 wins to Stafford passing Testaverde on the passing yards list is not valid. However, comparing this to Stafford becoming the 13th player to pass for 300 TDs (which will likely happen in the next two or three weeks), is more apples-to-apples, and his inclusion on the notable milestones list is appropriate.  Lastly, on my talk page, you claim it is not a big deal, but you are the one making a big deal about this.  Frank Anchor Talk 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, why did you literally just copy and slightly rephrase my arguments. You could have just written "I agree" Fynsta (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I didnt, Frank Anchor... We outnumber you 2 to 1, i am just going to remove it since we outnumber you, Just stop trying to keep it, we outnumber you. it is a great achievement, but then we are going to have something like this (for example) in the 2023 season "Lamar Jackson became the 20th QB to get 100 wins", it is just dumb. Just stop being annoying and just accept that it will be removed, if you report me for vandalism i will have a major arguement for me to not be warned because of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.45.53.250 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that discussion pages are NOT votes, so the fact that you outnumbered me 2-to-1 is not relevant. Even if it was, Please see  User:Cowboys42119's comments below, as well as User:Fynsta's apparent change of opinion due to the section title also including "milestones." (I appologize if I misrepresented his/her opinion).  So it appears I outnumber you 3-1, though this is not a vote.  Frank Anchor Talk 18:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that 100 wins for a QB is notable. Top 10 should only be applied if someone passes someone on an all-time list. Cowboys42119 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say a milestone depends on how many people had passed it. For example we don't record players who pass 100 rushing yards - cause it's just not notable as it happens all the time.

but for 100 wins - to me having been done by 18 people in roughly 70 years makes it small enough to still be a significant milestone to note. As for position on all time lists - that should definitely be more limited, as again you'll get people passing 100th, 50th etc etc all the time. Top 10 feels like a good spot to draw the line for recording that sort of thing. 148.64.9.42 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"Eliminated from postseason contention"
IMO this tabulation (and the earlier unglossed "dagger" annotation, which I assume means the same thing) needs a source, as it's far from obvious by inspection who's eliminated, and why. Especially as the one eliminated so far neither has the worst record in the league, nor loses tiebreakers with another in the same conference -- rather, confusingly, is noting as winning that tiebreaker. Artifact of their (and others') remaining schedules no doubt, but would be clearer if spelled out with a citation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

AFC
Source for all scenarios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavi333 (talk • contribs)
 * The Detroit Lions will be eliminated from postseason contention with:
 * 1) a loss
 * 2) a San Francisco win
 * 3) wins by Atlanta AND New Orleans
 * 4) wins by Minnesota AND Chicago
 * The Jacksonville Jaguars will be eliminated from postseason contention with:
 * 1) a loss, OR
 * 2) a win by any of the following teams: Buffalo, LA Chargers, Denver, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland.
