Carl Peterson proposing playoff expansion... - Page 6

Taco John · 12-29-2005, 11:59 AM

Hahaha! What a laughing stock this guy is...

Chiefs president wants more playoff teams

By Skip Wood and Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY

Ten wins. In the NFL, to accomplish that means almost certain inclusion into the playoffs. Not this season. And heading into this weekend's final regular-season games, six of the league's 32 teams face the prospect of finishing 10-6 and not qualifying for the postseason. Not only that, but as many as three teams could wind up 10-6 and on the wrong side of the fence.

That's why Kansas City Chiefs president Carl Peterson, long a supporter of expanding the playoff field from 12 to 14 teams, is miffed — and not just because his team is among those possibly left idle despite double-digit wins.

"I'm going to propose ... an expansion of the number of playoff teams," Peterson said Wednesday. "I think it shorts the fans, the franchises and the cities to have teams with successful seasons but still not qualify for the playoffs."

Peterson, who failed in his bid for playoff expansion at last spring's owners meetings in Hawaii, believes his argument will be strengthened at this spring's meetings because several teams with nine or 10 wins are on the brink of elimination or are already out, such as San Diego (9-6).

Dallas (9-6), Pittsburgh (10-5), Tampa Bay (10-5) and Carolina (10-5) also face elimination.

Since the playoff field expanded to 12 teams in 1990, three teams have missed the postseason with 10 wins: the 1991 San Francisco 49ers and Philadelphia Eagles and the 2003 Miami Dolphins.

"It's a great playoff system," Peterson said, "but I don't like it when teams can win 10 games and not make the playoffs. I don't want us to become the NBA, with 50% of the teams in the playoffs, but we should do something. This league is just so competitive."

Of the NBA's 30 teams, 16 make the playoffs.

An NFL spokesman said the league has no comment as such decisions are entirely up to the owners.

"We'd certainly be interested in televising the games if the NFL expanded," says Josh Krulewitz, spokesman for ABC/ESPN. ABC is televising Super Bowl XL from Detroit.

NBC declined to comment.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...xpansion_x.htm

philfree · 12-30-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

Yep, I'm sure. I don't post BS. Here are all the Wildcard teams that have ever made the Superbowl (not sure why the '69 Chiefs were not considered a WC, they didn't win the division). No team rom the 6th seed has ever made a SB appearance and none of teams that made it had a record worse than 11-5. A 10-6 seventh seed is not going to win 3 road games against playoff teams to win a trip to the SB. And Carl and Lamar know it better than I do.
2000 – Baltimore Ravens* 5 seed 12-4
1999 – Tennessee Titans 4 seed 13-3
1997 – Denver Broncos* 4 seed 12-4
1992 – Buffalo Bills 4 seed 11-5
1985 – New England Patriots 5 seed 11-5
1980 – Oakland Raiders* 4 seed 11-5
1975 – Dallas Cowboys 4 seed 12-4

* won Super Bowl

Do you really think that their only motivation is to change the rules to get the Chiefs into the playoffs? To me more playoff games means increased revenue for the whole NFL and that's a good thing. More cap dollars for every team....More revenue for every team that hosts a playoff game. To me thinking about Lamar Hunt who was at one point in time said to be $100mil in the hole when he was in the process of building a league would be so simple minded that his motivation to increase the number of playoff teams is just so his team could get in the playoffs is idiotic. With expansion and the realignment the league has changed and IMO the playoff scenario should be looked at to be improved every year. Looking at the lay of the land in regards to the NFL I think changes are coming. My hope is the changes aren't the start of the decline of one of the greatest sports/pastimes/entertainments people have experienced.

PhilFree

**cdcox** · 12-30-2005, 07:44 AM

Hi Phil:

There are multiple motivations from the owners perspective:

a) Keep more fans intersted longer
b) More revenue
c) More fans "satisfied" that their team made the playoffs

However, if we push this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, all teams should make the playoffs. Obviously that won't work, so the question should be, how many playoff teams balance everything.

There are two options. One is to include enoiugh teams to ensure that all teams capable of winning the Super Bowl qualify for the playoffs. I've made a convincing argument that 6 teams satisfies that criteria. That was my point. That 7th seed is not a legitimate threat to win the SB and everyone knows it.

The other option is to make the field large enough to ensure that every team percieved to having a good season gets to go as some kind of reward for a good season. If you are going to do that, the top half of the teams in the league will eventually qualify for the playoffs, because every time some 10-6 club doesn't make it, you will expand the field. Already this season you would might need half of the AFC teams to ensure that all the 10-6 clubs make it. This would severly weaken the regular season, which is one of the best things the NFL has going for it.

This is a move of pure greed, that objectively considered is bad for the league. So far the other owners have recognized this.

chiefqueen · 12-30-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think it's probably too late for that.

Any change won't come until 2012 or 2013 when the next TV contract is negotiated. The NFL is beginning a new TV contract next year.

philfree · 12-30-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

Hi Phil:

There are multiple motivations from the owners perspective:

a) Keep more fans intersted longer
b) More revenue
c) More fans "satisfied" that their team made the playoffs

However, if we push this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, all teams should make the playoffs. Obviously that won't work, so the question should be, how many playoff teams balance everything.

