Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxa!jjc
From: jjc@houxa.UUCP (J.CARBONARO)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: re: Fairness of Tie-Breakers
Message-ID: <881@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 10:32:51 EST
Article-I.D.: houxa.881
Posted: Mon Dec 30 10:32:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Dec-85 03:37:29 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 55

<>The following steps are used to break division ties in the NFL:
<>
<>	1. Head-to-head competition record among the clubs.
<>	2. Record in all division games.
<>	3. Record in all conference games.
<>	4. Record in games against common opponents.
<>	5. Best net point average in division games.
<>	6. Best net point average in conference games.
<>	7. Strength of schedule
<>	8. Best net touchdowns in all games.
<>	9. Coin Toss
<
<I always thought that number 7 should be number 1.  If the object is to
<get the best team into the playoffs, this is the best way to do it.  I
<believe that, statistically (under reasonable assumptions), the winner
<in head-to-head competition between two teams with the same record and
<the same opponents is more often the worse team than the better one.
<(This is because a single event, A beating B, offsets two events: X beating
<A and B beating X, in reaching the same final record.)  Now I am not
<advocating that number 1 should be turned around -- just that it should
<be downgraded in importance.
<
<Of the others, 5, 6, and 8 tend to favor high scoring teams (14-3 is a more
<decisive victory than 42-28); they also have the undesirable side effect of
<encouraging teams to pile on points.  Number 4 is probably the best of the
<rest. So I would probably reorder these in the order: 7, 4, 2, 3, 1, 5, 6,
<8, 9.  (9 is clearly a last resort.)


I realize there will often be legitimate arguments concerning tie-breakers,
but I personally believe you HAVE to go with head-to-head first.  CERTAINLY
this is obvious in divisional tie-breakers - if A beats B twice, B doesn't
have a leg to stand on.  In wild-card or home-field tie-breakers, where there
is often only ONE head-to-head game, put yourself in the shoes of Team A.
Here's the bottom line - if you beat team B, but B is granted the tie-breaker,
you could NEVER accept it.  I WILL admit that there ARE other factors - and
SIGNIFICANT ones at that.
For example, the 3rd place team in the AFC East, the Patriots, will get an
easier schedule next year than the 1st place team, Miami (UNLESS this year's
good teams become lousy and the lousy ones become good).  The Pats are
ALREADY a comparable team to the Dolphins, and the strength-of-schedule
difference next year may be all they need to eke out the division
championship.  So, don't get me wrong, I DO see your point.  But if those
2 teams have identical records next year, but the Pats win both games, I
simply can't justify giving the title to Miami on the basis of tougher
opponents.

Oh well, by the way, has anyone noticed whether USA TODAY has published
the "schedules" for next year.  Date and home-field are not yet known, but
I remember the last day of the regular season last year, they were able
to tell us everyone's opponents this year.  That's because, unlike the
college draft, actual won-lost record and playoff outcomes are irrelevant.
It's simply "3rd place team in East plays 2nd place team in Central", etc.
Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.
					Joe Carbonaro