Talk:NFL playoffs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
To-do list for NFL playoffs: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
 |
NFL playoffs (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
[edit] Good Article Failed
One editor's humble opinion...
- Well written, comprehensive, and well-linked. IMHO, almost there.
- Link to tables, don't include them. The article is long enough and the tables add little to the understanding. Trivia buffs like tables, someone wanting to understand the playoff scheme is probably not very interested in the lists.
- Lists of trivia are discouraged in good articles for the film project, I assume the same here. Incorporate them into the text.
- There is a question of the text not matching the graphic, see below under "Brackets On The Front Page"
Nominate again when done, and I'd vote for "good article." Kghusker 16:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would like feedback on this article that I have been trying to review. I do not know anything about NFL (apart from what I have learnt while watching the Simpsons). My problem is that I do not understand hardly anything of it, and I would therefore fail the article per the "article should be comprehensible to non-experts". Could someone take a look at the article to see if it could be written in a more comprehensible way? / Fred-Chess 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dear FredChess, I see from your talkpage you probably did not grow up with American football, which would contribute to your confusion. American Football is confusing. The playoff scheme, however, has little or nothing to do with the game and how it is played. Even though I have grown up with the sport I don't consider myself an expert, nor do I think the playoff scheme is that mysterious. Methinks the article adequate for nonexperts. I failed the GA for far more cosmetic reasons than incomprehension. Isn't there an analogous tournament scheme for chess? Kghusker 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Qualification into Playoffs Prior to 2002
Before the NFL current realignment, the playoff qualification system was different prior to the NFL realigment before 2002. What are some of the tie-breaker scenarios then? KyuuA4 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the 1982 NFL season was rather strange due to the strike. KyuuA4 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is redundant
Currently, I find much of this article very, very redundant to the information in:
Zzyzx11 02:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thus, I rewrote much of the article. Zzyzx11 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Why do we need a table for NFL Playoff History? The information can be found in Super Bowl, AFC Championship Game, and whenever we start the NFC Championship Game. Zzyzx11 02:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since the playoffs before 1967 was only a single game, half of this table will be redundant to the information on National Football League championships. Zzyzx11 03:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's convenient to have a NFL playoff article that lists the AFC and NHC champs as well as the basic rules. I'm also planning on adding a playoff standings (win/loss) table and maybe a short "records" section. It's true that most of the information isn't unique to this article, but it's not going to be difficult to maintain and the NFL playoffs are a major subject. Carrp | Talk 03:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article adds more detail to the playoff picture, such that the listed articles would become... "bulky". KyuuA4 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming playoff articles
The playoff articles should be renamed into something like NFL Playoffs, 2004-05. This is a compromise between die hard and casual fans. Prior to the 1980s, most of the playoff games were in December. Today, they are all in January. As a result, many die hard fans still consider the playoffs leading to Super Bowl XXXIX as the 2004 playoffs while many casual fans call it the 2005 playoffs. Zzyzx11 19:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, the league officially considers the playoff "year" to be the season, just as you mention (i.e. the "die-hards"), and disregard the calendar year the game took place for official statistical purposes. However, to prevent confusion, it should be, say, 2005-06. Doctorindy 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
|Team || Wins || Losses || Percentage || League Championships |- |Baltimore Ravens || 5 || 2 || .714 || 1 |- |Carolina Panthers || 6 || 3 || .667 || None |- |Green Bay Packers || 24 || 14 || .638 || 12 (3 Super Bowl wins) |- |Pittsburgh Steelers || 28 || 18 || .609 || 6 (5 Super Bowl wins) |- |New England/Boston Patriots || 17 || 11 || .607 || 3 |- |San Francisco 49ers || 25 || 17 || .595 || 5 |- |Dallas Cowboys || 32 || 22 || .593 || 5 |- |Washington/Boston Redskins || 23 || 16 || .590 || 5 (3 Super Bowl wins) |- |Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders || 25 || 18 || .581 || 4 (1 AFL / 2 NFL) |- |Denver Broncos || 17 || 15 || .531 || 2 |- |Miami Dolphins || 20 || 19 || .513 || 2 |- |Philadelphia Eagles || 16 || 16 || .500 || 3 |- |Buffalo Bills || 14 || 15 || .483 || 2 (both AFL) |- |Chicago Bears || 14 || 16 || .467 || 9 (1 Super Bowl win) |- |Tennessee Titans/Houston Oilers || 14 || 17 || .452 || 2 (both AFL) |- |Indianapolis/Baltimore Colts || 13 || 16 || .448 || 4 (1 Super Bowl win) |- |New York Jets || 8 || 10 || .444 || 1 |- |Jacksonville Jaguars || 4 || 5 || .444 || None |- |St. Louis/Cleveland/Los Angeles Rams || 19 || 24 || .442 || 3 (1 Super Bowl win) |- |Minnesota Vikings || 18 || 24 || .429 || None |- |Atlanta Falcons || 6 || 8 || .429 || None |- |Tampa Bay Buccaneers || 6 || 8 || .429 || 1 |- |New York Giants || 16 || 22 || .421 || 6 (2 Super Bowl wins) |- |Detroit Lions || 7 || 10 || .412 || 4 |- |Kansas City Chiefs/Dallas Texans || 8 || 12 || .400 || 3 (2 AFL, 1 Super Bowl) |- |Cincinnati Bengals || 5 || 8 || .385 || None |- |Seattle Seahawks || 5 || 8 || .385 || None |- |San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers || 7 || 12 || .368 || 1 (AFL) |- |Cleveland Browns || 11 || 20 || .355 || 8 (4 AAFC, 4 NFL) |- |Arizona/Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals || 2 || 5 || .286 || 2 |- |New Orleans Saints || 1 || 5 || .167 || None |- |Houston Texans || colspan="3" | No Playoff Appearances || None |}
some of the championships totals are incorrect unless I am missing something
Pittsburgh has 5 SB but never won a NFL prior to the SB era also the Radiers have won 3 SB in the NFL era 11,15,18 also are we counting the 66 AFL 67 AFL champs and 68 and 69 NFL champs as leagues champs if so the Viking have 1 league champions it seems that we have counted 66 AFL of KC 67 AFL for Oak and 68 NFL for ColtsSmith03 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved information to this article
Information was removed from the main NFL article to try to get it under 32 kb. It seemed more appropriate here, so rather than delete it (it was well referenced and relevent information) I moved it here. Make additional comments if you have any. --Jayron32 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ATTN:CORRECTION NEEDED?
