PDA

View Full Version : Carl Peterson proposing playoff expansion...


Taco John
12-29-2005, 10:59 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/football/nfl/2005-12-28-playoff-expansion_x.htm

Rain Man
12-29-2005, 11:01 AM
I think it's probably too late for that.

Taco John
12-29-2005, 11:02 AM
You didn't see Carl crying about it when it happened to the Dolphins. How does this guy still have a job?

John_Wayne
12-29-2005, 11:02 AM
I don't like the idea and I would bet that most Chiefs fans won't like it either.

dirk digler
12-29-2005, 11:02 AM
Didn't they try to pass this rule a few years ago but it never came up for a vote.

Taco John
12-29-2005, 11:03 AM
Oh, congratulations on your successful season by the way. I would have never guessed it by reading this board, but who can argue with the King?

beer bacon
12-29-2005, 11:03 AM
I vote that the NFL should just declare that the Chiefs are AFC's representative for next year's Super Bowl since Carl can't seem to get the team there himself.

milkman
12-29-2005, 11:03 AM
12 teams is more than enough, thank you Carl.

You and Dick should have made sure this team took care of business on the field against Philly, Buff, Dallas, etc, to ensure we made the playoffs.

Rain Man
12-29-2005, 11:04 AM
You didn't see Carl crying about it when it happened to the Dolphins. How does this guy still have a job?

He's still living off his reserve of goodwill from 1993.

Clint in Wichita
12-29-2005, 11:05 AM
What's next? Making Pam cooking spray on jerseys legal?

How about allowing teams to circumvent the salary cap with little more than a slap on the wrist?

Jeez, get it together, Carl!

milkman
12-29-2005, 11:05 AM
You didn't see Carl crying about it when it happened to the Dolphins. How does this guy still have a job?

He proposed it last year as well, and I'm pretty sure the Chiefs finished with fewer than 10 wins.

dirk digler
12-29-2005, 11:05 AM
For the record I hate this idea. I don't think we need anymore teams in the playoffs, this isn't the NBA.

HC_Chief
12-29-2005, 11:07 AM
For the record I hate this idea. I don't think we need anymore teams in the playoffs, this isn't the NBA.

Or worse, the NHL.

The playoffs are fine the way they are. WIN YOUR F*CKING GAMES AND YOU GET TO GO. :grr:

FringeNC
12-29-2005, 11:08 AM
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."

Hmmm...and how could we expand the playoffs WITHOUT 50% of the teams making it. Carl's an idiot.

StcChief
12-29-2005, 11:09 AM
How about extend the season with two more Conf games, (two less pre-season games).

Add another bye week. early bye and late bye.

Add playoff game of two more teams.

SB would be near end of Feb.

Why not?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-29-2005, 11:09 AM
I think 3 wins should get you in the playoffs, we could outdo the NBA and make it so the top 28 or so teams make it and it could be like the NCAA BB tourney. YES YES YES!

Taco John
12-29-2005, 11:09 AM
He proposed it last year as well, and I'm pretty sure the Chiefs finished with fewer than 10 wins.



I guess you're right. I still think it's a bad idea. I think it would take away from the game, not to mention the teams who actually deserve to be in the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of teams with ten wins every year that don't belong in the playoffs. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that last year's Denver Broncos probably shouldn't have been there, and they had ten wins. I think we have just the right amount of teams making it in. I bet of all the ten win teams that miss the playoffs, I can point to at least one game that they shoulda, coulda, woulda if they'd have just taken care of business. Is there even one ten win team missing the playoffs but has a perfect record at home?

ct
12-29-2005, 11:09 AM
Lamar has been on this pulpit for a few years.

Taco John
12-29-2005, 11:11 AM
Hmmm...and how could we expand the playoffs WITHOUT 50% of the teams making it. Carl's and idiot.



I fixed your post for you. :)

dirk digler
12-29-2005, 11:12 AM
I guess you're right. I still think it's a bad idea. I think it would take away from the game, not to mention the teams who actually deserve to be in the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of teams with ten wins every year that don't belong in the playoffs. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that last year's Denver Broncos probably shouldn't have been there, and they had ten wins. I think we have just the right amount of teams making it in. I bet of all the ten win teams that miss the playoffs, I can point to at least one game that they shoulda, coulda, woulda if they'd have just taken care of business. Is there even one ten win team missing the playoffs but has a perfect record at home?

I agree.

The only teams that are undefeated at home is Denver and Seattle.

