The CRAZIEST NFL Playoff Scenario EVER

In 1992, the Washington Redskins were 9-6 entering the final week of the season, and were in line to win the #6 seed. Yet, somehow, because of the way the tiebreakers worked, their final game was completely meaningless, and they actually had somewhat of an advantage to lose... even though they hadn't clinched a playoff spot. This is the story behind that
LINK TO PATREON: / jaguargator9
Get early access to videos, your name featured in the credits, and the ability to request future video topics by joining today for as low as $3!
JOIN US ON DISCORD: / discord
#redskins #nfl #playoffs

[@shackdaddy7106]

And this video came out before what happened yesterday where if the Raiders and Chargers tied, they would both be in the playoffs and Pittsburgh would be out. Turned out to be the most exciting game I’ve seen all season. But I am especially glad there was a winner. If the Chargers and Raiders game ended in a tie with one of the teams ending the game with a kneel down, there would be have been screaming from all over the sports world.

[@schnob92]

If they had not taken that timeout I think it would have been a tie. The timeout showed that the chargers want to try and get a punt and win so the steelers thought, well if they want to win we won't let them.

[@shackdaddy7106]

@@schnob92 I’m not sure what you mean when you said the chargers were going to try to get a punt, the Raiders were in field-goal position.

[@NeonTrtl590]

@@schnob92 the chargers coach called timeout to sub in his best run defense lineman, his goal was to stop the run but the raiders out executed them

[@schnob92]

@@shackdaddy7106 the announcers had said they think the chargers are calling a timeout with the hopes of leaving time on the clock for a punt return. I think at the time it would have been like 50-60 yard attempt but the next play they got a good chunk and it was lights out.

[@alexeschenbacher1905]

I was hoping theyd just kneel the whole game

[@nickmanning214]

This sort of ignores the fact that if the Redskins lost, the Packers could have surpassed them in wins at 10-6. If they won, they needed a GB loss OR a PHI win to make the playoffs. If they lost, they just needed a GB loss. So winning clearly benefitted them because it gave them another path (PHI win) other than hoping for a GB loss.

[@giantsr1eva]

Nick Manning Exactly, winning a football game is better than losing one. The Packers could have had a better record than Washington if they lost. How did this guy miss that fact? If Green Bay had one they would be 10-6 and if Washington lost they would be 9-7.

[@ajk]

@@giantsr1eva "Exactly, winning a football game is better than losing one." Well.......unless you are looking for a No.1 draft pick and want the worst record in the league lol.

[@busaf95]

Without looking up the standings, Philly must have had 1 more win than both GB and Wash and had some tie breaker over Washington but not GB, and you resolve ties within a division first, thus: Philly, GB, and Wash win = Philly and Wash Philly loses + GB and Wash win = GB and Philly Basically Wash loses a three way tie between them, GB and Philly.

[@justinpettit3432]

Exactly what i was saying.

[@justinpettit3432]

@@busaf95 Your comment has nothing to do with their comment though. We understand that part but the guy in the video makes it sound like its better to lose the game but GB wouldve had a better record had they lost the game.

[@Rockhound6165]

We were 2 seconds away from having an equally weird playoff scenario yesterday. With the Colts losing and the Steelers winning, Pittsburgh vaulted into the playoffs. The only way they don't get in is if the Chargers and Raiders tie. Well, that game wasn't decided until there was 2 seconds left in overtime with the teams tied.

[@macias7125]

your welcome

[@kingovharts]

And it actually looked like they were going to settle for the tie.

[@samt3412]

@@kingovharts I know a certain tree would've freaked out

[@howardbaxter2514]

@@samt3412 I was hoping he would. It would have been hilarious

[@josiahm6690]

Technically it wasn't decided until time expired since the field golad try started with 2 seconds... so, yeah, crazy

[@noahdecoteau6381]

Just because "a win could eliminate them and a loss could put them in the postseason" doesn't mean "this game is practically meaningless" at all. It doesn't take a genius to know that winning obviously increases their chances lmfao

[@scottfarmer8758]

This reminds me of a bizarre playoff scenario on the final week of the 2007 season. Both the Cleveland Browns and Tennessee Titans were 9-6 and were both battling for the final wild card spot. The scenario went like this. If both teams won Tennessee would get the final playoff spot. If they both lost Cleveland would get the final spot. What happened? Both teams won and Tennessee got the final playoff spot. Cleveland missed the playoffs with a 10-6 record and would not have another winning season until 2020. Poor Cleveland.

[@Nerd0208]

What’s even more bizarre about that scenario is had the Browns won against the Bengals the week before that, they would’ve already clinched a playoff spot, but because they lost, that scenario came to be.

[@someperson3883]

At least they’re not Detroit

[@brodiesayre2002]

@@someperson3883 🎶 They're not Detroit!

[@snowcat8971]

That scenario happened because the Browns played an NFC team (49ers) the final game, while the Titans played the Colts. If they both lost, the Browns would have had a better conference record. But since they both won, the tiebreaker came down to common games, which the Titans had. The current format of playing a divisional foe in the final game helps prevent that scenario from happening again.

[@ThorMaximus]

Forgot about that crazy tie-breaker!!!

