Talk:2009–10 NFL playoffs

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.

National Football League/New York Jets subproject (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York Jets, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Football League/New York Jets subprojectWikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/New York Jets subprojectTemplate:WikiProject New York JetsNational Football League/New York Jets subproject articles

Placement before Clinching[edit]

Just a small concern I have over some edits. Earlier, someone edited in all the current standings of the playoffs if the series began today. This was edited away to only those who had clinched their positions. I had edited it just now to note that the Eagles had not clinched the NFC east, as it currently dictates, that they only clinched a playoff birth as a wildcard even though they lead the division. Seconds later, it was edited again to note that they should be noted as the east winners, because they are seeded higher then the Cardinals. I am quite confused at this point. What is the standardization for this sort of thing? I'd personally suggest that, as a season nears its last 4 or 5 games, that it wouldn't be unusual to note all those who would be eligible for the playoffs if they started that day, but noted that information in some sort of subtext below the table. Patricoo (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standard. Because normally such sections would not exist in the long term. It is only in the last few weeks of each NFL season that some users feel compelled to edit the most recent playoffs page as if it were an up-to-the-minute sports news site. And since these types of sections get deleted once the playoffs begin, another different ad hoc layout appears once the next December rolls around again. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rematches[edit]

Does it bear mentioning that three of the four wildcard weekend games are Week 17 rematches (two in the same city)? Hard to believe that's ever happened before. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to pull up a ref, but earlier this week on one of the sports talk shows I seem to recall them saying that back-to-back rematch of this type (last game of season - first game of playoffs) has only happened 5 times prior, and 4 of the times the OTHER team won; only once did a team win both such games. But I think we'd have to dig up something written to confirm that. I would imagine that THREE such matches happening in the same season would be unprecedented... --Jayron32 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hunting down a ref for it now, but I'm almost certain that 3 rematches like this have never happened in the same year, despite there having been 5 Week 17 rematches in total NFL playoff history (at least in the Super Bowl era). -Darryl Hamlin 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or week 16, or 15 or 14. During the Super Bowl era, I am pretty sure that there have been 14-game-14-week seasons, 14-game-15-week seasons, and 16-game-16-week seasons as well as the current schedule. --Jayron32 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Final Week rematches, not Week 17, then. I'm almost certain of it, but I can't find a ref for it. -Darryl Hamlin 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premature updates[edit]

I've noticed that some users are editing this site (e.g., the bracket) to reflect probable outcomes of games before they are, technically speaking, over. E.g., Baltimore is shown as winning their game even though it is only currently at the 2-minute warning. Is this considered acceptable? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not, but nobody really cares that much. Pats1 ^T/C 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone prematurely edited the bracket to show that Green Bay had beaten Arizona then never bothered to fix it after the game was over.Ryangws (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore win over New England was effectively sealed when the Ravens scored a touchdown with 10:32 to go in the 4th to make it 33-14, as the Pats would have needed 3 scores to catch up, and they had only had 2 all day. In contrast, although they were tied with Arizona twice, the Pack never led in that game, so that was just someone's wishful thinking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a big difference between a game being "effectively sealed" and actually being over. There are limited circumstances where I could see doing that, such as when a team trails by more scores than there are seconds remaining on the clock, but for the most part it should only be changed when the game is actually over. Let's be reality-based, eh? MrArticleOne (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roaster in the Toaster[edit]

Today's game between the Cardinals and the Packers was the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history. Would an article about it be to early to do it now? Could be a part of NFL lore... Gilliganfanatic 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Time will tell. I don't think so at this point. Pats1 ^T/C 02:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tie Breakers[edit]

Shouldn't there be some information on why these teams are in the playoffs? Either their record, or the tie-breakers that got them to the playoffs. Hires an editor (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be found here. ~ Richmond96 t • c 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]