 * The New York Jets will be eliminated from postseason contention with:
 * 1) a loss
 * 2) BUF win + KC win + CLE win + CIN win + PIT win + LAC win + DEN win
 * 3) BUF win + KC tie + BAL win + CIN win + LAC win + DEN win
 * 4) BUF win + LV win + BAL win + CIN win + LAC win + DEN win
 * 5) BUF win + LV win + CLE win + PIT win + LAC win + DEN win
 * 6) BUF win + LV win + CLE win + CIN win + PIT win + DEN win + TEN win
 * 7) BUF win + LV win + CLE win + CIN win + PIT win + DEN win + WAS win + HOU loss
 * Nice, thanks. It's not clear that's a top-notch source by the strictest standards of verifiability, but on the grounds that it's better than nothing (or than WP:OR), and in theory uncontentious information, and will be rendered moot on a week-by-week basis, what the heck, go with it!  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On a playoff elimination scenario
I would like to ask, how would a Washington win eliminate the Jets from the playoffs? They are in different conferences, so I find that confusing. DENBRO1995 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It has to do with strength of victory, which is the combined records of all teams the team has beaten. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Checks out I think, there was a Football Team-Bills game this year, for example, so Washington wins favour them over the Jets. Confusion is the first step towards enlightenment!  Because it really is extremely confusing.  You either have to consider every possible combination of outcomes, or work backwards from every possible tiebreaker criteria to each circumstance that might cause each.  But according to the NYT, "The Jets have been eliminated from playoff contention."  I assume one of the many, many results that eliminated their incredibly narrow "path to the playoff" happened in the meantime, or else that other site's analysis was incomplete.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * When you say the Jets have been eliminated according to NYT, what exactly are you sayihng? Is there an article in the NYT that states explicitly the Jets have been eliminated? Or does the simulator on their website indicate they Jets are out? Because it's actually the NYT that is incomplete. It runs a large number of simulations to arrive at a close approximation of the percent chance of a team qualifying or not--so their 0% or 100% aren't necessarily accurate. NFLPlayoffScenarios.com actually does an exhaustive check of every possible outcome and is therefore more accurate than the NYT page. LarryJeff (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The above quote was directly from the NYT website, but I assume yes, they're summarising their own analysis. I do hope that the other site is doing something a little more sophisticated than an exhaustive check of every possible outcome, as there's 3,433,683,820,292,512,484,657,849,089,281 of 'em.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec, but as it happens speaking to that very point) While the NYT is in theory a "better" source than the one being used currently, it seems they're construing "in contention" statistically rather than strictly logically. The Jets could still have a path if they win five straight, and literally dozens of other games go exactly the right way for them.  (Or apparently if they go 4-0-1, and even more games work out just right for them, but I didn't actually work out such a scenario for that case.)  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, they edited the same page to the rather more cautious: "The New York Jets (3-9) lost to the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, but their chances of making the playoffs remained less than 1 percent.  They are on the cusp of being eliminated from playoff contention."  I'd personally guestimate rather a lot less than 1%, but their engine doesn't do decimal places...  109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Jags
On an only very vaguely related note, I was a little skeptical that Jacksonville could actually still be a #7 seed wildcard -- the NYT also (and in this case still) has a statement that "The Jaguars have been eliminated from playoff contention." And the counterexample is a lot harder to find -- with the Jets just the hints from the NFLPS site and playing around a little with the NYT simulator are enough to get it. But it exists! And USA Today has actually published it, and counts as a reliable source, if we want to use it. https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/jacksonville-jaguars-playoff-scenarios-34-steps-urban-meyer 34 games that have to go just right -- that's very roughly a 1 in 17 billion chance, very possibly significantly worse. "That leaves us with a world in which: The 7-5 Bills finish 7-10 The 7-6 Colts finish 7-10 The 7-5 Chargers finish 7-10 The 6-6 Broncos finish 7-10 The 6-6 Browns finish 7-10 The 6-5-1 Steelers finish 6-10-1 The 6-7 Dolphins finish 6-11 or 7-10, it doesn’t matter." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Playoff Scenarios Section
