Talk:NFL playoffs/Archive 1

Moved information to this article
Information was removed from the main NFL article to try to get it under 32 kb. It seemed more appropriate here, so rather than delete it (it was well referenced and relevent information) I moved it here. Make additional comments if you have any. --Jayron32 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ATTN:CORRECTION NEEDED?
This is regarding the playoff system between the 1978 and 1989 NFL seasons. I believe that the winner of the wild-card game had to face the no. 1 seed in the divisional round in its conference UNLESS both the no. 1 seed and wild-card winner were division rivals which would mean the no. 1 seed had to host the no. 3 seed with the no. 2 seed hosting the wild-card winner. This is similar to the current rule in Major League Baseball with regard to its divisional playoff round. -Amit


 * could be. Find a reference to it first, then make the change.  If you find a good reference ((see policy: WP:RS, but don't know how to incoporate it correctly, let me know and I will fix it. --Jayron 32  18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * looks like Zzyzx11 got to it. Good job.  Looks very good. --Jayron 32  03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is redundant
Currently, I find much of this article very, very redundant to the information in:
 * National Football League
 * Super Bowl
 * National Football League championships

Zzyzx11 02:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thus, I rewrote much of the article. Zzyzx11 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a table for NFL Playoff History? The information can be found in Super Bowl, AFC Championship Game, and whenever we start the NFC Championship Game. Zzyzx11 02:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the playoffs before 1967 was only a single game, half of this table will be redundant to the information on National Football League championships. Zzyzx11 03:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's convenient to have a NFL playoff article that lists the AFC and NHC champs as well as the basic rules. I'm also planning on adding a playoff standings (win/loss) table and maybe a short "records" section. It's true that most of the information isn't unique to this article, but it's not going to be difficult to maintain and the NFL playoffs are a major subject. Carrp | Talk 03:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article adds more detail to the playoff picture, such that the listed articles would become... "bulky". KyuuA4 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Qualification into Playoffs Prior to 2002
Before the NFL current realignment, the playoff qualification system was different prior to the NFL realigment before 2002. What are some of the tie-breaker scenarios then? KyuuA4 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 1982 NFL season was rather strange due to the strike. KyuuA4 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeding?
With the picture, I don't understand this wording below it: "The NFL Playoffs. Each of the 4 division winners is seeded 1-4 based on their W-L-T records. The two wildcard teams (labeled Wild Card 1 and 2) are seeded 5th and 6th (with the better of the two having seed 5) regardless of their records compared to the 4 division winners."

It looks to me like they are NOT seeded in this order, but rather seeded 3rd and 5th. This could easily be that I'm not reading this properly, but I'd like to suggest clarification on this point. Clicking the link to read about "seeding" in a playoff sense does not add further clarification (at least it didn't for me). Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.73.20 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

They are seeded in that order: 1-4 for the division winners (best to worst win pct. respectively), and 5-6 for the two remaining teams in the conference with the best win pct. Mfalvey1 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I just couldn't see it. I was confused by the wording of the wildcards on the graph, but matching them up I see now that they are seeded and matched as described in the article. Thanks! 24.160.73.20 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

hickoksports.com
Is there no more reliable source that http://www.hickoksports.com/index.shtml ? http://www.hickoksports.com/index.shtml is doing their best I'm sure, but they are not what I would call academically reliable. Relevant link: Reliable_sources

Fred-Chess 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Failed
One editor's humble opinion...


 * Well written, comprehensive, and well-linked. IMHO, almost there.
 * Link to tables, don't include them. The article is long enough and the tables add little to the understanding. Trivia buffs like tables, someone wanting to understand the playoff scheme is probably not very interested in the lists.
 * Lists of trivia are discouraged in good articles for the film project, I assume the same here. Incorporate them into the text.
 * There is a question of the text not matching the graphic, see below under "Brackets On The Front Page"

Nominate again when done, and I'd vote for "good article." Kghusker 16:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like feedback on this article that I have been trying to review. I do not know anything about NFL (apart from what I have learnt while watching the Simpsons). My problem is that I do not understand hardly anything of it, and I would therefore fail the article per the "article should be comprehensible to non-experts". Could someone take a look at the article to see if it could be written in a more comprehensible way? / Fred-Chess 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear FredChess, I see from your talkpage you probably did not grow up with American football, which would contribute to your confusion. American Football is confusing. The playoff scheme, however, has little or nothing to do with the game and how it is played. Even though I have grown up with the sport I don't consider myself an expert, nor do I think the playoff scheme is that mysterious. Methinks the article adequate for nonexperts. I failed the GA for far more cosmetic reasons than incomprehension. Isn't there an analogous tournament scheme for chess? Kghusker 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Playoff history records?
One day I see it, and the next it's gone. Does anyone know what happened to the lifetime playoff records? Were they removed for a reason, or was it vandals? Should I restore it, or has it been moved? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the problem: an open  tag  Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link
I'm relatively new to Wiki, so I'm not sure how to edit it:

