Talk:2011 NFL season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Players Views on The Lockout[edit]

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)[reply]

  • It still needs to be either an unbiased set of quotes (which, both with references to slavery and with your phrasing clearly indicating preference to the players, it was not), or showing argument from notable members of both sides (which, with quotes only from players, it was also not). --Rickie-d (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found something interesting[edit]

I have something interesting if this might go in this article. [1]--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's somewhat generic, without giving any information that will really add to the article. Also, it's from before the 2010 season. --Rickie-d (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for the lockout[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just as long as there is enough content to actually have a decent, properly verified and cited article. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Just don't split the article just for the sake of splitting the article (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF). The rules back in 2004-05 was more relaxed then, and that is why 2004–05 NHL lockout is currently tagged with {{refimprove}} via today's guidelines. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on splitting it yet, just suggesting it if it does--as expected--last a while. I was suggesting it based on precedence, and would rather have discussions with the Wikipedia community first. Jgera5 (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lockout is important enough to have its own article, as long as someone is willing to put in the work to create a good article for it. Especially considering how long these pages about NFL seasons can get.Thatotherperson (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This 2011 NFL season article will only get long if games are actually played. Look at the 2004–05 NHL season article: because that season was canceled due to that lockout, that page currently only consists of the lead intro section and an "Experimental rule changes" section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT just now. The season doesn't start till September, and a deal may be done before then. If games start being cancelled, then split it off - but just now keep them together. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The effects of the lockout have yet to be fully determined. If the season is cancelled, or the lockout otherwise has a substantial effect on the playing of the season itself, then we can consider a split article. In the meantime, "2011 NFL lockout" should be simply a section of this page. Rickie-d (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I AGREE we should WAIT. Other than the labor dispute, there's really nothing going on with the NFL season. It can be split out if/when the dispute is resolved and there is an actual season to discuss.— DeeJayK (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this is the 2011 season. No reason to split it yet. Arthur220b156 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

However, if the labor dispute resolves and the season goes off as planned, the labor dispute would only be a footnote in the season itself. On its own, especially with no resolution as of yet, it does not warrant its own page. Rickie-d (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that. The current lockout has its genesis from a few years ago, as the two sides have been sabre rattling for some time now. Even if the NFL lockout ended today, you could fill a full article on the issues, negotiations, media accusations, union decertification and lawsuits, and resolution. The 1992 NHL players' strike lasted only ten days and no games were lost, just posponed. I was able to put together a decent article on it based on just the New York Times and Sports Illustrated articles online, and two books I already had. If I went back and researched the newspaper archives, I could flush it out even further. Same with the 2004-05 NHL season article. Even if a season gets canceled, there is still a lot of league business not related to the labour dispute that warrants mention. Resolute 15:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm inclined to agree that there should be a separate article on this, as their is precedent with the creation of other articles on player strikes and lockouts, but am slightly conflicted, as some of the arguments to not create a new article have some merit. As with other strikes or lockouts, no games have been moved, postponed, or canceled. So the argument that we don't yet know the impact of this lockout yet, is valid. Yet on the other hand, the 2011 season, in terms of the business side of the league, has begun. Players are not allowed to have contact with coaches and have been denied entry into the facilities. Also the players union has decertified, which is unprecedented, as far as I know. I hate the wait and see approach, so I would be in favor of a brief stub at this point that can be added to as information increases. We as fans only think of NFL in terms of when the games begin, but in reality it is a year round business that should be referred to in that way.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I'm not opposed to splitting this, but as long as there is enough cited information to warrant a separate article, beyond what is currently a five paragraph section. Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, "If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created". Also, is there any sense of urgency to split this? I suggest we table this discussion until at least the end of April (after the draft and so forth), or whenever there should be more news – unless, as User:Resolute seems to suggest above, someone writes a very detailed section of everything that has happened in the past few years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split this bad boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.25.126 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

That may be true, but it shouldn't factor into the article being created. The news when the lockout began was certainly notable enough, even if there hasn't been much since. Indynchild (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but on the other hand, if there has been no significant news since then, it does not stop someone at a later date from merging the content back here again per WP:10YT. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed: This should be it's own article. It is quite WP:NOTE as it is perhaps the top story in sports right now. Not sure why this is even an issue. There should be day to day updates of an article about it. Isn't that what Wiki is all about? Also, this is a current event while the 2011 NFL season is (hopefully) a future event. --Airtuna08 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, definite split. Two totally different subjects. just put at top of section in italic, main article: [[article]]. thanks A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPLIT. IT. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think you mean "until games are lost," since we are in an actual lockout. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