, you asked for a talk page section after reverting me. Playoff scenarios are not applicable to an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a news website, is not a sports almanac, and is not a crystal ball. It is obvious that after the end of the season, playoff scenarios are not relevant to documenting the NFL season. A similar analogy would be updating the results of a game in real-time on Wikipedia. Wikipedia documents what occurs, not what might occur. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To elaborate a bit, 2020 NFL season has nothing about clinching scenarios in it, since it is not relevant to documenting the season after it is done. We are literally talking about a section that will be deleted in a few weeks. This is exactly what Wikipedia is not. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I was merely pointing out that this is something that has been done on the page weekly for several years now, and all the editors who contribute to that section should be asked for their opinions before their work is dumped down the memory hole. I happen to think it is not a crystal ball issue, or a News issue. It is relevant encyclopedic information that happens to be transitory. Should the list of media ratings not be included because next week more games might knock off the current top 10? Jdavi333 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't edit this page much, but makes perfect sense here. I understand that "dozens" of editors "agree" with the section, but WP:NOTNEWS is the most relevant reference to this; updating scenarios every week is tantamount to an news/sports news website updating the scenarios as a news piece. Perhaps my opinion doesn't matter, but playoff scenarios IMHO shouldn't be on WP. Spf121188 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the scenarios will change every week, and will disappear completely at the end of the season. But if changing every week--or needing to be updated every week to stay current/correct--then let's be very careful about that argument. The standings, team records, etc. are also going to be changing every week. So if that's the test, then we can't have standings included in the season article until the end of the season and the information isn't going to change anymore. LarryJeff (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the claim that "dozens" of editors support the inclusion of these scenarios. In a quick study of edit history for the  article, only a few editors made substantial contributions to playoff clinching/elimination scenarios.  Personally, I could do without them since they violate WP:NOTNEWS but tolerate them since they are removed after the games take place.  Frank   Anchor  17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the difference here is that playoff scenarios will be completely removed at seasons end, while records, standings and team stats will remain, even though they do change every week, since they're still relevant in chronicling the season. However, playoff scenarios will be 100% irrelevant at seasons end, and I think that's the argument that is making, and it seems valid to me. Spf121188 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another difference is that the current standings are extremely robustly verifiable, as they're published in very many high-quality secondary sources, as well as by the primary source itself. In theory you could argue that the standings after week 14 (say) form no part of the first draft of the final version of the article -- unless the season were suddenly completely cancelled -- so you could or even should wait until week 18, and update them all at once.  But that's going beyond what NOTNEWS says, and isn't really in line with the dynamic of how wikis for such things work.  If the clinching and elimination scenarios could be sourced and edited up to wikipedia standards then you could argue they'd be encyclopedic for a week...  But I doubt people really want to go to that effort.  If they're not, better not to have the section than a poorly sourced one, in my opinion.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The NFL itself publishes clinching scenarios every week. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is a few good essays on this line of argument: WP:ITEXISTS and WP:EXIST. Basically, they say that just because something exists and because it is reported on, doesn't make it applicable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is where the policies/guidelines I pointed to above and below come into play. Wikipedia is not a stats database or sports almanac. We have pro-football-reference.com for that. Again, transitory information like this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What is being done here is the definition of news reporting, i.e. here is some current information that is only applicable for a specific timeframe and will change in the future! « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also bear in mind WP:PRIMARY: subjects aren't the best sources on themselves, as they tend to be self-serving in various ways.  But as I say clinching scenarios are reliably sourceable.  But they weren't actually reliably sourced in the article as was.  If it's not worth the effort of providing reliable secondary sources for the sake of a few days of currency, then it's not worth including them at all.  (Arguably the reverse may not be true, however, per "not a newspaper", as  says.)  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone agrees to have the playoff scenarios on Wikipedia, which are only up for less than a week. Once a team clinches, or failed to clinch a playoff berth in that particular week, then we remove it. DENBRO1995 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , the problem is, including this in the article does violate WP:NOTNEWS, since by the time the season is over, this section will be moot, as it's tantamount to a news source reporting these scenarios. Also, clearly not everyone agrees, because this discussion was opened, by an admin who disagrees with this content being included (not to presume that they know better than us, but did cite three different policies that inclusion goes against.) Spf121188 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. DENBRO1995 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just gonna generally reply to a few comments above. Let's try to avoid "that's how we have always done it", "it's been like that for years" or "if we do it here, then why not there" arguments, as those usually fail to reflect