Almost a coin flip to decide a playoff spot in 1970?

[Evan]

I came across an article written before the final weekend of the 1970 season. It said that if the Giants, Lions and Cowboys all won, the Giants would win the NFC East, and the Cowboys and Lions would decide the NFC wild card by a coin flip. The Giants got blown out and the Cowboys and Lions both won, so the playoff field was settled cleanly with no tie-breakers needed.

My questions are:

1. Is that article accurate, was a coin flip truly going to be the method to determine if either the Cowboys or Lions got in the playoffs? That seems kind of crazy, although I suppose the NFL's other tie-breaker methods could be considered fairly inconclusive as to who is the more deserving team as well. Just seems like there would be more tiebreakers before going right to the coin flip.

2. Have there been any other scenarios whereby a coin flip was going to take place if a given team won? In other words, how close has the NFL ever come to this actually happening?

3. Anyone know how the flip would actually have taken place? It would have to have been as soon as possible after the game in order to maximize preparation time for the lucky team headed to the playoffs. Who would have called it? If this happened today and ESPN covered it, there would be an NCAA-selection show feel I'm sure, with cameras showing the heads of every player on each team following the coin going up in the air and coming down, probably in slow motion.

Any other thoughts on this?

[IvanNYC]

I came across an article written before the final weekend of the 1970 season. It said that if the Giants, Lions and Cowboys all won, the Giants would win the NFC East, and the Cowboys and Lions would decide the NFC wild card by a coin flip. The Giants got blown out and the Cowboys and Lions both won, so the playoff field was settled cleanly with no tie-breakers needed.

My questions are:

1. Is that article accurate, was a coin flip truly going to be the method to determine if either the Cowboys or Lions got in the playoffs? That seems kind of crazy, although I suppose the NFL's other tie-breaker methods could be considered fairly inconclusive as to who is the more deserving team as well. Just seems like there would be more tiebreakers before going right to the coin flip.

2. Have there been any other scenarios whereby a coin flip was going to take place if a given team won? In other words, how close has the NFL ever come to this actually happening?

3. Anyone know how the flip would actually have taken place? It would have to have been as soon as possible after the game in order to maximize preparation time for the lucky team headed to the playoffs. Who would have called it? If this happened today and ESPN covered it, there would be an NCAA-selection show feel I'm sure, with cameras showing the heads of every player on each team following the coin going up in the air and coming down, probably in slow motion.

Any other thoughts on this?

1. Yes, a NYG win + DAL win + DET win would have resulted in the Giants winning the NFC East based on better division record over the Cowboys and then DAL and DET going to a coin flip since the Cowboys and Lions would both have 7-4 conference records. (Tiebreakers in 1970 for the Wild Card only went as far as 1-head-to-head, 2-conference record, and 3-coin flip).

2. Also in 1970 with a Dallas win and had the Giants and Lions both tied their games, then the Cowboys would win the East and the Wild Card spot between NYG and DET would have been determined by a coin flip (both NYG/DET would have 6-4-1 conference records). A playoff spot being decided on a coin flip hasn't come close since with more tiebreaking steps added the following season.

3. The NFL had arranged for George Halas to flip a coin at halftime of the 49ers-Raiders game.

After the coin flip was averted, Lions owner Bill Ford quipped, "It kept the owners from looking like a bunch of donkeys."

[Evan]

Ivan, that is priceless stuff. Thank you so much for sharing. Just thankful we have an Ivan Urena to answer all of our scheduling and tie-breaking riddles!

[Rupert Patrick]

After the 1970 near-debacle, three new tiebreaker steps were added in 1971-75 to reduce the likelihood of a coin toss happening again. They went to "Best Point Rating (Offense and Defense) in Division/Conference/All Games". I don't know if the tiebreakers ever got to these steps, but how I believe these point ratings worked is if two teams were tied for the division lead and it went to Best Point Rating in Division Games, they would rank all of the teams in that particular division in points scored and points allowed in division games. The highest on offense (most points scored) gets one point and the lowest (fewest points scored) gets four or five points (depending on the number of teams in the league), and on defense the team who allowed the fewest points got one point and the team who allowed the most got a four or five. They would add these numbers together for each team, and if it came down to this tiebreaker, the team with the lowest combined offensive and defensive points wins the tiebreaker. In 1974, for Best Point Rating in Conference Games, it was computed by average points per game instead of total points. There is a similar sort of tiebreaker they use these days.