The loss to the Eagles killed us IMO.

siberian khatru
12-29-2005, 11:13 AM
No surprise that a guy who's satisified with mediocrity wants the league to reward it.

milkman
12-29-2005, 11:17 AM
I guess you're right. I still think it's a bad idea. I think it would take away from the game, not to mention the teams who actually deserve to be in the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of teams with ten wins every year that don't belong in the playoffs. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that last year's Denver Broncos probably shouldn't have been there, and they had ten wins. I think we have just the right amount of teams making it in. I bet of all the ten win teams that miss the playoffs, I can point to at least one game that they shoulda, coulda, woulda if they'd have just taken care of business. Is there even one ten win team missing the playoffs but has a perfect record at home?

I agree with you.

Hell, I think 12 teams is more than enough, and think 10 teams would be an even better playoff.

I'm just pointing out that Carl isn't doing this simply because of the Chiefs realistic chance of winning 10 games and sitting at home for the playoffs.

FringeNC
12-29-2005, 11:18 AM
I actually think the NFL has about the perfect playoff system. The fighting for the #1 and #2 seed make a lot of late season games important for the top teams. You start adding teams to the playoffs and getting rid of the byes, and you start making the regular season another pre-season.

FringeNC
12-29-2005, 11:18 AM
No surprise that a guy who's satisified with mediocrity wants the league to reward it.
:clap:

The Bad Guy
12-29-2005, 11:21 AM
You didn't see Carl crying about it when it happened to the Dolphins. How does this guy still have a job?

The fact that he's been trying this for years makes your argument bullshit.

But what else is new?

Calcountry
12-29-2005, 11:27 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/football/nfl/2005-12-28-playoff-expansion_x.htm


Great just great, that way, we can go one and out more often.

WilliamTheIrish
12-29-2005, 11:27 AM
No surprise that a guy who's satisified with mediocrity wants the league to reward it.

Exactly.

ameliorated1216
12-29-2005, 11:31 AM
How about...

The AFC plays the AFC and the NFC plays the NFC except in preseason and championship. Expand the season to 18 games, a team plays every team in thier division twice, and each of the remaining conference teams once. The playoffs stay the same, but everyone's schedule is pretty even. Unless you are the Texans, then you have the toughest schedule and if you are the colts, the easiest. Thoughts?

Calcountry
12-29-2005, 11:31 AM
I think 3 wins should get you in the playoffs, we could outdo the NBA and make it so the top 28 or so teams make it and it could be like the NCAA BB tourney. YES YES YES!24 teams would work nicely. Give 8 teams a first round bye, then the remaining 16 play an extra round to mow down to 8 matchups against the bye teams.

That ought to satisfy carl. He could then say to Chiefs fans everywhere, Look, I brought you the playoffs.

Then deep inside his panic room, he laughs at the thought that he doesn't have to do shit to make the playoffs.

Calcountry
12-29-2005, 11:32 AM
How about...

The AFC plays the AFC and the NFC plays the NFC except in preseason and championship. Expand the season to 18 games, a team plays every team in thier division twice, and each of the remaining conference teams once. The playoffs stay the same, but everyone's schedule is pretty even. Unless you are the Texans, then you have the toughest schedule and if you are the colts, the easiest. Thoughts?Hey dumbass! IF you are going to post stupid shit like that and end it with a one word sentence like "Thoughts?" IT HAS TO BE A THREAD STARTER1!!1

ameliorated1216
12-29-2005, 11:33 AM
Course the NFC would have 4 division leaders clinch half way through the season and the AFC would still have 12 teams in the hunt in December that way.

cdcox
12-29-2005, 11:34 AM
What a stupid idea.

No #6 seed has ever made the SB, so now we want to expand it to seven seeds? This makes the league less competive, not more.

And saying that a 10-5 Tampa team faces elimination is pure propaganda. For that to happen the following events would have to take place:
Tampa lose to NO
Giants lose to Oakland
Washington beats Philadelphia
Dallas beats St Louis
Carolina beats Atlanta
And then some other obscure combination of game outcomes required to drop Tampa's strength of victory below both the Giants' and Cowboys' strength of victory.

I think Tampa is pretty safe and I think Carl Peterson is trying to find a way to make his job easier.

Calcountry
12-29-2005, 11:35 AM
Exactly.Yeah, CP is the kind of guy would fug you in the arse and not have the goddam common courtesy, to give you a reach arround.

Halfcan
12-29-2005, 11:35 AM
Carl is an idiot. It really looks l,ike sour grapes-besides we are not 10-6 yet.

