Playoff Tie-Breakers (ARI 6-5)

[TheCardinal]

Well, better than posting Elimination Scenarios before Thanksgiving.

With our final AFC game in the books and our conference record now linked to our eventual overall record, we can start looking ahead to potential tie-breakers. A few ground rules.

First, you have to rank each team 1 though 4 in their respective divisions with ties broken. Then, for wild-card tie-breakers, only the highest ranked team within a division faces off against the highest ranked tied teams from other divisions. For example if ARI/LAR/TBB finish tied for the wild-card, you first break the tie in the West (let's say ARI>LAR) with ARI then facing off with TBB. LAR would have to wait until ARI advances before they have a shot against TBB for the next wild-card spot. In other words, a "3rd-place" team in the West would never get priority over a "2nd-place" team in the West (though could get priority over 2nd place teams in other divisions).

Next, for the sake of simplicity, for NFC teams having played the same number of games and finishing with the same overall records, the WORSE AFC record equals the BETTER NFC record, so it's easier to compare AFC records (each team plays 4) when looking at conference record tie-breakers. The same principle applies when comparing common opponents within a division (there are only two non-common games, the team with the worse record in those owns the better common games record).

Finally, tie-breakers are different for intra-divisional ties as compared to inter-divisional ties. Within a division, it goes: H2H, division, common, conference, strength of victory (SOV), strength of schedule (SOS). Between divisions, it goes: H2H (only applies if a team sweeps or was swept), conference, common (min of 4), SOV, SOS. Note that common games comes earlier within division tie-breakers.

This post is getting long. . . details to come very shortly.

 

[TheCardinal]

We'll look at division tie-breakers later. . . First, the non-NFC West teams in front of us.

Arizona is 2-2 in the AFC. Remember, the WORSE AFC record wins when looking at NFC conference tie-breakers. Below are their AFC records.

NOS: 2-1
GBP: 2-1
TBB 3-1

We have clinched tie-breakers over TBB. If NOS or GBP win their remaining AFC game, and we still somehow catch them, we would win those ties as well. If they lose to their remaining AFC opponent, it goes to common games, and can get messy in regards to 2-way or 3-way ties, so I'll hold off doing those for now.

For the non-NFC West teams behind us, their AFC records are:

MIN: 1-2 (remaining, JAC)
CHI 0-2 (remaining, HOU/JAC)

This is trouble. The best we can hope for is to equal their conference record and push it to common games or further.

The only way we could win a one-on-one tie-breaker against MIN is if one of their wins is against JAC, and one of their losses is against DET (common game), tying them on conference record and common games (2-3, amongst DET/CRL/DAL/SEA). The tie would go down to strength of victory, too early to determine.

The only way we could win a one-on-one tie-breaker against CHI is if two of their wins are against HOU and JAC, one of their losses is against DET (common game), and three of our wins are against NYG/LAR/LAR (common games). This would tie them on conference record and common games (3-2 amongst DET/CRL/NYG/LAR). This could only happen if we both finish 9-7 since the DET loss would be their 7th and the NYG/LAR/LAR wins would get us to nine wins. It would still come down to strength of victory (we lead 45 wins to 42 wins, with assumed outcomes to get us to this situation, much too close to call). Any other combination, CHI beats us in a tie-breaker.

Coming next. . . NFC West tie-breakers.

 

[GatorAZ]

Thx for the work but I can’t even think about the playoffs unless we pull off a shocker next week.

 

[Cheesebeef]

We'll look at division tie-breakers later. . . First, the non-NFC West teams in front of us.

Arizona is 2-2 in the AFC. Remember, the WORSE AFC record wins when looking at NFC conference tie-breakers. Below are their AFC records.

NOS: 2-1
GBP: 2-1
TBB 3-1

We have clinched tie-breakers over TBB. If NOS or GBP win their remaining AFC game, and we still somehow catch them, we would win those ties as well. If they lose to their remaining AFC opponent, it goes to common games, and can get messy in regards to 2-way or 3-way ties, so I'll hold off doing those for now.

For the non-NFC West teams behind us, their AFC records are:

MIN: 1-2 (remaining, JAC)
CHI 0-2 (remaining, HOU/JAC)

This is trouble. The best we can hope for is to equal their conference record and push it to common games or further.

The only way we could win a one-on-one tie-breaker against MIN is if one of their wins is against JAC, and one of their losses is against DET (common game), tying them on conference record and common games (2-3, amongst DET/CRL/DAL/SEA). The tie would go down to strength of victory, too early to determine.

The only way we could win a one-on-one tie-breaker against CHI is if two of their wins are against HOU and JAC, one of their losses is against DET (common game), and three of our wins are against NYG/LAR/LAR (common games). This would tie them on conference record and common games (3-2 amongst DET/CRL/NYG/LAR). This could only happen if we both finish 9-7 since the DET loss would be their 7th and the NYG/LAR/LAR wins would get us to nine wins. It would still come down to strength of victory (we lead 45 wins to 42 wins, with assumed outcomes to get us to this situation, much too close to call). Any other combination, CHI beats us in a tie-breaker.