[@goblue4795]

I think you’re confused. Losing doesn’t increase the chances of getting in, it just simplifies the path to get in. Winning the game would give Washington more possibilities to get in

[@kbrich-nn8od]

This video's assumption on the matter is pure💩💩💩'/!!!

[@thatsmrtguy4935]

Washington still had incentive to win. If they win, they’re in with either a packers loss or an Eagles win. If they lose, they need the Packers to lose. It’s a 75% chance vs a 50% chance

[@CrazeyLazeyHazeyDazey]

Redskins

[@anthony0358]

Great video! My comments on this video are, Green Bay was 3-6 and then they won six straight to get to 9-6 with Farve in his first year starting. It was Joe Gibbs final year in Washington during his first go around. Lawrence Taylor tore his tendon in his ankle, mid way through the season, he was planning to retire in 1992 but he came back in 1993 for one final season. After missing the 1992 playoffs, Green Bay made the playoffs 10 times in 12 years from 1993 to 2004

[@davidozab2753]

As a life-long Redskins fan, the craziest playoff scenario I remember was 1981 (Joe Gibbs' first season). They started 0-5 before going on a tear and finishing 8-8. I can't remember the exact scenario but one of the teams they needed help from was Dallas. The Cowboys had already clinched the division and were playing the Giants who needed a win to get in. It was only time in my life I rooted for the Cowboys and they LOST. I HATE the Dallas F---ing Cowboys! 🤣

[@Phillyfanprodz]

As an eagles fan I definitely agree

[@cjs7553]

Rough. Maybe play better than .500 ball and you won't have to rely on other teams.

[@davidozab2753]

@@cjs7553 Didn't need to in '82, '87, or '91.

[@reedermh]

Dallas would never help Philly or The Football Team. The Giants, well there's no hatred there, so...

[@THE_BEAR_JEW]

Cowboys fan here. This is what makes our rivalry so good! All that history plus all the teams have had a period or multiple periods of being great. We're the only division with 4 Super Bowl champs, but yeah anyway, since you love Washington, f**k you too lol. :P

[@P2thaR]

This is what Gloria was talking about when she said, "sometimes when you lose, you actually win" in the movie White Men Can't Jump. Billy didn't understand cuz he wasn't listening, just staring at her rack.

[@michaelsmith5769]

So was everyone else. I watched her parts with the sound off.

[@AlexGMason]

Did I miss the point or did losing vs the Raiders mean Green Bay had to lose, while winning meant Green Bay could win and Washington still had a shot to make it. I'm confused as to how losing would help anything here.

[@drbassman5721]

It wouldn't. You're correct. This video is stupid and wrong.

[@AlexGMason]

@@drbassman5721 Yeah, the only way I could see losing meaning you're in, vs winning being out is if somehow you needed the team you lose against to win to avoid or create a strange tie breaker including that team, but even then, I still don't know if it's possible. It'd have to be some really convoluted stuff if it's even possible at all, which it probably isn't.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

It doesn’t help them, I’m baffled that this guy would spend so much time making a video this stupid.

[@w41duvernay]

PRETTY funny Redskins lost this game, when they Play Minnesota in playoffs as wild card they upset them and caused Dennis Green to flip out.

[@christopherdelgaudio9484]

Upset!! That was no upset! Minn sucked!

[@OBESPRING1982]

@@christopherdelgaudio9484 Always have, always will.

[@RichV20]

Redskins are who we THOUGHT they were! And we let them off the hook!

[@BoleDaPole]

Bruh don't say R*dskins.

[@RichV20]

@@BoleDaPole That's what the name of the 1982 team was. It is appropriate.

[@nicolastorres147]

Imagine a game where the two teams facing off would need to lose to qualify. I’m curious about how would that play out. 🤔

[@Snookbone]

If those three teams finished 10-6, what exact tiebreaker would Washington have missed out on?

[@Evillightning76]

Probably win / loss % in common games

[@DeepSubmerge]

“Sometimes the best way to win is to tie.” -Everyone except the Chargers head coach

[@vashman01]

This was made way more complicated than it needed to be. The Redskins chances of making the playoffs depended entirely on Green Bay losing. Scenario 1: the Redskins lose (9-7), packers lose(9-7) = skins in Scenario 2: the Redskins win(10-6), Packers lose(9-7) = skins in Scenario 3: Redskins lose (9-7), Packers win (10-6) =Packers in Scenario 4: Redskins win (10-6), Packers win (10-6) = Packers in They just needed the Packers to lose. The Eagles game didn't matter at all in any of these scenarios. If Green Bay beat the Vikings, they would either have a better overall record or better conference record if they tied with the Redskins.

[@ColonelCarnage]

Yeah he acts like purposely losing helps them out.

[@daviddechamplain5718]

Losing doesn't help (odds assume each game is a toss up) Lose: Packers have to lose (1/2 odds) Win: Packer lose OR Eagles win (3/4 odds) The second scenario has a better chance of happening.

[@callmeshaggy5166]

If anyone out there is having trouble with the math, which apparently is a great many of you: Packers win + Eagles win = in Packers lose + Eagles win = in Packers lose + Eagles lose = in Packers win + Eagles lose = out 3/4, 75%

[@josiahm6690]

Yeah but sports in general isn't a matter of simple odds because teams don't play on the same level.