the actual policy/guidelines that are being referenced. If something is wrong, the length that it has been wrong doesn't change its "wrongness". In regards to statistics, as was pointed out, stats are cumulative and the final leaders are relevant to documenting the season. Similarly, if this section only highlighted teams who have clinched a playoff spot, then it would be fine. And lastly, although it is unfortunate to have people work on something that ends up being deleted, the amount of work put into something does not justify its inclusion. As was stated above, I pointed to a number of policies/guidelines that this section doesn't follow. I haven't really seen any argument countering those policies/guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put my hands up, I'm the one that poked this particular (already almost removed from contention) Bear. Gonzo_fan2007 makes a good point that the very transitory nature of the information may argue against its inclusion even where it can be reliably sourced, etc, as appears to be the case with several of the "clinching scenarios" -- these are fairly widely reported in newspaper-grade sources.  But the "elimination scenarios" don't seem to be, just on a couple of websites of unclear reliability, are pretty complicated, and are tremendously obscure, statistically speaking.  Also certain presentational choices are being made here that are borderline for being original research, in deciding which scenarios from the itself unreliable source to exclude for simplicity, making it doubly problematic.  Also it inevitably looks a mess, as it gets hastily added in some ad hoc format, and by the time it gets regularised, it's time for the next one.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * whoever took the playoff clinching scenarios off please put them back on this instant the math is hurting my head we fans need those situations to know if our team is going to be eliminated or will clinch 2600:1700:BE01:EB30:5D29:9310:E777:7591 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Couple things... WP is not a place to make demands, and WP is not a news site. There are plenty of news sites and shows to get these scenarios. It's been already been determined that this information won't be back on this article. Spf121188 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus can change, but you'd need to have a pretty strong argument that this was somehow "encyclopedic for fifteen minutes" information, and you'd need to properly source it. Which latter is I think now more doable, as reputable newspapers are now reporting these "elimination scenarios", at least in outline.  (For example there's one in the WaPo ("NFL Week 15 playoff scenarios: Packers, Bucs and Cowboys can clinch division titles") for the Bears (sob) and for the Giants at present.)  But the former objection seems tougher to overcome.  This is exactly the sort of information you can get from a newspaper, sports news site, or specialist page dedicated to analysing such things, and on the face of it, exactly the sort of things precluded by the "enduring notability of [...] events" clause of the above policy page.  In a week's time, will it be wikipedia-worthy that Chicago had a one-in-quadrillions chance of making the playoffs with a loss?  Nope.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Belated thought on this. Reproducing or summarising these appears on the face of it to fail NOTNEWS.  But arguably the fact of the reliably reported existence of these scenarios at a particular time may be of some notability, which might justify a sentence stating this and linking to the likes of the WaPo as a source.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bucs should be ahead of the Cowboys
They are both 10-4, first tiebreak is always head 2 head and they played...the Bucs won.

Idk how to move the Bucs from #3 to #2 but can someone do that please? Thank you107.10.140.224 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to ESPN, the Cowboys have the #2 seed over the Buccaneers and Cardinals because they have the best conference record of those three, and the Buccaneers have the #3 seed because they have a better strength of victory than the Cardinals. Therefore, the current seeding on the NFC standings template is correct. --Zander251 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First possible tiebreaker. There's three teams on 10-3, so that only works if the Bucs had "swept" both...  and they don't play the Cards at all this season (and Cowboys-Cardinals didn't happen yet), so that can't be applied. Next it goes to conference record, and the Cowboys win that.  Presumably from the above application of SOV, the "common games" 'breaker doesn't help either.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Zander251, you didn't help at all but user 109... you did. It appears that because there is a 3rd team (in this case, the Cardinals) with the same record (10-4) that all equal record teams (bucs, boys, cards - all at 10-4) would have to play each other for the head 2 head's to take effect.  Since the Bucs don't play the Cardinals this year, we move to what's next on the list which would be conference record.  If the Cardinals were 9-5 instead of 10-4 then the Bucs would be seeded atop the Cowboys.  I see now.  Sorry for the confusion. 107.10.140.224 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiebreaker between Arizona, Dallas, and Tampa Bay
 * Ties within a division are broken first (does not apply since all are from different divisions)
 * Head-to-head sweep (does not apply since neither team defeated the two others or lost to the the two others; Tampa Bay beat Dallas, but neither team has played Arizona as of Week 15; Dallas plays Arizona in Week 17 but that has no impact on the tiebreaker at this point.)
