This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to be that we always hear about the labor dispute as a broad spectrum of the league, or from the owners point of view. Also when they refer to the players they seem to just use the players union. I thought that I would go in and find some good quotes from some of the players of the NFL to hear what they personally think about the situation, so that you can see it from the players perspective. Taylormartin12 ( talk) 06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have something interesting if this might go in this article. [1]-- Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I hereby say "Yes, we should split this article into two articles. They are different subjects." Yes, we should split this article into two articles.-- 173.60.80.54 ( talk) 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the lockout needs its own article. The 2004–05 NHL lockout, which is a separate article from the 2004–05 NHL season (both of which have enough material to distinguish the two apart) sets precedence for this. Jgera5 ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Right now this is the 2011 season. No reason to split it yet. Arthur220b156 ( talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should have this as a separate article, it makes since it is not a season it's a labor-lockout. Split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.136.169 ( talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Split this bad boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.25.126 ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(Reply:) Are you high?
Before you create a separate article, consider the fact nothing major has really happened in the 40 something days since the lockout began (other than the lawsuit). Here's a summary of the article: 2006, the previous CBA is agreed upon with an expiration date of 2012. 2008, the owners vote to opt out of the previous CBA two years early. March 10, Negotiations end and the lockout begins. Pretty much what I'm saying is more has happened before the lockout than during the lockout.-- Voices in my Head WWE 00:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed*: I would be in favor of calling it 2011 NFL labor dispute, since the lockout is just one part of the case (the part that happens to be over, per the latest ruling) and "labor dispute" would encompass all the various issues, such as the Brady, et al v. NFL lawsuit, the decertification of the NFLPA, etc. If the lockout is truly over with, there is still enough information in this (and enough of a running timeline) that it's definitely worth its own article. (Compare to 1987 NFL strike, 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation, 2004-05 NHL lockout, etc.) Bill shannon ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be split. It isn't just a footnote. This whole court battle is underappreciated. The decertification and lawsuit could be covered in depth, as well as and especially because of the particular antitrust laws in question. This case has important implications for legal precedent. I'd help put it together, but it takes a village to raise a child.
(Reply:) Figurative language is for white people. -- 74.109.36.248 ( talk) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: This should be a sparate article since it is a whole situation in itself. It is a big part of the sports world and therfore needs to have it's own page. -- Carthage44 ) talk) 02:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If I may, if you look up either previous NFL Strike, you're redirected to the NFLPA page section on them. Perhaps we should do the same with this situation? or maybe we should give those strikes the same treatment. 24.115.236.34 ( talk) 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep for now until there is an actual lockout, since the most recent professional sports lockout ( 2004–05 NHL lockout) which many people will look at to compare situations, is its own article. But since its just the offseason we should wait until there is an actual lockout to create a new article. GoodandTrue ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with Keep. I have to say that I agree with User:GoodandTrue and User:Eagles247 in keeping things (in general) the way they are currently. So far the 2011 season (besides the draft) HAS been the lockout. They are (so far) one and the same. Since no training camp has taken place, and free agencys are locked, there's really nothing else to discuss besides the draft or lockout. (at least not in my opinion) I say we keep them as one page, and then possibily split them once the season starts. If (and I pray to God this doesn't happen) the season is wiped out completely then the article can be kept as is; and if the season starts (even if it's a delayed start) we can split them to be more clear. ~~Just my thoughts, dbrain64 14:17, 22nd of July 2011 (UTC)
Split. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Split This subject is a different entity than the 2011 season, and received enough coverage independantly to pass WP:N. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Split. As Bill Shannon says, the season articles are mostly for on the field action. In addition, labor disputes for other sports have separate articles, including situations where no games were lost like the 1990 Major League Baseball lockout. A separate article would meet WP:N and WP:V. Patken4 ( talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made the split. Again, I encourage everyone to keep this split intact while the season is underway – and then decide what recentism to cleanup on both pages after the season is over. Thanks. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
