NFL 2013 Playoff Picture: Week 4

Four weeks of the NFL season are in the books, and there are still five undefeated teams (along with four "defeated" teams). Last year there were just three at this time and none of those teams are above .500 this year (Atlanta, Arizona, and Houston). The Saints, one of this year's undefeated teams, had lost all four games at this point last year. The divisions are starting to get a bit easier to rank although half the divisions (three of the four in the AFC) have leaders chosen by tiebreakers. As always, these rankings are based on assuming all un-played games are 0-0 ties.

Starting off with the AFC, the leader in the East is easiest to determine since the Patriots have the division's best record at 4-0. Miami follows at 3-1 before we get to a tie between Buffalo and New York at 2-2. The Jets won when they faced off earlier this year, so they currently have third.

Moving onto the mess that is the AFC North: Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Cleveland are all tied at 2-2 while Pittsburgh is in the cellar at 0-4. So far, the Ravens have beaten the Browns, and the Browns have beaten the Bengals. Remembering that un-played games are assumed to be 0-0 ties, the teams head-to-head-to-head records are Baltimore 1-0-5, Cleveland 1-1-4, and Cincinnati 0-1-5 thus the current seeding is Raven, Browns, then Bengals.

Heading down South, the Colts and Titans are tied at the top at 3-1. Looking at divisional games, Indianapolis has beaten Jacksonville while Tennessee lost to Houston, so the Colts have the better divisional record and thus the top spot. Houston comes in third at 2-2, and the Jaguars are last with their 0-4 record.

The AFC West is the only division is still have two undefeated teams: Denver and Kansas City. The Broncos are the only one of the two to have played a divisional game and thus have the divisional record lead 1-0-5 to 0-0-6. San Diego is third at 2-2 followed by the 1-3 Raiders.

Ranking the divisional leaders, the Patriots and Broncos are tied at the top. New England currently has the tiebreaker edge via strength of victory: their opponents are a combined 5-11 versus 4-12 for the Broncos. Indianapolis is the #3 seed at 3-1, and Baltimore is #4 at 2-2.

As for the Wild Card, the Chiefs are #5 with the best record of 4-0 of the non-division leaders. Miami and Tennessee are tied for next best at 3-1. The Titans currently have the edge via record in common games. Here's the current AFC playoff picture:

Moving onto the NFC, the Cowboys lead the dismal East with a 2-2 record. Philadelphia and Washington are tied for second at 1-3, and since the Eagles won in their first meeting of the year, they currently are ahead. The Giants are at the bottom of the division at 0-4.

In the North, Chicago and Detroit are tied at 3-1. The Lions won their matchup against the Bears this past weekend, so they currently have the tiebreaker. The Packers are third at 1-2 (were off with a bye this past week) followed by Minnesota at the bottom at 1-3.

As for the South, the perfect 4-0 Saints lead the division. Carolina, who was off this past weekend, are second at 1-2. The 1-3 Falcons are third followed by the 0-4 Buccaneers.

Out West, the 4-0 Seahawks lead the division. Arizona and San Francisco are tied for second at 2-2. The 49ers are 1-1 in the division while the Cardinals are 0-1, and as such, the Niners currently have the tiebreaker edge. The 1-3 Rams are currently at the bottom.

Moving on to ranking the divisional leaders, New Orleans and Seattle are tied at the top. The Saints have played one more conference game than the Seahawks and thus lead in the conference record tiebreaker 3-0-9 to 2-0-10. The Lions follow as the #3 with their 3-1 record and Dallas is #4 at 2-2.

As for the Wild Card, the Bears have the best record among the non-divisional leaders at 3-1 and are the #5 seed. The next best record is a tie between San Francisco and Arizona, and the divisional tiebreaker applies, so the 49ers are currently the #6 seed. The NFC playoff picture is currently:

Looking ahead to what the picture could look like next week, the Patriots, Saints, and Seahawks are all guaranteed to be leading their divisions after Week 5. Denver is the only other team guaranteed to be in the picture: as the AFC West leader if they win or if Kansas City loses otherwise as a Wild Card.

The AFC North will be led by the Ravens if they win. If they lose, the Browns take the lead with a win. If both Baltimore and Cleveland lose, Cincinnati takes the top spot with a win. If none of those teams win, the Ravens keep the spot. Similar story in the South with the Colts winning keeping them atop the division. If they lose, the Titans move to the top with a win. If both Indianapolis and Tennessee lose, Houston can retake the divisional lead with a win.

Kansas City keeps their Wild Card spot with a win (or moves up to Denver's divisional leader spot) or losses by one of Miami or Indianapolis. Miami earns a spot with a win. Tennessee is at least a Wild Card with a win. If Miami and Indianapolis both lose, the final Wild Card spot will go to either Miami, Cincinnati, Houston, or Indianapolis based on tiebreakers.

The NFC East will be held by Dallas if they win or if Philadelphia loses. If the Cowboys lose and the Eagles win, they overtake the lead. Neither can have a wild card spot after next week. Similar story in the North with the Lions and Bears. Chicago needs to win and have Detroit lose to overtake. However either team could end up as a wild card if not the divisional leader.

The 49ers keep their wild card spot with a win. Arizona take a wild card spot with a win and losses by two of Chicago, Detroit, and San Francisco. The Panthers take a wild card spot with a win against the Cardinals and a 49ers loss. The non-divisional leader between the Bears and Lions keeps their spot with a win or losses by both Arizona and San Francisco.

My Where's George Week in Review: 09/22/13 - 09/28/13

At the start of last year, I began publishing a weekly review of my past seven days of activity in regards to Where's George. These reviews were largely focused around key goals/predictions for the year (including bills entered, bills hit, and total hits). Some of the things I tracked, in retrospect, weren't really all that interesting, and a lot of the tracking around bill entries wasn't all that useful. When one really thinks about it, Where's George is all about the hits. As such, I've revamped my weekly reviews to be focused on what was interesting about my hits in the past week, and using that data, scoring the week on a scale of 0 to 10. I'm sure as time goes on that I'll tinker with the scoring system, but I think what I have for now is good for the 1.0 version.

With that said, on a scale of 0 to 10 this past week was a:

0.8

---

In the past week, I got 25 hits in 6 States [AZ, CA¹⁶, FL, IL², NV⁴, OR]. Of those hits, 6 were the 2^nd hit on the bill and the rest (19) were the initial hit on the bill. Below is a calendar view of the hits throughout the week:

Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
2	7	1	2	5	5	3

I came into the week with a 20 day hit streak. I got a hit on every day of this week which extended the streak to 27 days.

Additionally in the past week I received my first hit in 1 county bringing my total of counties hit to 558. The newly hit county was Sangamon IL.