[@josiahm6690]

You could have 2 teams each with a 20% chance of winning, and if either (or both) won, then you'd be in. That's not necessarily a 75% chance to get in Same if you're betting on a single team that has an 90% chance to win

[@synth6549]

@@callmeshaggy5166 that's not how odds work lmao

[@danielsavitz5774]

@@josiahm6690 What do you think the actual probabilities of each team winning their final game were going into week 17? We can use those numbers instead, but the fact remains the overall probability of Washington making the playoffs is lower if they lose.

[@CTubeMan]

Before I get to my favorite wacky playoff scenario, I’ll say the same situation existed in 2007. That year the Browns and Titans were in the running for the last AFC playoff spot (yes, Virginia, the Browns). The Browns could’ve beaten the 49ers at 1 ET and been out of the playoffs, or could’ve lost and been in. All that mattered from a tie-breaking perspective is if the Titans beat the Colts and their backups at 8 ET. So, to a certain extent, the 49ers-Browns game was meaningless. FTR, both the Browns and Titans won, so the Titans made the playoffs.

[@pronkb000]

That isn't *quite* the same, in that the Browns couldn't be helped by a loss as Washington could potentially have been here. There have been many instances where a team's chances depended entirely on the outcome of another game.

[@justinpettit3432]

Win and miss the playoffs and lose and you're automatically in is an impossible scenario. The guy in the video got it wrong because if they lost and GB won GB would've had a better record.

[@stevevernon1978]

@@pronkb000 during the last week of the season i am always HOPING for a scenario where the game between team A and team B helps NEITHER into the playoffs, but it DOES matter for team C, whos own result does NOT matter. less likely to happen now that the finalgame is always a division game, but it COULD !

[@ReveiwKing999]

I'm watching this after seeing JG8's recent video about how the 1990 Baylor team were in a similar position to where they had a better chance of making the Independence Bowl that year with a loss to Texas and what strikes me most about this video is how much his narration style has changed between then and now.

[@tyelerhiggins300]

We were _so_ close to having a similarly weird situation this year.

[@jakemelchior2618]

I found it interesting how going into week 18 of this season, the #7 seed eagles had clinched a wild card spot, but the #6 seed niners had not, despite the two teams sharing identical records and the niners beating the eagles earlier in the season

[@markthomas97]

Saints beat niners, 49ers had a better conference record than the eagles and the eagles beat the saints.

[@kaystevenson2075]

@@markthomas97 the saints did not beat the niners lmao they didn’t even play

[@kyle1910]

By 1992 there wouldn't have been an actual 3-way tiebreaker between PHI, WAS and GB. The rules stipulate that if 3 or more teams are fighting for a playoff spot, but there are multiple teams from the same division(s), only the highest ranked teams in each division are pitted against each other in the conference tiebreaker steps. Then if another Wild Card slot needs filled, repeat the same process for the remaining tied teams. Here PHI would have finished 2nd in the NFC East ahead of WAS with a better division record (6-2 to 4-4). Then it would have been PHI against GB for the #5 seed, which would have gone to GB since they beat PHI earlier that season. Then with one spot to fill, PHI is in and WAS is out.

[@busaf95]

Nailed it!

[@howardbaxter2514]

That sounds convoluted

[@lionsfan7500]

Wow what a crazy scenario that potentially could have been! That's so crazy to go into a game on any level and want to lose so you can extend your season but the competitive nature in athletes on any level is it's instinct to go out and try to win. Just imagine as a team you go out there and purposely lose then make the playoffs and then go on a run to win the Superbowl. The players and Dana will definitely look back at the last regular season game and realize they actually lost on purpose to win a Superbowl lol. Just a little food for thought.

[@204trebor]

There was a case in Minor-League Baseball (Northern League) At that time, there were 2 halves. (Just the 1981 MLB Strike Season) The winner of the first half would play the winner of the 2nd half. However, if the winner of the 1st half won the 2nd half, then the 2nd best team overall will the get 2nd playoff spot. If I recall: St Paul Saints won the 1st half. In the 2nd Half, St Paul Saints and the Thunder Bay Whiskey Jacks were tied or 1 game apart (going into the final game) If Thunder Bay won the division they will get playoff spot (As division winners) However if St Paul won the division, then the Winnipeg Goldeyes will get the playoffs (of having the 2nd best record overall) In the final game Winnipeg played St Paul, If Winnipeg lost, than St Paul would win the division and Winnipeg would get the playoff shot. However If Winnipeg won, than Thunder Bay could of won (depending on their result) the division and gotten the playoff spot. Winnipeg did lose the game, and got the playoff spot.

[@EvanEscher]

Yeah this happens in the CPBL (Taiwanese baseball) quite often. In 2020, the Brothers won the first half by 3 games over the Monkeys. In the second half, it was neck-and-neck between all 4 teams, but with a couple weeks left the Monkeys were eliminated from 2nd half contention--however, they still held the 2nd best overall record in the league, and would make the playoffs if the Brothers won the 2nd half. So when the Monkeys hosted the Brothers with a week left, they lost both games on purpose. It ended up coming down to the final day, where the Lions defeated the Brothers 3-2 to clinch the 2nd half, thus eliminating the Monkeys.