OK then someone needs to write articles for the 1987 and 1982 strikes. Currently they are mentioned on the pages for their respective seasons, and any link w/i the site leads to the page on the NFLPA. If the lockout, which led to loss of only the HOF game, is relevant enough to warrant its own article, then the strikes that did result in a loss of games should be relevant enough to warrant their own articles. JIMfoamy1 ( talk) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the schedule for week 10, there's only one late game each for Fox and CBS - so is week 10 being included in flexible scheduling this year? And if so, should that be mentioned. 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The "Secret Meetings" (which aren't even a secret) have been going on for an entire month. Shouldn't we make mention of it.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please change it. Hall of Fame game is the only game that will be canceled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.160.68 ( talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Question about calculating strength of victory/strength of schedule, couldn't find this in the limited searching I've done. For a team's division foes (who they will play twice), do those teams' records count twice in the strength of schedule (and in the strength of victory if they won both games)? LarryJeff ( talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As you say, it's the only way that makes sense. Plus, I did find on nfl.com (in the explanation of tiebreakers) in the note about record in common games, it says that you have to use the percentage since the tied teams may have not played the same number of games against their common opponent (clearly meaning we have to count both games against an in-division team). Since we know from that that both games count for the common opponents tiebreaker, it strengthens the case for double-counting in-division teams' records in the SOV/SOS figures as well. LarryJeff ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So last year the table on this page was using the same system as nfl.com. I'm referring to the x/y/z/* symbols to denote the clinching of playoff/wildcard/division/homefield-advantage. We also used the cross symbol to denote elimination from playoff contention. I believe that system is far from perfect and we can do better. It got messy towards the end of the 2010 season and it does not provide full picture. My suggestion: To the left of team's name we provide possible seeds for the playoff in parenthesis. For instance:
Perhaps we could also consider different color coding:
Thoughts? SWojczyszyn ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If the Packers beat the Giants and the Lions lose at New Orleans, the Packers clinch the NFC North regardless of the result of the Bears' game against the Chiefs. Why?
The Packers' & Bears' head-to-head (1–1), division (4–2) and common opponents' (10–4) records would be equal, but a Packers' win over the Giants clinches the fourth tiebreaker over the Bears – conference record (10–2 to the Bears' 9–3). The Bears still have two interconference games left, and winning both of them does not help their conference record.
However, the Lions would win the tiebreaker over the Packers if tied at 12–4 (common opponents: 11–3 to the Packers' 10–4). DPH1110 ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
As we did last year, can we avoid mentioning ties to avoid unnecessary confusion for something that happens once every 5 years. Juve2000 ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've prepared the scenarios for Week 14 without ties, but I don't feel comfortable making this edit, so it's here to use if someone wants to do it
Also, I don't like the unnecessary repetition of information. Like for the redskins you can have
Seems more concise and better to me. SWojczyszyn ( talk) 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Scenarios that require one or more games ending in a tie are omitted in this table.
Team: | Scenario: | Method: |
---|---|---|
Carolina Panthers | Elimination |
|
| ||
Cleveland Browns | Elimination |
|
| ||
Green Bay Packers | Clinch first-round bye [1] |
|
| ||
Houston Texans | Clinch AFC South [1] |
|
Miami Dolphins | Elimination |
|
New England Patriots | Clinch AFC East [1] |
|
New Orleans Saints | Clinch playoff berth [1] |
|
| ||
Clinch NFC South [1] |
| |
Philadelphia Eagles | Elimination |
|
| ||
Pittsburgh Steelers | Clinch playoff berth [1] |
|
| ||
| ||
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | Elimination |
|
| ||
| ||
Washington Redskins | Elimination |
|
| ||
|
References
I know it's a convention, fine. But how about we use
The way it is now, we have nothing to denote clinching the first round bye. Also, what's the point of using the cross sign next to the eliminated teams? We have gray background for that. Now that I think about it, same applies to the green background and the "x"... SWojczyszyn ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the formatting needs some work. The "x","y" and "z" notations look wrong coming before the team name. It should be like the † ClarkF1 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkF1 ( talk • contribs)
If we are to stick with the letter thing, what would be wrong with a simple addition of one letter:
The news pages (printed and web) should do this in preference to their current x,y,z bit that ignores the first round bye but does denote home field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszigeti ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For anyone with more time than me - when I added the scenarios in this , I only looked at head to head - so if someone wants to look at other tiebreakers to see if they would have a tiebreaker on anyone in the event of a win OR a loss (rather than a win AND a loss) then feel free. 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Titans need a win, a Bengals' loss and either a Jets' win or wins by both the Broncos and Raiders to clinch a Wild Card berth. Why?
