Template talk:2019 AFC standings

What source is to be used?

I've been using ESPN's NFL Playoff Standings page to get the order of the teams for this (and the NFC Standings template, where I have cross-posted this). Is there a source that is preferred over that one? Useight (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Official NFL Standings are accurate of their website. AstrosRocketsTexans3522 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 

Actually, they are not accurate, per the sourcing description at the bottom of the template. Useight (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering... ESPN actually lists SOS before SOV, but it should be SOV before SOS. Can we switch the order of the columns here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130D:A2B1:78AA:7D8A:1BF1:9B9 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

SOS is used first in the draft order, but not sure if that's why ESPN has it that way. I don't think the order of the columns left to right is such an integral thing that it warrants a change, which would be a whole lot of work. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

3-way Tiebreaker

I noticed my edit regarding the 3 way tiebreaker was reverted by @Frank Anchor: to make OAK win over IND based on H2H. But, according to the way i understand the tiebreaker rules, because PIT did not defeat OAK (i.e. no H2H sweep), H2H tiebreaker is skipped entirely and it goes straight to conference record. I may be wrong, please feel free to contribute. Jdavi333 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The H2H sweep is correct when comparing three (or more) teams. However, In 3-way NFL tiebreakers, after one team is removed, the remaining teams revert back to the first tiebreaker. In this case, Pittsburgh won the tiebreaker over Indianapolis and Oakland based on conference record. Therefore, Oakland and Indianapolis revert back to the beginning. Oakland defeated Indianapolis head-to-head. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why always putting division tiebreaker note out of order?

Anyone know (other than "we've always done it that way") why, when there's a 3-way tie and 2 of the teams are in the same division, we list the tiebreaker notes in what seems to be a backward order? For example, right now (after week 14) the Broncos, Chargers, and Jets are tied at 5-8. The first note explains how Broncos win t/b over Jets and also says the division t/b was first used to eliminate the Chargers. Since the division t/b is used first, why not list it first?

a - Denver wins tiebreaker over NY Jets based on conference record. Division tiebreaker was initially used to eliminate LA Chargers (see below).
b - Denver wins tiebreaker over LA Chargers based on head-to-head victory.

Instead of mentioning the division t/b with "see below" why not something like this:

a - Denver wins division tiebreaker over LA Chargers based on head-to-head victory.
b - Denver wins tiebreaker over NY Jets based on conference record.

LarryJeff (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess there are 2 answers to your question, although neither are very satisfactory:

1. On the ESPN playoff standings that is how it is done and that is the source for the tiebreakers.
2. According to NFL rules, there can be no multi-way tie with more than one member of any given division. So in your example, the "3-way" 5-8 tie we currently have is really only a tie between DEN and NYJ, because you must eliminate all but one AFC West team. Therefore, the DEN-NYJ is addressed first, with a note explaining why LAC are not really "tied" at 5-8. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Your #1 is probably the accurate answer, which is really no more defensible than "we've always done it that way." Not directed at you, as you have probably hit on the most accurate answer to my question. Your #2 seems to do more to reinforce my contention that the division tiebreak resolution should be listed first, because it must be resolved first before the 3rd team is even considered. LarryJeff (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)