Source: http://www.morganwick.com/2010/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:35:58+00:00

Document:
The lineal titles are, belatedly, updated, and I think I’m somewhat lucky that none of the college titles are being defended until after the new year.
The top six teams in the RPI are all from the SEC or Big 12, with attendant effects on selection, including Oklahoma probably getting a top-three seed, a possible third SEC at-large in Alabama, and all other conferences getting squeezed out of at-larges, including Stanford and Ohio State. Had I decided to cap at-larges at 2 per conference, they and Michigan State would have been key contenders.
Thanks in part to my Rose Bowl Semifinal rule, Oregon is hard-pressed to even get a first-round home game; the Pac-10 was weak this year. Wisconsin barely stood out among a field of Oregon, TCU, Boise, and V-Tech.
Finally, Connecticut actually barely got edged by UCF for the 13 seed, so the 3 would be a lot less valuable than the 2 this year, and the 4 substantially more valuable than the 5.
For the Playoff Pictures, anything that’s not self-explanatory is in the notes. Thick borders cannot be crossed, and I didn’t bother to research common-games tiebreakers for playoff positioning.
Selected game: St. Louis @ Seattle.
Two years ago, two sports-media columnists got into an argument over whether the NFL was compelled to select an AFC game for Sunday Night Football Week 17. One of them claimed that the NFL was bound to keep the balance of primetime games taken from CBS and Fox relatively even, and the NFL had taken so many Fox games that they absolutely had to take a CBS game Week 17. The other disputed his claim but eventually conceded, and it turned out to be irrelevant because the only game guaranteed to be relevant before primetime was Broncos-Chargers for the AFC West crown.
Now, in rereading the posts from two years ago in preparation for this one, I find reference made to the popularity of the NFC over the AFC over time, which could be construed to span multiple years, and any “violation” of the 22-20 rule would merely mean that we should expect the balance of games next year to take more games from CBS. (And that particular link seems to imply that the hit would primarily fall on the teams themselves. For the record, the Cowboys had a total of only four primetime games that season.) Regardless, it seems the 22-20 rule or whatever it is wasn’t prohibitive (or else the NFL would have flexed in an AFC game this week), which I guess explains why I was the only one worried about it.
And ultimately, Rams-Seahawks was selected for the same reason Broncos-Chargers was selected two years ago: it was the only game guaranteed to have playoff implications before primetime, after all the other games were played. Bears-Packers was very unlikely to become irrelevant; it’s a win-and-you’re-in game for the Packers, and the only scenario I can think of where a Packers loss wouldn’t disqualify them from the playoffs would still fall on the strength-of-victory tiebreaker. But that was too much for the NFL, who went for the absolutely sure thing even though it’s a complete dog between two sub-.500 teams from iffy markets for the NFC Worst where I’m rooting against my own team just so the division winner can finish at .500.
The real story, though, from the last few wild weeks is that the NFL’s decision to schedule all division matchups Week 17 has effectively screwed NBC that week. NBC now appears to be stuck with either division title games in weak divisions like Rams-Seahawks, or lucking into two wild card contenders in the same division entering the final week tied at the edge of the playoffs (or a game apart with the team behind holding the tiebreaker if they win) AND playing each other.
Consider, for a second, two tied teams in the same division that don’t play each other. If the team with the tiebreaker wins, the team without it has nothing to play for. If you put the team with the tiebreaker in primetime, then if the team without the tiebreaker loses, the team with it also has nothing to play for. Putting the two teams a game apart just makes it worse. You need the two teams to be tied AND you need the tiebreaker situation if both teams win to be different from the tiebreaker situation if both teams lose. But the first three tiebreakers are: division games, common games, and conference games, and the NFL has made sure both teams are playing a game that’s all three. Remember, we needed both teams to have the same result, so all three tiebreakers will move in the same direction as well. The next tiebreaker is strength of victory, which you can’t count on.
