Talk:2012 NFL season

Untitled

Add: Oakland Raiders coach Hue Jackson fired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.147.28 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Leaked regular-season schedule

There are NUMEROUS reports and rumors of the 2012 schedule being leaked from this site. Per ProFootballTalk, the NFL is claiming that the schedule is a phony. I don't think the Redskins would play at home during the last three weeks of the season, or the Broncos playing 4 of their first 5 games at home, as the aforementioned site claims. So, even though the leaked schedule looks interesting to view, it would be better to wait until the REAL schedule is released later this month (April) before officially inputing it on team's season pages. DPH1110 (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

I agree. I started to put it on a couple teams' pages last week but reverted my own edit there were a few things that didn't add up. It's obviously fake because the Raiders and 49ers have the same bye week and play in the same timeslot seven times, something I don't think the TV networks would allow. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, anything from a web address with a reference to BLOG should not reliable. swinquest (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, there are teams whose home fields and/or parking lots are located next to their Major League Baseball counterparts (e.g. Kansas City Chiefs, Seattle Seahawks, Philadelphia Eagles, Cincinnati Bengals, Detroit Lions, just to name a few). For example, there is NO WAY that the Chiefs could host the Ravens in Week 2 due to parking issues, because the Kansas City Royals are playing at home (Kauffman Stadium) on that Sunday (September 16), and Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium are next-door to each other.
UPDATE: It looks like the entire regular-season schedule will be unveiled on Tuesday, April 17, 2012. Currently, TVGuide's online listings indicate that a two-hour ESPN SportsCenter NFL Schedule Release Special will air at 7:00 p.m. EDT on April 17. I'm guessing that will indeed be the case (based on the schedule release date of the past two years - April 20, 2010 and April 19, 2011), but I'll wait until it is officially announced on NFL.com (later this week?). DPH1110 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

NFL Network exception

Is there any source for the statement "excluding weeks 8 (conflict with the World Series)"? Neither of the sources in the line on Thursday Night games say anything about that exception. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Pro Bowl

People keep adding dates and locations for the Pro Bowl to the infobox. I haven't seen any sort of official announcement yet. Has it been announced, or are people simply making assumptions based on past dates and locations? Last I heard the Commish was still mulling over whether to even have the thing. —Al E.^(talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, by posting this, I guaranteed that an announcement was to be made immediately. [1] —Al E.^(talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Team Win-Loss Records

Should the win-loss records be added after the season opener or after all of the week 1 games are finished? If we add the records right after the season opener then 30 teams would start at "0-0" and I'm confused about what would be better. Wammock (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Wammock

In past years, the standings tables have always been posted up immediately after the opening kickoff game ended, even if the rest of the 30 teams still have 0-0 records. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Referee labor dispute" and WP:NPOV

Does the Referee labor[sic] dispute section really fit in with NPOV? The last bit in particular looks very much like it's only there to attack the referees as well as the NFL.

[begin] Despite the inexperience and the complaints by various players and writers regarding the replacement officials, Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com summarized the league's stance after Week 1:

From the NFL's perspective, [the replacements' mistakes] doesn't matter. The replacement officials look the part, act the part, and sound the part. That's what the league was looking for when locating potential replacement officials. ... It's all about how the games look on TV. If the officials look and act the same, fans won't care. The league also has identified the perfect P.R. strategy for dealing with mistakes: "The regular officials make mistakes, too." ... So unless and until the replacements ... screw up — and if the mistake directly affects the outcome of a game — it will be hard for the locked-out officials to gain any leverage. Even then, it may not happen. The NFL has become very good at circling the wagons. The NFL will only alter its formation if/when arrows are being fired from inside the circle. And if the NFL successfully keeps a muzzle on its key personnel, we'll never even know that's happening.

[end]

Does that really belong on something that's supposed to be neutral?188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To balance that out, I'll later add writers who support the replacement referees and/or favor the league's stance. The issue seems to be polarizing people. How about that? Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote itself is an issue - an opposing POV would help there. However the line before the quote needs better wording as well ["Despite the inexperience and the complaints by various players and writers regarding the replacement officials, Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com summarized the stances of both sides after Week 1:"] - that line seems to be just there to attack the officials, and it implies that that the quote is the actual stance taken. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Highest number of teams at 1-1

A record 20 teams are 1-1 after 2 games (source) is this worth a mention? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Its very trivial. Frank Anchor^Talk 05:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Lock to advert potential vandalism

I would suggest a lock due to what just occurred in a game might spill onto this article. Just a simple request. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible split?