2005 Season in Review, Pro Football Reference.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreslough (talk • contribs) 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

GA fixes
I have made the requested fixes to make this article possibly GA worthy again. I will renominate it. Among the fixes is the moving of the tables to a new article: NFL Playoff Results --Jayron 32 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

GA hold
On hold for 7 days for these reasons: expand the lead to better summarize the articles, two paras should be fine; find more refs, entire sections and para sequences don't have any; ref fmt--see Wood Badge for good ref fmt samples.Sumoeagle179 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There should never be a section without a ref and unless a paragraph is only one sentence long, every para should have one. Any specific claim should have one. It's perfectly fine to reuse refs if it supports more than one thing in the article. The exception to all this is the lead, if it is a well written summary of the body as it's supposed to be, it'll need few if any refs. Let me know if you have more questions. I'll tag some of the more obvious things needing refs.Sumoeagle179 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made all requested changes. All assertions of fact and all meaningful paragraphs have been referenced.  Reference formats have been made uniform using standards spelled out in WP:MOS and WP:CITE using cite templates.  Lead has been rewritten and expaned to more complete summary.  Please review it again and pass it if you see fit! --Jayron 32  05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
GA Pass.Sumoeagle179 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * YEAH! Thanks to everyone that helped out with this one! --Jayron 32 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Brackets On The Front Page
The brackets on the front page are incorrect because the NFL re-seeds between the wild card weekend and the next round of the playoffs there is no way to know which games winner the number 1 seeded team will play.


 * Above comment unsigned, but it looks like what is correct is the text -- the highest surviving seed plays the lowest surviving seed -- but the graphic near the top is incorrect. Anyone want to tackle this? Kghusker 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the original "unsigned" post. it appears that the brackets have been fixed, are we supposed to remove this thread now? Ganuri 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Strength of schedule/victory
For strength of schedule/victory, what happens when team A plays/beats team B twice? It seems like team B's record should be counted twice for the purposes of determining team A's SOS/SOV. If that's the case, it should be mentioned. 76.254.84.149 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Playoff records
Should there be a separate article for playoff records -- similar to List of National Football League records (individual), List of National Football League records (team), and List of Super Bowl records? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuuA4 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

logo
logo needs to be changed to have the new NFL logo (the one with only 8 stars. Who can do that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.36.91 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest possible regular season W-L record and still miss playoffs?
Hey, since every team plays each team in their division twice, and all 4 teams could split the games, the HIGHEST W-L one team could have and STILL MISS THE PLAYOFFS is 13-3! Here's an example- Let's use the NFC East for the example, since that division ALMOST ALWAYS comes down to the last game. LOL. The Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins all split their games against each other, and all finish 13-3, and since the max # of teams from one division that can make the playoffs is 3, one team from that division misses the playoffs! And THE LOWEST POSSIBLE REGULAR SEASON W-L a division winner can have IS 3-13! LMAO. But that would most likely NEVER happen! LOL. But, IT COULD HAPPEN!

YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about 7 teams going 14-2 spread across one conference? I believe that is possible too.  Take DAL-PHI, MIN-GB, NO-ATL, and ARI.  Assume NFC-E is matched against NFC-S.  DAL & PHI split their games and sweep the other four divisional games.  Both must play NO & ATL, so they split those games as well.  Thats two losses for everyone.  They avoid playing the teams mentioned above in the one game they need to play against the NFC-N & NFC-W, and they sweep AFC opponenets.  Its a stretch but possible, unless I missed something.Juve2000 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't think about that! LOL. I like stats, but I didn't find the time to figure that up! LOL.

YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, these scenarios are not so cut and dry like that. It's not they aren't technically true, in the way that it is true that removing one Dixie-cup full of water out of the ocean lowers the sea level of the entire planet, but you can't just pick 4 or 7 teams and assume this or that record. You must always factor in the other teams (especially in the instance of picking teams beyond one division) for example:

For 7 teams to make 14-2 - The structure of the schedule is NOT just that each team plays 1) its own division 2x, 2)one division from its conference, and 3) one division from the other conference... there is also a 4)the corresponding #1-4 place team in the divisions of their conference that they are not playing

I know that sound confusing, its because I cant think of a way to word it properly, but to make it easier - take the Eagles. They play their own div 2x, say they play the NFC North and the AFC North. Well, in the NFC, that leaves the SOUTH and WEST, and whatever place the Eagles were in last year, say 2nd place in ther division, then they play the 2nd place in both the South and West. Otherwise there is only 14 games (3*2=6 + 4 + 4 = 14 - so you need those last 2)