 * Conference record (Dallas 8-1, Tampa Bay 6-4, Arizona 6-4), Dallas gets the 2-seed
 * Arizona and Tampa Bay revert to the beginning
 * Head to head (still does not apply since they did not play each other)
 * Conference record (both are 6-4)
 * Record against common opponents, minimum four (does not apply. As of Week 15, there are only two common opponents (Chicago and LA Rams).  By the end of the season, the teams will have five common opponents (those two plus Carolina, Dallas, and Indianapolis).
 * Strength of victory (Tampa Bay .493, Arizona .452)  Frank  Anchor  14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note on the head-to-head tiebreaker with more than 2 teams. It's actually not necessary that, as the anonymous user said above, all the tied teams would have to play each other--just that one team either won or lost vs all the other teams. In the DAL/TB/ARI scenario, hypothetically say DAL and ARI had already played and ARI won. Then Dallas would be eliminated in the 1st step tiebreaker since they lost head-to-head against both TB and ARI even though those 2 teams haven't/won't play each other. Then revert to beginning of 2-team tiebreaker between TB and ARI to decide the #2 seed. LarryJeff (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Question on head-to-head tiebreaker: If Dallas loses to Arizona in Week 17 and those two teams end up tied with the same record as Tampa Bay, and if all three teams win their divisions, then that means Tampa Bay and Arizona would both have a higher seed than Dallas since Dallas would be 0-2 against both Arizona and Tampa Bay, but if Dallas wins in Week 17, however, then head-to-head would not apply in a three-way tie since Tampa Bay did not play against Arizona this season. Is that correct? 2603:6010:2502:FE8D:F893:BBAA:DCFD:A1A (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct. If Dallas lost to TB and ARI, they would drop out of a 3-way tie based on the head-to-head losses. However, if Dallas beats Arizona then the question is moot, as Dallas would be assured of having a better overall record than Arizona, so this particular 3-way tie could not happen. LarryJeff (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How to write up explanatory notes on multi-team tiebreakers
I started a discussion on Jdavi333's talk page that I realized later should have been here on this page instead so that anyone else could voice an opinion if they care to do so. I've copied our chat up to this point here, so the first few comments are obviously just the 2 of us going back and forth. The disagreement is over how to write up the notes in the standings template for multi-team tiebreakers. In particular, the discussion centers around the current (as of the end of NFL week 16) tie between the 4 AFC teams at 8-7, and how to explain the application of the tiebreakers once reaching the step where it's 3-way between the Dolphins, Chargers, and Ravens.