RP_McMurphy
12-29-2005, 11:36 AM
Shut up Carl!!!!!!

You wouldn't be whinning about Playoff teams if your own team hadn't blown leads and sleep walked thru road games.

Mecca
12-29-2005, 11:39 AM
More playoff games=more money for the league

Why am I not surprised the Chiefs are leading the charge for that one.

Taco John
12-29-2005, 12:07 PM
The problem is, it's already so hard for a wild card to make it all the way... Adding another round is only going to make it that much harder.

morphius
12-29-2005, 12:17 PM
I don't like the idea just because it seems every year there is at least 1 team that really shouldn't be there already in the playoff's. The last few years you could point to a lot of NFC teams that shouldn't have been in the playoff's. At some point that will be true of the AFC as well. Hell, Jacksonville will get creamed in their first playoff game.

SLAG
12-29-2005, 12:17 PM
We have to make it to 10 wins first

Mr. Laz
12-29-2005, 12:29 PM
playoffs are big enough



i do like their idea of expanding the team rosters though.

ptlyon
12-29-2005, 12:29 PM
We have to make it to 10 wins first

Just what I was gonna post.

Rep.

Inspector
12-29-2005, 12:43 PM
12 teams is more than enough, thank you Carl.

You and Dick should have made sure this team took care of business on the field against Philly, Buff, Dallas, etc, to ensure we made the playoffs.

This is exactly what I thought when I heard this on the radio this morning.

Just win the ****ing games you're supposed to, and we'd be in.

Dammit Carl!!!

FringeNC
12-29-2005, 12:48 PM
It's Carl's type of thinking that is the reason why there is no NCAA Div 1 playoff. Coaches and administrators know that fans will view the year as a failure if their college doesn't make the 16-team or whatever playoff....so they are opposed to one.

Maybe Carl should propose a 2nd-tiered bowl system. Maybe we could have a rematch with Dallas in the not quite good enough bowl.

SLAG
12-29-2005, 12:51 PM
It's Carl's type of thinking that is the reason why there is no NCAA Div 1 playoff. Coaches and administrators know that fans will view the year as a failure if their college doesn't make the 16-team or whatever playoff....so they are opposed to one.

Maybe Carl should propose a 2nd-tiered bowl system. Maybe we could have a rematch with Dallas in the not quite good enough bowl.


The Second Place is the First Loser Bowl:hmmm:

Taco John
12-29-2005, 01:00 PM
Ooooh! I know! We could have the Chiefs play the National Champions this year the week AFTER the pro bowl!

Calcountry
12-29-2005, 01:01 PM
It's Carl's type of thinking that is the reason why there is no NCAA Div 1 playoff. Coaches and administrators know that fans will view the year as a failure if their college doesn't make the 16-team or whatever playoff....so they are opposed to one.

Maybe Carl should propose a 2nd-tiered bowl system. Maybe we could have a rematch with Dallas in the not quite good enough bowl.no, that would be Atlanta vs San Diego

Lzen
12-29-2005, 01:13 PM
Hmmm...and how could we expand the playoffs WITHOUT 50% of the teams making it. Carl's an idiot.

Uh......14 out of 32 = 43.75%.

I don't know if it would be a good thing or a bad thing. However, I think with 4 divisions, it sucks when one division has so many good teams. For instance, it is possible that the Chiefs and Patriots could finish with the same record. Even though the Chiefs beat the Pats, the Pats get in because their division is weak and the AFC West is strong. I was complaining about this fact ever since that Pats game.

Saulbadguy
12-29-2005, 01:16 PM
It'll happen eventually. More games, more money.

cdcox
12-29-2005, 01:20 PM
Uh......14 out of 32 = 43.75%.

I don't know if it would be a good thing or a bad thing. However, I think with 4 divisions, it sucks when one division has so many good teams. For instance, it is possible that the Chiefs and Patriots could finish with the same record. Even though the Chiefs beat the Pats, the Pats get in because their division is weak and the AFC West is strong. I was complaining about this fact ever since that Pats game.

Strong/weak conferences/divisions change over time. If you are good enough to win the SB, it doesn't really matter what division you are from.

Lzen
12-29-2005, 01:22 PM
What a stupid idea.

No #6 seed has ever made the SB, so now we want to expand it to seven seeds? This makes the league less competive, not more.



Are you sure about that? Didn't the Raiders do that back in the early 80s?

FringeNC
12-29-2005, 01:23 PM
Uh......14 out of 32 = 43.75%.