One tiebreaker they've never used that I always thought made sense was "Best Record Against .500 or Better Teams".

[sheajets]

Insane that a coin flip was even on the table. Curious if it came to that...would both teams just rather play a game instead and just move the entire playoffs back a week?

[Evan]

Insane that a coin flip was even on the table. Curious if it came to that...would both teams just rather play a game instead and just move the entire playoffs back a week?

My sentiments exactly. All the other tiebreakers are at least somewhat affectable (I know that's not a word, but close enough) by teams in on-field play.

The Vikings went for the fake field goal in OT against Chicago in 1977 partially because they thought the total points in head to head competition could come into play (and it did).

The Bears in 1979 knew they had to run up the score in the season finale to win the tie-breaker.

Other teams probably emphasized division games and conference games a little more by perhaps letting injured players heal up for those games, breaking out new plays, etc, because they knew they could affect their chances of winning potential tiebreakers.

The coin flip obviously is not affectable by any aspect of a team's play. I know that at some point the tiebreakers become truly absurd and thus you have to settle it somehow, but the coin flip just looks and feels wrong for any kind of situation that could determine a team's chances of winning the Super Bowl.

The 1970 scenario shocked me because it seemed like the coin flip came up so fast in the tiebreaker. And to your point sheajets, I too figured they could have had some kind of provision for a tiebreaking game, like they had done other times in conference playoffs. But I figure there were logistical issues there, plus what if they had a three-way tie, then I guess it would get crazy complicated.

Anyway, it was a new note in football history for me, so I really appreciate you folks chiming in with your research, reactions and opinions.

[IvanNYC]

Insane that a coin flip was even on the table. Curious if it came to that...would both teams just rather play a game instead and just move the entire playoffs back a week?

My sentiments exactly. All the other tiebreakers are at least somewhat affectable (I know that's not a word, but close enough) by teams in on-field play.

The Vikings went for the fake field goal in OT against Chicago in 1977 partially because they thought the total points in head to head competition could come into play (and it did).

The Bears in 1979 knew they had to run up the score in the season finale to win the tie-breaker.

Other teams probably emphasized division games and conference games a little more by perhaps letting injured players heal up for those games, breaking out new plays, etc, because they knew they could affect their chances of winning potential tiebreakers.

The coin flip obviously is not affectable by any aspect of a team's play. I know that at some point the tiebreakers become truly absurd and thus you have to settle it somehow, but the coin flip just looks and feels wrong for any kind of situation that could determine a team's chances of winning the Super Bowl.

The 1970 scenario shocked me because it seemed like the coin flip came up so fast in the tiebreaker. And to your point sheajets, I too figured they could have had some kind of provision for a tiebreaking game, like they had done other times in conference playoffs. But I figure there were logistical issues there, plus what if they had a three-way tie, then I guess it would get crazy complicated.

Anyway, it was a new note in football history for me, so I really appreciate you folks chiming in with your research, reactions and opinions.

The provision for a special playoff in case teams were tied for a division/conference title was part of the League constitution and bylaws only through the 1966 season. As of 1967, in case of division ties, the division champion would be determined by tiebreakers. Interestingly, heading into the final week of the 1970 season, the Lions had actually proposed that instead of a coin flip, they would play the Cowboys the following Wednesday if both teams ended the regular season tied for the Wild Card. NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle told the Lions that for such a game to take place, it would need the approval of all 26 teams. Rozelle said he knew, however, that the vote would not be unanimous. Arrangements were then made to have George Halas flip a coin in case of a DAL/DET or NYG/DET tie for the Wild Card as mentioned above in a previous post.