[@tjp72675]

this tells me that their playoff tiebreaker system is flawed. If you come down to the last game of the season and you need to lose to get in and if you win you get eliminated, something is wrong with the system.

[@matrixphijr]

That the video described it that way is disingenuous at best. They would not have been eliminated with a win unless BOTH the Eagles lost and Packers won. The reason for that-and yes, you could argue it’s flawed-is that the tiebreaking system is layered and weighted such that divisional standings are calculated first before any inter-division ties are broken. In other words, if multiple teams from within the same division (remember, these teams play each other the most) are part of a tie, only the best among them is considered (which especially matters if teams outside that division are also tied). So in this case, if the Eagles, then-Redskins, and Packers had been tied, the better of the Eagles and ex-skins would be chosen FIRST before being compared to the Packers. And since there were only two playoff spots, the Eagles and Packers would make it in. What that means is this ends up being more about Washington not having the standings advantage over Philadelphia than anything else. So if the Eagles won, or the Re-skins lost (or both), there was no chance the two could end up tied, and Washington could be pitted against Green Bay straight away, in which case Washington held the advantage. Confusing and complicated? Sure, I guess. But frankly it makes a lot of sense to give preference to the better team in a division before including other teams that may not have even played each other.

[@chrisbeach423]

@@matrixphijr now a days head to head tiebreakers are the main tiebreakers. Also if Washington lost, which they did, and Green bay had actually won, Green Bay would have got in. This video makes zero sense. The Eagles had already clinched their playoff spot.

[@NealB123]

Ah, the good ol' days when the Redskins had a competent owner and put a competitive team on the field year after year after year. Haven't seen that in over two decades now.

[@jcelldogs]

Or an actual real team name.

[@sammcfadden3961]

Three decades almost since the glory days!

[@gerard0529]

@@jcelldogs Get ready, in 17 days we will get to witness a fucking disappointment!

[@elivandrisse]

@@gerard0529 "Washington Disappointments" has a nice ring to it

[@gerard0529]

@@elivandrisse Washington Football Disappointment also has a nice ring to it

[@bwburke94]

After actually checking the tiebreakers, the Redskins win a two-way tie with GB at 10-6 on common games. (Ironically, the team with incentive to lose is PHI!)

[@CTubeMan]

You’re right, because if Philly lost and Washington and Green Bay won, the Eagles would’ve played their wild card game at 10-6 Minnesota as opposed to 12-4 New Orleans.

[@CTubeMan]

Actually, now that I think about it Minnesota had the greatest incentive to lose, or at the very least, rest their starters and pare down their playbook. The Vikings couldn’t count on the result of the Eagles’ game one way or another. Meantime the Packers had all the motivation to beat the Vikings since a win would get them in the playoffs thanks to Washington’s loss. A Packers win and a win by the Eagles would mean the Packers would be the 6 seed. The Vikings were locked in as the 3 seed. So that would mean a rematch in Minnesota the next week. I would think the Vikings would prefer to play the Packers than the TFKAR. So, division rivalry and hatred aside, I would think the Vikings would want to lose the game and not risk injury nor show the Packers their whole playbook.

[@DolFan316]

I just want to thank bwburke94 for typing Redskins instead of pretending they were always known as "Washington Football Team" their entire existence because SJWs.

[@justinpettit3432]

None of the teams had incentive to lose really.

[@MatthewChristianMurray]

@@DolFan316 - same here.

[@rrpostalagain]

No… there is no way winning by itself can ever make your odds worse. In any conceivable situation, it would not be worse to win. Edit: obviously only talking about chance to get into PO, not improving draft or other tangential goal.

[@elitefourty7314]

this scenario has happened other years. sometimes deciding seeding and not qualification

[@Namath1000]

The Giants were involved in something similar in the late 80's. They were battling for a playoff and a whole bunch of games had some bearing on whether they made the playoffs or not. However, the Giants game itself had no bearing on whether they made the playoffs or not.

[@CTubeMan]

And now for my favorite playoff scenario of all time. Most years if multiple teams are in the running for a playoff spot one team has a simple “win and in” path (such as.1999 NFC). This was not the case in 2013 in the battle for the last playoff spot. The battle was between the Dolphins, Ravens, Chargers, and Steelers. If all four teams won their finales (FTR, none of their games were against each other) the Dolphins would have made it. If they all lost the Ravens would have made it. Other than the last scenario all four teams needed to win and get help. I’ll provide a full breakdown if requested.

[@oklywright8886]

Yes!!! Please!!

[@CTubeMan]

@@oklywright8886 In order to make the playoffs: 1. The Dolphins needed to beat the Jets and either have the Ravens lose to the Bengals or the Chargers beat the Chiefs. 2. The Ravens needed to win and have either the Dolphins or Chargers lose. 3. The Chargers needed to win and have the Dolphins and Ravens lose (this actually happened). 4. The Steelers needed to beat the Browns and have the Dolphins, Ravens, and Chargers lose. That’s as in-depth as I’m going to go for the moment, though I will say the Jets played into tiebreaker scenarios even though they were eliminated from playoff contention.

