Warrior General Games

Originally posted by El Retré
Only in the event they have the same amount of WINS. What you guys are saying is that a team with so many ties should be placed higher than one with more wins and more losses. It doesn't work that way.

You will never see in the NFL standings as follows.

New England 14-2
Miami 6-6-4
New York 7-9
Buffalo 5-11

New York will ALWAYS be ahead of Miami because they have more WINS. It's that simple.

Sorry buddy, but you could be more wrong, but I am unsure how.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

In 2002 the steelers were 10-5-1. By your reasoning this the 1 would only come into affect if they had the same number of wins as someone else. The NFL has them as a .656 win percentage team that season please tell me what number divided by what number comes up with that result?

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=div&season=2002-REG&split=Overall
more examples
http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=div&season=2012-REG&split=Overall
http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=div&season=2008-REG&split=Overall

The 4 links presented show you without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong about your assumption. Do you presume to carry on this charade that you know what you are talking about?

Please provide me a link where a team with less wins was ranked higher in the standings than another team based off ties. Then you have a legitimate argument.

What you provided proved my point exactly. The team with more wins was higher than the ones with ties. The only time the teams had the same amount of wins was the only time the tie was relevant. There is a reason the win column is the first one in the record.

Meanwhile, Bort is just chucklin' at all y'all, because he just put together the simplest standings-sorting system he could in about 10 seconds, giving absolutely zero consideration to how any real-life sports league handle ties, and then moved on to other more important things.

Originally posted by El Retré
What you provided proved my point exactly. The team with more wins was higher than the ones with ties. The only time the teams had the same amount of wins was the only time the tie was relevant. There is a reason the win column is the first one in the record.


http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
NOTE: Tie games count as one-half win and one-half loss for both clubs.

Multiple ties will not change those rules.

Are you old enough to remember the 40s?
Originally posted by Novus
Meanwhile, Bort is just chucklin' at all y'all, because he just put together the simplest standings-sorting system he could in about 10 seconds, giving absolutely zero consideration to how any real-life sports league handle ties, and then moved on to other more important things.LMAO,.. so he reinvented the wheel when it was already simple to handle? Nice.

Originally posted by toobad4u_00
LMAO,.. so he reinvented the wheel when it was already simple to handle? Nice.

And this surprises you........ how, exactly?

You really don't read that well. You see where it says TIE BREAKING PROCEDURES? As in only if multiple teams have the same amount of wins? You try to call me dense yet prove yourself wrong in the process. The half win/half loss is only in the event of a tie breaker. As in a tie between wins.

I'd have to agree that wins are the single most important stat in a standings. The way it is read is left-to-right. Wins being first, they are the primary differential between clubs. If in the event of a tie, then losses and ties come into play. It's so rare though for a tie to happen that your argument of multiple ties in a season is a strange one. I really don't see how multiple ties can equate to multiple wins and a "better record" for a team that is one win behind the next team.

Originally posted by El Retré
You really don't read that well. You see where it says TIE BREAKING PROCEDURES? As in only if multiple teams have the same amount of wins? You try to call me dense yet prove yourself wrong in the process. The half win/half loss is only in the event of a tie breaker. As in a tie between wins.


I call you dense, your verbiage not mine, because you don't follow logic or rules very well.

The tie-breaking procedures do not stipulate the way you seem to want to stipulate. Further, the 3 other links I provided which are official NFL standings all show that they are applying it on each win regardless of a tie within the conference/division. Therefore, you are simply wrong about your assumptions.

Originally posted by jakeparsons29
I'd have to agree that wins are the single most important stat in a standings. The way it is read is left-to-right. Wins being first, they are the primary differential between clubs. If in the event of a tie, then losses and ties come into play. It's so rare though for a tie to happen that your argument of multiple ties in a season is a strange one. I really don't see how multiple ties can equate to multiple wins and a "better record" for a team that is one win behind the next team.

Really, it is not that difficult to understand. Every match must come out to a teams full game. Most people have no issue with saying that a tie is a 1/2 loss; therefore logic dictates that it is also a half win. I know that the NFL and AFL both tried different ways in the past but they concluded on this method as being the best practice for a reason.

Originally posted by El Retré
Only in the event they have the same amount of WINS. What you guys are saying is that a team with so many ties should be placed higher than one with more wins and more losses. It doesn't work that way.

You will never see in the NFL standings as follows.

New England 14-2
Miami 6-6-4
New York 7-9
Buffalo 5-11

New York will ALWAYS be ahead of Miami because they have more WINS. It's that simple.

We'll never see that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_NFL_season

Originally posted by aharden2
We'll never see that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_NFL_season



And you don't see a NFL team in Portsmouth anymore do you?

Originally posted by aharden2
We'll never see that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_NFL_season



I am not disagree with this post, I am simply elaborating.

In 1972 the rule was changed on how they handled tie games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_NFL_season#Major_rule_changes
Prior to the point it was completely ignored as far as working the win percentage. In 1972 they added a 1/2 game to both wins and losses. So that season differences in the 2 methodologies have very different results.


Before 1972
Chicago Bears .875
Green Bay Packers .769
Portsmouth Spartans .750
Boston Braves .500
New York Giants .400
Brooklyn Dodgers .250
Chicago Cardinals .250
Staten Island Stapletons .222

1972 and later
Green Bay Packers .750
Chicago Bears .714
Portsmouth Spartans .667
Boston Braves .500
New York Giants .417
Chicago Cardinals .300
Staten Island Stapletons .292
Brooklyn Dodgers .250

It is also worth mentioning that in 1974 there was a rule change to minimize the likelihood that multiple ties for a team would occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_NFL_season#Major_rule_changes
Since this rule we have no seen a team have multiple ties however, that does not remove the fact that in theory based upon the current model, a team could have more wins and have a worse percentage than a team with 3 ties and they could then be left out of the playoffs or seeded lower. The fact that we have never seen it since 1972 doesn't mean it can't happen.

BTW there are several instances where it occurred prior to 1972 so to say we will never see it is clearly a lie that he thought he could fabricate without any attempt to research.


http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=1944-REG
http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=1949-REG

Originally posted by El Retré
Only in the event they have the same amount of WINS. What you guys are saying is that a team with so many ties should be placed higher than one with more wins and more losses. It doesn't work that way.

You will never see in the NFL standings as follows.

New England 14-2
Miami 6-6-4
New York 7-9
Buffalo 5-11

New York will ALWAYS be ahead of Miami because they have more WINS. It's that simple.

This isn't true by any means. NFL standings is based on win percentage, not on who has more wins. In your scenario Miami would have a win percentage of .500 while New York would have a win percentage of .438. So Miami would indeed be ahead in the standings.