Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 7/26/84) 6/24/83; site druhi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!druhi!tml
From: tml@druhi.UUCP (Tim Larison)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: re: Fairness of Tie-Breakers
Message-ID: <84@druhi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 15:30:34 EST
Article-I.D.: druhi.84
Posted: Tue Dec 31 15:30:34 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 01:07:12 EST
References: <1194@mtuxo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 30

Even though I am a fan of the first 11-5 team not to make the playoffs
(the Broncos), I still think that the current tie breaking system is
the fairest.  If the strength of schedule was used as a prime tie-breaker,
then the decision as to who would make the playoffs could come down
to a game between two non-contenders. 

For example, say Denver and New England were tied going into the last week.
Say Denver had beaten Tampa Bay but had not played Atlanta, and that New
England had beaten Atlanta but had not played Tampa Bay.  Say also that
Tampa Bay and Atlanta play the last week of the season.  If Tampa
Bay wins, the strength of Denver's schedule is stronger and the
Broncos make the playoffs.  If Atlanta wins, New England schedule
is stronger so the Patriots make the playoffs.  This would create
even greater injustices than the current system.

The current system puts a premium on beating contending teams in the same
division and conference.  The Broncos this year paid dearly for losing to
the Raiders twice and AFC East winner Miami.  Though the other wildcards,
New England and the Jets, both lost to the Raiders, they beat out the
Broncos in the tie-breakers because both split with the winning team
in their own division - Miami.

Denver's best chance to make the playoffs was to beat the Raiders in
either of their two games (both overtime losses).  This, not an unfair
tie-breaker, was the reason they missed the playoffs.


                                 Waiting 'til next year,

                                 Tim Larison  ihnp4!druhi!tml