THE NFL DRAFT TIEBREAKER IS WRONG

Did you notice the logjam at 3-6 this year in the draft order? Four teams all had the same record.

3- ‘F’alcons 0.516 (strength of schedule)
4- ‘R’aiders 0.516
5- ‘C’hiefs 0.516
6- ‘J’ets 0.523

The Jets lost the tiebreaker on strength of schedule. The Chiefs pick behind the Raiders because of intra-divisional standings based on common opponents. The Falcons won the coin toss.

1st round FRCJ
2nd round RCJF (NFL tiebreaker rotation format)
3rd round CJFR etc…

THE ROTATION IS WRONG! Why should the team picking second best in the first tiebreak of Round 1 get to go FIRST of these four in the next round, with everyone sliding up? The order should be reversed.

1st round FRCJ
2nd round JCRF
3rd round FRCJ etc…

If one consults the draft value chart AND the NFL makes the tiebreak as equitable as possible, the team that picked ahead of everyone and won the tiebreak in Round 1 would go LAST EVERY SUBSEQUENT ROUND AND the team that went last would go FIRST EVERY SUBSEQUENT ROUND etc..

1st round FRCJ
2nd round JCRF
3rd round JCRF etc..

WHY??? Because the difference in the lost tiebreak in Round 1 is SO HUGE that giving the LOSER the best picks in EVERY SUBSEQUENT ROUND would still not make up for the difference in Round 1! Check the draft value draft for picks 3-6.

03 2200 0550 0255 0104 0041 0026 0013
04 1800 0540 0250 0100 0040 0026 0013
05 1700 0530 0245 0096 0040 0025 0013
06 1600 0520 0240 0092 0039 0025 0012

If the Raiders got the #3 pick of Round 1 with the worst of the rest of the rounds, while the Jets got the #6 pick in Round 1 and best thereafter, the Raiders would still have 3128 points of value assigned to them while the Jets would get 2589!

In fact, we can go one step further- the NFL could give the tiebreak teams the CHOICE of taking [the best in the 1st round and the worst in every subsequent round] OR [the worst in the first and the best in every round thereafter], and I would still be willing to bet that every team would choose the former because of all of the edge in going ahead of the other teams in Round 1. At least you see the difference shrinking… teams would be willing to debate internally whether the edge in picking ahead in round #1 merits going behind every subsequent round.

Considering how microscopic the strength of schedule tiebreaker is, the current rules for rotating picks punishes tiebreak losers inordinately for no reason other than ignorance of a simple and fair alternative mentioned here.

Quantcast