The situation for the wild card, when competing against teams in other divisions, isn’t much better. The same constraints as in the first half of the last paragraph apply. The first tiebreaker (after head-to-head) is conference games, which both teams are playing. The next tiebreaker is common games, where an opening appears, since common games among teams in different divisions are rare, unless the teams’ divisions played each other. It’s conceivable for one team to play a common game while the other doesn’t… but then the best case scenario is that the two teams finish tied in the common games. And what’s the next tiebreaker? Why, strength of victory, of course. Perhaps the NFL will change its schedule structure or tiebreaking structure to fix this if it adopts an 18-game schedule, but in the meantime NBC is stuck hoping for effective play-in games, and further that they won’t be dogs like Rams-Seahawks or Broncos-Chargers. Games like Bengals-Jets last year will never find their way to primetime again if this continues – of course, that was a game between teams in different divisions.
Meanwhile, after a couple of years of moving one important-yet-not-quite-primetime-worthy game to the late-afternoon time slot, the NFL just threw the whole lot to the late time slot this year. Now, the AFC West is already locked up and Fox would be stuck with Cardinals-Niners, but I almost think every single game with any conceivable playoff implications got moved to the late time slot, as the NFL seemingly took a cue from the World Cup and went “let’s make sure teams competing for the same spot play at the same time”. The Jags, Packers, Colts, Giants, even Eagles-Cowboys will be played at 4:15 PM ET. The decision not to move Bucs-Saints is actually a little surprising, but I guess they had to have some reason for people to watch Fox in the early time slot.
What do I take from this? I take from this that I need to de-emphasize the “22-20 rule” in future years, something I would prefer to do anyway. And I take from this that in the future, if the NFL continues scheduling Week 17 division games, the Week 17 pick may be a lot simpler than I had been thinking – but the NFL may still find itself with zero options, as I feared the 22-20 rule would leave them with. Imagine, if you will, that the Rams had won just one more game over the course of the season, say Week 1 against the Cardinals, or even Week 2 against the Raiders, and already locked up the NFC West by this point. Now what does the NFL do?
Funny how things work out. In 2006, I composed the first post in the history of Da Blog while cowering in a bus stop shelter, kicking off a stretch of low post frequency. Now, in 2010, after a stretch of low post frequency, I’m once again cowering in a bus stop shelter, writing this post.
Though to be fair, I’m only writing this Tuesday night because I need something to do with my time while other things happen in the background. If it weren’t for that I’d be home by now and writing this in an actual building on Wednesday.
It’s funny; I was wondering whether Year One or Year Four of Da Blog saw more posts. This is the 80th post since my last blog-day post. 2007 saw more than 100 posts. It actually makes me somewhat solemn that I couldn’t crack triple digits this year; I put up my Baseball Hall of Fame predictions post when I did just so I could hit the big 8-0. I had some long stretches without posts, only barely keeping up with the notion of one post a month. But it’s a reflection of how the priorities in my life have shifted… theoretically.
Because call me naive, but quite frankly I still have quite a few plans for Da Blog in the coming year. Ideas for posts and series of posts, ideas for projects for later in the year. I still intend to catch up on my RSS feeds, I still intend to do something with the 100 Greatest Movies Project (well, maybe not – more on that soon – but something similar), I still intend to put up a forum (right now that’s waiting not only for the plugin version of bbPress to be ready for prime time, but also for the plugin that runs sports.morganwick.com and webcomics.morganwick.com to be updated for WP 3, but I may switch to a solution that uses the MU functionality of WP 3 if there still aren’t any updates from the developer for that soon), and I still intend to get a college basketball project I’ve been teasing off the ground. I even still have one or two more last-ditch efforts to attract people to Da Blog in mind. I don’t intend to let any of that distract from schoolwork, but you never know. Certainly don’t expect many posts in January, February, and March, other than that college basketball project.