The Titans lose a two-way tiebreaker with the Bengals (the Bengals won at Tennessee in Week 9), but the Bengals will lose tiebreakers to both the Jets and Raiders based on their inferior conference record (the Bengals will finish 6–6, while the Titans, Jets and/or Raiders will finish 7–5). So, the Titans will have to finish in a multi-team tie with the Bengals and either the Jets or Raiders to get into the playoffs.
The "head-to-head sweep" tiebreaker step can ONLY be used if one team beat ALL other teams or lost to ALL other teams involved in a multi-team tie. The only head-to-head elements amongst the aforementioned teams were the Bengals beating the Titans (in Week 9) and the Raiders beating the Jets (in Week 3), so conference record will be the first applicable tiebreaker. Since the Bengals would have the worst conference record, they would drop out of any multi-team tiebreaker, while the remaining teams (Titans and either the Jets or Raiders) would revert to step 1 (see below).
SCENARIO 1: Let's say the Titans and Jets both won, and the Bengals lost. Each team would finish 9–7. As mentioned earlier, the Bengals drop out due to their conference record, and the Titans would win the common opponents' tiebreaker over the Jets (the Titans were a combined 4–1 vs. the Bills, Broncos, Jaguars and Ravens, while the Jets were 3–2 against those same teams).
SCENARIO 2: Let's say the Titans, Broncos and Raiders all won, and the Bengals lost. Each team would finish 9–7. I'll say it again, Bengals are out. The Titans would win the common opponents' tiebreaker over the Raiders (if the Titans beat the Texans, they would finish 4–1 vs. the Bills, Broncos, Browns and Texans, while the Raiders finished a combined 3–2 against those same teams). However, if the Raiders were to win (vs. San Diego), they cannot overtake the Broncos for the AFC West division title if they were to be involved in this three-way tie with the Bengals and Titans, which would mean that the Broncos would also have to win their game (vs. Kansas City), and the Broncos can ONLY make the playoffs as a division champion.
SCENARIO 3: Let's say there is a four-way tie between the Bengals, Jets, Raiders and Titans at 9–7. I'll say it again, the Bengals are out. Now it would become a three-way tie between the Jets, Raiders and Titans. The head-to-head elements between the Jets and Raiders are pushed aside because the Titans did not face either team during the regular season. Since each teams' conference record will be equal (7–5), and the common opponents tiebreaking step CANNOT be used (minimum of four common opponents amongst the three teams is not satisfied), the first applicable tiebreaker step would be strength of victory (the combined winning percentage of each opponent that a team beat during the regular season). Note: If a team sweeps a division rival, both wins count within the tiebreaker. This tiebreaker would not be fully determined until the end of the season, and since only one Wild Card spot is available, only the winner of this tiebreaker makes the playoffs.
I hope this clears up the confusion regarding the Titans' playoff scenario. Thank you. DPH1110 ( talk) 18:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
Yeah I just determined that. If the Raiders were to beat San Diego, that would "add muscle" to their SOV percentage (should they finish in a 4-way tie), as they CURRENTLY have better SOV's than the Titans and Jets. DPH1110 ( talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
I'm trying to simplify the AFC Wildcard possibilities just for my own sanity. Can someone let me know if my conclusions are correct. If Cincinnati wins they're in..that's easy. If they lose, I figured there are 8 different scenarios of team(s) finishing 9-7:
Thanks, Juve2000 ( talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If anyone figures out what needs to happen for the playoff scenarios, publishing your findings here is original research. It doesn't belong on wikipedia. WP:NOR. Don't put it here. People who put this stuff in here make mistakes on occasion. This year alone we've had Colts eliminated prematurely, and there were some minor mistakes in scenarios almost every week. Anyone can start a website where you put the scenarios, we can reference it. Then, once we find enough mistakes, we will mark it as unreliable source and stop using it. Or if there are no mistakes, we'll be using it as a reliable source. I'm half tempted to keep removing the stuff without source... SWojczyszyn ( talk) 20:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The only remaining outstanding AFC game of note (at 7:24 ET 1/1/2012) is SD @ OAK. Regardless of this result, Cincinnati has clinched the wild card due to head-to-head record against the Titans (the only other 9-7 team would be Oakland, and they would be the #4 seed as the West winner and thus not part of the tiebreaker.)