Does anyone think that the referee labor dispute section could be possibly split into a new article if it grows larger or something? ZappaOMati 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree: I just came in here to say this. 100% agree. This is getting notable enough for its own article IMHO, and there are way too many articles that have spawned from this thing that should probably be merged with it. I definitely support a split. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I raised this concern on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game that we are spawning way too many articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree. For the same reasons as above. King of Nothing (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I decided to be bold and transfer the section to a new article at 2012 NFL referee lockout. The only changes I made were a bit of reorganization into sections and fixing some formatting/tense issues. Hopefully it won't ruffle any feathers SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree and feel that all articles such as 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, Lance Easley, and The monday night controversy should be merged in with the new article. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Standings/Colors

Instead of making all the playoff teams green, and denoting wild-card teams and division winners with small letters, wouldn't it be better (easier to edit, more immediately obvious where everyone stands) to use two colors for playoff teams? Say blue for division winners and green for teams who have reached the playoffs but have not yet won the division (eventually just to be only two greens in each conference)?My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That could be useful. But I would use both colors and symbols to accommodate readers who suffer from color blindness. Perhaps green with a z for a team that clinched a first round bye (as it is now), yellow with a y for a team that clinched its division, and red with an x for a team who has just clinched a playoff spot, and eventually the playoff seed in parentheses as is the case now. Frank Anchor^Talk 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily use blue and green as they are similar in appearance (especially the light blue   and light green   that would allow for the text to be legible). Frank Anchor^Talk 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, with no objection out there, I (finally) did it. Yellow for qualifying for playoffs, green for winning the division. That makes it immediately obvious who has won the division and who has not. In cases where green and yellow are shown in the same division, you know that the yellow team can't win the division. This also eliminates the need for the ^x and ^y, which I think give an unnecessarily cluttered look. The ^# remains, as that gives useful information. I eliminated all of the ^†'s for eliminated teams, as that also looks cluttered and doesn't add any information that isn't already given by the gray background.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please remember that any changes require new accessible symbols for those who are blind and need screen readers - see WP:COLOR for more information. How are they going to recognize what you marked in yellow? And why did you remove several of the ones marked in green? There is a reason for those accessible symbols in superscripts (and it's definitely not "clutter"). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for accessible symbols. Thanks for pointing that out. However, I do think it looks considerably better and more clear to have one color for teams that make the playoffs and another for division winners, hence the green and yellow. I made the Seahawks and Niners both yellow instead of green since they are both at least a wildcard team but have yet to win the division.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the yellow, as long as you mark it with a symbol -- ^x, ^y or whatever. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I just didn't know that was a thing. Sorry about that, and thanks for educating me.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Common Games Definition

Does the common games definition NOT include head to head games, but ONLY the games in which the same opponents were played? Great50 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the same opponents. For example, the Vikings and Bears each played the entire AFC South and NFC West divisions, as well as their other division rivals twice (Lions and Packers). So, other than facing each other, the Bears and Vikings have 12 common games. DPH1110 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

It's kind of a moot point. They would only go to the common opponents tie breaker if the head to head had already been tied. So if they include head to head among the common opponents, neither team would gain an advantage.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

NFC South tiebreakers

Here is the explanation as to why the Carolina Panthers finished in second place, the New Orleans Saints in third and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in fourth:

Team	Record	Cumulative head-to-head (CAR swept NO, NO swept TB and TB swept CAR)	Division	Common opponents
2. Carolina Panthers	7–9	2–2	3–3	5–5
3. New Orleans Saints	7–9	2–2	3–3	5–5
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers	7–9	2–2	3–3	4–6

The head-to-head elements amongst the three teams are temporarily pushed aside, but can be used in later tie-breaking steps when two teams revert to a two-team tiebreaker. Since overall division records were even, record vs. common opponents becomes the next applicable tiebreaker.

Since division rivals play the same opponents within a season—excluding two intra-conference games that are determined by the previous season's division placement, the easiest way to determine common opponents is to calculate the UNCOMMON opponents, which, for each team, are the games vs. the NFC West and NFC North. The Panthers lost to the Bears and Seahawks (0–2) and the Saints lost to the Packers and 49ers (0–2), while the Buccaneers (1–1) split their UNCOMMON games (beat the Vikings, lost to the Rams). This means that the Buccaneers have the most inferior record vs. common opponents. Therefore, the Buccaneers drop out of the three-way tiebreaker and finish in fourth place.

FINALLY, the Panthers and Saints revert to step 1 of a two-team tiebreaker, which the Panthers win based on sweeping the Saints.

So, the Carolina Panthers win the three-way tiebreaker, and finish second in the division.

Note: The cumulative head-to-head records are not included in the common opponents' records.

DPH1110 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

technically it doesn't matter, as they'd still be tied - since the "cumulative head-to-head records" are also tied 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Because only one team is decided after completing a tiebreaker, the next tiebreaker between New Orleans and Tampa Bay is decided with the Saints winning head-to-head (2-0). Great50 (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong about this, but once the Panthers-Saints tie is broken we don't go back and examine the Saints-Buccaneers situation. The Buccaneers finished third in this trio of teams based on the common opponents tie-breaker and that is that. Even if all the sweeps had gone the other way, the fact that the Buccaneers had swept the Saints would have been irrelevant. Once one team drops out on a tie-breaker, its place is set, and we revert to the first tie-breaker for the remaining teams. What if the Buccaneers had won the common opponent tie-breaker, placing them 2nd in the division and for argument's sake, giving them a playoff spot. Panthers and Saints revert to step 1 which the Panthers win. I honestly don't think we then go back and examine Panthers-Buccaneers head-to-head and maybe give the playoff spot to the Panthers (if they had swept the Buccaneers for argument's sake). I stand to be corrected but in my opinion, point "F" in the tie-breakers listing under the Regular Season Standings should be removed.Juve2000 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ONLY in the NFL do tiebreakers revert with two teams remaining and are decided team by team. What I would do is change the tiebreaker rules to a cumulative system, as they have in the NBA. Great50 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)