There are two options. One is to include enoiugh teams to ensure that all teams capable of winning the Super Bowl qualify for the playoffs. I've made a convincing argument that 6 teams satisfies that criteria. That was my point. That 7th seed is not a legitimate threat to win the SB and everyone knows it.
The other option is to make the field large enough to ensure that every team percieved to having a good season gets to go as some kind of reward for a good season. If you are going to do that, the top half of the teams in the league will eventually qualify for the playoffs, because every time some 10-6 club doesn't make it, you will expand the field. Already this season you would might need half of the AFC teams to ensure that all the 10-6 clubs make it. This would severly weaken the regular season, which is one of the best things the NFL has going for it.

This is a move of pure greed, that objectively considered is bad for the league. So far the other owners have recognized this.

From what I posted I have no clue how that would lead to the "logical conclusion" you presented. And at this point there isn't enough data to support by the numbers produced since the most recent expansion and realignment to prove the #6 seed scenario to remain status quo. If it does prove out again over time then so be it. Till then would it hurt to go to an increased playoff schedule? Going to 4 divisions essentially wiped out a wild card spot and it's changed the lay of the land and the playoff scenario needs to be looked at very closely. I don't know that it would be a move of pure greed. IMO it could very well improve the NFL experience. ......And I never said every 10-6 team should get into the playoffs. There will always be a point where tie-breakers come into play no matter what the scenario is.

PhilFree

**cdcox** · 12-30-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

From what I posted I have no clue how that would lead to the "logical conclusion" you presented. And at this point there isn't enough data to support by the numbers produced since the most recent expansion and realignment to prove the #6 seed scenario to remain status quo. If it does prove out again over time then so be it. Till then would it hurt to go to an increased playoff schedule?

You can't temporarily expand the playoff field because expansion is irreversible. Once you expand the field, there is no way you are going to shrink it later. It certainly has never happened in the NFL or MLB. I doubt it has happened in the NBA or NHL either, but I don't follow those closely enough to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Going to 4 divisions essentially wiped out a wild card spot and it's changed the lay of the land and the playoff scenario needs to be looked at very closely.

Your contention that reallignment eliminated a WC spot is only true if one of the division winners has a worse record than the top team that misses the playoffs. Chances are that one of the teams that would have been a WC under the old alignment is a division winner now. I think we have plenty of data going back to 1980 that has shown that no WC team with a record poorer than 11-5 has ever made the SB. Only one team with that a record of 11-5 or better has ever been excluded since the expansion to the 16 game season: some '80s Denver team. That is plenty of evidence that the current system is working if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I don't know that it would be a move of pure greed. IMO it could very well improve the NFL experience. ......And I never said every 10-6 team should get into the playoffs. There will always be a point where tie-breakers come into play no matter what the scenario is.

PhilFree

But teams finishing with a 10-6 record and sitting out of the playoffs is the whole justification that Carl and Lamar have offered. So without the subjective 10-6 arguement, there is really no rationale whatsoever for expanding the playoffs.

teedubya · 12-30-2005, 11:26 AM

there were 12 playoff teams with 28 overall teams in the league... and still 12 playoff teams with 32 teams in the league, in some vein it does make sense to increase playoff teams.

philfree · 12-30-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

You can't temporarily expand the playoff field because expansion is irreversible. Once you expand the field, there is no way you are going to shrink it later. It certainly has never happened in the NFL or MLB. I doubt it has happened in the NBA or NHL either, but I don't follow those closely enough to know.

Your contention that reallignment eliminated a WC spot is only true if one of the division winners has a worse record than the top team that misses the playoffs. Chances are that one of the teams that would have been a WC under the old alignment is a division winner now. I think we have plenty of data going back to 1980 that has shown that no WC team with a record poorer than 11-5 has ever made the SB. Only one team with that a record of 11-5 or better has ever been excluded since the expansion to the 16 game season: some '80s Denver team. That is plenty of evidence that the current system is working if you ask me.

But teams finishing with a 10-6 record and sitting out of the playoffs is the whole justification that Carl and Lamar have offered. So without the subjective 10-6 arguement, there is really no rationale whatsoever for expanding the playoffs.

I don't see that as true. Numbers aside the object is to get the best teams into the playoffs and also create as much excitement as possible. The rationale is that there are more teams and more divisions but the number of playoffs spots are the same as they were before the expansion. I can't see it as bad but and I am pretty much a traditionalist about the NFL so I usually bock at change. I can see the need to examine the playoff scenario to see if a change might make it better. I will scoff at the notion that Hunt's and Peteron's only concern is just about finding a way to scab into the playoffs. Lamar Hunt could have just set fat with the riches his family provided and been just as well off as he is now. Probaby better off. He didn't do what he did for the money.

As far as I know I'e never heard anyone mention my concept of an NFL Playoff Weekend with three games each day giving it a kind of March Madness feel. If done right that could be sold and be very exciting for the fans. Might not work out but it seems plausible to me. The main thing is to look at it in fair light. If it don't pan out for the powers that be then fine.

