Standings

[TKUHL]

Ok will someone explain the logic to the Standings on NFL .com? If you look at the conference standings we are 3rd with Denver #1 with 4 conf. wins NE #2 with 6 Conf. wins and us with 6 Conf. wins, But when you look at the League standings we are 2nd overall behind Carolina? I know this means nothing right now but how is a team with only 4 conference wins in first over teams with 6 and then those teams be behind us in the overall standings.

[jfkbengals]

League standings are alphabetical for ties

[jfkbengals]

For the record, Denver has the conference 1 seed due to strength of schedule. As far as tie breakers go, we are all at 100% in conference wins, it doesn't differentiate between the number played, only win percentage. Denver has beaten three teams that have winning records. We've beaten one team that has a winning record.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(11-02-2015, 10:04 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Ok will someone explain the logic to the Standings on NFL .com? If you look at the conference standings we are 3rd with Denver #1 with 4 conf. wins NE #2 with 6 Conf. wins and us with 6 Conf. wins, But when you look at the League standings we are 2nd overall behind Carolina? I know this means nothing right now but how is a team with only 4 conference wins in first over teams with 6 and then those teams be behind us in the overall standings.

SOS when more than 1 team is tied, I believe.

[TKUHL]

(11-02-2015, 10:09 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: League standings are alphabetical for ties

SOB your right. Thanks

[TKUHL]

(11-02-2015, 10:17 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: For the record, Denver has the conference 1 seed due to strength of schedule.  As far as tie breakers go, we are all at 100% in conference wins, it doesn't differentiate between the number played, only win percentage.  Denver has beaten three teams that have winning records.  We've beaten one team that has a winning record.

I get what your saying but I thought the amount of conference wins was a factor before strength of schedule.