[@chriserrington5958]

As a Steelers fan, this week's ending was brutal. Despite the ridiculous odds, Pittsburgh should have made the playoffs. Steelers beat the Browns, Miami lost at home to the Jets and Baltimore lost big at Cincinnati (which had already won the division). All that was left was for a playoff-bound Kansas City team resting its starters to win in San Diego. Despite having nothing to play for, the Chiefs could have won twice - once on a missed 41-yard field goal with :08 remaining, then early in OT on an apparent fumble return for a touchdown. The Chargers ended up winning 27-24 and Pittsburgh's season ended.

[@ivantheteribul]

@@CTubeMan I was actually at the Chargers game that year. It was some real crazy game; I thought it was all over when the Chiefs were kicking the field goal. When it missed, the whole thing became unreal.

[@matteoamantedelcane6670]

@@chriserrington5958 I feel your pain. I vividly remember watching that missed FG after everything else had gone Pitt's way that day. I had thought that the Steelers were actually about to sneak their way in to the playoffs. Alas...it was not meant to be.

[@eth3792]

Everybody's talking about the Chargers-Raiders game with the possibility of both teams knocking out the Steelers when nobody seems to have noticed the bizarre scenario where if the Ravens had won instead of the Steelers, the _Dolphins_ would've ended up knocking them out with their win over the Pats, despite not even being able to make it themselves...

[@howardbaxter2514]

The whole week 18 situation was weird. Ravens were behind the Dolphins in the overall standings, but weren’t eliminated from contention. Colts losing to the Jags made things weird as well.

[@O-moneyyy]

it really wouldve helped to have some visual so that i dont have to memorize the teams' standings

[@arrowdave646]

I saw that game. Vince Evans helped the Raiders beat the Football Team.

[@aalewisiii]

Yes he did. Also when Washington scored its last TD late in the game NBC put the lyrics to Hail to the Redskins on screen for a sing along. I was so pissed off as NBC did AFC games back then, and the game wasn’t over yet.

[@MatthewChristianMurray]

Redskins. They were called the Redskins.

[@rx2z14]

You mean the Reskins…?

[@Red-qv4nb]

You don’t have to call them by their name now, if the oilers won a playoff game you don’t call them the Texans

[@MatthewChristianMurray]

@@Red-qv4nb - Correct, although the Oilers today are the Titans, and the Texans are a completely unrelated team that was founded in 2002.

[@EvanEscher]

In 2007, the Browns and Titans entered week 17 tied for the #6 seed at 9-6. The Browns AFC record was 7-5, and the Titans was 6-5. If both teams lost, Cleveland would get in (due to better AFC record). If both teams won, Tennessee would get in (due to better record against common opponents). The latter scenario ended up happening, but the Browns game against the 49ers was basically meaningless, because either way they had to hope for the Titans to lose.

[@aaronzaldivar3167]

Bruh if I was the qb I would be standing in the middle of the field yelling sack me!!!!

[@MCPrimetime]

2021 playoffs scenarios: Hold my beer

[@DatOneRadDad]

What are the playoffs - a detroit 🦁 fan

[@SolidShepard]

also that chargers raiders game the other night was pretty crazy as well. probably tops this.

[@jcelldogs]

Reminds me of the good ole days of madden on ps3 where you could upload the graduating rosters of each year's ncaa season. I was the Detroit lions and played the bears the last game of the season and we were both 2-13 heading into it with the worst records in the year. Needless to say, I played the game and at the end of the year, leading by 1, I put in the 5th string rb and ran backwards the last few seconds of the game for a safety and got the number 1 pick and drafted my created qb from Michigan lol.

[@miloobrzut5497]

Need this video as a Jon Bois chartparty

[@markstone9333]

To me this is the SECOND most crazy playoff scenario AFTER the 1967 season. The Baltimore Colts finished with the best record in the league (technically tied with the Rams) and did NOT make the playoffs!

[@KID_JEDI_76]

After looking at FootballReference and checking the standings along with the win/loss results of that 1967 season, the Colts failed to make the playoffs because during that season, ONLY division leaders entered the playoffs. And since both the Rams and Colts were in the same division, both with identical records, the tie-break went to the Rams due to their one victory over the Colts. So it was pretty straight forward and not crazy; unfortunate because the Colts and Rams clearly were the two best teams record-wise in the NFL, but with only division leaders allowed in the playoffs, the Rams were in because of their 1-0-1 record versus the Colts compared to the 0-1-1 head-to-head record versus the Rams.

[@matrixphijr]

@@KID_JEDI_76 Being straightforward doesn’t make it less crazy. In 2008, the New England Patriots finished 11-5 but missed the playoffs due to losing separate tiebreakers to the 11-5 Dolphins for the division title and the 11-5 Ravens for the final Wild Card spot, the most wins by a team that missed the playoffs. Just this past MLB season, the Los Angeles Dodgers became the first-ever team to win 106 games but not win their division title, as the San Francisco Giants won 107, relegating the Dodgers to a Wild Card berth.