Of the States hit in the past week, none were in "Sleepy" States (a "Sleepy" State is a State in which I haven't received a hit in over twelve weeks). 19 States meet the "Sleepy" status for next week (last hit in parenthesis): Alaska (03/02/2010), Delaware (07/14/2011), Kentucky (10/14/2011), Vermont (11/27/2011), Rhode Island (03/04/2012), District of Columbia (09/26/2012), North Carolina (12/28/2012), Tennessee (01/17/2013), Wyoming (01/17/2013), South Carolina (03/21/2013), Connecticut (03/30/2013), Nebraska (04/30/2013), Oklahoma (05/05/2013), North Dakota (05/05/2013), Maryland (05/21/2013), Maine (05/25/2013), West Virginia (05/26/2013), Louisiana (06/18/2013), New Hampshire (06/22/2013).

Of the bills hit in the past week, 9 were active for more than a year. Of those, the longest active bill from the bunch was re-entered 5 Years 0 Days 20 Hours 48 Minutes after I originally entered it. That bill is now 2^nd on my all-time longest active list. My top ten longest active bills list is now:

Rank	Bill Info			Time Active	Last Update	Hits
1.	$1	2006	L2964---0E	5 Years 15 Days 15 Hours 22 Minutes	08/14/2013	2
2.	$1	2006	I8421---4A	5 Years 20 Hours 48 Minutes	09/23/2013	1
3.	$10	2003	DL947---91A	4 Years 238 Days 13 Hours 41 Minutes	03/08/2013	2
4.	$1	2006	L2100---3I	4 Years 222 Days 15 Hours 55 Minutes	08/20/2013	1
5.	$1	2003A	L4532---3K	4 Years 200 Days 22 Minutes	10/12/2012	1
6.	$1	2006	L8723---5F	4 Years 170 Days 22 Hours 5 Minutes	08/16/2013	1
7.	$1	2006	L2080---0I	4 Years 166 Days 12 Hours 17 Minutes	07/06/2013	1
8.	$1	2003A	L3475---2C	4 Years 165 Days 9 Hours 56 Minutes	02/04/2013	2
9.	$1	2006	L9534---6K	4 Years 141 Days 3 Hours 36 Minutes	08/18/2013	1
10.	$1	2006	L8846---7H	4 Years 133 Days 59 Minutes	06/17/2013	1

And now, the speed round of data on everything else. 1 of the hits I received in the past week were from Georgers with Profiles: L8508---6A. Additionally 21 of the hits contained notes. 1 of the hits were on non-Georges: $5. The hits were on bills that spread across 10 of the 12 FRBs. The FRBs for which I didn't receive hits were Philadelphia (C) and Kansas City (J). I got hits on five new combos this past week: 2001-$1-AD, 2006-$1-L*, 2009-$1-AD, 2009-$1-D*, and 2009-$5-FA.

---

So how did this week end up as a 0.8? To start off the calculation, I compare this week's number with the lowest and highest from the past 12 weeks and score it based on how it fits in that range - so if this week's number is midway between the low and the high, it scores a 0.5 for that category (i.e. if this week's States Hit was 10, the past 12 weeks' low was 5, and the past 12 weeks' high was 15, that'd be a 0.5). A category can be scored at a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1.25 meaning that if this week is better than any of the past 12, bonus points are awarded. Some categories are worth more than others (in the 1.0 version, categories are worth either 1 or 2). The sum of the products of the category scores and value results in the overall score for the week. That number is then compared to the overall scores for the previous 12 weeks, and where it ends up in the range results in the week's score on a scale from 0 to 10 (so if the overall score is midway between the two, the week is a 5.0). A week cannot score below 0 or above 10.

Here's a tabular view of this week's scores:

		Past 12 Weeks
Stat	Week	Min	Max	Score	Weight	S*W
Hits that Changed States	8	5	25	0.15	2.0	0.30
Days with Hits	7	6	7	1.00	2.0	2.00
Distinct States Hit	6	4	15	0.18	2.0	0.36
Hits Beyond the 1st on a Bill 1	6	3	15	0.25	2.0	0.50
Bills Active Over a Year 2	33.9	12.7	53.4	0.52	2.0	1.04
New Counties	1	0	4	0.25	2.0	0.50
Hits from Georgers with Profiles	1	0	5	0.20	2.0	0.40
Hits with Notes	21	19	42	0.09	2.0	0.17
International Hits	0	0	2	0.00	1.0	0.00
Hits on Non-Georges	1	0	4	0.25	1.0	0.25
Hits in "Sleepy" States	0	0	4	0.00	1.0	0.00
Distinct FRBs Hit	10	8	11	0.67	1.0	0.67
New Series/Denom/FRB/Block Combo Hit	5	0	2	1.25	1.0	1.25
*** TOTAL ***						7.45

¹ - The second hit on a bill is worth 1 point. Each hit thereafter doubles in value (i.e. The third is worth 2 and the fourth is worth 4.).

² - A bill active for a year is worth 1 point. Each additional year doubles in value and partial years add partial value.

The minimum overall score over the past 12 weeks was 6.52 and the maximum was 18.67 so this week's score of 7.45 resulted in a scale score of 0.8.

---

Another poor week of results George-wise. I haven't had very good weeks since converting to this new reporting/scoring structure. I'm sure that's a coincidence, but it sure seems odd. September hasn't been that great hit-wise, so hopefully things turn around in October.

2013 Run for Courage: A New 10K Personal Record

It was my third straight year of running the Run for Courage. In both of the previous years, I set a new personal record (two years ago I ran the 5K; last year I also did the 10K) and I looked forward to doing the same today.

Going into the day, I was a bit worried about parking and "traffic" on the course where the 5K and 10K merge since they were expecting over 3000 participants. Last year I did a lot of dodging of walkers in the last mile.

I got to the race extra early (~6:30) to ensure parking (I had planned to arrive closer to 6:45) and didn't have any problems. Probably could have gotten there at 7:15 and still have been fine. One of the nice things about the Run for Courage is that the festivities start at 7:00, so even if you're early, there's stuff going on (whereas at a lot of races you sit around until roughly a half hour before race start).

I think the toughest part of participating in Run for Courage is when they bring out the survivors. I get a bit choked up thinking about what the women have endured, and it makes me feel a bit silly about potentially not doing the race in the future due to concerns about overcrowding. What a lame problem to be so concerned about.

I think they did a better job of lining people up this year and did a good job of it although they may have starting lining people up a bit early. The 10K and 5K groups were separated (the separated area was used pre-race for a dance number) and this year there were pace indicators for the 10K (although they only had 7 and 8 min/mile markers). I stood slightly behind the 8 min/mile sign (I was targeting 8:10 or slightly under). No one lined up ahead of me. A few minutes before the start of the run, they had us all move forward, I tried to move forward slowly, but no one would pass me, so I ended up starting the race right at the start line and ended up in front for a bunch of the pictures. We'll see how those come out.

