Miscellaneous desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 4

Wild card weekend

I do quite like a bit of American football. But as a fairly ignorant Limey, some things are a bit obscure to me.

It's Wild card weekend, and the fixtures seem baffling. I read NFL_playoffs#Current_playoff_system but it doesn't answer my questions:

1) Why don't the Wild card teams just play each other to see who qualifies for the playoffs? 2) Has this system previously been used and discarded?

The way I'd have expected it to work would be simpler and fairer on the divisional champs who have the superior record over a whole regular season.

Apologies if this is covered somewhere onwiki; in fact please point me there! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, at one time it was literally "wild card" weekend, where only the four wild card teams played each other. With expansion of the league and consequent increase in the number of playoff qualifiers, "wild card weekend" really means "everyone except the top two seeds in each conference". I'll see if I can find you more specific information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look farther down in that same link, under "Expansion". For some years prior to 1990, each conference had three division winners and two wild cards, so it was strictly wild cards on wild card weekend. In 1990, a third wild card team was added, so the lowest seeded of the three division winners in each conference were compelled to play on wild card weekend. Then in 2002, with expansion and with the conferences realigning, it went back to two wild card teams but now four division winners instead of three. In each format, the two best teams in each conference have enjoyed a "bye" during wild card weekend, with the remaining four playoff participants in each conference facing each other the following weekend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat helpful, thanks. So it did used to work the way I suggest, sort of. Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The system has some historical memory that carries over from past systems, and preserves little bits of it. Something to understand about the Super Bowl Era Playoffs and the history leads us to where we are today:
From 1966-1969, the Super Bowl (I - IV) was an interleague championship between two independent leagues, the NFl and the rival AFL. Each league had different numbers of teams, and their own independent playoff system to determine who would play in the Super Bowl.

When the leagues merged prior to the 1970 season, there was a spirit to attempt to preserve some of the prior independence of the individual leagues in the new, merged 26-team NFL. Prior to the merger, the NFL had 16 teams, and the AFL only 10; and there was even some discussion of keeping the exact same organization, though three teams from the larger NFL (the Steelers, Colts, and Browns) did eventually agree to move to the AFL side to give an even 13-13 split in the new merged league. In order to preserve traditional league structure as much as possible, however, each team still played most of its regular season games against it's own group (now called the "conference"; the NFC and AFC) with only a few cross-conference games, and most importantly for our discussion, each conference still maintained it's own playoff bracket prior to the reaching the Super Bowl. That is, there is no-cross-conference play in playoffs before the Super Bowl.

From 1970-2002, each conference had three divisions, and within each division a full double round-robin was played during the regular season, so each division champion got a bid in the playoffs. Prior to 1970, when each league was independent, 4 teams from each league made their own league's playoff (the NFL had 4 divisions, so each division champion made it, while the AFL had 2 divisions, so it advanced the top 2 from each division), so in the new larger NFL, they continued to have 4 teams from each conference make the playoffs, but with only 3 divisions, you needed a 4th team from each conference to round out the playoffs, so thus a "wild card" team. From 1970-1978, you had a conference semi-final round, then a conference championship round, then the Super Bowl.

By 1978, the league had added 2 more teams (the Bucs and the Seahawks) and expanded the schedule from 14 to 16 games, so comensurate with these expansions, they decided to add an extra playoff team to each conference. With 5 teams, you need to have a "wild-card round" during the first week between the now 2 wild-card teams to knock it down from 5 per conference to 4 per conference to get us back to a nice 4-2-1 system, as before. This system was in place from 1978-1989.

From 1990-1995, the league made new expansion plans. First, they expanded the season to 16 games over 17 weeks (previously, teams played every week. Under this system, every team had 1 week off. They also tried a 16-over-18 week season at least once, but it didn't work, so we still have the 16-over-17 system today). Over this time period, they also added 2 more teams (Panthers and Jaguars) and expanded the playoffs to 6 teams per conference. With three divisions, that meant that the first round needed 4 teams, so we could still get the 4-2-1 run up to the Super Bowl. With only 3 wild card teams, that meant that one of the division winners had to play during the first week. This system stayed in place from 1990-2002.