Am I incorrect? Someone removed the #6 seed from CIN and the "eliminated" tag from Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.102.41 ( talk) 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Denver, Oakland, and San Diego finished in a 3-way tie for first place, and head-to-head was ruled out because each team finished 2-2 in games among these teams (each team was 1-1 against each of the other 2 teams). Record within the division was 3-3 for each team, so that didn't break the tie either. How are common opponents determined when 3 teams are tied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There's also another way to figure out the common opponents' tiebreaker: since each team—Broncos, Chargers and Raiders—played the exact same opponents, for the exceptions of two intraconference games that were determined by the previous season's division placement, you can also calculate the records vs. UNCOMMON opponents. The UNCOMMON opponents amongst the three teams were the matchups against AFC South and NFC North teams—the Broncos lost to Tennessee and beat Cincinnati, the Chargers beat both Baltimore and Jacksonville and the Raiders beat both Houston and Cleveland. SO, the Broncos record was 1–1 while both the Chargers and Raiders were 2–0. THIS MEANS that the Broncos record vs. COMMON opponents was one game better than both the Chargers and Raiders, while the next applicable tiebreaker between the latter two teams was conference record, which the Chargers won (7–5 to 6–6). DPH1110 ( talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)DPH1110
Could someone add one? SWojczyszyn ( talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was working with a few other editors on the NFLPA article, and I think it has a really nice summary of the labor dispute. I'm proposing that we switch the current language in the Labor dispute section with the following (from the NFLPA article):
Thoughts? I'm also in the process of updating the 2011 NFL Lockout article. See the talk page on that article to help. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 45 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 43 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/niners-talk/post/49ers-enter-NFL-record-book?blockID=623178When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to be that we always hear about the labor dispute as a broad spectrum of the league, or from the owners point of view. Also when they refer to the players they seem to just use the players union. I thought that I would go in and find some good quotes from some of the players of the NFL to hear what they personally think about the situation, so that you can see it from the players perspective. Taylormartin12 ( talk) 06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have something interesting if this might go in this article. [1]-- Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I hereby say "Yes, we should split this article into two articles. They are different subjects." Yes, we should split this article into two articles.-- 173.60.80.54 ( talk) 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the lockout needs its own article. The 2004–05 NHL lockout, which is a separate article from the 2004–05 NHL season (both of which have enough material to distinguish the two apart) sets precedence for this. Jgera5 ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Right now this is the 2011 season. No reason to split it yet. Arthur220b156 ( talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should have this as a separate article, it makes since it is not a season it's a labor-lockout. Split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.136.169 ( talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Split this bad boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.25.126 ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(Reply:) Are you high?
Before you create a separate article, consider the fact nothing major has really happened in the 40 something days since the lockout began (other than the lawsuit). Here's a summary of the article: 2006, the previous CBA is agreed upon with an expiration date of 2012. 2008, the owners vote to opt out of the previous CBA two years early. March 10, Negotiations end and the lockout begins. Pretty much what I'm saying is more has happened before the lockout than during the lockout.-- Voices in my Head WWE 00:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed*: I would be in favor of calling it 2011 NFL labor dispute, since the lockout is just one part of the case (the part that happens to be over, per the latest ruling) and "labor dispute" would encompass all the various issues, such as the Brady, et al v. NFL lawsuit, the decertification of the NFLPA, etc. If the lockout is truly over with, there is still enough information in this (and enough of a running timeline) that it's definitely worth its own article. (Compare to 1987 NFL strike, 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation, 2004-05 NHL lockout, etc.) Bill shannon ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be split. It isn't just a footnote. This whole court battle is underappreciated. The decertification and lawsuit could be covered in depth, as well as and especially because of the particular antitrust laws in question. This case has important implications for legal precedent. I'd help put it together, but it takes a village to raise a child.