This is regarding the playoff system between the 1978 and 1989 NFL seasons. I believe that the winner of the wild-card game had to face the no. 1 seed in the divisional round in its conference UNLESS both the no. 1 seed and wild-card winner were division rivals which would mean the no. 1 seed had to host the no. 3 seed with the no. 2 seed hosting the wild-card winner. This is similar to the current rule in Major League Baseball with regard to its divisional playoff round. -Amit
[edit] Seeding?
With the picture, I don't understand this wording below it: "The NFL Playoffs. Each of the 4 division winners is seeded 1-4 based on their W-L-T records. The two wildcard teams (labeled Wild Card 1 and 2) are seeded 5th and 6th (with the better of the two having seed 5) regardless of their records compared to the 4 division winners."
It looks to me like they are NOT seeded in this order, but rather seeded 3rd and 5th. This could easily be that I'm not reading this properly, but I'd like to suggest clarification on this point. Clicking the link to read about "seeding" in a playoff sense does not add further clarification (at least it didn't for me). Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.73.20 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
They are seeded in that order: 1-4 for the division winners (best to worst win pct. respectively), and 5-6 for the two remaining teams in the conference with the best win pct. Mfalvey1 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I just couldn't see it. I was confused by the wording of the wildcards on the graph, but matching them up I see now that they are seeded and matched as described in the article. Thanks! 24.160.73.20 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tiebreaking Procedure?
This might read a little weird, since it's kind of hard to explain, but bear with me: Let's say you have three teams, A, B, and C, all tied for a playoff spot. And let's say that after step 3 of the tiebreaker, team A has the advantage and teams B and C are still tied. Does team A automatically advance, or do teams B and C then revert back to step 1 of the tiebreaker to see which one of them will go into a tiebreaking procedure with team A to decide the spot?
Conversely: Let's say teams A, B, and C are all tied for two playoff spots, and after step 3, teams A and B remain tied, but have the advantage over C. It's my understanding that A and B then revert back to step 1 to see who gets the first spot. But, after that's decided (let's say A gets it), does team B automatically get the second spot, or do they go back to a tiebreaking procedure with C?
I know this is a little esoteric, but none of the NFL sites I've seen are very clear on this point, and if anyone knows, something more specific on that might be a good addition to the entry. Mfalvey1 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe both your scenarios are essentially the same examples that are explained on point #1 of the "OTHER TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURES" section of http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- My understanding (and I rewrote most of this section, including the tutorial) is that once ANY multi-way tie is broken in the positive (advancing one team) or negative (eliminating one team) the remaining teams always return to the first step. If it is 3 teams for 2 spots, I believe the first team to get in would get the higher spot. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where team A would break a tie with B & C first and be ahead, but then lose out to team B on a second tie breaker. --Jayron32 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brackets On The Front Page
The brackets on the front page are incorrect because the NFL re-seeds between the wild card weekend and the next round of the playoffs there is no way to know which games winner the number 1 seeded team will play.
- Above comment unsigned, but it looks like what is correct is the text -- the highest surviving seed plays the lowest surviving seed -- but the graphic near the top is incorrect. Anyone want to tackle this? Kghusker 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hickoksports.com
Is there no more reliable source that http://www.hickoksports.com/index.shtml ? http://www.hickoksports.com/index.shtml is doing their best I'm sure, but they are not what I would call academically reliable. Relevant link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability
Fred-Chess 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Playoff history records?
One day I see it, and the next it's gone. Does anyone know what happened to the lifetime playoff records? Were they removed for a reason, or was it vandals? Should I restore it, or has it been moved? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dead Link
I'm relatively new to Wiki, so I'm not sure how to edit it:
2005 Season in Review, Pro Football Reference.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreslough (talk • contribs) 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] GA fixes
I have made the requested fixes to make this article possibly GA worthy again. I will renominate it. Among the fixes is the moving of the tables to a new article: NFL Playoff Results --Jayron32 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA hold
On hold for 7 days for these reasons: expand the lead to better summarize the articles, two paras should be fine; find more refs, entire sections and para sequences don't have any; ref fmt--see Wood Badge for good ref fmt samples.Sumoeagle179 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- There should never be a section without a ref and unless a paragraph is only one sentence long, every para should have one. Any specific claim should have one. It's perfectly fine to reuse refs if it supports more than one thing in the article. The exception to all this is the lead, if it is a well written summary of the body as it's supposed to be, it'll need few if any refs. Let me know if you have more questions. I'll tag some of the more obvious things needing refs.Sumoeagle179 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have made all requested changes. All assertions of fact and all meaningful paragraphs have been referenced. Reference formats have been made uniform using standards spelled out in WP:MOS and WP:CITE using cite templates. Lead has been rewritten and expaned to more complete summary. Please review it again and pass it if you see fit! --Jayron32 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA pass
GA Pass.Sumoeagle179 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