OK, I guess we're at the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD. Here's my take. The way ESPN explains the tiebreakers is, at best, misleading. It doesn't adequately or correctly explain how the NFL applies the tiebreakers. The NFL website clearly explains that if one team is eliminated in any step, then the tiebreaker reverts to beginning of the 2-team tiebreaker between the remaining teams. So, in the MIA/BAL/LAC example we currently have, to say Miami wins over LA on "X" criterion, then in separate sentence say Miami wins over Baltimore on "Y" criterion implies that there wasn't really a tiebreaker that looked all 3 teams together. What really happend is that the conference record step in the 3-way, Miami and LA both are 5-5 and Baltimore 5-6. Based on that, Baltimore is eliminated and then we evaluate a 2-way tie between Miami and LA. The way ESPN words it isn't necessarily inaccurate--they just sort of leave out a step. And after all, it is the NFL who is the authority here, not ESPN. LarryJeff (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not saying you’re wrong, but it is well documented that the NFL doesn’t really break the ties well until the end of the season and that sometimes it’s standings are inaccurate. What’s why we use the ESPN playoff standings and not the NFL standings. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I get that (and I've seen in the past what you're talking about), but I'm not saying we need to use the NFL's version of the standings--only that we should be using their rules for applying the tiebreakers. I think that ESPN is correctly applying the tiebreakers (I don't think I was clear before that I'm not disagreeing with the order in which ESPN lists the teams). What they are not doing correctly is explaining the notes all time when there's a 3- or 4-way tie. Based on the the league's rules for applying the tiebreakers, ESPN's explanatory notes are not--in this case--accurate.LarryJeff (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's another thought. If it were--as the notes currently imply--2 separate 2-way tiebreakers (Miami-LA and Miami-Baltimore) instead of the actual 3-way, Miami would win over Baltimore by their head-to-head result, not by conference record as stated. LarryJeff (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because Miami didn't sweep BAL, LAC, and LV. That is clear in the tiebreaker rules. The way a 3-way tiebreaker works is you apply the tiebreakers in order. So Miami does need to "win" 2 tiebreakers - one against BAL, and one against LAC (who first eliminated LV). You can word it that BAL "drops out" of the tie breaker, but this gets the same result and makes it a little clearer that MIA is beating BAL and LAC for 2 different reasons. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't sweep BAL, LAC, and LV--(A) I never tried to say they did and (B) LV is irrelevant at that step anyway, because we already have a note that the first step was to eliminate LV by the division tiebreaker. Which sort of makes my point for me. When you start with these 4 teams tied, the first step (the division tiebreak) eliminates 1 team, then we start at the beginning of a 3-way tiebreaker and another team (BAL) is eliminated. So if we (correctly BTW) state that LV is eliminated at step 1, why are we not saying Baltimore is eliminated in step 2 which is what happens as the tiebreakers are applied. The note "Miami wins tiebreaker over Baltimore...." indicates a comparison between just those 2 teams, but that is not what happened. The conference record step of the tiebreaker is isn't just Miami over Baltimore, it's actually Miami and LA over Baltimore--it's relevant at that step that LA (along with Miami) has a better conference record than Baltimore, and only after that do we get to the step of comparing Miami and LA on common games. But the notes as currently copied from ESPN, do not address it that way.

NFC's #1 seed
Suppose that next week, Green Bay loses its regular season finale while both Los Angeles and Tampa Bay win theirs, thus resulting in all three teams finishing the season with 13 wins against 4 losses. What seed would each team be and what tiebreakers would determine the seeding? Would Green Bay still be the #1 seed in the NFC? 74.130.185.133 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Green Bay would win the tiebreakers. They have already clinched the NFC #1 seed. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In your scenario, the tiebreakers resolve this way:
 * 1 - GB beat LAR, LAR beat TB, TB and GB didn't play. So no head to head sweep applies.
 * 2 - Conference records would be: GB 9-3, LAR 9-3, TB 8-4. TB drops out of the tiebreaker here and start over as 2-way between GB and LAR.
 * 3 - GB wins tiebreaker vs LAR on head to head. GB is #1 seed.
 * 4 - For the #2 seed, LAR wins tiebreaker over TB on head to head.   LarryJeff (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Flexible scheduling
Should we go ahead and combine the scheduling changes and the Saturday flexible scheduling as 1 paragraph Instead of 2 since it makes more sense to do it that way so no confusion occurs in why are some being listed and others not? Hoopstercat (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes no difference to me, as long as it would be changed in past seasons for consistency (I think the games moving from Sunday to Saturday under this format started in 2018).  Frank  Anchor  21:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

thinking about it - just how notable is the times changing with Flexible scheduling? The article doesn't note the original times (other than special games like Thanksgiving and International series) - and in 10 years time will it really be important that such and such a game was moved (heck in ONE years time that's probably not important) - what's the logic of even having a list of which games moved time? 148.64.9.117 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)