(Reply:) Figurative language is for white people. -- 74.109.36.248 ( talk) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: This should be a sparate article since it is a whole situation in itself. It is a big part of the sports world and therfore needs to have it's own page. -- Carthage44 ) talk) 02:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If I may, if you look up either previous NFL Strike, you're redirected to the NFLPA page section on them. Perhaps we should do the same with this situation? or maybe we should give those strikes the same treatment. 24.115.236.34 ( talk) 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep for now until there is an actual lockout, since the most recent professional sports lockout ( 2004–05 NHL lockout) which many people will look at to compare situations, is its own article. But since its just the offseason we should wait until there is an actual lockout to create a new article. GoodandTrue ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with Keep. I have to say that I agree with User:GoodandTrue and User:Eagles247 in keeping things (in general) the way they are currently. So far the 2011 season (besides the draft) HAS been the lockout. They are (so far) one and the same. Since no training camp has taken place, and free agencys are locked, there's really nothing else to discuss besides the draft or lockout. (at least not in my opinion) I say we keep them as one page, and then possibily split them once the season starts. If (and I pray to God this doesn't happen) the season is wiped out completely then the article can be kept as is; and if the season starts (even if it's a delayed start) we can split them to be more clear. ~~Just my thoughts, dbrain64 14:17, 22nd of July 2011 (UTC)
Split. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Split This subject is a different entity than the 2011 season, and received enough coverage independantly to pass WP:N. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Split. As Bill Shannon says, the season articles are mostly for on the field action. In addition, labor disputes for other sports have separate articles, including situations where no games were lost like the 1990 Major League Baseball lockout. A separate article would meet WP:N and WP:V. Patken4 ( talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made the split. Again, I encourage everyone to keep this split intact while the season is underway – and then decide what recentism to cleanup on both pages after the season is over. Thanks. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 02:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
OK then someone needs to write articles for the 1987 and 1982 strikes. Currently they are mentioned on the pages for their respective seasons, and any link w/i the site leads to the page on the NFLPA. If the lockout, which led to loss of only the HOF game, is relevant enough to warrant its own article, then the strikes that did result in a loss of games should be relevant enough to warrant their own articles. JIMfoamy1 ( talk) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the schedule for week 10, there's only one late game each for Fox and CBS - so is week 10 being included in flexible scheduling this year? And if so, should that be mentioned. 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The "Secret Meetings" (which aren't even a secret) have been going on for an entire month. Shouldn't we make mention of it.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please change it. Hall of Fame game is the only game that will be canceled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.160.68 ( talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Question about calculating strength of victory/strength of schedule, couldn't find this in the limited searching I've done. For a team's division foes (who they will play twice), do those teams' records count twice in the strength of schedule (and in the strength of victory if they won both games)? LarryJeff ( talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As you say, it's the only way that makes sense. Plus, I did find on nfl.com (in the explanation of tiebreakers) in the note about record in common games, it says that you have to use the percentage since the tied teams may have not played the same number of games against their common opponent (clearly meaning we have to count both games against an in-division team). Since we know from that that both games count for the common opponents tiebreaker, it strengthens the case for double-counting in-division teams' records in the SOV/SOS figures as well. LarryJeff ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So last year the table on this page was using the same system as nfl.com. I'm referring to the x/y/z/* symbols to denote the clinching of playoff/wildcard/division/homefield-advantage. We also used the cross symbol to denote elimination from playoff contention. I believe that system is far from perfect and we can do better. It got messy towards the end of the 2010 season and it does not provide full picture. My suggestion: To the left of team's name we provide possible seeds for the playoff in parenthesis. For instance:
Perhaps we could also consider different color coding:
Thoughts? SWojczyszyn ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If the Packers beat the Giants and the Lions lose at New Orleans, the Packers clinch the NFC North regardless of the result of the Bears' game against the Chiefs. Why?
The Packers' & Bears' head-to-head (1–1), division (4–2) and common opponents' (10–4) records would be equal, but a Packers' win over the Giants clinches the fourth tiebreaker over the Bears – conference record (10–2 to the Bears' 9–3). The Bears still have two interconference games left, and winning both of them does not help their conference record.