  • Now that the lockout is over, and the only game that was canceled was the Pro Football Hall of Fame Game, I'm neutral about this issue in the short term. However, in ten years from now, if someone does not write a very detailed, verified and cited page of everything that has happened, I might be inclined to merge it back. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is like your second or third time here voting without adding anything new.[2][3] Not very helpful IMO. This is suppose to be a discussion, not a vote. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's over, I still say no split. In the end, it was all in the off season, and only the pre-season hall of fame game was affected. I just don't think it's notable enough in the long term. If there is an article, what will it say? "in ten years from now" will it really be that important that in 2011 there was a dispute in the off season that lead to one pre-season game being lost. I don't think that's worth an article - you can cover it all in here or other relevant articles (NFLPA for example) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split, split, a thousand times split. Now that the labor dispute is in the books, this NEEDS to be a separate article, unless you plan on putting it under the National Football League Players Association page, (where the 1987 NFL strike currently resides). Every other NFL season concentrates on the on-field aspects of the games (schedule, records, rule changes). The lockout was a bunch of legal stuff, and DOES NOT BELONG in the same article as the season proper. It will only serve to clog it. I beg of you, split the articles. Bill shannon (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

what exactly goes in this article? "The NFL Lockout of 2011 started on [date] and ended on [date] - resulting only in the cancellation of the Hall of Fame Game - and erm....." - the two strikes that resulted in the cancellation of regular season games don't have articles, why should this? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should also be separate articles for those labor disputes as well. Other than the fact they were strikes, I'm not sure why the are part of the NFLPA article. As for the content of the article, everything under the Labor Dispute section could be moved in to the new article. Patken4 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption is that nobody has yet bothered to write separate, decent articles on the two strikes. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources on them, but since they happened in the 1980s, it's harder to look up such references immediately and freely online than current events today. One will most likely have to either look up the archived microfiche at their local library, or use one of those pay sites that archive such old newspapers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Compromise: If there are no objection, I'm willing to temporarily split it for now. As the season gets underway, this article will be inundated with all the happenings and events from opening day to the Super Bowl. Then once the season is over, we can revisit this issue and either keep the separate article, merge it back, or remove it as non-notable recentism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure, if anyone is bold enough, they are free to add more content and actually create separate articles on the 1982 and 1987 strikes. Nobody has yet so far. Generally speaking, just because there is systemic bias here on Wikipedia toward more content regarding the 2000s and the 2010s articles, and against the 1980s articles, it is not normally a sufficient excuse for contracting the former. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule - week 10 flexible scheduling?[edit]

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)[reply]

You are correct. Flexible scheduling this year will be weeks 10-15 and 17 according to this http://www.panthers.com/schedule/flexible-scheduling.html. I'm assuming week 16 is not included because of Christmas. AnandJRao (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish Club?[edit]

  • Don't know how it got a part of the article, but the mention of '"The Foolish Club" (aka the AFL) as part of the description of the Hall of Fame Game seems to me a bit idiotic. Wouldn't a link to the AFL and/or the two teams who played each other be more appropriate? Qazox (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
IMO, any mention of "the Foolish Club" here without properly explaining that term starts to venture into WP:JARGON territory. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Secret Meetings"[edit]

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)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. There have been 5 so far i think and at least in NFL.com the articles say more progress had come from those that the ones in the last 2 years. I just hope something good come out of those. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lock out is over[edit]

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)[reply]

Tiebreaker question[edit]

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)[reply]

Good question. Although I cannot find any reliable source that adequately defines "strength of schedule", I'm all but certain that each game played is counted. This means that for strength of schedule the division opponents' records would be included twice, and for strength of victory if a team defeated a division opponent twice, that opponent's record would be counted twice. I cannot imagine a rationale to do otherwise in either case. If anyone is able to find a good source that clarifies this situation, please share it. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're right. [article] on the nfl.com talks about waiver order for Orton, and it measures SOS by counting games with the same opponent twice (e.g. Green Bay vs. Minnesota). There is a mistake in 2010 season: tie-breaker between Packer, Bucs and Giants was based on Strength of Victory. Packers beat Minnesota twice, their Strength of Victory was .486 only if counting the one win. It really was .475, so someone made a mistake in the 2010 NFL season article.SWojczyszyn (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. The calcuation in that same tiebreaker note for Tampa Bay was also wrong, as they beat Carolina twice. I fixed them. LarryJeff (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for marking possible playoff spots[edit]

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:

  • (2-4), green background would mean that depending on the outcome of the rest of the season, the team could end up with seeds 2, 3 or 4 and is certain to play in the playoffs.
  • (5-6), white background would mean that the team can advance as a wildcard team at either seed, but is not guaranteed to play in the playoffs.
  • (1,5) and a green background would mean that the team can win home field advantage and is guaranteed a playoff spot, but if they don't win the division they will be seeded at seed 5.