It’s possible that the best thing for me to do right now is to all but abandon Da Blog, focusing on schoolwork and maybe even getting a job, that my efforts to make something of Da Blog were always doomed to failure. That’s what I said I was going to do in October, but the miscellaneous projects I’ve had in the pipe have been things I’ve been reluctant to let go of, and like I said at the time if I don’t have Da Blog I don’t know what I do have. Events over the last couple of months have almost convinced me that keeping up on my RSS feeds might actually help my schoolwork, by minimizing the amount of time I have to be distracted by mega-projects.
I have no idea what Year Five has in store for Da Blog, but it’s almost certainly going to be closer to Year Four than Years Two and Three. Exactly how close is something I have no idea of right now.
The National Baseball Hall of Fame’s selections are performed by members of the Baseball Writer’s Association of America who have been members for at least 10 years.
A six-person Screening Committee has selected a list of 33 players that have been eligible for less than 15 years to be included on the ballot. A player must have played for 10 years and spent 5 years out of baseball before they can be considered for induction into the Hall of Fame. Players that last played in the 2005 season will be eligible for induction in 2011.
The BBWAA members will submit their ballots before December 31, and any player named on 75% of the ballots will be selected for induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
I was going to recount the primetime games on ESPN, NBC and the NFL Network to determine if I miscounted earlier, but with the Bears locking up the NFC North, Bears-Packers is now probably out for a Week 17 pick, leaving open the question of whether any Week 17 NFC game could be palatable to the NFL.
Saints-Bucs is the chief nominee. New Orleans won the first meeting between the two and they’re separated by two games, but if the Saints lose out and the Bucs win out, the division records would both be 3-3 and the Bucs would hold the common games tiebreaker. But it only works if the Bucs or Saints are guaranteed a playoff spot if they win, and if it’s the Saints, they also have to be guaranteed to be out of the playoffs if they lose.
Green Bay and the Giants are the other two playoff contenders; they play each other this week. If the Pack win that game and they both lose Week 17, they’ll both be 9-7, and Tampa would join them with a loss, meaning the Saints would have already clinched a playoff spot. All three teams would also be 7-5 in conference games. Tampa beat Washington and lost to the Lions, and the NFC North and East played each other. Green Bay played Atlanta and the 49ers, but the Giants played Carolina and Seattle, so the Skins and Lions are the only common games. The NFL sets a minimum of four for the common games tiebreaker to apply, so the next tiebreaker would be strength of victory, and who knows where that would go. So much for Saints-Bucs if the Pack beat the Giants.
What if the Giants win? The Wild Card standings entering Week 17 would then be: NYG and NO 10-5; TB 9-6; GB 8-7 and out. If the Giants win the winner is in and the loser is out; if the Giants lose Tampa Bay is guaranteed to be in with a win and out with a loss. So yes, there is a scenario where the NFL would want to pick a Week 17 NFC game, still. But can they?
Here’s a list of all the games on NBC, NFL Network, and ESPN this season, sorted by which network the games were taken from, and taken from each network’s schedule page to avoid confusion or misinformation. NBC games in green, ESPN in red, NFL Network in blue.
I may have counted wrong, but if I did, it only further confirms that the NFL desperately needs to pick a CBS game. I stand by my original prediction and bewilderment (and I’m not even putting this up on B/R).
Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Jets have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since five other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. (So naturally this turned into the Year of Parity!) A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 5 post.
A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from AFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.
In years past, I’ve done live updates throughout the day Week 16. This year, I’ve decided to take a longer view at potential scenarios, given the 22-20 rule and the current AFC playoff situation, and I think the landscape for the Week 17 pick is already remarkably clear.
The NFL always prefers to pick a Week 17 game where for one team, it is win-and-you’re-in, lose-and-you’re-out, no matter what happens earlier in the day. Usually this means a game where the winner would have the edge over the loser, either in straight record or because the winning team starts a game behind and wins the tiebreaker. The only other case I can think of is if they start the day tied, and because of wonky tiebreaker situations, the outcome if both teams win is different than if both teams lose (think Jets-Bengals last year). In that case, the team that would prevail if both teams win has their game selected for primetime, but the NFL seems to have made that less likely by scheduling all divisional games Week 17, as we’ll see.