However, the Lions would win the tiebreaker over the Packers if tied at 12–4 (common opponents: 11–3 to the Packers' 10–4). DPH1110 ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
As we did last year, can we avoid mentioning ties to avoid unnecessary confusion for something that happens once every 5 years. Juve2000 ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've prepared the scenarios for Week 14 without ties, but I don't feel comfortable making this edit, so it's here to use if someone wants to do it
Also, I don't like the unnecessary repetition of information. Like for the redskins you can have
Seems more concise and better to me. SWojczyszyn ( talk) 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Scenarios that require one or more games ending in a tie are omitted in this table.
Team: | Scenario: | Method: |
---|---|---|
Carolina Panthers | Elimination |
|
| ||
Cleveland Browns | Elimination |
|
| ||
Green Bay Packers | Clinch first-round bye [1] |
|
| ||
Houston Texans | Clinch AFC South [1] |
|
Miami Dolphins | Elimination |
|
New England Patriots | Clinch AFC East [1] |
|
New Orleans Saints | Clinch playoff berth [1] |
|
| ||
Clinch NFC South [1] |
| |
Philadelphia Eagles | Elimination |
|
| ||
Pittsburgh Steelers | Clinch playoff berth [1] |
|
| ||
| ||
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | Elimination |
|
| ||
| ||
Washington Redskins | Elimination |
|
| ||
|
References
I know it's a convention, fine. But how about we use
The way it is now, we have nothing to denote clinching the first round bye. Also, what's the point of using the cross sign next to the eliminated teams? We have gray background for that. Now that I think about it, same applies to the green background and the "x"... SWojczyszyn ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the formatting needs some work. The "x","y" and "z" notations look wrong coming before the team name. It should be like the † ClarkF1 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkF1 ( talk • contribs)
If we are to stick with the letter thing, what would be wrong with a simple addition of one letter:
The news pages (printed and web) should do this in preference to their current x,y,z bit that ignores the first round bye but does denote home field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszigeti ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For anyone with more time than me - when I added the scenarios in this , I only looked at head to head - so if someone wants to look at other tiebreakers to see if they would have a tiebreaker on anyone in the event of a win OR a loss (rather than a win AND a loss) then feel free. 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Titans need a win, a Bengals' loss and either a Jets' win or wins by both the Broncos and Raiders to clinch a Wild Card berth. Why?
The Titans lose a two-way tiebreaker with the Bengals (the Bengals won at Tennessee in Week 9), but the Bengals will lose tiebreakers to both the Jets and Raiders based on their inferior conference record (the Bengals will finish 6–6, while the Titans, Jets and/or Raiders will finish 7–5). So, the Titans will have to finish in a multi-team tie with the Bengals and either the Jets or Raiders to get into the playoffs.
The "head-to-head sweep" tiebreaker step can ONLY be used if one team beat ALL other teams or lost to ALL other teams involved in a multi-team tie. The only head-to-head elements amongst the aforementioned teams were the Bengals beating the Titans (in Week 9) and the Raiders beating the Jets (in Week 3), so conference record will be the first applicable tiebreaker. Since the Bengals would have the worst conference record, they would drop out of any multi-team tiebreaker, while the remaining teams (Titans and either the Jets or Raiders) would revert to step 1 (see below).
SCENARIO 1: Let's say the Titans and Jets both won, and the Bengals lost. Each team would finish 9–7. As mentioned earlier, the Bengals drop out due to their conference record, and the Titans would win the common opponents' tiebreaker over the Jets (the Titans were a combined 4–1 vs. the Bills, Broncos, Jaguars and Ravens, while the Jets were 3–2 against those same teams).
SCENARIO 2: Let's say the Titans, Broncos and Raiders all won, and the Bengals lost. Each team would finish 9–7. I'll say it again, Bengals are out. The Titans would win the common opponents' tiebreaker over the Raiders (if the Titans beat the Texans, they would finish 4–1 vs. the Bills, Broncos, Browns and Texans, while the Raiders finished a combined 3–2 against those same teams). However, if the Raiders were to win (vs. San Diego), they cannot overtake the Broncos for the AFC West division title if they were to be involved in this three-way tie with the Bengals and Titans, which would mean that the Broncos would also have to win their game (vs. Kansas City), and the Broncos can ONLY make the playoffs as a division champion.
