3-Way Tie favors Cards

[KYCardFan]

10-7 or 9-8 doesn’t matter

 

[TJ]

Just win, baby

 

[Cheesebeef]

So, this just occurred to me... if by some miracle we win the next three games and we're able to beat the Rams and the Seahawks lose one more game, to set up a scenario where we are 10-7, and the Rams and Seattle are both 9-7... don't the Rams have nothing to play for? Now, I THOUGHT that game has already been flexed to SNF, meaning we'd be sitting there at 10-7, knowing that a Rams win puts us into the playoffs.

So the Rams wouldn't have that much incentive to beat Seattle because even if they won, if they know we already have, both teams finishing at 10-7 gives us the tie-breaker.

But... I just did a little googling and the SNF game hasn't been flexed yet. If every team is 9-7 or 10-6 (Seattle) going into that game, you figure that's a prime game for NBC to put on - Win and Seattle's in. The only other big flex possibility is Vikings v. Detroit, which could be for the 1 or 2 seed is the vikings keep winning.

eh... this is all pointless. There's no way Kyler goes into his house of horrors in LA and beats a streaking Rams team with the playoffs possibly on the line.

 

[TheCardinal]

10-7 or 9-8 doesn’t matter

. . . almost. This works at 10-7, but NOT for ALL 9-8 ties.

The three-way jump-Seattle thingy works only if the following conditions are met:
A) We beat the Rams for the season sweep
B) The Rams beat the Seahawks to sweep them (evening out the H2H at 2-2 across the board)
C) We beat the 49ers to match the Rams' divisional record (4-2) thus knocking out Seattle (3-3) and setting up the mini-tie-breaker against only the Rams, where we win on H2H sweep.

At 10-7, these conditions are automatically met. We would have had to win out (beating LA and SF) and the Rams would have to have won against the Jets and Seahawks (which is why the Rams-Jets game is strange for our rooting interests).


************************

HOWEVER, at 9-8, there are ways of getting the three-way tie-breaker where we DON'T win.

- If our loss is to LA, we are eliminated. This is a literal must-win game. Though we could still match the Rams at 9-8, Seattle would have had to have beaten them in the finale, and thus the Seahawks would win the 9-8 tie on H2H (3-1 vs 2-2 vs 1-3).

- If our loss is to Carolina, we would have wins against LA and SF to reach 9-8. However, it matters whether the Rams' lone remaining win is against the Jets or the Seahawks. If it is against the Jets, Seattle wins the three-way tie on H2H (3-1 vs 2-2 vs 1-3). However, if the Rams' lone remaining win is against Seattle (here requiring the Rams to LOSE to the Jets), the three conditions above are met, and we win the three-way tie-breaker. The H2H is 2-2 vs 2-2 vs 2-2, and it moves on to divisional record where AZ and LA are 4-2, and SEA eliminated from the tie at 3-3. Then it reverts back to H2H between AZ/LA and we win on the sweep.

- If our loss is to San Francisco, we would have beaten LA for the sweep. However, even if the Rams beat Seattle to tie up the H2H at 2-2 vs 2-2 vs 2-2, the RAMS would win the three-way tie on the next step, divisional record, 4-2 over the 3-3 posted by both AZ and SEA. Here, the Rams use the three-way tie to jump *US* despite our season sweep of them. We could still win the division at 9-8 with a loss to SF, but it would require SEA to lose ALL THREE GAMES so that there isn't a three-way tie. We would win the two-way tie with just LA on H2H sweep. In this scenario, SF can also get to 9-8, but it wouldn't change who wins the tie-breaker.

 

[TheCardinal]

So, this just occurred to me... if by some miracle we win the next three games and we're able to beat the Rams and the Seahawks lose one more game, to set up a scenario where we are 10-7, and the Rams and Seattle are both 9-7... don't the Rams have nothing to play for? Now, I THOUGHT that game has already been flexed to SNF, meaning we'd be sitting there at 10-7, knowing that a Rams win puts us into the playoffs.

So the Rams wouldn't have that much incentive to beat Seattle because even if they won, if they know we already have, both teams finishing at 10-7 gives us the tie-breaker.

But... I just did a little googling and the SNF game hasn't been flexed yet. If every team is 9-7 or 10-6 (Seattle) going into that game, you figure that's a prime game for NBC to put on - Win and Seattle's in. The only other big flex possibility is Vikings v. Detroit, which could be for the 1 or 2 seed is the vikings keep winning.

eh... this is all pointless. There's no way Kyler goes into his house of horrors in LA and beats a streaking Rams team with the playoffs possibly on the line.

