There are currently 3 teams vying for the worst record in the league. KC and Cleveland, 2 preseason favorites, appear to have won their way out of contention.

The Rams are making a big push, but with Bradford at QB the consensus is they will find a way to stumble to a win at some point this year.

Minnesota and Arizona have looked strong in some of their losses, so it's unlikely they'll be in the running either.

Most analysts agree it will be between Indy and Miami. Unfortunately, if both teams go winless the pick will likely fall to a coin-flip. I say let's make it more fair. How about a playoff for the worst pick? The loser gets Luck!! Stuperbowl I, 2012!!! I say we petition the league!

No doubt indy and miami have the worst teams...................

I think the first tie braker is strength of schedule - Miami looses this as we are in a much tougher division and Indy gets the #1 pick if they both have the same record.

The question is....if Indy takes a QB with their first pick??

Doug-THE-Dolfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the first tie braker is strength of
> schedule - Miami looses this as we are in a much
> tougher division and Indy gets the #1 pick if they
> both have the same record.

I'd like to get a firm answer on this, actually. I really think it's a coin flip if we're tied for the worst record with no head-to-head games. I don't think you can really make a clear judgment on strength of schedule if we both lose all our games.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd like to get a firm answer on this, actually.
> I really think it's a coin flip if we're tied for
> the worst record with no head-to-head games. I
> don't think you can really make a clear judgment
> on strength of schedule if we both lose all our
> games.


I'd like a clear answer too. Until the Colts gave up 62 points I was going to root for point differential as a determinant...but not after last night!

I'm sure that rule will be challenged if both teams go 0-16. Strength of schedule only makes sense if someone actually WINS a game!

no it doesn't. the rationale is that if you can't beat crappy teams, you are worse than a team who can't beat "better" teams. they won't be changing any rules effective this season anyway.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no it doesn't. the rationale is that if you can't
> beat crappy teams, you are worse than a team who
> can't beat "better" teams. they won't be changing
> any rules effective this season anyway.

We CAN challenge the rules, and with a prize like Andrew Luck at stake, I'm sure we will try.

on what basis can we challege that rule? we may as well challenge the rule which says the worst record gets the highest pick. in either case there are rules and you can't just change them in the middle if you don't like the outcome.

On the basis that 2 winless teams would be completely unprecedented, so the current rules don't apply. Strength of schedule relies on the fact that the teams being evaluated actually beat someone!! If BOTH teams end the season without a win, then you have no yardstick to measure by. We could have a stronger schedule, but if neither team could eek out even ONE win, then there's no way to determine who is actually the better, or worse, team.

I could see point differential working into it if both teams lose every game, but NOT strength of scheule.

Understand that if they use strength of schedule to rank 2 winless teams, then the rule is unfairly skewed towards the team in the easier division. It unfairly favors a team because of their division...nothing else. That means the NFL itself will be picking winners and losers, which is unethical and can be challenged in court.

sorry monte, that is an asenine statement.

we have benefited from this rule in years past, by the way. one year we finished tied with like 3 or 4 other teams and picked ahead of them. can't recall who we got but it was some winner I am sure

I'm going out on a limb with this statement. The Dolphins, Ram and Colts will not share 0-16 record.

The Dolphins, somehow, will win a game as will the Colts. The Rams on the other hand, will lose them all.

We will likely win by a fluke. Example: Intercepting a ball on opponents 25 and running it in. With 2 minutes left to play. Something like that.

I don't think we have to worry about a tie breaker. It may come down to moving up to get the 1st pick of the draft from the Rams who don't really need another expensive 1st RD draft pick. This is foreseeable.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sorry monte, that is an asenine statement.
>
> we have benefited from this rule in years past, by
> the way. one year we finished tied with like 3 or
> 4 other teams and picked ahead of them. can't
> recall who we got but it was some winner I am sure

Asenine? How many times have we ended the year winless? Name ONE.

I am not so sure that the strength of schedule, in the end, will favor the Colts. It looks like they are playing some good teams outside of their division. In addition, I expect the Bills and Jets will not have great records in the end.

i still say if itts a tie with indy there has to be a "but they have peyton manning " rule somewhere i mean that seems alot more just then strength of schedule but that may just be my perspective

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > sorry monte, that is an asenine statement.
> >
> > we have benefited from this rule in years past,
> by
> > the way. one year we finished tied with like 3
> or
> > 4 other teams and picked ahead of them. can't
> > recall who we got but it was some winner I am
> sure
>
> Asenine? How many times have we ended the year
> winless? Name ONE.

there are at least 3 parts of this sentence that are assenine

"That means the NFL itself will be picking winners and losers, which is unethical and can be challenged in court."



That means the NFL itself will be picking winners and losers,---IN WHAT WAY, IT'S THE SAME MATHEMATICAL FORMULA WHETHER THERE IS ONE WIN OR ZERO, WHO PLAYED THE EASIEST SCHEDULE?

which is unethical---HOW IS THIS UNETHICAL, IT'S MATH AND THE RULES WERE SET BEFORE THE YEAR STARTED

and can be challenged in court---ON WHAT BASIS? IT'S NOT FAIR BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THE #1 PICK IS NOT A LEGAL THEORY



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 04:16PM by berkeley223.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there are at least 3 parts of this sentence that
> are assenine
>
> "That means the NFL itself will be picking winners
> and losers, which is unethical and can be
> challenged in court."
>
>
>
> That means the NFL itself will be picking winners
> and losers,---IN WHAT WAY, IT'S THE SAME
> MATHEMATICAL FORMULA WHETHER THERE IS ONE WIN OR
> ZERO, WHO PLAYED THE EASIEST SCHEDULE?
>
> which is unethical---HOW IS THIS UNETHICAL, IT'S
> MATH AND THE RULES WERE SET BEFORE THE YEAR
> STARTED
>
> and can be challenged in court---ON WHAT BASIS?
> IT'S NOT FAIR BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THE #1 PICK IS
> NOT A LEGAL THEORY

Dude, if you can't see it, then I just can't discuss it with you.

no please explain it to me, I am obviously not intelligent enough to follow your point. be patient and enlighten me