SCENARIO 3: Let's say there is a four-way tie between the Bengals, Jets, Raiders and Titans at 9–7. I'll say it again, the Bengals are out. Now it would become a three-way tie between the Jets, Raiders and Titans. The head-to-head elements between the Jets and Raiders are pushed aside because the Titans did not face either team during the regular season. Since each teams' conference record will be equal (7–5), and the common opponents tiebreaking step CANNOT be used (minimum of four common opponents amongst the three teams is not satisfied), the first applicable tiebreaker step would be strength of victory (the combined winning percentage of each opponent that a team beat during the regular season). Note: If a team sweeps a division rival, both wins count within the tiebreaker. This tiebreaker would not be fully determined until the end of the season, and since only one Wild Card spot is available, only the winner of this tiebreaker makes the playoffs.
I hope this clears up the confusion regarding the Titans' playoff scenario. Thank you. DPH1110 ( talk) 18:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
Yeah I just determined that. If the Raiders were to beat San Diego, that would "add muscle" to their SOV percentage (should they finish in a 4-way tie), as they CURRENTLY have better SOV's than the Titans and Jets. DPH1110 ( talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)DPH1110
I'm trying to simplify the AFC Wildcard possibilities just for my own sanity. Can someone let me know if my conclusions are correct. If Cincinnati wins they're in..that's easy. If they lose, I figured there are 8 different scenarios of team(s) finishing 9-7:
Thanks, Juve2000 ( talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If anyone figures out what needs to happen for the playoff scenarios, publishing your findings here is original research. It doesn't belong on wikipedia. WP:NOR. Don't put it here. People who put this stuff in here make mistakes on occasion. This year alone we've had Colts eliminated prematurely, and there were some minor mistakes in scenarios almost every week. Anyone can start a website where you put the scenarios, we can reference it. Then, once we find enough mistakes, we will mark it as unreliable source and stop using it. Or if there are no mistakes, we'll be using it as a reliable source. I'm half tempted to keep removing the stuff without source... SWojczyszyn ( talk) 20:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The only remaining outstanding AFC game of note (at 7:24 ET 1/1/2012) is SD @ OAK. Regardless of this result, Cincinnati has clinched the wild card due to head-to-head record against the Titans (the only other 9-7 team would be Oakland, and they would be the #4 seed as the West winner and thus not part of the tiebreaker.)
Am I incorrect? Someone removed the #6 seed from CIN and the "eliminated" tag from Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.102.41 ( talk) 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Denver, Oakland, and San Diego finished in a 3-way tie for first place, and head-to-head was ruled out because each team finished 2-2 in games among these teams (each team was 1-1 against each of the other 2 teams). Record within the division was 3-3 for each team, so that didn't break the tie either. How are common opponents determined when 3 teams are tied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There's also another way to figure out the common opponents' tiebreaker: since each team—Broncos, Chargers and Raiders—played the exact same opponents, for the exceptions of two intraconference games that were determined by the previous season's division placement, you can also calculate the records vs. UNCOMMON opponents. The UNCOMMON opponents amongst the three teams were the matchups against AFC South and NFC North teams—the Broncos lost to Tennessee and beat Cincinnati, the Chargers beat both Baltimore and Jacksonville and the Raiders beat both Houston and Cleveland. SO, the Broncos record was 1–1 while both the Chargers and Raiders were 2–0. THIS MEANS that the Broncos record vs. COMMON opponents was one game better than both the Chargers and Raiders, while the next applicable tiebreaker between the latter two teams was conference record, which the Chargers won (7–5 to 6–6). DPH1110 ( talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)DPH1110
Could someone add one? SWojczyszyn ( talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was working with a few other editors on the NFLPA article, and I think it has a really nice summary of the labor dispute. I'm proposing that we switch the current language in the Labor dispute section with the following (from the NFLPA article):
Thoughts? I'm also in the process of updating the 2011 NFL Lockout article. See the talk page on that article to help. -- TravisBernard ( talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 45 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 43 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/niners-talk/post/49ers-enter-NFL-record-book?blockID=623178When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)