From 2000-2002, the league expanded again (adding the Browns Mark II and the Texans). With now 32 teams in the league, an 8-division (instead of 6-division) structure made more sense, so each conference went to a nicely balanced 4-divisions-of-4-teams-each layout, and now we have 4 division champs and 2 wild cards. We still have 6 teams per conference in the playoffs, but now only 2 wild card teams, so we still need 4 teams to play in the first week, thus now TWO division winners play in the first week, with the other two in the second round.
The system has problems, which seem to show themselves every year, but the system exists because incremental changes have been made to preserve history of a system that made sense back in 1967 (when you had two independent leagues who just happened to put their champions together for one Super Bowl championship) to today when it's one league and what made sense in 1967 doesn't make sense today. If you were building the NFL from the ground up, and just creating an equitable playoff format, you probably wouldn't use the current system. But as each change tried to preserve most of the old system with small tweaks, we have what we have now. The biggest problem with the current system is that it over-emphasizes division championships in the seeding. In earlier league structures, teams could play up to 10 games against divisional opponents (over half of the schedule). Today, they play only six. And yet division championships are decided by overall record, and not divisional record. Thus, if you beat everyone in your division, and lose to everyone else you play, you're 6-10. Someone in your same division could do the opposite (lose every divisional game, and win every other game) and finish 10-6 with the division championship. Trying to imagine a championship where you lose against all of the opponents you are being judged against and yet you make the playoffs and they don't seems incongruous. Also, since division champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, and guaranteed one of the top 4 seeds, you get really weird situations where teams with much better records are forced to take a low seed. There have been times when the second best record in the NFL has been a 5-seed in their own conference playoff and forced to play the opening week on the road. A more equitable system would just take the top 12 records and seed them 1-12 and just let them play it out. In 1970, that pretty much worked out, but now it just almost never does. An extreme case was the 2010 season, where the 7-9 Seahawks qualified for the playoffs, leaving home two 10-win teams (the Giants and the Bucs) both of which had beat the Seahawks head to head. The Seahawks thus got to host a home playoff game against the 11-5 Saints, a team they also lost to in the regular season, which they even won. It's stupid, but if you understand the history, you can at least understand how we got here. Even if we probably shouldn't be here. --Jayron 32 15:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And let's don't forget the infamous Playoff Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all worked out just fine (to this diehard Seahawks fan). We got the awesome Beast Quake out of that game and sent the defending champs packing. Mwahahaha! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The way I'd have expected it to work would be simpler and fairer on the divisional champs who have the superior record over a whole regular season." The divisional champs don't always have the superior records. Becoming a divisional champ only requires having a better record than three other teams. It is actually quite common that the highest-ranked wild card has a better record than the fourth-ranked division champ. It seems to happen more often than not... a wild card with an 11-5 or 12-4 record goes on the road to play a division champ that only finished 10-6, or 9-7, or heaven forbid, 8-8! This helps to neutralize the "home field advantage" and makes for more competitive games. It also assures that each region of the country hosts at least one playoff game. This weekend three of the four home teams lost! – wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Home field advantage is often an illusion. The only really fair way to do it is to have everyone play everyone an equal number of times. As with pre-expansion baseball, where there were 154 games and you played each opponent 22 times. In football, you could have 15 games within your conference and then just rank the teams 1 through 6. But as noted before, the current system evolved from prior systems, so it isn't done that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try telling the fans that making a lot of noise when the opposing team is on offense doesn't give their team an advantage. Road team offences often have to resort to non-verbal signals. And when their team is on offense everyone hears the quarterback yelling "Omaha!" The goal of the NFL owners isn't maximizing "fairness", it's maximizing fan interest and TV ratings, and I think the current system has evolved in a way that brilliantly does that. The system is fair to the top two teams, giving them first-round byes *and* home fields. This keeps up fan interest in the regular season because it gives teams who easily locked up their divisions two or three weeks before the end of the season something to keep playing for. wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fan interest is important for the $$$. That contributes to having so many divisions. Under the system I suggested (which baseball used to do) you could sink to the cellar pretty quickly. More divisions means a greater chance for a given team to make the playoffs somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoelaces

What sort of fabric or fiber are shoelaces made from in 2019, and what sort of fabric or fiber were they made from in the 1960s? I just had to buy shoelaces because a lace had fallen apart, and this very seldom happens any more, but my recollection was that it happened every few months fifty or so years ago. My assumption is that they are making them better now than they did in the past. Can someone provide details? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoelaces are made from a number of different materials. If it's a specific brand that you're using, you'd need to look at the packaging or contact the manufacturer. †dismas†|^(talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains sort of the answer. It says that modern shoelaces are made of synthetic fibers, as opposed to natural fibers. This explains why modern shoelaces come untied more often, because they are slippery, but at the same time are stronger. You trade off the inconvenience of untied laces once or twice a day or the nuisance of a broken lace every few months. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, shoes with Velcro instead of laces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the most from your shoelaces - What are shoelaces made from?. A quick Google suggests that nylon, polyester, polyester/cotton mix and waxed cotton are all available. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, slip on shoes. The sneakers I wear everyday are designed without fasteners at all. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget leather. Very common in earlier years for formal shoes (with thin laces) and still widespread today. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why one shoelace invariably breaks well before the other, when both have had exactly the same amount of wear. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually because one has far more wear, obviously so if you look at it beforehand. Some of this can be due to different lacing patterns, but mostly it's because wear in a shoelace encourages accelerated wear as it starts to catch on an eyelet. Once it starts to go, it wears and fails quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]