[@KID_JEDI_76]

@@matrixphijr yes, that happens way more often than you realize, where a team misses the playoffs despite having a good record because they finished in second place behind the division leader, while the other division leader wasn't as good as them. It happened in baseball also in 1993, when the San Francisco Giants had 103 wins and the Atlanta braves won the western division with 104. Meanwhile, in the east, Philadelphia only had 97 wins. But with how all four us major sports are set up, division leaders go to the playoffs with an automatic bid. And back then, prior to 1995, there were no wild cards in Major League baseball. So that's why San Francisco was short and missed the playoffs: because they failed to win their division because Atlanta was one win better. It sounds like you are like a lot of others: where you'd probably be in favor of dismantling divisions, and just putting the top teams into the playoffs regardless of what division they are in. Another example: 1978 Major League baseball. The LA dodgers finished with 95 wins and the reds finished with 92, while in the Eastern division, the pirates finished with only 90 wins. By your thinking, since the pirates finished with only 90 wins compared to the reds winning 92, the pirates should be left out, even though they won their division. Also, in the American League, it was a bit more drastic. The Yankees finished with 100 wins and the Red Sox ended with 99 wins. Kansas City won the West but with only 92 wins. Should they have abolished division leaders and just let the Yankees and Red Sox go into the playoffs and Kansas City be left out despite winning their division? No, in my opinion, if you win the division you should get an automatic bid into the playoffs, despite the record. It just happens sometimes where a certain division just stinks it up and everybody plays poor in that division while another division there may be two or even sometimes three teams that are better than a whole opposing division. One more example: 2010 NFC standings. Both the New York Giants and the Tampa Bay buccaneers finished with a 10 win 6 loss record, yet they both missed the playoffs. The Seattle Seahawks, despite a 7-9 season, won the Western division and made the playoffs. That NFC West division that year was awful. I don't know if you remember but there were actual talks by the talking heads that the NFL should get rid of the division format and just allow the top six or seven teams into the playoffs regardless of division. ***Edited for typos! Haha sorry about that! ***Edited again for my last remark***** Honestly, I could see both sides. I could see the disappointment of getting 100 plus wins in a season and not making the playoffs because a team in another division gets in but yet that whole division was terrible. So yes, I could see the thinking behind of just letting the best teams in regardless of division. But I still believe it is better to reward the accomplishment of division winners to receive an automatic bid.

[@matrixphijr]

@@KID_JEDI_76 Absolutely. I would never abolish divisions in any sport, or ignore division winners when selecting playoff teams. Sure, you get the occasional year of a 7-9 Seahawks, Panthers, or ex-Redskins team making the playoffs, but the main reason people complain about that is that they're perceived as not being good enough or worthy. Well, okay, then in my mind, they'll lose to a better team once they get in anyway... right? The other complaint you often hear is that there's some "worthy" team kept out that has a better record. Well that's why I highly approve of the recent Wild Card expansions in both MLB and NFL. There's almost zero chance of a team like the 11-5 Patriots or 11-1 Colts missing the playoffs now. I just disagree with the analysis that because something is 'straightforward' (presumably, easy to understand) that it isn't crazy, unbelievable, or totally unacceptable.

[@stevevernon1978]

@@matrixphijr it remains "_THEORETICALLY_" possible for a team to go 0-0-17 , win their division, and not only make the playoffs, but HOST a playoff game. I do not propose a change in the rules to prevent this as it is so SO SOOOOOOOOOOOOO unlikely

[@jemmitt21]

Fun video, but I think a few graphics showing standings and scenarios would go a long way

[@efinden]

Huh? My brain is fried!

[@JT-ev5jh]

Yea this is definitely mind boggling . 🤯

[@Jovocaine]

This video needed a picture of the standings at some point.

[@markstahl1464]

This video makes no sense.

[@jjw56]

You should review colts 66 or 67 season where they lost only one game and was out of the playoffs 11-1-2.

[@brad8749]

ah yes name redacted stories lmfao

[@StarfishAtLarge]

Interesting topic, but I was really disappointed that you didn't go into detail about what the tiebreaker was. I clicked on this video because I was curious about how exactly it would be possible for Washington to improve their chances of making the playoffs by losing, and that was kind of glazed over. What was the ridiculous tiebreaker scenario?

[@tommcmahan5629]

I'm trying to remember, but when I was a kid back in 1975, I think, there was some crazy playoff scenario involving the Colts, Dolphins, and another team, in which the Colts lost the last game of the regular season on a blocked punt on literally the last play of the game, but somehow made the playoffs over the Dolphins who won, but ended up getting knocked out...??? Too long ago, but you might want to look that one up. I'm probably missing a lot of details, but I remember there being a lot of talk about that at the time for how strange it was.

[@stevep8445]

Yeah, 1977 the Dolphins lost the tiebreaker to the Colts (both finished 10-4) based on conference record. The loss to the Lions actually knocked New England out of the playoffs because of tiebreakers, New England played the Colts the last Sunday of the season and lost 30-24. It was the blown call on Bert Jones fumble as the Colts were about to score. that really kept Miami out of the playoffs.

[@davidseymour6447]

The Oakland Raiders had an interesting situation on the last regular season game of the 1976 season. They had already clinched the western division and would make the playoffs even if they lost. The Pittsburgh Steelers had lost several games early in the season and had then started a winning streak to end the season. They were red hot. As well as they were playing, they still needed Cincinnati to lose their final regular season game. That game was against Oakland. Nobody wanted to play the Steelers in the playoffs, because they were playing so well, and all the Raiders had to do was lose to the Bengals, and the Steelers would be eliminated. But instead, they played to win against Cincinnati and won that game, beat New England in the first round of the playoffs, beat Pittsburgh 24-7 in the NFC title game, and then won the Super Bowl against Minnesota.