The situation is complicated for the Chargers and Colts because they are also in division races. If the Colts beat the Jags but the Jags come back and beat the Redskins, the Colts could still win the division even if they lose Week 17, because if the Jags lose too, the Colts hold the common games tiebreaker. The Chargers are done playing their fellow division contenders, but the Chiefs need to win at least one game for Chargers-Broncos to be relevant for wild-card purposes. The division tiebreaker is even, but the Chiefs swept the non-common games while the Chargers would have to go 1-1 in non-common games, giving them the common games tiebreaker, so the Chiefs would in fact have to win both of the next two.
Neither the Ravens nor Jets have played the Chargers or Colts (or the current leaders in those divisions for that matter). The Ravens did beat the Dolphins, but the Dolphins and Jets split their series. If the Dolphins win their next two, both teams will enter Week 17 with 3-2 divisional records. Both teams won all their non-common games so the common games tiebreaker is even as well, but the Jets would enter with the conference tiebreaker, which wouldn’t change with both teams winning or losing. The Dolphins are one loss or one win each from the Jets or Ravens away from elimination.
The conference record of the Ravens and Jets would both be 7-4, as would that of the Colts and Chargers. The next step is common games, which here means whatever games the Ravens and Jets have played against the South and West, whatever games the Colts and Chargers have played against the East and North, and each team’s record against the teams the other group has played. Both Ravens and Jets played the Broncos and Texans and beat them both; the Colts split the series with the Texans, but while the Chargers beat the Broncos the first time, they play them Week 17; an opening! The Colts beat the Broncos and the Chargers beat the Texans. On the other hand, both the Chargers and Colts lost to the Patriots and (in this scenario) beat the Bengals. The Jets split their series with New England, while the Patriots beat the Ravens and the Jets beat the Bengals, but the Bengals beat the Ravens the first time and the second time is Week 17; another opening! All told, the common games record entering Week 17 is: Jets 4-1, Ravens 2-2, Colts 3-2, Chargers 3-1. Jets-Chargers and Ravens-Colts look like interesting pairs, but if both teams win in either of them, things go to the chaotic strength of victory tiebreaker, which could go either way.
But what if several teams go in tied? Jets-Ravens-Colts goes to the Jets and strength of victory if all win, the Colts if all lose. Jets-Ravens-Chargers goes to the Jets and Chargers regardless if all win or all lose. Jets-Colts-Chargers goes to the Jets if all lose, strength of victory if all win. Ravens-Colts-Chargers goes to the Chargers whether all win or all lose because the Chargers beat the Colts. And if all four end up tied, the Jets and Chargers win if all win or all lose.
So much for the wild card. What about the division? I’ve already covered why there will be no qualifying game for the South, and the West is similar. So let’s look at longshots, starting with the not-so-long-shot of Oakland. If the Raiders win their next two, and the Chiefs and Chargers both lose their next two, Chiefs-Raiders becomes an option as an effective AFC West title game. What about tiebreakers? Oakland beat Kansas City the first time, so they can be a game behind the Chiefs. If the Raiders win their next two, the Chargers lose their next two, and the Chiefs lose one of their next two, Chiefs-Raiders becomes an option as an effective AFC West title game. And what if the Chargers get involved? Do they lose tiebreakers? As implied, Chargers-Chiefs goes to the Chargers, but Oakland swept the Chargers. If the Raiders win their next two, the Chiefs lose their next two, and the Chargers lose one of their next two, Chiefs-Raiders becomes an option as a win-and-you’re-in game for the Raiders. If the Raiders win their next two and the Chiefs and Chargers each lose one of their next two, OR if the Raiders win one of their next two and the Chiefs and Chargers each lose both of their next two, Chiefs-Raiders becomes an option as a lose-and-you’re-out game for the Chiefs. Basically, if the Raiders are still in the division race, Chiefs-Raiders is an option because the Raiders would own all tiebreakers over the Chiefs and Chargers with a win, unless the Chargers have made up so much ground that such an outcome would just propel them into the playoffs if they win.