I knew that starting in the front could cause challenges pace-wise since I'd likely be running a midst those that would go much faster than I, and when you're getting passed a lot, you feel like you're going slowly and speed up. When the race started, I started off fast to make sure I wasn't in the way. I started off a a sub 6:00/mile pace, and after the first minute, I knew I need to slow down to closer to 8 minutes/mile. This is more challenging than it seems like it should have been, and halfway through the first mile, I was still running at about 7:00/mile. I was able to slow things down from there, but I still finished the first mile in a brisk (for me) 7:23. On the plus side, I had gained almost 50 seconds in the first mile over my targeted pace. On the other hand, I might have burned my legs up too much.

Burn out didn't affect my second mile, and I was able to keep my pace steady but under 8:00 minutes/mile as I completed the second in 7:51. I began to slow a bit in the third, and midway through the mile my pace crossed above 8:00/mile. That showed in my time as the third mile took me 8:05. So almost midway through the run, I was 72 seconds ahead of my targeted pace (which was my current personal record).

I continued to slow down for the fourth and fifth miles, but thankfully not by as much as I feared that I would. I lost a combined 18 seconds from my desired pace over those miles which kept me 54 seconds ahead of target. The "dreaded" merge with the 5Kers wasn't as bad as last year (there was still some dodging, but for the most part, I was able to stay to the left to go around most of the 5Kers). I finished the sixth mile in 8:08. I picked up the pace as I approached the finish line and crossed the line sprinting at nearly 5 minutes/mile. I crossed at 49:10: over a minute and a half faster than my previous PR.

According to my GPS watch, the course was slightly short (6.16) which was also the case last year, but this year it was closer to the full 10K. Based on my average pace for the race, it would have taken me another 23 seconds to finish had the course been full length. Even with that added time, I would have broken 50 minutes. It may be a bit more difficult to break this PR because of the course length, but that'll make it all the more of a challenge. Along with my first sub 50 minute 10K, I also had my first average pace of under 8 minutes/mile (7:55).

Here's a table showing my performance versus the average performance needed to match my PR coming into the race:

	Pace		+/-
Mile	Target	Actual	Mile	Overall
1	08:10.6	07:23.0	+47.6	+47.6
2	08:10.6	07:51.0	+19.6	+67.2
3	08:10.6	08:05.3	+5.3	+72.5
4	08:10.6	08:18.0	-7.4	+65.1
5	08:10.6	08:21.9	-11.3	+53.8
6	08:10.6	08:08.1	+2.5	+56.4
+	01:44.8	01:02.8	+42.0	+98.4

The 42 seconds I picked up in the final ~0.21 miles should be a pretty big clue that the course was a bit short.

The Run for Courage 10K is a well ran race, and if it fits into my schedule, I'll certainly run it next year regardless of any concerns I have over the ease of getting parking.

Rankings & What's Next: UFC Welterweights

After a multiple month layoff, I'm bringing back a feature that I started earlier this year where I combine a division's published rankings from UFC.com, Fight Matrix, Sherdog, and MMA Weekly. I then use those combined rankings to determine who should get the next title shot and which two fighters should face off in a #1 contender's match for the next shot based on the following rules:

• The next title contender would be the highest ranked fighter that:
  • Won two fights in a row.
  • Won three fights since his last loss in a title fight or against the current champion unless he's a former champion that successfully defended the belt.
  • Won five fights in a row if his number of losses against the current champion is two greater than his number of wins.
• The next #1 contender match would be between the next two highest ranked fighters that:
  • Won his last fight.
  • Won two fights since his last loss in a title fight or against the current champion unless he's a former champion that successfully defended the belt.
  • Won four fights in a row if his number of losses against the current champion is two greater than his number of wins.

I then pair up the remaining fighters from the top ten (sometimes going beyond) based on their last outcome in an attempt to set things up so that when all of the matches play out, there's at least a couple of good candidates for the next #1 contender's match.

After going through my theorical matchups, I take a look at the fights the UFC has already set up and give my take on what should happen with the unmatched fighters. Finally, I give my overall thoughts on the division.

In the spring, I was working my way "up" the weight classes. With this reboot, I'm going to start with heavyweight and work down since I didn't make it all the way through last time.

---

Combined Rankings

		UFC			Fight Matrix			Sherdog			MMA Weekly
Last Update:		09/23/2013			09/22/2013			09/23/2013			09/24/2013
1.	Georges St-Pierre		1	(0)		1			1			1
2.	Johny Hendricks		2	(1)		2			2			2
3.	Carlos Condit		3	(2)		3			3			3
4.	Rory MacDonald		4	(3)		4			5			4
5.	Demian Maia		5	(4)		5			4			7
6.	Jake Ellenberger		6	(5)		6			7	(8)		6
7.	Martin Kampmann		7	(6)					6	(7)		5
8.	Matt Brown					7	(8)		8	(10)		9	(10)
9.	Robbie Lawler		9	(8)		9	(10)		T9	(OC)		8
10.	Nick Diaz		8	(7)		10	(11)
	Jake Shields					8	(9)
	Tarec Saffiedine		10	(9)					T9	(OC)
	Josh Koscheck								T9	(OC)
	Mike Pierce								T9	(OC)

---

Matches I'd Make

Starting off with the title, Johnny Hendricks would get the next chance at Georges St-Pierre. As for the #1 contender, Carlos Condit hasn't won enough to qualify, so I'd match with Rory MacDonald with Damain Maia to see who gets the winner of GSP/Hendricks. Carlos instead would get Matt Brown with the winner likely getting to take part in the next #1 contender's match. Robbie Lawler is the last top 10 fighter in the division coming off of a win. I'd give him Jake Shields with the winner of the matchup likely getting the Condit/Brown winner for the next #1 contender's match. As for those fighers in the top ten coming off of a loss, although it may be too soon, I'd rematch Martin Kampmann with Jake Ellenberger and see if "The Juggernaut" burns himself out in the first round again. As for Nick Diaz, he seems to be retired, but if he wants a fight, he can take on Josh Koshcheck. As for the winners just outside the top ten, I'd match up Tarec Saffiedine with Mike Pierce and see if I couldn't get one of them in position to be a contender (or be used as a stepping stone for a contender) later on in 2014.

