Talk:2014–15 NFL playoffs

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The regular season started in 2014 and ended in 2015, yet the article is titled 2014 NFL Season. The playoff games were only played in 2015, yet the article is titled 2014-15 NFL Playoffs. The Titles should be changed to 2014-15 NFL Season, and 2015 NFL Playoffs, respectively. Or, in the alternative, the titles of both articles should be 2014-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.168.194 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the regular season, Week 17, ended on December 28, 2014. Also, this is the standard naming and dating convention used by both the NFL and most media that cover the league to refer to the regular season. The regular season usually begins in September and ends in the last weekend of December. It rarely ends on the first weekend of January (like this upcoming 2015 season will be). Even if that is the case, the league and the media will still refer it as the 2015 NFL season for consistency. Furthermore, it is only recently that most of the playoffs have been held from January to the first week of February. For more than half of the NFL's existence, the season and playoffs use to end before New Year's Day. It was only after several factors (the establishment of the Super Bowl, the lengthening of the season from 14 straight weeks to 16 games over 17 weeks, delaying the start of the season until after Labor Day) that the playoffs have been pushed into February. But the league (and thus the media) still want to maintain these dating conventions for consistency. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone just edited the bracket at the top of the page to say that Indianapolis beat Denver. The game in question is not yet over, however, so this information is not factually true. Even if Indianapolis is very likely to win, the game is not yet over! 98.220.130.63 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can't find a link, but there's an accepted Wikipedia policy on live sports that the Wikipedia articles on the match should not provide live updates. They definitely shouldn't assume a result until it happens, it's not factually true until the game finishes- think of the Seahawks game last week, if people had assumed the Packers would win and wrote it on here, it would have been INCORRECT!! Basically, I totally agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday, January 11, 2015: AFC Divisional Playoff Post-Gun (7:49pm): 36.872 million viewers; Post-Game (7:53pm): 28.540 million vieewers [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.15 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing the articles 2015 Lions–Cowboys officiating controversy and 2015 Cowboys–Packers officiating controversy are merged into the respective section on those games in this article. At the moment this these stand-alone article appear to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. While they are only 2 or 3 weeks away, there's been no lasting effcect yet. Wikipedia isn't the place to have article on every officiating decision that someone disagrees with. Rehnn83 ^Talk 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the user(s) (on their talk page) who created the above two articles that a merger is being discussed Rehnn83 ^Talk 12:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless controversial officiating decisions in the NFL. This article provides a good explanation of the 2015 Lions–Cowboys officiating controversy's importance to future officiating issues. That controversy was also a major factor in the 2015 Cowboys–Packers officiating controversy, which involved the same team on the other side of the call in their very next game. It was also a postseason game and stopped the Lions from winning their first playoffs game since 1991 (over Dallas). I am also not the only one that disagrees with it, seeing hundreds of articles online featuring the no-call. As read in the article, Samuel L. Jackson, Barry Sanders, and several others disagreed with it. Temple of the Mousy (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merger - wiki is not for every call that fans disagree with. people disagree with calls all the time - particuarly Pass Interference, where you could right several books on PI calls that fans disagreed with. far too recent to determine if notable. maybe if the 2nd one has some later effect on the rules (there's talk of changing the wording) then it can be restarted with a section about it's effect, but as it is these pages are both just "I didn't like the call" and don't belong on wiki. 94.9.211.86 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merger- don't need their own articles, they're small incidents, directly relevant to the playoffs. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: Nothing noteworthy enough for standalone articles.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was merge. Which I've done. I've kept the original articles with a redirect in place should it be appropriate to re-create them in the future Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the NFC Championship Game, Jermaine Kearse of the Seahawks was actually targeted five times in regulation, one incompletion and four interceptions, before his single reception for the game winning TD in OT. The section of the game says he was only targeted four times, all for interceptions. So he was targeted six times in total for one incompletion, four interceptions and one reception for 35 yards and one touchdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.100.125 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is unknown if the game balls used by the Indianapolis Colts were checked during halftime, and the NFL only confirmed one fact, that the New England Patriots were using 11 underinflated footballs, in the first half only. Neckbone78 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014–15 NFL playoffs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107195844/http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/14/the-tradition-continues-nfl-to-remain-on-broadcast-tv/ to http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12/14/the-tradition-continues-nfl-to-remain-on-broadcast-tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]