Coming next. . . NFC West tie-breakers.

uh... isn’t the first tie breaker that matters for the wild card spot the NFC win loss record? You know we’re in the NFC, not AFC right?

 

[TheCardinal]

We are in a better situation within the NFC West for tie-breakers.

Seattle:
H2H is locked in at 1-1. Division record is 2-1 for us, 2-2 for them, so a lot still to be determined. However, we have clinched the next tie-breaker (common games), so if we get to 4 divisional wins, or finish with the same divisional record, we have them covered.


Los Angeles:
Two H2H games still to play. However, should we win at least ONE of our meetings, we would clinch one-on-one tie-breakers (excluding 3-way/4-way ties). With a split, the divisional records would be 3-2 for us, 2-3 for them, so at worst they would tie us. We have clinched the next tie-breaker (common games). If the Rams sweep us, we CAN still beat them in a tie-breaker, but only if SNF forces a 3-way tie at 9-7.


San Francisco:
A second win against the 49ers should clinch the tie-breaker. There is the potential for a 3-way tie where ARI sweeps SNF, who sweeps LAR, who sweeps ARI. This could only happen at 9-7. Division records would all be 3-3. ARI and SNF would have the same common games record, better than LAR, dropping out the Rams. The tie-breaker would then start over, with ARI over SNF based on H2H. Throw in SEA for a 4-way tie at 9-7? We would win the division.

If we lose the rematch with SNF, it gets messy. We would be 2-2 in the division, they would be 3-2. We have the same common games record. In the AFC, we are 2-2, they are 2-1 (with Buffalo remaining). If they beat BUF, we would win that step. If they lose to BUF, it comes to SOV.

 

[TheCardinal]

uh... isn’t the first tie breaker that matters for the wild card spot the NFC win loss record? You know we’re in the NFC, not AFC right?

The first tie-breaker is H2H sweep/swept, but we don't play any of the teams listed. The next step is indeed NFC record, but for simplicity, you only need to count up the AFC games, with the remainder obviously being NFC. The team with the WORST AFC record has the BEST NFC record (assuming overall tied records, hence the need for a tie-breaker in the first place).

The other advantage of using AFC records when comparing NFC teams, is that it avoids the mirage of the team *currently* ahead having more NFC wins (due to the better overall record), but if we're talking tie-breakers, the trailing team HAS to gain ground thereby erasing the apparent advantage.

 

[AZ Native]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Cheesebeef]

We are in a better situation within the NFC West for tie-breakers.

Seattle:
H2H is locked in at 1-1. Division record is 2-1 for us, 2-2 for them, so a lot still to be determined. However, we have clinched the next tie-breaker (common games), so if we get to 4 divisional wins, or finish with the same divisional record, we have them covered.


Los Angeles:
Two H2H games still to play. However, should we win at least ONE of our meetings, we would clinch one-on-one tie-breakers (excluding 3-way/4-way ties). With a split, the divisional records would be 3-2 for us, 2-3 for them, so at worst they would tie us. We have clinched the next tie-breaker (common games). If the Rams sweep us, we CAN still beat them in a tie-breaker, but only if SNF forces a 3-way tie at 9-7.


San Francisco:
A second win against the 49ers should clinch the tie-breaker. There is the potential for a 3-way tie where ARI sweeps SNF, who sweeps LAR, who sweeps ARI. This could only happen at 9-7. Division records would all be 3-3. ARI and SNF would have the same common games record, better than LAR, dropping out the Rams. The tie-breaker would then start over, with ARI over SNF based on H2H. Throw in SEA for a 4-way tie at 9-7? We would win the division.

If we lose the rematch with SNF, it gets messy. We would be 2-2 in the division, they would be 3-2. We have the same common games record. In the AFC, we are 2-2, they are 2-1 (with Buffalo remaining). If they beat BUF, we would win that step. If they lose to BUF, it comes to SOV.

why do you keep bringing up the AFC? Aren’t wins-losses within your own conference all tie breakers above AFC-NFC games?

 

[Cheesebeef]

The first tie-breaker is H2H sweep/swept, but we don't play any of the teams listed. The next step is indeed NFC record, but for simplicity, you only need to count up the AFC games, with the remainder obviously being NFC. The team with the WORST AFC record has the BEST NFC record (assuming overall tied records, hence the need for a tie-breaker in the first place).

The other advantage of using AFC records when comparing NFC teams, is that it avoids the mirage of the team *currently* ahead having more NFC wins (due to the better overall record), but if we're talking tie-breakers, the trailing team HAS to gain ground thereby erasing the apparent advantage.

uh... ok.

 

[TheCardinal]

Other ways to look at it:

If we are destined to finish with the same record as MIN or CHI, we want their wins to be against AFC teams instead of NFC teams.

TBB is 3-1 in the AFC, and we are 2-2. Should both teams finish 9-7, for example, we would be 7-5 in the NFC, better than their 6-6.

 

[TheCardinal]

The short version:

We own the tie-breaker over Tampa Bay.
We are in decent position on tie-breakers against New Orleans and Green Bay, though unlikely to come down to that.
We are in terrible position on tie-breakers against Minnesota and Chicago (would lose almost all potential ties to them both).
Division tie-breakers are still mostly TBD.