Matches the UFC has Made

Hendricks will be taking on GSP for the title at UFC 166 in November. Condit is also taking on Brown at UFC on FOX 9 in December. The UFC has decided to match up MacDonald with Lawler and Maia with Shields. I can only assume the more impressive winner of those two will get the next title shot. The UFC has also set up Tyron Woodley to take on Koscheck at UFC 166 and Rousimar Palhares (moving down from middleweight) to take on Pierce.

Matches I'd Add to the UFC's

Along with mixing up MacDonald/Maia and Lawler/Shields into MacDonald/Lawler and Maia/Shields, the UFC has already set up a couple of the matches I mentioned: GSP/Hendricks and Condit/Brown. I think it's worthwhile to keep Kampmann/Ellenberger together. That just leaves Diaz without an opponent. Since I really don't expect him to come back, I'll leave things that way.

---

Although the division has one of the most dominate champions in GSP, the UFC welterweight still has quite a few interesting options, and there are a number of good title fight possiblities: enough to last at least through the end of 2014 which gives plenty of time for the emergence of new stars and threats. The future of the welterweight division currently looks more promising than the future of any of the weight divisions above it.

2013 NFL Playoff Possibilities: Week 3

The third week of the NFL season is completed, and teams are making progress towards jockeying for position. At this point in the season, the winners are still seeing their division and playoff chances increase when they win and decrease when they lose. Later in the season, the result of the divisional leader will likely have a bigger impact than the outcome of the game for the particular team. As always, these percentages are created by randomly determining the outcome of the remaining games with each set of iterations having a set team win out and another lose out (each team has an equal number of each of those settings).

AFC East
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Buffalo Bills	9.0%	19.3%	-7.7%	-11.3%
Miami Dolphins	34.8%	57.3%	+2.8%	+5.6%
New England Patriots	37.6%	59.6%	+3.2%	+5.7%
New York Jets	18.5%	37.1%	+1.7%	+6.2%

Although Miami and New England are both 3-0, the Patriots currently have a better chance of winning the division since they have played and won two divisional games while the Dolphins have played none. Buffalo has the worst chance of winning their division of any team in the AFC (but not the worst chance at making the playoffs).

AFC North
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Baltimore Ravens	36.0%	45.9%	+3.5%	+6.0%
Cincinnati Bengals	36.0%	45.8%	+2.4%	+5.4%
Cleveland Browns	17.5%	23.9%	+1.3%	+2.7%
Pittsburgh Steelers	10.4%	14.1%	-7.2%	-8.5%

The Bengals and Ravens are essentially equal in odds of winning the division and making the playoffs. They are equal in record and divisional record, but Cincinnati has played two of their inter-conference games (going 1-1) while the Ravens have played all of their games in the AFC and lost a common game. The Browns got the least out of their victory over the weekend mostly because it came against a non-conference 0-3 team.

AFC South
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Houston Texans	32.1%	43.9%	-8.9%	-11.7%
Indianapolis Colts	31.2%	41.5%	+6.4%	+6.1%
Jacksonville Jaguars	10.4%	13.8%	-3.7%	-5.9%
Tennessee Titans	26.3%	40.5%	+6.1%	+7.3%

The AFC North is the only division to still have a three way tie at the top. The Texans took the biggest hit from losing to the Ravens but still have a slight edge in the division by having the only division win of any team in the division. Tennessee lags behind the other two by virtue of giving up that divisional loss. The Jaguars have the lowest percentage chance of making the playoffs in all of the NFL.

AFC West
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Denver Broncos	38.3%	59.0%	+7.4%	+8.7%
Kansas City Chiefs	37.6%	55.8%	+6.0%	+5.8%
Oakland Raiders	11.1%	21.0%	-7.8%	-11.7%
San Diego Chargers	13.0%	21.6%	-5.7%	-10.3%

The Broncos' odds of winning the division and making the playoffs have increase beyond Kansas City's since they played and won a divisional game this past weekend. Likewise, the Raiders chances fell below the Chargers for the opposite reason.

NFC East
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Dallas Cowboys	44.8%	56.4%	+11.4%	+12.5%
New York Giants	13.6%	18.8%	-3.1%	-5.5%
Philadelphia Eagles	28.1%	37.6%	-5.3%	-6.0%
Washington Redskins	13.5%	17.7%	-3.0%	-5.4%

Dallas has divisional win percentage higher than any team in the AFC but that is lower than any of the other divisional leaders in the NFC. At 0-3, the odds of New York and Washington winning the division are pretty much equal, but the Giants have a slightly better chance of making the playoffs since one of their losses so far has been to an AFC team while the Redskins have lost all of their games within the division.

NFC North
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Chicago Bears	46.8%	65.7%	+6.5%	+9.5%
Detroit Lions	29.6%	48.4%	+4.6%	+10.7%
Green Bay Packers	16.9%	30.3%	-7.5%	-6.9%
Minnesota Vikings	6.7%	14.5%	-3.6%	-4.7%

The Bears have a good opportunity to further improve their odds of winning the North as they go on the road to take on Detroit. Green Bay has the week off and is likely to see their percentages both go down next week. The Vikings have the worst chance of winning their division of any team in the NFL and need to get a win at home against the winless Steelers this week.

NFC South
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Atlanta Falcons	15.8%	30.9%	-7.5%	-7.3%
Carolina Panthers	19.0%	32.0%	+2.9%	+7.9%
New Orleans Saints	55.9%	72.3%	+9.0%	+10.9%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	9.2%	18.0%	-4.4%	-5.0%

New Orleans has the best chance of winning their division and making the playoffs of any team at this point. The Panthers have the second best odds in the division as they are the only team in the division that hasn't lost to the Saints.

NFC West
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Arizona Cardinals	15.7%	29.0%	-4.0%	-7.5%
San Francisco 49ers	14.6%	30.0%	-4.3%	-6.1%
Seattle Seahawks	50.9%	68.0%	+12.6%	+10.6%
St. Louis Rams	18.8%	30.5%	-4.2%	-7.6%

The Seahawks have the second-best chance of winning their division in the NFL and are one of two teams currently above 50% in regards to winning their division. The rest of the division is fairly even with St. Louis having an edge since their only win has been in the division. The Niners are behind in regards to division chances since their win was in a uncommon game but then has a better playoff chance than the Cardinals because one of their losses was to an AFC opponent.

---

Some of the 0-3 and 1-2 teams are already in the position where if they win out they still might not win their division. These teams (and the percentage of time they win their division) are:

Minnesota Vikings	97.9%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	99.0%
Oakland Raiders	99.7%
Buffalo Bills	99.7%
Atlanta Falcons	99.8%
San Francisco 49ers	99.9%
Pittsburgh Steelers	99.9%
New York Giants	99.9%

In reality, only the Vikings and Buccaneers chances are significantly lower (and they will still most likely win their division if they win out). But I still think it's interesting to note that this early in the season, teams' futures are already being taken out of their hands. Do also note, that if they win out, these teams would be guaranteed to at least be a wild card team.

