Talk:2008–09 NFL playoffs

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League High‑importance This article 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I understand your reliance on a burden of proof and sources unambiguously saying what they are attributed as saying. My attribution was perfectly legitimate. There was sizable controversy in national media surrounding the conclusion of that game, and the prudent thing would've been to add a "source needed" tag or uncover the source yourself, which would've taken mere seconds (there are plenty of sources surrounding that). Your subsequent edits, while not as egregious, actually violate the very principles you cite as the reason for the edits. The sources do not unambiguously state what the officials ruled (they note the absence of a penalty call), nor was there any pronouncement fitting your description of events ("he never actually got a hold of the receiver"). Furthermore, this inappropriate edit is also irrelevant. Getting "a hold" of a receiver is not a prerequisite for pass interference or illegal contact.

Additionally, your previous removal of the "controversy" characterization was that it needed a source. You've got your source. There really is no dispute regarding the fact that there is a significant controversy, and yet you continue to remove that wording while bolstering the unsustainable position that officials made some form of definitive ruling regarding why no penalty was called (this generally only happens when a penalty flag is thrown and then retracted).

I have made a compromise edit and that should be the end of it.

"NFC: Tampa Bay or Philadelphia at Minnesota or Chicago on FOX, 4:30 p.m."

That's wrong. If Tampa Bay loses to Oakland, Dallas beats Philadelphia, Chicago beats Houston, and Minnesota beats New York, then Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, and Chicago are all out of the playoffs. Macarion (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would like to know where it is

speculation, especially if Dallas becomes the 5th seed and plays Arizona (a big ratings booster that would get better ratings if it was a late game). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done ~Richmond96 t • c 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there has been a little back-and-forth struggling on this. Have a look at the other playoffs articles, all use nicknames and not cities for the tables next to the game recaps. There's really no reason to break from that, and in any case this wouldn't be the forum to do it.

It should definitely be the nickname. That's what it is everywhere. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is officially listed on http://www.nfl.com/schedules?seasonType=POST#Week or some other page on NFL.com, please do not speculate on what time slot the divisional playoffs in Pittsburgh, Tennesssee, Carolina and New York will be held. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been posted there. ~Richmond96 t • c 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I see it. They probably just posted within the past few minutes and I had to purge my browser cache. Sorry. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason that the bracket is ordered the way it is? For example, how come the 3-6 matchup is listed first in the AFC bracket, while the 5-4 matchup is listed first in the NFC bracket? And why is the 2-X game listed first for the AFC in the Divisional round, while the 1-X matchup is listed first for the NFC? Also, why is the lower seed listed first? In the brackets for all of the other major sports, the higher (better) seed is listed first. Shamedog18 (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it is the American practice of listing home teams (in this case the higher seed) at the bottom of a linescore. The bracket is also copying what is being used on http://www.nfl.com/schedules?seasonType=POST#Week which seems to be listing the games in each round based on start time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, the home team is listed on bottom/to the right in a line score, so I've made the bracket follow this convention. Please leave it with the higher-seeded (lower seed number) on the bottom of each game until an upset changes something. It's easiest for everyone that way. 76.92.138.240 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change it, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Tournament brackets and line scores are generally not treated in the same way. Every other major American sport lists the better seed first. I don't understand what the whole line score issue has to do with it. And also, is it really necessary to list "Arizona/Philadelphia" into the 2nd round bracket? Can't we just wait until it's decided who is going to play against who? I mean we might as well just write "NY Giants/Carolina/Minnesota/Arizona/Philadelphia" into the NFC slot for the Super Bowl if you want to do it that way. Shamedog18 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the design of the bracket seems a bit "loud" to me. All the dotted lines and stuff are confusing. I mean, I understand how the NFL playoffs work, and I am still less than entirely clear on what the dotted lines are supposed to mean. I would argue that it is better to simply not have any lines at all (dotted or otherwise) from the Wild Card to the Divisional rounds. That is how the NHL bracket is now designed. It also avoids the necessity of shuffling around the bracket boxes after the 2nd round pairings are finalized. I think that's a better visual representation of the re-seeding process; the absence of lines in the "final" bracket (as contrasted with the lines later along the way) visually signify/represent the notion of re-seeding, which is then also supported with a textual description. Just a thought. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who designed the "loud" bracket, precisely to eliminate confusion. We had people who didn't understand how the NFL playoffs work trying to move things around, and others moving them back. In fact, after someone took out the names, someone else put Atlanta in by itself in the 2nd round, as if that matchup were definitively determined. The idea is to tentatively display how the playoffs will go if the home (better-seeded) team wins each game, but show the dotted lines to make clear that the exact second-round pairings in each conference can not be known until the 3/6 game is decided. If the 6 seed wins, the first-round games are flipped. Cutting and pasting a single line from the source is easy. Leaving the lines out and not "shuffling" the first round means it isn't even a "bracket" anymore; it's just columns of game final scores disconnected from one another. The conditional programming in this template makes most of this temporary: Once a "3" or "6" appears as a visiting team in a second-round game, the lines for that conference become solid. Once both conferences' 3/6 2nd round visitors are in place, the note explaining the dotted lines also goes away. Similarly, when the home team for the conference championship is determined, the second note will also disappear. As to the use of Arizona/Philidelphia, the consensus in past years has been that it helps to explain the possibilities once there's only two left, but if there are three or more possibilities, we either leave it blank or put TBD. There is good reason to continue following that same practice, and avoid reopening issues that seemed to have been resolved in prior years. The Monster (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the concern with reopening issues that have been resolved in prior years. Also, I think "busy" is a better (and less pejorative) term than "loud," so I'm sorry if I offended you. We had this debate on the NHL side and it was also contentious (although we did not have anybody with your skill in designing this bracket; we all sorta fiddled around in the dark with a flashlight trying to guess our way). I didn't participate in this debate, so I have no intention of reopening the debate in terms of demanding or being insistent that it be changed as though it needs it. However, because this design reflects some principles that the NHL Bracket (see an example at