Perhaps we could also consider different color coding:

  • green = plays in the playoffs
  • yellow = controls it's destiny
  • white = can play in the playoffs under the right circumstances
  • red/grey = eliminated from playoff contention

Thoughts? SWojczyszyn (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like too many different combinations of things to try to fit in. IMO it would be better to just stick with what has already been clinched ("a playoff spot", division winner, 1st-round bye, #1 seed) or if they have been eliminated from playoff contention. As for colors, just to highlight teams that have clinched a playoff spot (regardless of seed) and that are eliminated. Once they have locked in a seed, then put that seed #. As for scenarios, then list possiblities for teams who could either clinch 1 of the 4 things I listed above (or could be elimnated) by results of a single week's games. LarryJeff (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Packers clinching scenario for Week 13[edit]

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[reply]

Scenarios[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm very much in favor of that, as long as we put a note at the top of the section stating that we're ignoring ties in our scenarios.LarryJeff (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I remember I was glad when that happened last year. SWojczyszyn (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • Redskins lose
  • Two out of the following three happen: ...

Seems more concise and better to me. SWojczyszyn (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding all the "scenario phrases"...shouldn't the sentence be WILL BE instead of CAN BE? Just a thought.Juve2000 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week 14 scenarios[edit]

Note: Scenarios that require one or more games ending in a tie are omitted in this table.

Team: Scenario: Method:
Carolina Panthers Elimination
  • The Carolina Panthers lose to the Atlanta Falcons
  • The Detroit Lions defeat the Minnesota Vikings
  • The Carolina Panthers lose to the Atlanta Falcons
  • The Chicago Bears defeat the Denver Broncos
Cleveland Browns Elimination
  • The Cleveland Browns lose to the Pittsburgh Steelers
  • The Cincinnati Bengals defeat the Houston Texans
Green Bay Packers Clinch first-round bye[1]
  • The Green Bay Packers defeat the Oakland Raiders
  • The New Orleans Saints lose to the Tennessee Titans
Houston Texans Clinch AFC South[1]
  • The Houston Texans defeat the Cincinnati Bengals
  • The Tennessee Titans lose to the New Orleans Saints
Miami Dolphins Elimination
  • The Cincinnati Bengals defeat the Houston Texans
New England Patriots Clinch AFC East[1]
  • The New England Patriots defeat the Washington Redskins
  • The New York Jets lose to the Kansas City Chiefs
New Orleans Saints Clinch playoff berth[1]
  • The New Orleans Saints defeat the Tennessee Titans
  • The Chicago Bears lose to the Denver Broncos
  • The New Orleans Saints defeat the Tennessee Titans
  • The Detroit Lions lose to the Minnesota Vikings
Clinch NFC South[1]
  • The New Orleans Saints defeat the Tennessee Titans
  • The Atlanta Falcons lose to the Carolina Panthers
Philadelphia Eagles Elimination
  • The Philadelphia Eagles lose to the Miami Dolphins
  • The Dallas Cowboys defeat or tie with the New York Giants
  • The Atlanta Falcons defeat or tie with the Carolina Panthers
  • The Philadelphia Eagles lose to the Miami Dolphins
  • The Dallas Cowboys defeat or tie with the New York Giants
  • The Detroit Lions defeat or tie with the Minnesota Vikings
Pittsburgh Steelers Clinch playoff berth[1]
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers defeat the Cleveland Browns
  • The Cincinnati Bengals lose to the Houston Texans
  • The New York Jets lose to the Kansas City Chiefs
  • The Tennessee Titans lose to the New Orleans Saints
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers defeat the Cleveland Browns
  • The Cincinnati Bengals lose to the Houston Texans
  • The New York Jets lose to the Kansas City Chiefs
  • The Denver Broncos lose to the Chicago Bears
  • The Oakland Raiders lose to the Green Bay Packers
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers defeat the Cleveland Browns
  • The Cincinnati Bengals lose to the Houston Texans
  • The Tennessee Titans lose to the New Orleans Saints
  • The Denver Broncos lose to the Chicago Bears
  • The Oakland Raiders lose to the Green Bay Packers
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Elimination
  • The Tampa Bay Buccaneers lose to the Jacksonville Jaguars
  • The Atlanta Falcons defeat or tie with the Carolina Panthers
  • The Detroit Lions defeat or tie with the Minnesota Vikings
  • The Tampa Bay Buccaneers lose to the Jacksonville Jaguars
  • The Atlanta Falcons defeat or tie with the Carolina Panthers
  • The Chicago Beats defeat or tie with the Denver Broncos
  • The Tampa Bay Buccaneers lose to the Jacksonville Jaguars
  • The Detroit Lions defeat or tie with the Minnesota Vikings
  • The Chicago Beats defeat or tie with the Denver Broncos
Washington Redskins Elimination
  • The Washington Redskins lose to the New England Patriots
  • The Atlanta Falcons defeat or tie with the Carolina Panthers
  • The Detroit Lions defeat or tie with the Minnesota Vikings
  • The Washington Redskins lose to the New England Patriots
  • The Atlanta Falcons defeat or tie with the Carolina Panthers
  • The Chicago Bears defeat or tie with the Denver Broncos
  • The Washington Redskins lose to the New England Patriots
  • The Detroit Lions defeat or tie with the Minnesota Vikings
  • The Chicago Bears defeat or tie with the Denver Broncos
Forgot to mention this when I actually did it, but I went ahead and changed it so the ties were out, plus changed it back to just text instead of the table. It took a LOT less space that way. It's just a matter of writing the "and"s and "or"s so there easy to understand. LarryJeff (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems someone is editing your changes to make them into a table. I liked it more when it was the way you originally did it, LarryJeff. 95.160.32.39 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f NFL.com Staff (December 5, 2011). "Week 14 playoff scenarios". nfl.com. Retrieved December 5, 2011.