Each team in the division then would play a DIFFERENT team in the other 2 divisions because no team can finish in the same #1 - 4 spot the prev. year. Now this doesnt mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE and that you could never ever find a situation where this could occur - but the odds are soooooo slim that its just insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.103.208 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read my scenerio above which involves 7 teams going 14-2 (DAL,PHI,MIN,GB,NO,ATL&ARI), I assume that the NFC-E is matched against all teams in the NFC-S (and thus all teams in the NFC-N are matched against the West). Dallas happens to play Chicago or Detroit, and Philadelphia plays the other.  Dal & Phi play one of SF, Sea or StL in the West.  Same rules apply for the other 14-2 teams: they avoid playing the other 14-2 teams in those single divisional games.  Now that I think about it, I think one of Minnesota, Green Bay or Arizona can do better than 14-2 in my scenerio.  I never said it would be easy, and I realize that the schedule has to work so the good teams avoid each other in those single divisional games.Juve2000 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiebreaking Procedure?
This might read a little weird, since it's kind of hard to explain, but bear with me: Let's say you have three teams, A, B, and C, all tied for a playoff spot. And let's say that after step 3 of the tiebreaker, team A has the advantage and teams B and C are still tied. Does team A automatically advance, or do teams B and C then revert back to step 1 of the tiebreaker to see which one of them will go into a tiebreaking procedure with team A to decide the spot?

Conversely: Let's say teams A, B, and C are all tied for two playoff spots, and after step 3, teams A and B remain tied, but have the advantage over C. It's my understanding that A and B then revert back to step 1 to see who gets the first spot. But, after that's decided (let's say A gets it), does team B automatically get the second spot, or do they go back to a tiebreaking procedure with C?

I know this is a little esoteric, but none of the NFL sites I've seen are very clear on this point, and if anyone knows, something more specific on that might be a good addition to the entry. Mfalvey1 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe both your scenarios are essentially the same examples that are explained on point #1 of the "OTHER TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURES" section of http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So since only one club advances to the playoffs in any tie-breaking step, then in both scenarios, A advances, and B and C revert to the first step of the two-team tiebreaking rules. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding (and I rewrote most of this section, including the tutorial) is that once ANY multi-way tie is broken in the positive (advancing one team) or negative (eliminating one team) the remaining teams always return to the first step. If it is 3 teams for 2 spots, I believe the first team to get in would get the higher spot.  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where team A would break a tie with B & C first and be ahead, but then lose out to team B on a second tie breaker.  --Jayron 32  20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one--"Best combined ranking ... in points scored and points allowed." Does this mean rank in points scored, combined with rank in points allowed; or rank in net points? Using real-world numbers from Week 1 games for 2 AFC teams for example, the Dolphins won 15-10; tied for 9th in the AFC in points scored, tied for 3rd in points allowed. The Chiefs won 21-14; 7th best points scored, 6th in points allowed. Combining the rankings, the Dolphins have "12" and the Chiefs "13"--the Dolphins are better. But, if it's net points then the Chiefs' +7 is better than the Dolphins' +5.

