'Common opponents' gets nod over 'better conference record'

[74_75_78_79_]

In regards to the current AFC East title race between Bills & Pats, I am surprised that after...1) head-to-head, 2) division record, that it doesn't then go to conference record as the very next tie-breaker. I thought it always was that way. If that were the case, the Bills would simply have to win-out their final two games to be the first team since the '08 Dolphins to win the AFC East instead of NE (Bills' first division title since 1995).

Conference record seems to be the next sensible tie-breaker being we are deciding...the conference playoffs! I then think of the 1979 division race between Eagles & Cowboys. If you remember my '79 regular season Power Rankings' thread, I placed the Birds at a higher spot. I felt they beating the Steelers & Oilers who Dallas didn't beat, simply going 2-2 to Dallas's 1-3 mark in the tough AFC Central ('Boys losing to all three winning teams) made the Eagles look better. However, it was that very 2-2 to 1-3 out-of-conference showing that cost Philly the better overall conference record, making it Dallas 10-2 to 9-3.

Yes, that finale win at Houston was against an Oiler team that was already locked-in at 4th-seed/top-Wild Card before the 4PM EST kickoff being the 'Burgh just clinched yet another AFC Central title, 28-0, vs Buffalo in the early game. Also, Dallas played - and won - against the two playoff conference opponents outside their division (Bears & Rams) whereas Eagles didn't have to play against any playoff (nor above-500) NFC teams outside their division at all in '79 (I'll still take wins over Steelers & 'locked-in' Oilers over Chi & LAR though).

So I guess it all comes down to simple debate on what you think should be placed over the other...'common opponents' or 'conference record'? I guess if it is two teams from the same division, the former I guess I can stomach being there will then be plenty enough common opponents. Bills & Pats this year had plenty of common opponents even outside their division with the difference thus far, of course, being Pats besting both Eagles & Browns but Bills not being able to do so. Now if it's between two teams not from the same division and the amount of common opponents is...say, two or three...then, yeah, perhaps conference record should prevail. Dunno, I still lean with conf record either way.

Thoughts?

[ChrisBabcock]

The beginning or your last paragraph sums it up. If the tie is to be broken within the division, tiebreaker #3 is common opponents. Otherwise, yes, it is conference record. I think the logic being, one of the two tied teams would be playing more difficult games in the two games determined by last year's record, than the other team. And therefore it's an unfair comparison of the two teams.

[Saban1]

I was thinking that could bode well for Green Bay if they lose to Minnesota on Monday night, but it turns out that Minnesota lost a game to Chicago which would give the Packers a better record in their division if they lose to Minnesota. Of course, Green Bay would still have to beat Detroit in their last regular season game if they lose to the Vikings. I wonder if Stafford might be back by then?

[Fitzclarence]

One could argue that head-to-head should be lower in the list of divisional tiebreakers, as it represents only a two-game sample. Two teams in the same division share 12 common opponents, and this set of games carries more statistical weight.

[boknows34]

I was thinking that could bode well for Green Bay if they lose to Minnesota on Monday night, but it turns out that Minnesota lost a game to Chicago which would give the Packers a better record in their division if they lose to Minnesota. Of course, Green Bay would still have to beat Detroit in their last regular season game if they lose to the Vikings. I wonder if Stafford might be back by then?

Stafford has been placed on IR.

[Saban1]

I was thinking that could bode well for Green Bay if they lose to Minnesota on Monday night, but it turns out that Minnesota lost a game to Chicago which would give the Packers a better record in their division if they lose to Minnesota. Of course, Green Bay would still have to beat Detroit in their last regular season game if they lose to the Vikings. I wonder if Stafford might be back by then?

Stafford has been placed on IR.

Thanks Boknows34. So, that should make things easier for Green Bay in the Detroit game, if they need to win it.

[Rupert Patrick]

The one tiebreaker that I've never understood why the NFL has never used is "Better record against .500-or-better teams". I always thought that would be a better tiebreaker, especially for determining quality playoff teams, in how a team does against other average or better teams.

[74_75_78_79_]

The one tiebreaker that I've never understood why the NFL has never used is "Better record against .500-or-better teams". I always thought that would be a better tiebreaker, especially for determining quality playoff teams, in how a team does against other average or better teams.

Heavily agree! I’d at least place that over ‘common opponents’.

EDIT - well it looks like Titans now have tie-breaker over Steelers going into Week #17 due to 'schedule strength' though not necessarily "better record against .500-or-better teams" as you suggest. If Steelers do get in it would have to be the franchise's all-time weakest playoff installment, showing the least promise heading in. At least in '89 the 'Burgh went in at 5-1 with that one loss being the most impressive of those final six games; '84 they beating Raiders in LA (and earlier, of course, handing SF their only defeat). Just the same, Tomlin ought to (should) win 'Coach of the Year' with a simple qualifier.

[sluggermatt15]

The one tiebreaker that I've never understood why the NFL has never used is "Better record against .500-or-better teams". I always thought that would be a better tiebreaker, especially for determining quality playoff teams, in how a team does against other average or better teams.

Heavily agree! I’d at least place that over ‘common opponents’.

EDIT - well it looks like Titans now have tie-breaker over Steelers going into Week #17 due to 'schedule strength' though not necessarily "better record against .500-or-better teams" as you suggest. If Steelers do get in it would have to be the franchise's all-time weakest playoff installment, showing the least promise heading in. At least in '89 the 'Burgh went in at 5-1 with that one loss being the most impressive of those final six games; '84 they beating Raiders in LA (and earlier, of course, handing SF their only defeat). Just the same, Tomlin ought to (should) win 'Coach of the Year' with a simple qualifier.

And believe it or not, the Raiders can still get in with a win and losses by a bunch of teams. The crazy tiebreakers!