NFL_playoffs,_2007–08#Bracket) visually suggest, to me, that before the playoffs started, it was known that the winner of that game would advance to the box that the solid black line links it to. Our conclusion was to have no lines connecting the 1st to the 2nd round, and then lines thereafter; the contrast of having the lines later and not earlier communicated, visually, the notion of "reseeding." Second, we arranged the first round teams to be a "bank" (I called it a "bullpen"), instead of having the 1st round be wider than the 2nd; we found that when it looked like a traditional "stairstep" playoff bracket, people wanted to advance teams to the wrong lines. (As an aside, if you have the skill to narrow the gaps between the QF boxes without fouling up the rest of the table, I'd love to see you implement that and suggest it on that template's talk page; none of us could figure out how to do it, but I argued that it would further emphasize the "bullpen" visualization.) With the NFL's byes, it would need to be done a bit differently, but I think it could be. I apologize in advance if that constitutes reopening a closed can of worms, but I really am rather fond of the NHL bracket template and proud of the substantial amount of thought that went into its approach to providing a visual representation the playoffs. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not really offended. It's just that the NFL isn't the NHL. Because it's a 12-team tournament, the league is able to announce the home teams, dates and times, for the first two rounds all at once. In the case of the NHL, there are no byes, so no one knows for sure which teams will host the conference semis, much less who will be the visiting team. There's no obvious answer to how to draw a "bracket" for a tournament that really doesn't have one (in the NCAA sense), but the precedent was there for the NFL playoffs to have the solid lines drawn in, so the path of least resistance was this template that puts the dotted lines and explanation in, because so many people do not understand how the NFL re-seeding mechanism works. That it looks like it was known a priori where the winner of each wild card game would go, never really occurred to me. After the fact, we're recording what happened, not when we knew what. As I said over on the NHL Bracket talk page, I'll take a look at what you're asking for; it can probably be done. The Monster (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about not recording "when we knew what." However, I think enough people are "visual learners" that there is some value to the juxtaposition I speak of anyway (indeed, the fact that we bother doing a bracket at all supports that). On the other hand, it'd have to be done differently in the NFL context because of the 12-team tournament. If I were to design it from scratch, I would vertically center the two Wild Card games (within that Conference's side of the bracket) and place them close together; half the spacing that the NHL QF boxes are separated by currently (which is also where I'd like to see the NHL QF boxes go). Then, the Divisional playoff round would be as it is now. The Divisional boxes would then end up actually being spread wider than the Wild Card boxes. With no lines connecting them and the WC boxes spaced more tightly, it would mimic the "bullpen" effect that I think is the best way of visually expressing the concept of re-seeding. As an aside, I am not seeing your comment on the Template:NHLBracket talk page. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I think the bracket should indicate that the Indy-SD game went into OT. –Howard the Duck 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't for the Giants-Packers game last year or the Pats-Raiders game in 2001. I'm not sure there's an easy way to do it. Pats1 ^T/C 13:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament#West Regional – San Jose, California. –Howard the Duck 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've thought of adding an optional OT indicator at the bottom of the score (the part where "re-seeding" and "Wild Card Playoffs" appears) for the bracket templates but it seems that wouldn't be possible for this template unless the playoff stage names are added to the top just as other bracket templates. –Howard the Duck 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it's important to show OT in the bracket; we already have a line score that shows the OT period(s) if any. But if there's consensus on finding a place to put it in, I'll see if I can tweak the template to provide a location for it without breaking anything else The Monster (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with a simple solution: I put <sup> [OT]</sup> in the same box as "San Diego" rather than try messing with the template (and risk screwing up previous years that used it) That makes it a small, fairly unobtrusive, note. The Monster (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks out of place and it's not immediately obvious to the general reader what it signifies. Pats1 ^T/C 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the same notation as