In the AFC South, there are 5-8 teams that can run down the teams at the top and conceivably force a division title game. Both require the Colts to beat the Jags and stop the Jags from clinching the division. After that, they need to win three games and the Jags and Colts need to lose two more games. Because both Week 17 games need to go a certain way for either to have a shot, there is no shot at an AFC South division title game of any kind.
Onwards to the impact of division shake-ups. For a division shake-up to occur, the currently leading team needs to lose one game to allow the trailing team in the division to catch up. However, to catch a team for the wild card in time to create a potential Week 17 game, they then need to win another game and the Jets or Ravens need to lose two games, and the trailing team needs to win both Weeks 15 and 16, or there will be a chance that the Jags or Chiefs will win the division even with a loss. As mentioned, the Jets and Ravens would be 7-4 in conference record. The Jags, losing to the Colts, would also be 7-4; the Chiefs would be 6-5 at best with no shot at winning the conference record tiebreaker. We’ve already covered how the Jets and Ravens each beat the Broncos and Texans; the Jags have beaten both but play the Texans again Week 17 for another opening. Jacksonville also beat the Bills and Browns; the Jets beat Browns and the Bills the first time but play the Bills again Week 17 for another opening, while the Ravens have beaten both teams but would have lost to Cleveland the second time. All told, the score is Jets 4-0, Ravens 4-1, Jags 4-0. Jets-Jags would go to strength of victory if both win or both lose, and the Ravens lose any tie with the Jags. That leaves only one game that could even possibly be an option in the AFC.
Final prediction: Kansas City Chiefs @ Oakland Raiders (if my count is accurate). I will recount and if I find the actual score after the Vikings-Eagles flex is 22-21, I’ll assess the possibilities in the NFC next week. But what I find is that it is still surprising the NFL didn’t go with Colts-Raiders. This took me hours to figure out, but it still reveals that Colts-Titans isn’t really an option and Chiefs-Raiders is far less attractive than any NFC option except Rams-Seahawks.
Prospects: 7-6 v. 2-11; it looks like the T.Ocho experiment isn’t working out, meaning the Chargers’ late-season surge is only serving to make this game lopsided, and the loss to the Raiders just makes it look even worse. Everyone from ESPN’s “Mike and Mike in the Morning” to ProFootballTalk has treated this flex is inevitable. But I’d like to ask them a question: If you can’t have a New York team, what do you replace it with?
Protected games: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Packers (FOX).
Other possible games mentioned on last week’s Watch and their records: Seahawks (6-7)-Bucs (7-6), Chiefs (8-5)-Titans (5-8), Redskins (5-8)-Jags (8-5), Colts (7-6)-Raiders (6-7), Vikings (5-7)-Eagles (9-4), and Ravens (8-4)-Browns (5-8).
Impact of Monday Night Football: Both the Vikings and Ravens play separate games Monday night. But Vikings-Eagles’ chances may depend as much on whether Brett Favre plays as the actual result of the game.
Analysis: The only alternatives involve teams below .500. With the NFC Worst’s weakness, Seahawks-Bucs has some of the biggest playoff implications, along with Colts-Raiders. Colts-Raiders has the most name value, but it would max the Colts out, and Titans-Colts Week 17 could be important – not to mention the “are the Colts slipping?” meme. As for Seahawks-Bucs, Rams-Seahawks Week 17 is even more likely to be important, and besides the unattractiveness of the idea of having the same team two weeks in a row, such a flex could force the NFL to take an AFC game Week 17; this same problem also afflicts Vikings-Eagles.