2013 NFL Playoff Picture: Week 3

The third week of the NFL season is in the books, and the divisional standings are starting to rely a little less on tiebreakers (combined conference point standing wasn't needed at all this week). The AFC is proving to be tougher than the NFC so far this year as both of the AFC's Wild Card teams are undefeated while the #6 seed in the NFC is 1-2. This is largely caused by the AFC teams holding a 11-3 record against their counterparts this year.

What follows is a breakdown of the current playoff picture with a look ahead to how it could look after next week. As always, this data is based on scoring all unplayed games as 0-0 ties.

Starting off in the AFC and in the East, both the Patriots and Dolphins are undefeated. New England has played two divisional games while Miami has played none, so the Patriots are currently ahead in the divisional record tiebreaker 2-0-4 to 0-0-6. The rest of the division is ranked by record with the Jets in third at 2-1 followed by the Bills at 1-2.

In the North, Baltimore and Cincinnati are tied at the top at 2-1. Both teams have the same record in divisional games, common games, and conference games, so this one comes down to strength of victory where the Ravens have a slight edge. The Browns are third at 1-2, and the Steelers are last having yet to win.

Down South there's a three way tie between the Colts, Texans, and Titans. Houston gets the edge here having defeated Tennessee thus leads the head-to-head tiebreaker 1-0-3 to 0-0-4 (Indianapolis) to 0-1-3 (Tennessee). The Colts the edge the Titans for second via divisional record (0-0-6 to 0-1-5). Jacksonville sits in last at 0-3.

The West also boast a pair of undefeated teams in Denver and Kansas City. The Broncos have the edge here having played a divisional game. Oakland and San Diego are tied for third at 1-2 and the Chargers get the edge here because the Raiders have played and lost a divisional game while San Diego hasn't played any yet.

As for ranking the division leaders, the Patriots and Broncos are tied at the top. After tying on a few of the tie breakers, New England finally takes the lead on strength of schedule. The Ravens and Texans are also tied and since Baltimore just beat Houston this past weekend, they get the #3 spot.

Moving onto the Wild Card, the two spots go to the remaining two undefeated AFC teams: Kansas City and Miami. The Chiefs have played two NFC opponents while the Dolphins have only played one, so Miami has the tiebreaker lead in regards to conference record: 2-0-10 vs 1-0-11. Here's the current AFC playoff picture:

Moving onto the NFC, Dallas has the best record in the East (2-1) and thus the top spot. Philadelphia is second alone at 1-2. New York and Washington are tied at the bottom at 0-3. The Giants have the tiebreaker edge since one of their losses was not in a common game (Carolina) so they're slightly ahead on that tiebreaker: 0-2-10 vs 0-3-9.

Up North, all of the teams can be ranked by record. The Bears are first undefeated at 3-0. In second are the Lions at 2-1. The Packers follow at 1-2 with the Vikings at the bottom at 0-3.

The undefeated Saints lead the South. Atlanta and Carolina are tied for second at 1-2 with the Panthers having the tiebreaker edge since they haven't lost (nor played) a divisional game like the Falcons have. Tampa Bay is 0-3 and in fourth.

Out West, the Seahawks lead the division at 3-0. Everyone else is 1-2. St. Louis gets second since they've beaten the Cardinals and thus have the head-to-head tiebreaker 1-0-3 versus 0-0-4 (49ers) versus 0-1-3 (Cardinals). San Francisco is then in third by having a better conference record: 1-1-10 versus 1-2-9.

Looking at the division leaders in the NFC, only the Cowboys aren't 3-0 so they're the #4 seed. The Saints have the tiebreaker over the Bears and Seahawks by virtue of playing all of their games against NFC opponents (and thus have the best conference record at 3-0-9 versus 2-0-10 for Seattle and 1-0-11 for Chicago). Seattle is likewise second via conference record.

As for the Wild Cards, Detroit is the only non-division leader with a winning record and thus get the #5 spot. The #6 seed is up for grabs between the 1-2 Eagles, Packers, Panthers, and Rams. Of those teams, Philadelphia has been "lucky" to lose both of it's games against AFC opponents and thus has the tiebreaker (and the #6 seed) by virtue of having the best conference record (1-0-11). Here's the NFC playoff picture:

Week 4 starts the bye week rotation in the NFL, and Carolina and Green Bay will be off. Neither is currently in the playoff picture and they will remain out after week 4. Eventually the bye weeks will play into who's possibly in the following week's picture.

Twenty teams have some chance of being in the playoff picture next week. The four NFC division leaders are all guaranteed to still be there after next week. Everyone else has a chance to completely fall out. Here's the numbers for each team assuming that the outcome of each game next week is 50/50:

		Division %	Playoff %
NFC South	New Orleans Saints	100.0%	100.0%
NFC West	Seattle Seahawks	100.0%	100.0%
NFC East	Dallas Cowboys	75.0%	100.0%
AFC West	Denver Broncos	75.0%	98.7%
AFC East	New England Patriots	75.0%	98.0%
AFC South	Houston Texans	62.5%	62.5%
NFC North	Chicago Bears	50.0%	100.0%
AFC North	Baltimore Ravens	50.0%	65.9%
NFC North	Detroit Lions	50.0%	56.3%
AFC North	Cincinnati Bengals	50.0%	50.0%
AFC East	Miami Dolphins	25.0%	92.7%
AFC West	Kansas City Chiefs	25.0%	55.8%
NFC East	Philadelphia Eagles	25.0%	50.0%
AFC South	Indianapolis Colts	25.0%	29.9%
AFC South	Tennessee Titans	12.5%	29.1%
NFC West	San Francisco 49ers	0.0%	37.5%
NFC South	Atlanta Falcons	0.0%	25.0%
NFC West	St. Louis Rams	0.0%	25.0%
AFC East	New York Jets	0.0%	17.4%
NFC West	Arizona Cardinals	0.0%	6.3%

Rock the 80's 8 Miler: 8 Miles Turned Into 10½

It has been a couple months since my last race. As part of my training for the Folsom Blues Half Marathon, I thought it'd be good to do a couple races to see where I was race speed wise (I run a minute or more faster per mile during a race than during training). Two races really stuck out as good choices: The Run for Courage 10K which I've done the past two years and the Rock the 80's 8 Miler because the theme would be enjoyable and the distance was a bit longer. I had wanted to do the Buffalo Stampede, but I was out of town that weekend.