I don't know if it would be a good thing or a bad thing. However, I think with 4 divisions, it sucks when one division has so many good teams. For instance, it is possible that the Chiefs and Patriots could finish with the same record. Even though the Chiefs beat the Pats, the Pats get in because their division is weak and the AFC West is strong. I was complaining about this fact ever since that Pats game.

Yeah, I thought about 7 in each conference. Seems like an awkward number, but I guess you could leave it the way it is now except only the #1 seed gets a bye. But at 8 teams in each conference, you've hit 50% and eliminated the reward for finishing 1 or 2.

Lzen
12-29-2005, 01:24 PM
Strong/weak conferences/divisions change over time. If you are good enough to win the SB, it doesn't really matter what division you are from.


Only 1 team is strong enough to win the SB each year. So, by your logic, there should only be 1 team from each conference and they should just bypass the playoffs and just go straight to the championship game.

Thig Lyfe
12-29-2005, 01:28 PM
Carl is retarted.

Ari Chi3fs
12-29-2005, 03:34 PM
how exactly would 7 teams from each conference play out in a playoff setting? 6 makes sense, 8 makes sense... i cant wrap my brain around how 7 would work effectively.

philfree
12-29-2005, 04:01 PM
how exactly would 7 teams from each conference play out in a playoff setting? 6 makes sense, 8 makes sense... i cant wrap my brain around how 7 would work effectively.

Only one team from each conference gets a bye week? That would work out wouldn't it? Three playoff games the 1st week of the playoffs leaving three teams to move on to round two where the team with the bye is aleady waiting.


PhilFree:arrow:

Clint in Wichita
12-29-2005, 04:24 PM
I haven't read through this entire thread, but here's one solution that makes sense, but most wouldn't like.


Leave the league aligned the way it is now, but don't schedule 2 games with each division opponent. 1 each, alternating home/away each year.

That could help to level the playing field without anything dramatic being done. It wouldn't always make a difference, but it wouldn't hurt, either.

Oh, and no bye weeks for anyone, even if it means adding one playoff team to even things out. Homefield advantage is enough of an....advantage.

Claynus
12-29-2005, 05:54 PM
I agree with Taco John.

cdcox
12-29-2005, 08:41 PM
Are you sure about that? Didn't the Raiders do that back in the early 80s?

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

shaneo69
12-29-2005, 08:46 PM
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).

Yeah, I had a "Moops" moment playing Trivial Pursuit Sports Edition a few years back when the question was "Who was the 1st wildcard team to win a Super Bowl" and I said the '69 Chiefs, and the freaking answer was 1980 Raiders.

Ultra Peanut
12-29-2005, 08:47 PM
I think it's probably too late for that.ROFL

cdcox
12-29-2005, 08:47 PM
Only 1 team is strong enough to win the SB each year. So, by your logic, there should only be 1 team from each conference and they should just bypass the playoffs and just go straight to the championship game.


We don't know which team is that 1 team until the games are played. So it makes sense to have 5 or at most 6 qualify from each conference. The Chiefs aren't going to magically obtain the ability to win on the road now that it's the playoffs. A very good team, like the 2000 Ravens or the 1997 Cheating Broncos isn't going to miss the dance just because they happened to be in a strong division. The system is near perfect now.

milkman
12-29-2005, 08:48 PM
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

The AFL was divided into two conferences, Eastern and Western, and both Conferences sent the winner and 2nd place finisher to the playoffs.

Oakland and the Jets were the conference winners, and the Chiefs and the Houston Oilers were 2nd place finishers.

They weren't considered Wild Cards.

Wallcrawler
12-29-2005, 10:55 PM
It sucks that the Chiefs could miss the playoffs, but I dont feel that Carl's proposal will hold up.

Its always been about the division. If you want in the playoffs, WIN YOUR DIVISION.

The Chiefs certainly had the opportunities to do that this year, they simply pissed them away. You dont reward performances like that by taking the team by the hand and saying "Its OK, we will just change the rules and allow more teams in the playoffs next time, so you can piss away games and still get in."


The Chiefs easily should have 3 more wins than they have right now. Philly, Buffalo, and San Diego immediately come to mind. But, they blew it.

Now, they DESERVE to sweat it out with the mathematical situation and if they miss out, tough. They had their chances and blew them.

alanm
12-29-2005, 11:08 PM
Oh, congratulations on your successful season by the way. I would have never guessed it by reading this board, but who can argue with the King?
You know it's the condesending attitude of the typical donkey fans that endear me to them so much.