The large number of tight races means maybe the NFL doesn’t care much about the CBS-Fox balance, but you can’t rely on any race to still be tight Week 17, and certainly for any game to still be relevant in primetime, especially in the AFC where four teams seem to have a stranglehold on the playoffs with only two divisions really questionable (though the Jets may be opening the way for a different wild card team); what if the Chargers-Broncos game turns out to be win-and-you’re-in for the Chargers, potentially rendering Chiefs-Raiders irrelevant?
Still, the NFL can’t possibly keep a game as bad as Chargers-Bengals, right? Well… last year the NFL kept a (through 12 weeks) 10-1 v. 4-7 game (Vikings-Panthers) because of the name value of the 10-1 team. These two teams are worse, but the Chargers’ hard charge is still on, and they are still both name teams (yes, even the Bengals with T.Ocho). The Chargers aren’t quite as name as some others, but the NFL isn’t looking at the most attractive options. Seahawks-Bucs, Redskins-Jaguars, and Vikings-Eagles are CBS-to-Fox flexes that could restrict the NFL Week 17, Colts-Raiders could turn out to be a dog and also restrict the NFL Week 17, no one will watch Chiefs-Titans and it might be irrelevant by game time anyway, and the Browns, unlike the Bengals, don’t have the name value to overlook their bad season, and they didn’t do what I told them to do last week and win.
The NFL’s decision may be as much motivated by the situation Week 17 as the situation Week 16, and I suspect they would much rather have an NFC game given the choice, ruling out an NFC game this week. Bears-Packers and Giants-Redskins are too much name games, Bucs-Saints is also attractive, and if all else fails it’s looking increasingly likely Rams-Seahawks will meet the NFL’s criteria for a Week 17 Sunday Night game. What are the chances, then, that the NFL wants to play Colts-Titans Week 17? Well, if the Colts beat the Jags next week it creates a true tie in the division as far as record and division record are concerned, meaning if both teams win or lose Week 16 Indy only gets a win-and-you’re-in, lose-and-you’re-out game if the Jags win earlier in the day (Indy has the common games edge).
What does the NFL go with if the Ravens lose? Unless the NFL wants to pick a Fox game, that leaves them with Chiefs-Titans and Ravens-Browns, both involving 5-8 teams. If the desire to have Chiefs-Raiders available Week 17 plays a role in precluding Colts-Raiders, the same desire will also rule out Chiefs-Titans, and the Browns have basically zero playoff hopes (can’t pass the Steelers and have to make up too much ground for the wild card), so why pick a game involving them when you already have such a team in the tentative game?
Final prediction: Minnesota Vikings @ Philadelphia Eagles (if Brett Favre plays Monday night and there is no 22-20 rule); Indianapolis Colts @ Oakland Raiders (if the Ravens win); Washington Redskins @ Jacksonville Jaguars (if the Ravens lose and there is no 22-20 rule); San Diego Chargers @ Cincinnati Bengals (no change) (if the Ravens lose and there is a 22-20 rule). You heard it here first.
Also known as “Why Chargers-Bengals might NOT be flexed out”. This week’s Flex Schedule Watch dedicated to the memory of Don Meredith, who Trey Wingo said on Monday’s NFL Live got people through the many “awful” Monday Night Football matchups in its early golden days. Now, of course, the NFL is so desperate to avoid crappy matchups in their main primetime package they yanked it away from both Mondays and ABC, all so they could change one to three games a year. Granted, MNF has never truly been MNF since the end of the Gifford/Cosell/Meredith era… still, I repeat: was it worth it to end MNF as we knew it?
Selected game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia.
Selected game: San Diego @ Indianapolis.
Selected game: Green Bay @ New England.
Prospects: 6-6 v. 2-10; it looks like the T.Ocho experiment isn’t working out, meaning the Chargers’ late-season surge is only serving to make this game lopsided, and the loss to the Raiders just makes it look even worse. It’s no longer guaranteed either team will be above .500 when the time comes for the NFL to make its decision. But to those who claim a flex is inevitable, answer the question: If you can’t have a New York team, what do you replace it with?