I would be surprised if either NFC West game got flexed if we are still alive for the division. You are correct in that it could give one team a competitive advantage. If all three enter the final week at 9-7, Seattle gets first crack at the division. If they lose, it's ours with a win. If we also lose, it goes to the Rams.

It would also be the same if Seattle goes into the game 10-6, and AZ/LA are both 9-7.

 

[kerouac9]

So, this just occurred to me... if by some miracle we win the next three games and we're able to beat the Rams and the Seahawks lose one more game, to set up a scenario where we are 10-7, and the Rams and Seattle are both 9-7... don't the Rams have nothing to play for? Now, I THOUGHT that game has already been flexed to SNF, meaning we'd be sitting there at 10-7, knowing that a Rams win puts us into the playoffs.

So the Rams wouldn't have that much incentive to beat Seattle because even if they won, if they know we already have, both teams finishing at 10-7 gives us the tie-breaker.

But... I just did a little googling and the SNF game hasn't been flexed yet. If every team is 9-7 or 10-6 (Seattle) going into that game, you figure that's a prime game for NBC to put on - Win and Seattle's in. The only other big flex possibility is Vikings v. Detroit, which could be for the 1 or 2 seed is the vikings keep winning.

eh... this is all pointless. There's no way Kyler goes into his house of horrors in LA and beats a streaking Rams team with the playoffs possibly on the line.

Saints-Bucs will be the SNF finale to decide the NFC South

 

[Metcalf Rules]

So, this just occurred to me... if by some miracle we win the next three games and we're able to beat the Rams and the Seahawks lose one more game, to set up a scenario where we are 10-7, and the Rams and Seattle are both 9-7... don't the Rams have nothing to play for? Now, I THOUGHT that game has already been flexed to SNF, meaning we'd be sitting there at 10-7, knowing that a Rams win puts us into the playoffs.

So the Rams wouldn't have that much incentive to beat Seattle because even if they won, if they know we already have, both teams finishing at 10-7 gives us the tie-breaker.

But... I just did a little googling and the SNF game hasn't been flexed yet. If every team is 9-7 or 10-6 (Seattle) going into that game, you figure that's a prime game for NBC to put on - Win and Seattle's in. The only other big flex possibility is Vikings v. Detroit, which could be for the 1 or 2 seed is the vikings keep winning.

eh... this is all pointless. There's no way Kyler goes into his house of horrors in LA and beats a streaking Rams team with the playoffs possibly on the line.

I’ve had my heart broken by the Cardinals so many times. I was reminded of it earlier today when I saw a clips of the Redskins game in 84 for the NFC East title. That being said, I expect the Cardinals to beat the Panthers, stun the Rams and lose the division by shanking a 25 yard last second fg.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I would be surprised if either NFC West game got flexed if we are still alive for the division. You are correct in that it could give one team a competitive advantage. If all three enter the final week at 9-7, Seattle gets first crack at the division. If they lose, it's ours with a win. If we also lose, it goes to the Rams.

It would also be the same if Seattle goes into the game 10-6, and AZ/LA are both 9-7.

Yes the NFL does a good job of keeping all "important games" playing in the same time slot. So therefore they wouldn't flex any of this games to give someone a competitive advantage.

 

[SoonerLou]

So, this just occurred to me... if by some miracle we win the next three games and we're able to beat the Rams and the Seahawks lose one more game, to set up a scenario where we are 10-7, and the Rams and Seattle are both 9-7... don't the Rams have nothing to play for? Now, I THOUGHT that game has already been flexed to SNF, meaning we'd be sitting there at 10-7, knowing that a Rams win puts us into the playoffs.

So the Rams wouldn't have that much incentive to beat Seattle because even if they won, if they know we already have, both teams finishing at 10-7 gives us the tie-breaker.

But... I just did a little googling and the SNF game hasn't been flexed yet. If every team is 9-7 or 10-6 (Seattle) going into that game, you figure that's a prime game for NBC to put on - Win and Seattle's in. The only other big flex possibility is Vikings v. Detroit, which could be for the 1 or 2 seed is the vikings keep winning.

eh... this is all pointless. There's no way Kyler goes into his house of horrors in LA and beats a streaking Rams team with the playoffs possibly on the line.

In terms of personnel the 49ers are a scarier matchup than the Rams for Kyler.

 

[GatorAZ]

Not thinking about this until we prove next week that we don’t lay an huge egg in Carolina.