[@damikey18]

I used to watch the Redskins every now and then but it has been a long time since I have seen them.

[@josephkingsley8708]

I think you need to take this one down man. Winning clearly gave them a better chance at making the playoffs here - some people explain in other comments below, so I won't repeat. It was a cool attempt though. I actually searched this a few weeks back, if there ever could be a scenario where losing actually gave you better odds of making the playoffs. I can't think of one, but the NFL is quirky and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some crazy scenario where it was possible. Thought I'd finally found it! All good man, I enjoy your stuff.

[@JustinWillhoit]

Some graphics of the standings would have helped to understand the scenario

[@chillguydave925]

That OL from Washington doe 😭the time we was dominating teams

[@RatusMax]

YT recommending this after "if raiders and chargers tie, they will both go into playoffs"

[@jpesicka999]

Still have no idea what I just listened to.

[@Elharion2003]

K so this is just straight up incorrect clickbait… if they win, then either an Eagles win or a Packers loss gets em in. If they lose, they need the Packers loss. If you view both those games as 50-50 for simplicity’s sake, a win gives them 75% odds and a loss gives them 50% odds. So actually, winning was obviously the move. In no world did losing help.

[@DanTorinoGT01]

Bro just say Redskins ffs

[@jamesage24]

I think they put you on a list if you question the election or say Redskins.

[@luisreyes1963]

He'll get demonitized if he did. 😰

[@zeroeffortmemes]

It's painful I agree. Just say the name of the team (at the time at least)

[@Nonsense1986]

What was that 1 year when so many AFC teams were alive the final week? Was that 1989?

[@OfficialJaguarGator9]

Yes. In 1989, there were 9 teams that finished with anywhere from 8-9 wins. The #2 seed was Cleveland at 9-6-1. Kansas City was 1 game behind at 8-7-1, and missed the playoffs

[@Nonsense1986]

@@OfficialJaguarGator9 Make a video explaining the playoff scenario lol.

[@jonathanfrimerman8855]

@@OfficialJaguarGator9 2006 too,

[@targettoad691]

@@OfficialJaguarGator9 You should make a vid on the 89 AFC playpff tiebreakers

[@hezamachine]

In 1989, Only 5 teams in each conference made the playoffs. 3 division winners and 2 wildcard teams. Both wildcard teams would play against each other. In 1990 to was changed to 6 teams. The Packers were a 10-6 team that didn't make the playoffs. They need Cincinnati Bengals to beat the Minnesota Vikings to get in.

[@ThePrufessa]

So first thought is clearly the NFL didn't always play divisional matchups on the last day of the season. That's interesting I thought that always was a thing. It makes perfect sense.

[@J3MOdh3NOWX3S]

I had to watch certain parts multiple times to get past the confusion. Is it just me or is this video wrong ? In the majority of scenarios, washington winning favors them..

[@WillyKillya]

It is not just you. I just saw this video, had to watch it about three times, and it is more about the craziness of multiple teams being able to finish with the same record but some are in and some are out, But This happens almost every year, and in no way did losing hurt the Redskins, and winning didn't help them, There is an oversimplification that is due to confusion, or clickbait Temptation on the channels part.

[@jamesmelcher9355]

I liked this one, partly because of the length. Many of the videos on this site are too long.

[@matthewriebel5792]

This happened with Miami in 1999 and Cleveland in 2007.

[@insouciantFox]

But is it worse than the bowl system in college football?

[@shadowrottweiler]

I'm confused..... would not the division tie breaker apply to the Eagles and Redskins first?

[@busaf95]

Yes which is why a Wash and GB win plus Philly loss screws Wash as GB must have had a tie breaker over Philly. So for spot #5, Philly tops Wash but not GB and then takes spot #6 and Wash is out.

[@brendonbuffaloe8830]

Okay I’m more confused than when we started

[@jeffa7671]

List of coaches to win 3 different Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks-Joe Gibbs.

[@patsfball3710]

Was like Sunday night game other night chargers and raiders. Was 4 min left in overtime. If they tie both teams get it if they play to win winner gets in loser knocked out. I would have knelt the ball and hope other coach did the same

[@Eddy-ii4xz]

At 130 what was he doing 😂😂😂

[@boodaviking2736]

It's better than my old CYO basketball league. 1st was record, 2nd was head to head, 3rd was points total in head to head , 4th was what was your school named in alphabetical order (st Catherine would get in over st Mary's). Almost had this happen 😂

[@holaatyaboy6765]

I appreciate seeing the Redskins logo

[@ThePrufessa]

2:10 ahhh... That explains a lot.

[@Aunini]

Last year the AFC had no WC spots decided until the last week, Miami was the one to miss out despite having something like a 93% chance 🎲 Then you had the Raiders this year making it in if the Steelers and Ravens eliminated each other with a tie, and then probably realizing recreating West Germany/Austria in the 1982 world cup would be suspicious as hell 🕵️‍♂️

[@s.c0044]

2021 49ers is close to be there even if not as crazy, they are the 6th seed still fighting for the playoff spot but the 7th seed already is in

[@someperson3883]

Eagles have the tiebreaker over the Saints, and the 49ers would be behind in a tiebreaker with the Saints.

