Template talk:2017 AFC standings

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League

ESPN.com now has the conference standings table on their website, which includes the values for Strength of Schedule and Strength of victory. Shouldn't we add these to this table as well as at Template:2017 NFC standings? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Baltimore currently above Pittsburgh with "tiebreaker because of win percentage in common games, when they both have 100% against Cleveland and no other opponents in common? According to tiebreaker rules Pittsburgh should be above Baltimore because of higher win percentage in conference games which comes before common opponents anyways. this mixes the whole ranking up. I know it's only regular season rankings after week 3, but i think something went wrong here.

Taari (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could guess that maybe a playoff machine was used that had the tiebreaker set to random or factored in that Baltimore scored more than Pittsburgh in the Cleveland game. (I have seen weirder things.) Either way, both standings seem to have their issues. But, just to address the AFC, the only change I can see is that Baltimore and Pittsburgh needs to be flipped. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As is common in previous seasons, in the early weeks tiebreakers cannot be fully determined and the playoff machine might just do is alphabetically. Jdavi333 (talk)

Understood. In this case, it looks like we have the tiebreaker understood. Is it ok to update the standings? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have copy-pasted the formatting from a table in the FIFA World Cup qualifiers and adjusted according to what's here. This also applies to Template:2017 NFC standings, but not the other tables since other users have those taken care of (thanks to both Tim103093 and Donnowin1 for this). Does anyone wanna make a few copyedits or additions to these instructions in case I forgot a few important things? See also the edit history at the NFC standings; the reason I added these was due to the one-sided stats changes on that template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I made in the edit summary.Jdavi333 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdavi333: Thanks. I've made the changes in the documentation of the conference standings templates. Division template documentations are okay for the same reasons I described above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an anonymous editor who doesn't really understand how the NFL conference/playoff standings work. The first 4 seeds are the division leaders in order of wining percentage, then the top 2 remaining teams, regardless if their records are better that a division leader. If this edit war continues, I will be forced to ask to blocks and page protection. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. What you are talking about is the playoff seeding, which I understand to be different than the ranking. Jaguars and Ravens have better won/lost records than the Chiefs at this point, and have higher absolute rankings while still having lower playoff seeding. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While what you are saying is technically true, that is not the purpose of this template. As the title bars clearly state, the division leaders occupy the first four spots, then the 2 wild card teams, the the teams in the hunt, then the teams eliminated. The ranking numbers reflect this, not the "absolute ranking" as you call it. If people want to start another template, go for it. Jdavi333 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jdavi is correct; the intention of the template is playoff seeding and not absolute rank. Although a table for absolute rank would be WP:OR since there doesn't appear to be a source that uses it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be renamed, then? Or a big comment at the top saying "what we really mean is Playoff Seedings"? As for absolute rank, why is NFL conference standings not usable as a source? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for why the linked conference standings page is not usable, we've figured out that the page does not usually sort teams correctly until the end of the season. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation also states that the "official" NFL.com page is usually inaccurate until season's end, for some reason. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the edit warring complaint - I saw this over on WikiProject NFL, which is why I commented. I think you have a significant problem where the name of the template is misleading, which undoubtedly fed into the edit warring (frequent syndrome: "I know I'm right! So I'm going to war until you accept that!"). The terms "standings" and "playoff seeds" are not synonymous per the NFL (e.g., Jaguars have a higher standing than Chiefs, but are seeded lower), and given you are using the "standings" in the title, you need to do something to make it clear you are actually referring to playoff seeding. As for the NFL's page not sorting them correctly, I haven't noticed that, but it is a primary source so thus not WP:RS. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]