PhilFree

dtebbe · 12-30-2005, 01:59 PM

I think the 4 wildcard slots should go to the best 4 teams regardless of if they are AFC or NFC. Other than that, things should stay the way they are. We don't want NHL or NBA playoffs that aren't even worth watching the 1st month.

DT

beavis · 12-30-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtebbe

I think the 4 wildcard slots should go to the best 4 teams regardless of if they are AFC or NFC.

Ehhhh, how would that work?

This is a joke. Maybe if we didn't choke away a 18 point lead to Philly at home, or lay a turd in Buffalo, or field a defense that could make a stop in the fourth quarter and not allow Dallas to drive the length of the field at th end of the game.

Carl has always been inept, now he is becoming a joke.

htismaqe · 12-30-2005, 02:10 PM

Please let this thread die.

Carl Peterson is an asshat.

Win a couple more games!

Hammock Parties · 03-11-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

It's quite pathetic. We badly need a franchise makeover.

I'm hoping Clark Hunt can provide it.

Wow.....it only took three years.

**Rausch** · 03-11-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

Wow.....it only took three years.

Considering it only took him 3 when Lamar couldn't figure it out in 5 times as long...I'm ok with that...

12-29-2005, 11:59 AM
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $617937	Carl Peterson proposing playoff expansion... Hahaha! What a laughing stock this guy is... Chiefs president wants more playoff teams By Skip Wood and Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Ten wins. In the NFL, to accomplish that means almost certain inclusion into the playoffs. Not this season. And heading into this weekend's final regular-season games, six of the league's 32 teams face the prospect of finishing 10-6 and not qualifying for the postseason. Not only that, but as many as three teams could wind up 10-6 and on the wrong side of the fence. That's why Kansas City Chiefs president Carl Peterson, long a supporter of expanding the playoff field from 12 to 14 teams, is miffed — and not just because his team is among those possibly left idle despite double-digit wins. "I'm going to propose ... an expansion of the number of playoff teams," Peterson said Wednesday. "I think it shorts the fans, the franchises and the cities to have teams with successful seasons but still not qualify for the playoffs." Peterson, who failed in his bid for playoff expansion at last spring's owners meetings in Hawaii, believes his argument will be strengthened at this spring's meetings because several teams with nine or 10 wins are on the brink of elimination or are already out, such as San Diego (9-6). Dallas (9-6), Pittsburgh (10-5), Tampa Bay (10-5) and Carolina (10-5) also face elimination. Since the playoff field expanded to 12 teams in 1990, three teams have missed the postseason with 10 wins: the 1991 San Francisco 49ers and Philadelphia Eagles and the 2003 Miami Dolphins. "It's a great playoff system," Peterson said, "but I don't like it when teams can win 10 games and not make the playoffs. I don't want us to become the NBA, with 50% of the teams in the playoffs, but we should do something. This league is just so competitive." Of the NBA's 30 teams, 16 make the playoffs. An NFL spokesman said the league has no comment as such decisions are entirely up to the owners. "We'd certainly be interested in televising the games if the NFL expanded," says Josh Krulewitz, spokesman for ABC/ESPN. ABC is televising Super Bowl XL from Detroit. NBC declined to comment. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...xpansion_x.htm
Posts: 79,714

12-30-2005, 07:44 AM	#77
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $-448231	Hi Phil: There are multiple motivations from the owners perspective: a) Keep more fans intersted longer b) More revenue c) More fans "satisfied" that their team made the playoffs However, if we push this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, all teams should make the playoffs. Obviously that won't work, so the question should be, how many playoff teams balance everything. There are two options. One is to include enoiugh teams to ensure that all teams capable of winning the Super Bowl qualify for the playoffs. I've made a convincing argument that 6 teams satisfies that criteria. That was my point. That 7th seed is not a legitimate threat to win the SB and everyone knows it. The other option is to make the field large enough to ensure that every team percieved to having a good season gets to go as some kind of reward for a good season. If you are going to do that, the top half of the teams in the league will eventually qualify for the playoffs, because every time some 10-6 club doesn't make it, you will expand the field. Already this season you would might need half of the AFC teams to ensure that all the 10-6 clubs make it. This would severly weaken the regular season, which is one of the best things the NFL has going for it. This is a move of pure greed, that objectively considered is bad for the league. So far the other owners have recognized this.
Posts: 46,032

12-30-2005, 11:26 AM	#81
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9013042	there were 12 playoff teams with 28 overall teams in the league... and still 12 playoff teams with 32 teams in the league, in some vein it does make sense to increase playoff teams.
Posts: 36,826

12-30-2005, 01:59 PM	#83
dtebbe 3M TA3 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: SoFlo Casino cash: $9993039	I think the 4 wildcard slots should go to the best 4 teams regardless of if they are AFC or NFC. Other than that, things should stay the way they are. We don't want NHL or NBA playoffs that aren't even worth watching the 1st month. DT
Posts: 4,305

12-30-2005, 02:10 PM	#85
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $8179900	Please let this thread die. Carl Peterson is an asshat. Win a couple more games!
Posts: 104,292