From: hunt@shy.umd.edu (Brian Hunt)
Newsgroups: dc.redskins,rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Redskins/Packers in the Playoffs ...
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:14:23 GMT

Well, just about everything that could go wrong did for the Redskins:
they lost while the Packers and Vikings won.  The 3-way tie situation
that I was worried about last week looms larger; as best I can tell
the Redskins need some help next week.

ashley@oasis.gtefsd.com (Bob Ashley) writes:

[I've deleted a good explanation of how the Redskins win a tiebreaker
with the Packers on the basis of either conference record or record
against common opponents, depending on whether they tie at 9-7 or
10-6.]

>Washington will make the playoffs with a win against the Los Angeles Raiders,
>or if Green Bay loses in Minnesota ...

Not so fast--according to the media the Redskins would get the short
end of the stick in a 3-way tiebreaker with the Packers and Eagles
(that is, if the Redskins and Packers both win next week but the
Eagles lose).  I think this is an asinine interpretation of the
head-to-head rule for 3 teams; here are the relevant rules (as quoted
from USA Today by someone else):

--------
THREE OR MORE CLUBS
1. Head-to-head sweep (applicable only if one club has defeated each of the
   others, or if one club has lost to each of the others).

NOTE: If two teams remain tied after a third or additional teams are
eliminated, the tiebreaker reverts to step 1 of the applicable two-club format.
When the first wildcard team has been identified, the procedure is repeated
to name the second wild card...
--------

The apparent interpretation is this (keep in mind that the idea is to
rank the teams 1,2,3 with numbers 1 and 2 getting playoff spots):

Since the Eagles have lost to both the Redskins and Packers, the
head-to-head rule is applicable.  (Note however that the Eagles have
not lost all their games against these two teams; in other words they
haven't been "swept".  I somehow doubt the writers of this rule
intended it to apply in this situation, but it looks like they didn't
write it very clearly...)

Since the Packers are 1-0 in games among the 3 teams, while the
Redskins are 1-1 and the Eagles 1-2, the Packers get ranked 1st.  (It
would seem to me to make more sense to say that the Eagles, having
lost to both teams are eliminated from being ranked 1st, and then go
to a 2-team tiebreaker between the Redskins and Packers, etc.  I think
it rather tenuous to say that the Packers should be ranked above the
Redskins because they have a better record against the Eagles.)

Once the Packers have been ranked 1st, the Eagles get ranked 2nd on
the basis of a better division record than the Redskins.  (Can't argue
with that one.)

Just to illustrate how asinine this all is, consider the following:
if the 3 teams had somehow gotten to this point with the Redskins
losing both games against the Eagles, then the Packers would be 1-0
against the Eagles, who would be 2-0 against the Redskins, yet the
head-to-head rule would NOT apply.  In other words, it would be better
in some sense for the Redskins to be 0-2 against the Eagles than 1-1.

Anyway, here's the situation for the Redskins based on the above
interpretation:

If they lose to the Raiders on Saturday, they need the Vikings to beat
the Packers.

If they beat the Raiders, they need either the Vikings to win or the
Eagles to beat the Giants (or a tie in either case...)

Problem is, neither the Vikings nor the Eagles have much of anything
to gain by winning.  In fact, one might say the Eagles could stand to
gain by losing, by getting to play the Vikings rather than the Saints
in the first round of the playoffs.  (On the other hand, the Saints
have never won a playoff game--somebody try to convince the Eagles
that they really want to play the Saints...)

Anyone else have bad memories of the Redskins being in a 3-way tie at
10-6 and being the odd team out?

Brian Hunt
hunt@ipst.umd.edu
Xref: sparky dc.redskins:281 rec.sport.football.pro:29579