I suspect it's the first way. If it was net points, the tiebreak rule would probably read "net points" instead of "points scored and points allowed" as it does now. Just looking for other opinions. LarryJeff (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So maybe I should have just read a couple of more lines down in the tiebreaker list for the answer to my own question. Obviously, the subsequent tiebreaker wouldn't be "net points" if that's what the previous one meant.... LarryJeff (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming playoff articles
The playoff articles should be renamed into something like NFL Playoffs, 2004-05. This is a compromise between die hard and casual fans. Prior to the 1980s, most of the playoff games were in December. Today, they are all in January. As a result, many die hard fans still consider the playoffs leading to Super Bowl XXXIX as the 2004 playoffs while many casual fans call it the 2005 playoffs. Zzyzx11 19:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, the league officially considers the playoff "year" to be the season, just as you mention (i.e. the "die-hards"), and disregard the calendar year the game took place for official statistical purposes. However, to prevent confusion, it should be, say, 2005-06. Doctorindy 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Team || Wins || Losses || Percentage || League Championships
 * Baltimore Ravens || 5 || 2 || .714 || 1
 * Carolina Panthers || 6 || 3 || .667 || None
 * Green Bay Packers || 24 || 14 || .638 || 12 (3 Super Bowl wins)
 * Pittsburgh Steelers || 28 || 18 || .609 || 6 (5 Super Bowl wins)
 * New England/Boston Patriots || 17 || 11 || .607 || 3
 * San Francisco 49ers || 25 || 17 || .595 || 5
 * Dallas Cowboys || 32 || 22 || .593 || 5
 * Washington/Boston Redskins || 23 || 16 || .590 || 5 (3 Super Bowl wins)
 * Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders || 25 || 18 || .581 || 4 (1 AFL / 2 NFL)
 * Denver Broncos || 17 || 15 || .531 || 2
 * Miami Dolphins || 20 || 19 || .513 || 2
 * Philadelphia Eagles || 16 || 16 || .500 || 3
 * Buffalo Bills || 14 || 15 || .483 || 2 (both AFL)
 * Chicago Bears || 14 || 16 || .467 || 9 (1 Super Bowl win)
 * Tennessee Titans/Houston Oilers || 14 || 17 || .452 || 2 (both AFL)
 * Indianapolis/Baltimore Colts || 13 || 16 || .448 || 4 (1 Super Bowl win)
 * New York Jets || 8 || 10 || .444 || 1
 * Jacksonville Jaguars || 4 || 5 || .444 || None
 * St. Louis/Cleveland/Los Angeles Rams || 19 || 24 || .442 || 3 (1 Super Bowl win)
 * Minnesota Vikings || 18 || 24 || .429 || None
 * Atlanta Falcons || 6 || 8 || .429 || None
 * Tampa Bay Buccaneers || 6 || 8 || .429 || 1
 * New York Giants || 16 || 22 || .421 || 6 (2 Super Bowl wins)
 * Detroit Lions || 7 || 10 || .412 || 4
 * Kansas City Chiefs/Dallas Texans || 8 || 12 || .400 || 3 (2 AFL, 1 Super Bowl)
 * Cincinnati Bengals || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * Seattle Seahawks || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers || 7 || 12 || .368 || 1 (AFL)
 * Cleveland Browns || 11 || 20 || .355 || 8 (4 AAFC, 4 NFL)
 * Arizona/Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals || 2 || 5 || .286 || 2
 * New Orleans Saints || 1 || 5 || .167 || None
 * Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None
 * }
 * New York Jets || 8 || 10 || .444 || 1
 * Jacksonville Jaguars || 4 || 5 || .444 || None
 * St. Louis/Cleveland/Los Angeles Rams || 19 || 24 || .442 || 3 (1 Super Bowl win)
 * Minnesota Vikings || 18 || 24 || .429 || None
 * Atlanta Falcons || 6 || 8 || .429 || None
 * Tampa Bay Buccaneers || 6 || 8 || .429 || 1
 * New York Giants || 16 || 22 || .421 || 6 (2 Super Bowl wins)
 * Detroit Lions || 7 || 10 || .412 || 4
 * Kansas City Chiefs/Dallas Texans || 8 || 12 || .400 || 3 (2 AFL, 1 Super Bowl)
 * Cincinnati Bengals || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * Seattle Seahawks || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers || 7 || 12 || .368 || 1 (AFL)
 * Cleveland Browns || 11 || 20 || .355 || 8 (4 AAFC, 4 NFL)
 * Arizona/Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals || 2 || 5 || .286 || 2
 * New Orleans Saints || 1 || 5 || .167 || None
 * Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None
 * }
 * Cincinnati Bengals || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * Seattle Seahawks || 5 || 8 || .385 || None
 * San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers || 7 || 12 || .368 || 1 (AFL)
 * Cleveland Browns || 11 || 20 || .355 || 8 (4 AAFC, 4 NFL)
 * Arizona/Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals || 2 || 5 || .286 || 2
 * New Orleans Saints || 1 || 5 || .167 || None
 * Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None
 * }
 * Arizona/Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals || 2 || 5 || .286 || 2
 * New Orleans Saints || 1 || 5 || .167 || None
 * Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None
 * }
 * Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None
 * }
 * }

some of the championships totals are incorrect unless I am missing something

Pittsburgh has 5 SB but never won a NFL prior to the SB era also the Radiers have won 3 SB in the NFL era 11,15,18 also are we counting the 66 AFL 67 AFL champs and 68 and 69 NFL champs as leagues champs if so the Viking have 1 league champions it seems that we have counted 66 AFL of KC 67 AFL for Oak and 68 NFL for ColtsSmith03 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We should really go back to calling it the 2009 NFL playoffs instead of the 2009-10 NFL playoffs; it's the real name for it. Kidlittle (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started this discussion five years ago, the first NFL playoff articles were created by casual fans, who, like in the example I stated above, titled the playoffs leading to Super Bowl XXXIX as 2005 instead of 2004. And so this was the compromise to avoid any edit war or confusion. But now since other web sites are using this convention too,, all the rules of WP:NAME still have to come into play, including WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE – NOT necessarily the official "real name for it". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Those casual fans just don't know the NFL well enough, which always says 2009 instead of 2009-10 playoffs. But I won't stop you. Kidlittle (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we have the Washington Post doing the "casual fan" convention: Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)