Other possible games: The only alternatives involve teams at .500 or worse. With the NFC Worst’s weakness, Seahawks-Bucs at 7-5 v. 6-6 (same as Chiefs-Titans) has a legitimate shot at having the most playoff implications. Chiefs-Titans at 8-4 v. 5-7 is getting lopsided but can’t be eliminated. Redskins-Jaguars at 7-5 v. 5-7 isn’t much better, and Colts-Raiders is a battle of 6-6 teams. With the 5-7 teams involved, could Vikings-Eagles or Ravens-Browns save the day?
Analysis: Colts-Raiders has the most name value, but it would max the Colts out, and Titans-Colts Week 17 could be important – not to mention the “are the Colts slipping?” meme. (I personally think the Colts just ran into two hot teams the last two weeks, but last year’s Colts would have beaten them if they had anything to play for.) Seahawks-Bucs probably has the most playoff implications, but Rams-Seahawks Week 17 is even more likely to be important, and besides the unattractiveness of the idea of having the same team two weeks in a row, such a flex could force the NFL to take an AFC game Week 17; this same problem also afflicts Vikings-Eagles. The large number of tight races means maybe the NFL doesn’t care much about the CBS-Fox balance, but you can’t rely on any race to still be tight Week 17, and certainly for any game to still be relevant in primetime, especially in the AFC where four teams seem to have a stranglehold on the playoffs with only two divisions really questionable; what if the Colts fall off the wagon and the Titans stay there? What if the Chargers-Broncos game turns out to be win-and-you’re-in for the Chargers, or the Chiefs have already locked up the division, potentially rendering Chiefs-Raiders irrelevant?
Still, the NFL can’t possibly keep a game as bad as Chargers-Bengals, right? Well… last year the NFL kept a (through 12 weeks) 10-1 v. 4-7 game (Vikings-Panthers) because of the name value of the 10-1 team. These two teams are worse, but if the Chargers win this week, it means their hard charge should still be on, and they are still both name teams (yes, even the Bengals with T.Ocho). The Chargers aren’t quite as name as some others, but the NFL isn’t looking at the most attractive options. Seahawks-Bucs, Redskins-Jaguars, and Vikings-Eagles are CBS-to-Fox flexes that could restrict the NFL Week 17, Colts-Raiders could turn out to be a dog and also restrict the NFL Week 17, no one will watch Chiefs-Titans and it might be irrelevant by game time anyway, and the Browns, unlike the Bengals, don’t have the name value to overlook their bad season. If the Browns win this week I might lean towards Ravens-Browns, but because no one else seems to be considering the possibility that this game won’t be flexed out, I hope to post my Last-Minute Remarks late Sunday so I can say “I told you so” and be able to cite something that came before the flex or lack thereof, and the B/R version thereof might even be in regular blog post/essay/column form.
AFC East (Bills-Jets, Dolphins-Patriots): Patriots lead, Jets a game back, Dolphins’ chance for a non-Pats-or-Jets division title hanging on tiebreakers.
AFC North (Steelers-Browns, Bengals-Ravens): Replace “Patriots” with “Steelers”, “Jets” with “Ravens”, and “Dolphins” with “Browns”.
AFC South (Titans-Colts, Jags-Texans): Jags lead, Colts a game back, Texans and Titans a game behind that.
AFC West (Raiders-Chiefs, Chargers-Broncos): Chiefs lead, Raiders and Chargers two back.
AFC Wild Card: The AFC playoff picture seems crystal-clear. The East and North losers would get the nod if the season ended today, with the only other contenders – the Dolphins, Chargers, Colts, and Raiders – two whole games back. The Bills, Bengals, and Broncos are officially eliminated from the playoffs. That means the South and West become very competitive, so the main contenders are Titans-Colts, Jags-Texans, and Raiders-Chiefs, all games where the losers aren’t likely to make the playoffs. Chargers-Broncos is a dark horse, and if the Dolphins are still in wild card contention, keep an eye on Dolphins-Patriots.