x, y, z thing to denote clinching[edit]

I know it's a convention, fine. But how about we use

  • "x" to denote playoff spot
  • "y" to denote division
  • "z" to denote first round bye
  • "(1)" to denote #1 seed and home field advantage

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)[reply]

Generally both a color and a mark are used because some readers suffer from color-blindness. And your use of x, y, and z is appropriate Frank AnchorTalk 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would carry it one small step further, and use a number to note any seed (not just 1) when a team has clinched that exact seed. Thus:
  • "x" = clinched a spot in the playoffs, may or may not still be able to win division
  • "y" = clinched division, seed unknown
  • "z" = clinched first round bye, could still be either 1 or 2 seed
  • "#" = any number 1 to 6 indicating they will be that seed, no better or worse
LarryJeff (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. SWojczyszyn (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  • "w" to denote playoff spot, which also matches the "w" in wildcard.
  • "x" to denote division win, bye status can be inferred from the presence or absence of "y" and "z" tags.
  • "y" to denote first round bye
  • "z" to denote first round bye and home field

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)[reply]

Obviously, at this point, this discussion really only affects articles about future seasons, but I guess it still merits talking about. As to the suggestion of using letters W to Z, it seems to just be shifting what each symbol means, with Z taking the place of the number 1 to mark a team as the #1 seed. In that case, we would either have a team marked with both Z and 1 (which would be redundant) or you would end up with one team marked Z and others using numbers 2 to 6, which would look odd with #1 missing. That, of course, assumes we continue to post seed numbers once a team has clinched a particular seed in their conference (which I have no reason to think we would not continue). LarryJeff (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

week 16 scenarios[edit]

For anyone with more time than me - when I added the scenarios in this edit, 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)[reply]

This is original research. It shouldn't be here at all. SWojczyszyn (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Titans' complicated Week 17 playoff scenario[edit]

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[reply]

In the 4-way tie between the Bengals, Titans, Jets, and Raiders for the last spot, the Raiders have already clinched the SOV tiebreaker over the Titans and Jets. When you factor in the results of games that have to be assumed to get us to the 4-way tie, it gives the teams in the Raiders SOV calcuation enough wins compared to both the Titans and Jets that they cannot be caught. LarryJeff (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

AFC Wildcard Scenariois[edit]

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:

  • 1. Only CIN, Wildcard goes to CIN
  • 2. CIN & NYJ, Wildcard goes to NYJ
  • 3. CIN & TEN, Wildcard goes to CIN
  • 4. CIN & OAK, Wildcard goes to OAK
  • 5. CIN, NYJ & TEN, Wildcard goes to TEN
  • 6. CIN, NYJ & OAK, Wildcard goes to OAK
  • 7. CIN, TEN & OAK, Wildcard goes to TEN
  • 8. CIN, NYJ, TEN & OAK, Wildcard goes to OAK