Last weekend, I did an eleven mile training run, so I wasn't worried about the 8 mile distance. Weather here had turned cooler the past couple days, so I was pretty sure that the conditions would be good. The big question would be what speed could I maintain for the full eight miles. Having not done a race recently, I didn't have a good thought on that. I figured if I averaged under 8:30/mile for the run, that'd be success (for a total of 68 minutes). As a stretch goal, I hoped to beat 67 minutes.

I opened up with a first mile of 8:10 well under my goal pace. This past year, when my second mile has been faster than the first, I've had a really good run. That was not the case for the Rock the 80's run but it was close as I finished the second in 8:13. The entire course was flat, so terrain was not the cause of any mile by mile changes. I slowed a bit on my way to the halfway point rattling off miles of 8:24 and 8:25. Halfway through, every mile was below my targeted 8:30, and I was 48 seconds ahead of pace putting my stretch goal of 67 minutes into play.

Additionally the field was not overly deep and the divisions were cut by 5 years (instead of 10), so midway through I thought there was a chance that I'd finish in the top 3 for the 30-34 division. I could see a guy ~100 feet ahead of me that I thought was likely in my division, so I decided to try to keep up with him for the second half of the run.

This required me to pick back up the pace, and my fifth and sixth miles were both completed in 8:12. The guys I was chasing retained roughly the same lead (I gained on him at times, but then he'd pull back ahead). I ran my fastest mile of the race for the seventh mile at 8:05, but he was still getting away.

We ran through the start area roughly 7.3 miles into the 8 mile run (over the mats where they recorded our time and place at that point) and then continued towards the finish line (not visible). About a quarter mile after that, we joined up with another group of runners (5Kers is what I assumed). At about a quarter mile to go, there was a division in the course, and I started making the turn to the right (towards where I thought the finish line was) when I heard a volunteer shout "8 milers straight ahead". I figured the turn out must have been for the 5K, so I changed course and headed straight. When I passed 8 miles on my GPS watch with no finish line in sight, I knew something was not right. At 8.5 miles, I knew that I had been directed wrong and thought about heading back, but made the decision to continue the loop (I realized at this point I was approaching the 6 mile marking) and do an extra 2.5 miles since it'd be good practice for my half marathon in four weeks.

I completed the eighth mile even faster than the seventh: 7:52. Very surprised I was able to break 8 minutes per mile that deep in the run. I slowed a bit once I realized that I had missed (or been misdirected from) the finish line, but still averaged 8:35 and 8:32 for miles nine and ten (and a 8:23 pace for the final half mile). Overall I finished averaging 8:16/mile, but officially my pace was 10:51 for my time over eight miles:

Turns out that I was right about having a chance to finish in the top 3 for my division. When I crossed the mats at 7.3 miles in, I was third for my category. Based on the sum of my times for the first 8 miles I ran, I would have beaten the guy who officially finished third in the division by just under a minute. Had I not been misdirected, I would have gotten my first age group medal, and it'd be one of these:

I'm disappointed on missing out on the third place finish. I really think I was directed the wrong way, but I suppose that I could have misunderstood. I think it was a bit odd that the course combined in the same area 8 mile runners that were working on their sixth mile with those working on the last mile (the runner I thought were 5Kers from above were actually 8 milers). I really think there should have been a divider between the two groups to make sure everyone goes the right way. The second time around, there were additional volunteers at the fork and they were directing runners to the sixth mile and the eighth mile appropriately. I still think signage and a divider would have been better.

I do wonder if I was the only person mis-directed or if there were others. With the additional volunteers and direction the second go-around, I think there had to have been others.

I created my normal badge for the run, but I'm giving myself credit for the ten and a half miles I ran and the pace I averaged over it. This performance has definitely given me hope that I'll set a new half marathon personal record next month:

Ignoring the directional confusion, I had a good time at the Rock the 80's run. I enjoyed the nostalgic music and many of the runners (not including me) were dressed for the part. The volunteers along the course were very encouraging, and except for the final turnoff, forks in the course were well marked with helpful volunteers and I never really felt like I didn't know which direction I was going next. All things considered, I'd probably run this race again next year if offered.

My Where's George Week in Review: 09/15/13 - 09/21/13

At the start of last year, I began publishing a weekly review of my past seven days of activity in regards to Where's George. These reviews were largely focused around key goals/predictions for the year (including bills entered, bills hit, and total hits). Some of the things I tracked, in retrospect, weren't really all that interesting, and a lot of the tracking around bill entries wasn't all that useful. When one really thinks about it, Where's George is all about the hits. As such, I've revamped my weekly reviews to be focused on what was interesting about my hits in the past week, and using that data, scoring the week on a scale of 0 to 10. I'm sure as time goes on that I'll tinker with the scoring system, but I think what I have for now is good for the 1.0 version.

With that said, on a scale of 0 to 10 this past week was a:

1.3

---

In the past week, I got 23 hits in 6 States [CA¹⁶, GA, IN, MI, MO, NV³]. Of those hits, 2 were the 3^rd hit on the bill, 4 were the 2^nd hit on the bill, and the rest (17) were the initial hit on the bill. Below is a calendar view of the hits throughout the week:

Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
3	4	5	3	4	2	2

I came into the week with a 13 day hit streak. I got a hit on every day of this week which extended the streak to 20 days.

Additionally in the past week I received my first hit in 4 counties bringing my total of counties hit to 557. The newly hit counties were Pickens GA, Vanderburgh IN, Wexford MI, and Texas MO.

Of the States hit in the past week, 1 was in a "Sleepy" State (a "Sleepy" State is a State in which I haven't received a hit in over twelve weeks) (last hit date in parenthesis): Indiana (05/19/2012). 19 States meet the "Sleepy" status for next week: Alaska (03/02/2010), Delaware (07/14/2011), Kentucky (10/14/2011), Vermont (11/27/2011), Rhode Island (03/04/2012), District of Columbia (09/26/2012), North Carolina (12/28/2012), Tennessee (01/17/2013), Wyoming (01/17/2013), South Carolina (03/21/2013), Connecticut (03/30/2013), Nebraska (04/30/2013), Oklahoma (05/05/2013), North Dakota (05/05/2013), Maryland (05/21/2013), Maine (05/25/2013), West Virginia (05/26/2013), Louisiana (06/18/2013), New Hampshire (06/22/2013).

Of the bills hit in the past week, 10 were active for more than a year. Of those, the longest active bill from the bunch was re-entered 3 Years 224 Days 17 Hours 28 Minutes after I originally entered it. That bill is now 44^th on my all-time longest active list.