2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament#Brackets etc. to indicate overtime periods? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I like it; it's even less obtrusive The Monster (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter that a game ended in OT? The winner moves on the same way regardless. Seems insignificant to me. Shamedog18 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree with you, dog, but some people seem to like knowing that the game was closer than the final score indicated, having been tied at the end of regulation play. So long as the indication is de minimis like the asterisk, I am willing to go along with it. The Monster (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not really a big deal, but the main reason I don't like it is just because the winner goes on and the loser goes home regardless of whether the game ends in OT; putting an asterisk over an OT score implies that a game that ends in OT is somehow more significant than a game that ends in a 41-0 blowout. I'm not going to try to change it. It's just my opinion.Shamedog18 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the only reason to show the score is to give some indication of the relative closeness (or lack thereof) of the contest. Otherwise you'd just bold the name of the winner without showing the score at all. And, if you figure that that goal is embedded in the decision to show the score, then I would agree that an indication of "OT" is important; any overtime win is, I think, generally accepted as being closer than any regulation win, irrespective of the final margin. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference is that the score itself is actually relevant to who goes on and who doesn't in the bracket; whether or not that score is achieved in regulation is not. To me, the score serves more as a form of "proof" that one team won and the other lost. I can't really buy the "closeness" argument because the score of a game itself isn't even always the best indicator of how close the game was. And it's not as if we could just throw the entire box score in that tiny little box. Shamedog18 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the score is a poor measure of how close a contest is. I do think, though, that it is conventional to offer it as a (very) rough measure of the closeness of the contest. Your position that it is "proof" of the outcome is interesting, although there is something jarring to me about a reference work such as Wikipedia doing that in that fashion. I can understand the need for Wikipedia to adequately reference itself to external authorities, but to the extent a reader is not questioning the quality or veracity of the source material, I would think he or she would accept the bracket as attempting to tell the truth. If so, then there is no reason to present the score at all, unless you think it communicates something about the game other than the outcome. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like with what has transpired here, but for me the main reason why an overtime game has to be indicated is not really on the closeness of the score, but the fact it took an extra time to finish. Other sporting tournament bracket does that and I thought it would've been appropriate here. –Howard the Duck 05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why we're not allowed to add scores as the game goes on? I see it as a way for people to catch up if they're not watching the game. Steveweiser (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing scores in the line score for the section of the article that deals with the game is one thing; putting them in the bracket confuses people into thinking the game is actually over. They may miss the subtlety of bolding the winning team when the game is over. The Monster (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to catch up if they aren't watching the game, they can go to ESPN or NFL.com. This is an encylopedia, not one of those sites.

¹¹ 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought I'd change the Wild Card and NFC Championship Games involving the Arizona Cardinals (as a future reference) that University of Phoenix Stadium has a retractable roof, so it now reads "Roof closed, retractable roof stadium" (pending the game January 18) as opposed to "Indoors, played in domed stadium", and further suggest that these words be used for such stadia (Reliant Stadium, Rogers Center, New Cowboys Stadium, etc.) in both baseball and football if there is no rain (example: "Roof open, 72 °F (22 °C), clear, played in retractable roof stadium" or "Roof closed, played in retractable roof stadium") if tempratures permit. NoseNuggets (talk) 4:28 PM US EST Jan 12 2009

Sounds good. For regular domes (i.e. Metrodome), how about what we have ("Played indoors, domed stadium), and for old articles with Texas Stadium, how about "Played indoors, partially domed stadium, temp, weather")? Pats1 ^T/C 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open stadium: Temp, weather

Partially-domed stadium: Played indoors, temp, weather, partially domed stadium

Domed stadium: Played indoors, domed stadium

Closed retractable: Played with roof closed, retractable roof stadium

Open retractable: Played with roof open, temp, weather, retractable roof stadium

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416053327/http://www.sportingnews.com:80/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/16597/mcgahee_ok_after_big_hit_in_afc_title_game to http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/16597/mcgahee_ok_after_big_hit_in_afc_title_game

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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.—