| RolStoppable said: You see this as an unfair advantage for #7 because that team plays against the lowly #8 while #6 plays against a serious playoff contender in #5. Okay, let's say #6 loses and #7 wins and they were tied in records after week 11; this puts #7 ahead of #6 after week 12. Then they play against each other in week 13 and that leaves fate in control of former #6 because winning not only means gaining one game, but also taking the tie-breaker. Another loss could hardly be called unfair scheduling, because if someone can't beat the team they want to be ahead of... well, do you think they deserve to be ahead? |
Let's assume that exact same scenario then, only keep in mind, that everyone has already played each team in the league once. Let's say #6 beat #5 earlier in the regular season. #5 then beats #6 here, but then proceeds to miss the playoffs based on...whatever the second tiebreaker is (I need to look that up). In other words, since each team that's vying for similar playoff spots will likely have played each other twice, the tiebreaker argument may (or may not) fall through. #5 just simply lost out as a result of going up against tougher competition the week before, despite being ranked better for most of the season and splitting the season series with #6.
Also, mostly as an aside, I'm not sure how much I buy the argument of "If someone's highly ranked, and then goes 0-2 against tough competition, they didn't deserve the playoffs to begin with." This is fantasy football, the only competition I can think of except maybe multiplayer Tetris where the quality of your team's play has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of your opponent. It is more than possible to just get absolutely demolished by an opponent whose players all have a really good week and not have it be your fault at all.