And now, the speed round of data on everything else. 1 of the hits I received in the past week were from Georgers with Profiles: G8752---5F. Additionally 19 of the hits contained notes. 4 of the hits were on non-Georges: $5, $5, $20, $5. The hits were on bills that spread across 9 of the 12 FRBs. The FRBs for which I didn't receive hits were Philadelphia (C), St. Louis (H), and Minneapolis (I). I got one hit on a new series/denomination/FRB/block combos: 2006-$20-LE.

---

So how did this week end up as a 1.3? To start off the calculation, I compare this week's number with the lowest and highest from the past 12 weeks and score it based on how it fits in that range - so if this week's number is midway between the low and the high, it scores a 0.5 for that category (i.e. if this week's States Hit was 10, the past 12 weeks' low was 5, and the past 12 weeks' high was 15, that'd be a 0.5). A category can be scored at a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1.25 meaning that if this week is better than any of the past 12, bonus points are awarded. Some categories are worth more than others (in the 1.0 version, categories are worth either 1 or 2). The sum of the products of the category scores and value results in the overall score for the week. That number is then compared to the overall scores for the previous 12 weeks, and where it ends up in the range results in the week's score on a scale from 0 to 10 (so if the overall score is midway between the two, the week is a 5.0). A week cannot score below 0 or above 10.

Here's a tabular view of this week's scores:

		Past 12 Weeks
Stat	Week	Min	Max	Score	Weight	S*W
Hits that Changed States	5	9	25	0.00	2.0	0.00
Days with Hits	7	6	7	1.00	2.0	2.00
Distinct States Hit	6	4	15	0.18	2.0	0.36
Hits Beyond the 1st on a Bill 1	8	3	15	0.42	2.0	0.83
Bills Active Over a Year 2	21.5	12.7	53.4	0.22	2.0	0.43
New Counties	4	0	4	1.00	2.0	2.00
Hits from Georgers with Profiles	1	0	5	0.20	2.0	0.40
Hits with Notes	19	20	42	0.00	2.0	0.00
International Hits	0	0	2	0.00	1.0	0.00
Hits on Non-Georges	4	0	4	1.00	1.0	1.00
Hits in "Sleepy" States	1	0	4	0.25	1.0	0.25
Distinct FRBs Hit	9	8	11	0.33	1.0	0.33
New Series/Denom/FRB/Block Combo Hit	1	0	2	0.50	1.0	0.50
*** TOTAL ***						8.11

¹ - The second hit on a bill is worth 1 point. Each hit thereafter doubles in value (i.e. The third is worth 2 and the fourth is worth 4.).

² - A bill active for a year is worth 1 point. Each additional year doubles in value and partial years add partial value.

The minimum overall score over the past 12 weeks was 6.52 and the maximum was 18.67 so this week's score of 8.11 resulted in a scale score of 1.3.

---

I certainly don't disagree that this week hasn't all that great hit-wise, but I'm surprised that it outscored last week. This week set a couple of new 12 week lows (hits that changed States and hits with notes), so the scale will be kinder to upcoming weeks.

Rankings & What's Next: UFC Middleweights

After a multiple month layoff, I'm bringing back a feature that I started earlier this year where I combine a division's published rankings from UFC.com, Fight Matrix, Sherdog, and MMA Weekly. I then use those combined rankings to determine who should get the next title shot and which two fighters should face off in a #1 contender's match for the next shot based on the following rules:

• The next title contender would be the highest ranked fighter that:
  • Won two fights in a row.
  • Won three fights since his last loss in a title fight or against the current champion unless he's a former champion that successfully defended the belt.
  • Won five fights in a row if his number of losses against the current champion is two greater than his number of wins.
• The next #1 contender match would be between the next two highest ranked fighters that:
  • Won his last fight.
  • Won two fights since his last loss in a title fight or against the current champion unless he's a former champion that successfully defended the belt.
  • Won four fights in a row if his number of losses against the current champion is two greater than his number of wins.

I then pair up the remaining fighters from the top ten (sometimes going beyond) based on their last outcome in an attempt to set things up so that when all of the matches play out, there's at least a couple of good candidates for the next #1 contender's match.

After going through my theorical matchups, I take a look at the fights the UFC has already set up and give my take on what should happen with the unmatched fighters. Finally, I give my overall thoughts on the division.

In the spring, I was working my way "up" the weight classes. With this reboot, I'm going to start with heavyweight and work down since I didn't make it all the way through last time.

---

Combined Rankings

		UFC			Fight Matrix			Sherdog			MMA Weekly
Last Update:		09/06/2013			09/15/2013			09/06/2013			09/06/2013
1.	Chris Weidman		1	(0)		1			1			1
2.	Anderson Silva		2	(1)		2			2			2
3.	Vitor Belfort		3	(2)		3			3			3
4.	Ronaldo Souza		4	(3)		4			4			4
5.	Michael Bisping		5	(4)		7			6			5
6.	Mark Munoz		6	(5)		6			7			6
7.	Yushin Okami		7	(6)		10	(11)		5			9
8.	Costa Philippou		8	(7)		8	(9)		9			7
9.	Luke Rockhold		9	(8)		9	(10)		8			8
10.	Hector Lombard					5			T10	(OC)
	Tim Kennedy								T10	(OC)		10
	Chael Sonnen		10	(9)
	Tim Boetsch								T10	(OC)
	Francis Carmont								T10	(OC)

---

Matches I'd Make

Starting off with the title shot, in my world, Vitor Belfort would get the first crack at Chris Weidman. Vitor has won four fights since he last challenged for the middleweight title (he lost a light heavyweight title fight in the middle of that run, but since he was a late sub fighting up a weight class, I don't hold it against him). Ronaldo "Jacare" Souze and Michael Bisping are the next highest ranked fighters coming off of a win, so they get to duke it out for the #1 contender position (interestingly, this exposes a gap in my rules for assigning the #1 contendership: two fights ago Bisping lost to Belfort, if they were both to win, "The Count" would be my #1 contender but wouldn't meet the requirements to get the next title shot). I'd also set up Mark Munoz to take on Costa Philippou. As for those coming off of a loss, I don't think we're ready to see Anderson Silva/Yushin Okami III, so I'll match up Luke Rockhold with Silva and have Tim Boetsch rematch with Okami. Knowing that Hector Lombard is dropping to welterweight, I'm leaving him out of my match ups.

Matches the UFC has Made

In a move I agree with (maybe I should add some rules around this: a certain number of title defenses allows for an automatic rematch), the UFC has given Silva a rematch with Weidman. Belfort is moving up to light heavyweight (likely for just this fight, but Vitor has said he won't fight at middleweight other than for the title) to take on Dan Henderson. Bisping will be taking on Munoz at UFC Fight Night 30 in England. Philippou will battle Francis Carmont this weekend as part of the UFC 165 main card. Rockhold and Boetsch are slated to fight at UFC 166 next month. Lombard will be making his welterweight debut on the same card going up against Nate Marquardt.

