Saints #2 Seed in NFC? or not..... (1 Viewer)

[trujm]

According to my logic, and what I know to be the tiebreaking procedures, the Saints should have moved up to the #2 seed in the NFC, even with the loss yesterday.

Heres why:

CHI 8-1 #1 Seed

NO 6-3 Conf 5-1 #2 Seed
SEA 6-3 Conf 5-2 #3 Seed
NYG 6-3 Conf 5-2 #4 Seed

HOWEVER, I sorted the conference standings on ESPN.com's standings page and got this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/standings?season=2006&breakdown=2&split=0

They have Seattle at #2 and NO at #3. Can someone explain why they would win the tiebreaker? We havent played them head to head and i was close to 100% sure that the second tiebreaker in playoff seeding is record within the conference.

 

[DavidM]

Maybe the first tie-breaker among division leaders is division record?

 

[trujm]

Maybe the first tie-breaker among division leaders is division record?

ps., I'm going to merge this thread with one of the current discussions of the topic.

Can you confirm that for us?

 

[kfran]

According to my logic, and what I know to be the tiebreaking procedures, the Saints should have moved up to the #2 seed in the NFC, even with the loss yesterday.

Heres why:

CHI 8-1 #1 Seed

NO 6-3 Conf 5-1 #2 Seed
SEA 6-3 Conf 5-2 #3 Seed
NYG 6-3 Conf 5-2 #4 Seed

HOWEVER, I sorted the conference standings on ESPN.com's standings page and got this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/standings?season=2006&breakdown=2&split=0

They have Seattle at #2 and NO at #3. Can someone explain why they would win the tiebreaker? We havent played them head to head and i was close to 100% sure that the second tiebreaker in playoff seeding is record within the conference.

They've got to have it wrong. Seattle lost to Chicago and Miiny - two NFC teams. They'll probably correct it when they realize the mistake.

First tie breaker for conference is conference record.

 

[Wahoo]

Likely because Seattle beat the Giants, thus currently have a better won-loss percentage among the three teams (Seattle 1.000, Saints and Giants .000). Here are the NFL tiebreak procedures:

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

 

[DavidM]

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

...


Edit -- oops, that was within the division (I had conference on my mind.)

Reading further, it would seem that after head-to-head (not applicable) that Conference record would be the first determining factor -- edge, Saints.

Hmmm.

 

[MackeyM]

Here's the correct standings, BTW, ESPN has an obvious bias,

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

 

[kfran]

Maybe the first tie-breaker among division leaders is division record?

That doesn't make sense because the Giants are 3-0 in their division, as well?

 

[DavidM]

Here's the correct standings, BTW, ESPN has an obvious bias,

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

Going directly to the source makes perfect sense. Heh.

 

[ThibodauxSaint]

They've got to have it wrong. Seattle lost to Chicago and Miiny - two NFC teams. They'll probably correct it when they realize the mistake.

First tie breaker for conference is conference record.

Actually I think the first tie-breaker for conference is head to head. But that's not applicable here because all three teams, the Giants, Saints, and Seahawks, don't play each other. I know the Giants played the Seahawks and we play the Giants but we don't play the Seahawks so you can't use head to head. So then it goes to conference records.

Remember this is how we got left out of the playoffs in 2004 when there was a three way tie between the Saints, Vikings, and Rams. The Vikings and Rams got in even though we beat the Rams. Had the Vikings played the Rams we would have gotten in but because they didn't it went by conference records and we missed the playoffs. That's why if you're going to lose games you want it to be games against the AFC.

 

[Wahoo]

...

Remember this is how we got left out of the playoffs in 2004 when there was a three way tie between the Saints, Vikings, and Rams. The Vikings and Rams got in even though we beat the Rams. Had the Vikings played the Rams we would have gotten in but because they didn't it went by conference records and we missed the playoffs. That's why if you're going to lose games you want it to be games against the AFC.

That's right. It was a 3 way tie between us, StL and Minn, all at 8-8. StL got in first, because they had the best conference record of the 3 teams. That left us and Minn, and Minn got in because they had beaten us head to head.

 

[kfran]

Here's the correct standings, BTW, ESPN has an obvious bias,

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

Thanks, chatawaclan!!! You headed off a probable mutiny . LOL

 

[Random Fan]

Or we could wait until the end of the season to determine which seed they are.

 

[kfran]

Here's the correct standings, BTW, ESPN has an obvious bias,

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

And to think - ESPN actually pays somebody to update this obviously unresearched nonsense. :dunno:

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Here's the correct standings, BTW, ESPN has an obvious bias,

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

Those standings are also incorrect.

They have the Giants above the Seahawks, Seattle owns the head to head tie-breaker.