Therefore we should work together to hammer out an updated tiebreaking procedure that perfectly reflects the intent of the rules while being concise and non-ambiguous. Let's do this once and get it right versus piecemeal updates from year to year.

• Revert to step 1 of three club format

• Proceed to next tie-breaking step

"Could you see the guy at league or Elias having that conversation with Jerry JOnes, trying to explain that: "yes, Jerry, the procedure doesn't say to revert back to 3-way tie, and yes you would have won on 4-way SOV, but Jerry -- Mr. Jones -- it just makes logical sense to ignore that and give the 2nd wild-card to the Bears on common opponents. We meant to change the regs a couple of years back, but, you know, with all the overtime talk, an hits to the head rules, and the upcoming CBA discussions, there just wasn't the time. You understand don't you, Jerry, you're a logical man, aren't you?"  

The problem is that neither the league, nor in fact our "gaggle of tie-break experts" has ever had to make the decision say, in week 15 or 16 -- never mind at season's end --  that a certain team has been eliminated, or has clinched, based on the "inferred" processes.  The few times they have come up, actual results has made the discussion moot -- usually a few weeks before the end of season.  I think all hell would break loose -- as my fictitious phone call was meant to illustrate -- if a team was "inferred" right out the play-offs. "

AGN has done a perfect job illustrating the danger that could ensue through the application of an inference should it ultimately make a difference in a teams playoff seeding or draft order.  The problem with the "we've-been-doing-it-this-way-since-200

2-rational" is that no precedent exists for applying the tiebreaker in this manner.  As AGN has pointed out, no season has ever ended in a situation where this nuance mattered.  If it had, and you could show that applying or not-applying the logical inference would have resulted in a difference in seeding/draft order, then there would already exist precedence to justify any seeding discrepancies that may emerge this season.

So why is this all so important anyways.  Well... playoff games draw millions of extra dollars in revenue for the affected clubs.  Any discrepancy in tiebreaking stemming from ambiguity in tiebreaking literature would result in a shhitstorm between the team owners of the affected clubs and the league front office, not to mention the fans and players of the affected clubs.

So how do we proceed from here.  Well, Joe has continued to defend and support the "we've-been-doing-it-this-way-since-200

2-even-though-it-has-never-mattered

-rationale", so I'm guessing that if the multi-team tiebreak inference were to rear its ugly head upon the completion of the 2010 NFL season, then Joe will have already submitted to the NFL week 17 clinching scenarios that hinged on logical inference.  So if logical inference comes into play going into any of the week 17 clinching scenarios then my plan is to contact the front offices of each of the affected clubs as well as the League front office, and to notify my contacts at all of the major sporting news outlets of the discrepancy.  In such a case, not even the competition committee could resolve the seeding discrepancy via vote.  Sadly, the only unbiased method of resolving this tie discrepancy would be via a coin flip with representatives of both clubs present for the coin flip. ("hopefully televised")

For subsequent years, Joe has already indicated that the league has been alerted of this case and that a minor update to the rules may be made to clean up any confusion.  Brett has also indicated that he is working on a revamped version of the tie-breaking language.  I too have been working on a draft version.  Several times this year I have contacted the league for crystal clear clarification on the intended application of the tie-breaking procedure.  As Joe has mentioned, tiebreaking procedures are an official by-law in NFL Rules and can't be changed just by altering them on NFL.com.  An official change to the by-law would need to voted on by competition committee.  Therefore we should work together to hammer out an updated tiebreaking procedure that perfectly reflects the intent of the rules while being concise and non-ambiguous. Let's do this once and get it right versus piecemeal updates from year to year.

If you made it to the bottom of this post, then I thank you for thoroughly caring about this matter.  I've devoted the last year of my life to becoming an expert on NFL tiebreaking so that I could create a website that definitively provides fans with the best information on a teams chances of making the playoffs as well as tiebreaking, clinch/elimination scenarios, and so on.  The site is in it's first few months and it's been a lot of fun, and a growing success.  Underneath the AFC Standings and the NFC standings tables, you can click on the link that says "Show Tiebreaking Steps Used To Generate Seedings".  There, I fully expose every step that is used in the tiebreaking process, (NOT JUST THE FINAL RESULT OF THE TIEBREAKING STEP).  I more than welcome any feedback, and I would be surprised if someone were to expose any logic flaws.  (Clinching and Elimination Scenarios will be functional starting tomorrow)  Check it out at www.playoffrace.com

-Cheers