NFC East (Giants-Redskins, Cowboys-Eagles): Eagles and Giants lead, Redskins three back, Cowboys hanging on tiebreakers.
NFC North (Bears-Packers, Vikings-Lions): Bears lead, Packers a game back, Vikings hanging on tiebreakers for the division title.
NFC South (Panthers-Falcons, Bucs-Saints): Falcons lead, Saints a game back, Bucs three back, Panthers out.
NFC West (Rams-Seahawks, Cardinals-49ers): Rams and Seahawks lead, Niners two back, Cardinals three back.
NFC Wild Card: The Saints and either the Packers or East loser would get the nod if the season ended today; the Bucs are a game back with the West loser two back. Only two teams above .500 are likely to miss the playoffs, so expect little protest at the NFC Worst winner getting in (home field is a different story). Keep an eye on Rams-Seahawks, Bucs-Saints, Bears-Packers, and Giants-Redskins. With only the Chiefs leading a division by more than a game in either conference, NBC could have no shortage of good choices Week 17.
Prospects: 9-2 v. 8-4. No longer looking like a potential Super Bowl preview, but the Packers prevented it from getting any more lopsided, so still a decent bet to keep its spot. No other game has a shot if the tentative game bias is as I suspect.
Protected games: Jets-Steelers (CBS) and Eagles-Giants (FOX).
Other possible games mentioned on last week’s Watch and their records: Saints (9-3)-Ravens (8-4), Jags (7-5)-Colts (6-6), and Falcons (10-2)-Seahawks (6-6).
Impact of Monday Night Football: Whether or not the Patriots win will actually have a big impact on how the tentative, in isolation, is seen. The Pats lose, it’s a good game at 9-3 v. 8-4 that isn’t lopsided, but not exactly the Super Bowl preview it seemed like earlier in the season, and in fact both teams will be looking like wild card contenders more than everything else. The Pats win, it’s a little lopsided at 10-2 v. 8-4, but it still has a little bit of the aura of a titanic clash.
Analysis: The Ravens loss is the best thing that could have happened to the tentative. Had the Ravens won and the Pats lost, it would look like the Ravens were going to get a first-round bye and the Pats wouldn’t. Combine that with the Packers’ struggles and an open question whether the defending champs are better than the best record in the NFC, and few people would pick Packers-Pats ahead of Saints-Ravens, and the NFL’s tentative game bias would be tested like never before. Instead, the Packers did their part as well, and a Pats loss would give both games the same pair of records, which always goes to the tentative. Would a Pats win make the game lopsided enough for the NFL to consider a flex despite the good records? Don’t count on it.
Final prediction: Green Bay Packers @ New England Patriots (no change).
Actual selection: Green Bay Packers @ New England Patriots (matches prediction, no change).
Despite its role in preventing a playoff, I actually feel a little sentimental towards the Rose Bowl’s Big 10/Pac-10 matchup this year; of all the years the Rose Bowl would be forced to pick a non-BCS team, it would be a year where the Pac-10 had a very, very strong second choice in Stanford! This isn’t a year like 2007 where the Rose Bowl would have blindly chosen an Illinois team markedly inferior to its alternatives.
For reasons I’ve covered before, don’t expect the Golden Bowl selections until late in the week at best. For the record, the non-BCS bowls in order of ideal prestige are now: Capitol One, Cotton, Outback, Alamo, Chick-fil-A, Gator, Champs Sports/Insight, Holiday, Sun/Texas, MAACO/Meineke Car Care, Music City, Liberty, Poinsettia, Independence, and so on. With Arizona State likely not bowl-eligible for playing two FCS opponents and finishing 6-6, Tennessee is the only bowl-eligible team not going to a bowl.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.