Thanks, Juve2000 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring out Scenarios is original research and musn't be here[edit]

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)[reply]

Advice from an experienced admin and editor: This becomes a bit of a problem every year during the last few weeks of every NFL season. If you do in fact remove it, sooner or later someone (either an anon IP or an occasional registered user) will try to add it back in. So if you have the time and the patience to constantly revert, feel free. IMO, it is much better to either help find the sources needed, or just leave it tagged with {{citation needed}}, {{Or}}, etc. Because in the grander scheme of things, playoff scenarios are merely recentism, and the section always gets removed after the regular season ends. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFL.com usually does a page with scenarios - so you could use that as a source. For the moment this page covers most of what we have here (clich on 'more' beside a relevant team) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and if we're going by the letter of the rules - the entire 'Regular season standings' section is completely unsourced - so THAT should also be removed. of course it is also very easy to find an NFL page as a source for that too. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that people put the scenarios here before NFL officially publishes them and they sometimes contain mistakes. There are discussions on the talk page about whether a scenario is right or not. There were mistakes on occasion in the standings, too. It annoys me that people not only put un-sourced information here based on original research, it's also incorrect and they do it because they are having fun with figuring out scenarios. This is not the place for it. The page for 2010 NFL Season had an error regarding Strength of Victory tiebreaker which was there for a year, because people keep doing this. SWojczyszyn (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With DEN loss, Titans are eliminated & Bengals clinch[edit]

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)[reply]

common-games record as tie-breaker in AFC West[edit]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't be that difficult to figure out for three teams in the same division. Outside of the intra-division games (which you noted were a wash) these teams each played all of the teams from the AFC East and the NFC North. I would assume these would be considered the "common opponents" for the purposes of this tie-breaker. In these games Denver was 4–4, San Diego and Oakland were both 3–5. I'm not sure how the common opponents tie-breaker would be applied to more than two teams who are not all in the same division since non-division teams would be unlikely to have a similar number of games against a minimum of 4 common opponents. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Source for the final standings and tiebreakers needed[edit]

Could someone add one? SWojczyszyn (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labor dispute[edit]

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):

In May 2008 the owners decided to opt out of the 1993 arrangement and play the 2010 season without an agreement in place.[1] Some of the major points of contention included openness of owners' financial books, the rookie pay scale, a proposed 18 percent reduction in the players' share of revenues, forfeiture on bonus payments for players that fail to perform, players' health and retirement benefits, details of free agency, the cost and benefit of new stadiums, players' salaries, extending the regular season to 18 games, and the revenue-sharing structure.[1] By March 2011, the NFLPA and the NFL had not yet come to terms on a new collective bargaining agreement, thus failing to resolve the labor dispute. Accordingly, the NFLPA filed papers to decertify as a union on March 11, 2011 and file an antitrust suit to enjoin the lockout.[2] Less than two hours after the players' union decertified, quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees filed a class-action lawsuit, financed by the NFLPA, to prevent the lockout from impeding on the season.[2] By the end of the day, the players had officially been locked out. After the settlement of Brady et al. v. NFL anti-trust suit on July 25, 2011, a majority of players signed union authorization cards approving the NFL Players Association to act as their exclusive collective bargaining representative.[3] The NFL officially recognized the NFLPA’s status as the players’ collective bargaining representative on July 30, 2011.[4] The NFL and NFLPA proceeded to negotiate terms for a new collective bargaining agreement, and the agreement became effective after ratification by the players August 4, 2011.[5] The new collective bargaining agreement runs through 2021.[6]

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)[reply]

I went ahead and made the edits using most of the language above. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Next, I'm heading to the 2011 NFL Lockout article to expand on these points. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Clayton, John (May 20, 2008). "NFL owners vote unanimously to opt out of labor deal". ESPN. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  2. ^ a b Marvex, Alex (March 11, 2011). "NFL owners lock out players". Fox Sports. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved March 11, 2011.
  3. ^ "Owners approve proposed labor deal". ESPN. July 22, 2011. Archived from the original on September 30, 2011. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  4. ^ Associated Press (July 30, 2011). "Report: NFLPA recertified as union". ESPN. Archived from the original on September 30, 2011. Retrieved September 26, 2011.
  5. ^ Battista, Judy (July 25, 2011). "As the Lockout Ends, the Scrambling Begins". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  6. ^ Davis, Nate (July 25, 2011). "NFL, players announce new 10-year labor agreement". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 30, 2011. Retrieved September 23, 2011.

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_NFL_season&oldid=1196595350"