Matches I'd Add to the UFC's

Currently not many of the top middleweights are without opponents. Jacare and Okami are the only two in the top ten, and they just fought. Tim Kennedy is set to take on Lyoto Machida (in The Dragon's middleweight debut). I think I'd most likely give Souza the winner of Philippou/Carmont on Saturday. As for Yushin, if Rich Franklin is still fighting, a rematch between those two could be good. Otherwise, might be worthwhile to give him an up-and-comer coming off of a win to see if they are for real. Derek Brunson may be the best candidate for that usage.

---

Whether or not Weidman retains against Silva in December will determine the future of the middleweight division. If he does, a lot more interesting title matchups become available. Chael Sonnen likely returns to middleweight and Machida likely stays (Lyoto says he won't fight Silva for the title). I could see Henderson potentially dropping down too, and Rashad Evans as well. Frankly any light heavy that could compete at middleweight that has a serious title chance should drop to avoid Jon Jones. But if "The Spider" reclaims his title, I think it's harder to convince those fighters to drop and stay at 185.

2013 NFL Playoff Possibilities: Week 2

An eighth of the 2013 season is now over, and teams are already moving into better and worse positions when it comes to making the playoffs. I used my prediction program to randomly determine the outcome of remaining games (win/loss only - no ties) and summed up that data to determine the likelihood of each team making the playoffs at this point. On caveat to note is that for each simulation of the program, one team is chosen to win out while another loses out - at this point in the season, that behavior isn't useful but later on, it'll give an indiciation towards which teams are starting to fall out of contention (and by how much) and which ones are locking up a spot.

AFC East
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Buffalo Bills	16.7%	30.6%	+2.0%	+4.3%
Miami Dolphins	32.0%	51.8%	+3.7%	+7.1%
New England Patriots	34.4%	53.9%	+5.5%	+8.4%
New York Jets	16.8%	30.9%	-11.3%	-12.4%

Everyone but the Jets saw their playoff chances increase with wins this past weekend. New England's chance remain higher than Miami's since the Patriots have played a won a couple of divisional games while the Dolphins have played none. The Bills and Jets are pretty statistically even in their chances currently, but one should pull ahead after their game this weekend.

AFC North
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Baltimore Ravens	32.5%	39.9%	+7.3%	+8.0%
Cincinnati Bengals	33.6%	40.4%	+8.7%	+7.8%
Cleveland Browns	16.2%	21.2%	-8.4%	-10.3%
Pittsburgh Steelers	17.7%	22.6%	-7.6%	-9.1%

The Bengals got a bit more out of their win over the Steelers than Baltimore did in their win over Cleveland. Likewise, the Browns were hurt more than the Steelers in their loss. Three of the four have tough games at home this weekend (Texans @ Ravens, Packers @ Bengals, and Bears @ Steelers) while the Browns travel to Minneapolis to take on the 0-2 Vikings. We possibly could see another 0-4 weekend for the division.

AFC South
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Houston Texans	41.0%	55.6%	+13.0%	+10.3%
Indianapolis Colts	24.7%	35.4%	-3.3%	-9.9%
Jacksonville Jaguars	14.1%	19.7%	-2.5%	-7.9%
Tennessee Titans	20.2%	33.2%	-7.2%	-11.7%

The Texans have the highest division and playoff percentage in the AFC. They got a nice bounce this week from being the only AFC South team to win. The Titans took the biggest fall for losing to their divisional foes. The Jaguars need to turn things around fast: they currently have the lowest chance of winning thier division and making the playoffs percentage in the AFC.

AFC West
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Denver Broncos	30.9%	50.3%	+0.1%	+4.2%
Kansas City Chiefs	31.6%	50.0%	+0.1%	+3.8%
Oakland Raiders	18.8%	32.6%	+0.0%	+4.2%
San Diego Chargers	18.7%	31.9%	-0.2%	+3.2%

All the teams in the West were winners this past weekend, and as such, there wasn't much change in the winning the division percentages. Everyone's making the playoffs percentage increased also, although Kansas City and San Diego got a smaller bump since they beat NFC foes.

NFC East
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Dallas Cowboys	33.4%	43.8%	+0.2%	-3.6%
New York Giants	16.7%	24.3%	-0.2%	-3.2%
Philadelphia Eagles	33.4%	43.7%	+0.3%	-3.5%
Washington Redskins	16.5%	23.1%	-0.3%	-4.5%

Opposite of the AFC West, every team in the NFC East was a loser this past weekend. The winners from week one saw their division winning percentages increase slightly. Everyone's playoff making chance decrease although Washington's decreased by the most since they were the only team of the lot to lose to an NFC opponent.

NFC North
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Chicago Bears	40.3%	56.2%	+8.9%	+11.4%
Detroit Lions	25.0%	37.7%	-7.5%	-9.1%
Green Bay Packers	24.4%	37.2%	+4.9%	+8.6%
Minnesota Vikings	10.3%	19.3%	-6.3%	-8.1%

The Bears got the biggest bang out of their win since it came against a divisional foe. Having already lost two games to divisional opponents, the Vikings have the lowest percentage chance of winning their division of anyone in the NFL. Green Bay's percentages are slightly behind Detroit's since the Lions have played and won a divisional game.

NFC South
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Atlanta Falcons	23.4%	38.2%	+4.4%	+9.4%
Carolina Panthers	16.1%	24.0%	-5.7%	-6.1%
New Orleans Saints	46.9%	61.5%	+9.7%	+12.2%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	13.6%	23.0%	-8.5%	-8.6%

Being in a division with two 0-2 teams and having defeated the other team is quite the advantage to the Saints as they boast the best chance of winning their division of any team in the NFL right now. With their win, Atlanta moved their making the playoffs percentage to slightly above where it was to start the season (everyone starts at 37.5%) but their win the division percentage is still below the starting spot (25.0%). The 0-2 Panthers and Bucs are in trouble, Carolina a little less so since they haven't lost a divisional game yet.

NFC West
	Division	Playoffs	Division Δ	Playoffs Δ
Arizona Cardinals	19.7%	36.5%	+4.9%	+9.6%
San Francisco 49ers	18.9%	36.1%	-8.8%	-8.9%
Seattle Seahawks	38.4%	57.4%	+10.1%	+12.3%
St. Louis Rams	22.9%	38.1%	-6.2%	-8.0%

Seattle's win over San Francisco was a big deal and has given the Seahawks double the chances of winning one of this season's toughest divisions. The rest of the teams are still in good shape at 1-1 with the Niners in the worst shape for having lost a divisional game while winning an "uncommon" one (uncommon for the NFC West).