In soccer, drawn results have always been rewarded (in the old days, a win was two points, a draw one; now a win is three points, a draw one). Thus, listing wins - draws - losses made clear how the point totals would be calculated.
In the US, in what few games can end in a draw, originally such results were discarded. Thus, for example, in 1930, the NFL Champions were the Green Bay Packers, who finished with 10 wins, 3 losses, and 1 tie, which came in their last game. Second place was the New York Football Giants, who finished the season with 13 wins, 4 losses, and 0 ties. Because the tied game did not get counted in the standings, the Packers finished with a win percentage of .769 (10/13), and the Giants with .765 (13/17). For this reason, listing tied results at the end made sense.
Over time, the method for handling drawn results in the US has changed, but the way the standings list the results has not (we’re a stubbornly conservative people about a lot of things, as our insistence on pennies and folding dollar bills shows!). In the current NFL, the Packers would have lost the Championship that year, as the NFL awards a 1/2 win for every tie, and they would have finished at .750 (10.5/14). But ties still go at the end.
The chance of this is relatively remote, and certainly not worth worrying about in the same way that, after two games out of six in the group phase of the UCL, standing in third three points behind second place can cause alarm bells to start ringing.
It’s no different in England. Do you think that most fourth division (currently called League Two) have stadia sufficient to support a valid effort at being a Premier League team? Newport County Association Football Club, which just knocked off my beloved Leicester City FC Foxes in the FA Cup on Sunday, play in a stadium with a total capacity of 7,850. If they made the long trek up the tables to the Premier League, they would have been required along the way to upgrade the ground significantly; else they would likely be denied their promotions. But, of course, the vast majority of money that many a Premier League club makes comes from TV revenues being divvied up; the same would be true if, say, the Stockton Ports were promoted from the California League all the way to MLB.
Or not aware of the terminology; in your post, you mention the Yankees being 7 games back. That right there is the relative position of the Yankees in their relevant league table (i.e. the AL East) to the leading team.
You hear this ALL the time in reference to baseball teams.
No, it wouldn’t. The Major League Baseball national TV contracts only generate about $50 million per team per year, a relatively small fraction of total team revenue which runs from about $250 million to $500 million per team per year. The remainder comes from ticket sales and local TV contracts, which are less lucrative in small markets and would be even less lucrative if really small markets could become MLB cities via promotion.
Not remote at all. It happens often. This year the NFL had a number of wild card contenders near the end of the year with tied records, and divisional records were mentioned frequently when standings were discussed. And the Chargers and Chiefs both ended with 12-4 records, and since they played each other twice (being in the same division) and each one had won one of those games, the division winner came down to whoever had a better division record. The Chiefs went 5-1 in their division (the only loss being that time the Chargers beat them) and the Chargers were 4-2. It determined who was the #1 seed and guaranteed home field until the Super Bowl, and who was a wild card and is unlikely to play any home games in the postseason (and loses a bye week).
I know it’s not the exact situation I described (losing a playoff opportunity) but that also happens often. Last year, every AFC team who got second place in their division was in a 9-7 tie. It’s a frequent consideration.
I will concede that it might not be as big of a deal as in association football, but you can’t say that nobody pays attention. It matters, and it’s set up that way on purpose to force rivalries within a division. Losing to that team you play twice a year matters (slightly) more than losing to someone outside of your division.
Since I watch most of the top European and South American soccer leagues, as well as all the American sports, I understand the OP’s question. In soccer, the league table (or standings as we call them) is prominently displayed and shown on all the pre-game, half-time and post-game shows. In fact, as soon as a game starts, they will often show a “live table”, which assumes that the score will remain 0-0. Each side is immediately given a point each in the live table until someone scores and a new live table is created. That can only work in soccer, mostly due to the low frequency of scoring. On broadcasts of American sports, it is pretty rare to see the full standings for the entire league (and live tables are non-existent).
Division record only comes into play for wildcard standings if the tied teams are in the same division. If they aren’t in the same division, the division record isn’t used at all. I believe they go to conference record, but possibly “common games” is ahead of conference record if they played enough common games. (3, I think?)
As a made-up example, Imagine the last wildcard spot is up for grabs between 3 teams with the same record. Let’s say Falcons, Panthers and Vikings. The first step is to ignore the Vikings and decide between the Falcons and Panthers based on divisional tiebreakers. Let’s say the Falcons win that tiebreaker. Now the wildcard tiebreaking rules come into play between the Falcons and Vikings, and their respective division records don’t matter anymore.
One more thing, while NFL standings will get some sort of mention during the broadcast of a game, it’s something that’s much more discussed during the endless talk between games. We gotta fill each week somehow.
Regarding the order of the columns in league tables: here in the UK, wins - draws - losses is always the order used for soccer, as mentioned above. But league tables for limited-overs cricket tend to use the American-style column ordering of wins - losses - [ties + no-results]. (A no-result is just another name for a rained-out match; such games are not postponed to a later date). Maybe this order is used for cricket because, just like in American football, ties can occur, but are rare.
Both AFL and NRL telecasts in Australia will show a “live table” and game scores change way more frequently than soccer though the lead in the game and teams W/L status less so.
So in the midst of a game, if the score is tied 0-0, the table shows each team with a draw on its record? That seems odd considering that draws are presumably not very common.
You’d see the live ladder in the pre-game.
The two teams would have an asterix to denote they had a game in hand.
It usually doesn’t take very long for a team to score in Aussie Rules.
I haven’t taken that much notice in the past but you probably wouldn’t see it the live score until later in the game. It’s obviously maintained live but the broadcast would likely only use it if the current score caused a change in the ladder. I can’t recall an instance of the ladder being shown when the scores were tied.
You’d see the live ladder in the post-game even if there are other fixtures of the round being/still to be played.
In olden days my memory is that the league standings were mentioned more often. My guess is that they’re mentioned less often for the same reason that most people no longer buy TV Guide magazine or check the newspaper for movie listings. If I want to see the league standings I no longer check the paper or turn on ESPN, I just type “NFL” into the search field on my cell phone and get the full table in a few seconds.
The phrase “game in hand” is unclear to me. Does it mean the two teams are actively playing the game, or that they just finished? Context seems to indicate the former, but without that I would think the latter. As in “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush”, “in hand” means completed.
I think of “in hand” as being “in progress”, like something being currently in your hand (and being used).
A bird in the hand isn’t “completed”, it’s literally in your hand. The point of the proverb isn’t that it’s better to have one thing done than have two things in progress. It means that if you already have a bird in your hand, you don’t let it escape for the chance to get two birds, because there’s no guarantee that you’ll catch them.
Anyway, as an American I’d assume “in hand” to mean it’s currently happening, even though it’s not a term I’m completely familiar with.
If Team A has played one fewer game than Team B, it has a “game in hand”. Which means that Team A has another game to play in order to gain points that Team B doesn’t have.