[@mgb4692]

And Philly would have been the 6, so technically the 7 wasn't clinched

[@ditota0813]

You sound like ned from spiderman lmao

[@Buffalo_Bills_1964]

That’s bizarre

[@TheSoonToBePurgedJackMeHoff55]

I couldn't imagine throwing a game. I'd just ask the coach the bench me

[@ingibingi2000]

I watched the video and listened but still don't understand

[@stephenbianchi7141]

After LV/LA, I knew this would trend

[@johnfederkins4177]

Winning is always better until you've clinched everything possible. Only then could there be the slight advantage of losing a game to influence the seeding of the other playoff teams.

[@josephariola8583]

Look, it’s the Washington Redskins!

[@Coyotek4]

1992 ... the highpoint of Rick Kotite's coaching career.

[@Y.d.o.b.o.n]

1:30 the hell was that

[@killbillvol69]

I just watched this twice and I still don't get why they were better off losing. Can someone dumb it down for me?

[@CTubeMan]

One last comment then I’ll get off the stage (unless you want a further breakdown of the 2013 playoff scenarios). This is the “Monty Hall Problem” of playoff scenarios, in that if the TFKAR wins they need one of two things to go their way, while if they lose they need only one thing to go their way. An explanation of the MHP from the movie 21 in the link below. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2bRdKedmLFnoLc

[@BSimms]

I still don't get it

[@Relax4now]

Now they will never get a Super Bowl win ever again

[@ltahoe7195]

Man I miss the old RFK Stadium. The fan support was so much better than it is now. It's almost like people in the Washington DC area completely lost interest in what was used to be the Redskins and now are the Commanders. It's really a shame since the Redskins had a pretty long and storied history. Now they're a poorly run franchise and their fans have completely lost interest in the team. If you to ask me this 25 years ago I'd say no way this could happen.

[@sdmcnulty22]

2014 Carolina Panthers were 3-8-1 in December, but won their last 4 games to win the division!

[@howardbaxter2514]

Yep. And then they beat the Cardinals in the Wild Card round, holding the Cards to the least amount of total yards in a playoff game in history. Fast forward one year, and then the Panthers kicked the Cards ass to make it to the Super Bowl.

[@bassclay100]

wash should try to win cause minn had the div they were the 3 seed regardless!!! they had nothing to gain by losing or winning vs green bay so winning is the best option for washington

[@hapaharley1706]

Gibbs is the only coach to win a Super Bowl w 3 different quarterbacks, which is the most important position and none of them were even that good. The fact that Belichick, who is considered by many as the greatest coach of all-time didn't even sniff the playoffs this year w a former MVP, says a lot. I think Gibbs is highly underrated and is at least top 10 greatest, if not top 5

[@promedio2933]

Hapagaber tas super wrong They had doog sbq El malo is uoy huevetas

[@diaz5292]

Theismann was good. As a Cowboys fan I saw a lot of Joe playing QB. And he earned my respect, though at the time I hated how good he was.

[@colderbeer]

It's 2021 now, and for those who are sleeping under a rock, little Billy Belichick HAS A LOSING RECORD as a head coach when THE GOAT isn't his starting QB. Yeah, Tom Brady goes to a losing team like Tampa Bay, and takes them to the promised land and beats the Chiefs in the Super Bowl.....solid proof that all those Super Bowl trophies up in New England are thanks to Brady by at least 75%, and not because of shorty Billy Belichick.

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

Two of them came in strike years.

[@hapaharley1706]

@@dallasbrubaker6054 yup and in one of those strike years, his team was one of the only ones to not have any players crossover. He was such an amazing coach, he beat professionals w/ a bunch of amateurs

[@luckylucas8596]

But if Washington loses and Green Bay wins, doesn’t Green Bay get in over Washington? With a Washington win, all they would need is one of the two games to go their way (i.e. Philly wins and GB loses), but if Washington loses, it all comes down to the result of the GB game. All of that said, I disagree with the notion that Washington benefitted from losing the game.

[@nicciarcia4941]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The Redskins had a every incentive to win this game, as it would (in essence) give them a 75% chance of getting in. If they lost, then they only had a 50% chance of getting in.

[@xyphos_]

Craziest for me is probably the Chargers/Raiders Scenario my big bro wanted them to parlay lol

[@SolidShepard]

i thought the scenario was going to come down to strength of schedule uncommon opponents tie breaker, and there was a team ahead of them and behind them. if they won they would lose the tie breaker, but if they lost they would win. i know there are some flaws in this but like time travel, i don't feel like racking my brain too hard over it right now. you get the gist. lol like they knew going in if they won the would be out of the playoffs, but if they lost they would be in the playoffs.

[@elivandrisse]

We're just gonna skip over this play 1:28

[@unnanointedonesufi]

Joe Gibbs is so underrated

[@felixleiter5092]

This is a common occurrence in football ⚽️. Many times in knockout tournaments like the world cup and the euros, if you win you lose and if you lose you win. Comes down to points differentials. That's why most Americans can't understand football.

[@robertsprouse9282]

I want to get this straight. Winning did not automatically increase their chances; instead, it decreased them, but it did not eliminate them. However, losing did increase their chances compared to winning. Do I have that right?