One and done TJ. It's the Bronco way. PBJ

greg63
12-29-2005, 11:33 PM
Peterson's an idiot; albeit a rich idiot, but an idiot just the same.

Coach
12-29-2005, 11:40 PM
Heh, the NFL Live are having a discussion about Carl Peterson's proposal about expanding the playoffs.

Basically, just said "Try to tackle Tiki Barber."

Taco John
12-29-2005, 11:48 PM
You know it's the condesending attitude of the typical donkey fans that endear me to them so much.


One and done TJ. It's the Bronco way. PBJ



Man, when Carl Peterson starts crying about expanding the playoff system to allow the Chiefs a shot at them, the jokes practically write themselves. How can I possibly resist?

Claynus
12-29-2005, 11:50 PM
Man, when Carl Peterson starts crying about expanding the playoff system to allow the Chiefs a shot at them, the jokes practically write themselves. How can I possibly resist?

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

I'm hoping Clark Hunt can provide it.

greg63
12-29-2005, 11:53 PM
It's quite pathetic. We badly need a franchise makeover.

I'm hoping Clark Hunt can provide it.

:clap: Yup!

SCTrojan
12-29-2005, 11:58 PM
Heh, the NFL Live are having a discussion about Carl Peterson's proposal about expanding the playoffs.

Basically, just said "Try to tackle Tiki Barber."

Absolutely. And I'm not positive, but as I understand the tiebreaker rules, we wouldn't get in as the #7 seed even if the NFL had such a thing.

Coach
12-30-2005, 12:32 AM
Absolutely. And I'm not positive, but as I understand the tiebreaker rules, we wouldn't get in as the #7 seed even if the NFL had such a thing.

Heh, and I think the Chargers would be in as the #7 seed if there ever was one.

But in all, Carl Peterson is a f**king joke. At least, in a way, that we could be thankful for is that we don't have Matt Millen. But yes, I know that it's not Carl Peterson making the tackles. It's not Carl Peterson that is throwing interceptions, or fumbling the football away.

However, I am holding Carl Peterson for putting the product on the field. What kind of a moron G.M. would give Eric Hicks a big fat contract? What kind of a moron G.M. would give Jerome Woods a big fat contract as well? Do I even need to bring up the 2003 season when Peterson inexplicably re-signed all of the same players that had just been trounced by the Colts in the play-offs, minus Dalton?

Jesus H. Christ. Carl Peterson thinks he can find an NFL-caliber defense down at the Dollar General.

I hope, whenever Clark Hunt takes over the team, that his first priority is to shitcan Carl Peterson for good.

Taco John
12-30-2005, 12:39 AM
What I can't figure out is why there aren't dudes running around Arrowhead stadium with "Fire Carl" T-Shirts like in Detroit with Matt Millen. For Pete's sakes, you guys have only three post season wins in 35 years, you'd think there'd be more activism for change amongst the fans.

How'd you guys get Mediocre Marty out? Well, actually, I guess that was DT's doing (no offense, just calling it like I see it. When DT melted down on MNF, he might as well have been signing Marty's severance check). I guess Clark Hunt is your only hope. For my part, I'm hoping he sticks with the ole buffoon. Carl has been money in the bank for the Broncos.

Logical
12-30-2005, 12:45 AM
What I can't figure out is why there aren't dudes running around Arrowhead stadium with "Fire Carl" T-Shirts like in Detroit with Matt Millen. For Pete's sakes, you guys have only three post season wins in 35 years, you'd think there'd be more activism for change amongst the fans.

How'd you guys get Mediocre Marty out? Well, actually, I guess that was DT's doing (no offense, just calling it like I see it. When DT melted down on MNF, he might as well have been signing Marty's severance check). I guess Clark Hunt is your only hope. For my part, I'm hoping he sticks with the ole buffoon. Carl has been money in the bank for the Broncos.

What can I say, 23 years of Jack Steadman deadened far too many brain cells. Especially in Lamar Hunt who actually allowed Steadman to go into the Ring of Fame.:shake:

Coach
12-30-2005, 12:45 AM
What I can't figure out is why there aren't dudes running around Arrowhead stadium with "Fire Carl" T-Shirts like in Detroit with Matt Millen. For Pete's sakes, you guys have only three post season wins in 35 years, you'd think there'd be more activism for change amongst the fans.

I dunno, I don't live in KC, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

How'd you guys get Mediocre Marty out? Well, actually, I guess that was DT's doing (no offense, just calling it like I see it. When DT melted down on MNF, he might as well have been signing Marty's severance check). I guess Clark Hunt is your only hope. For my part, I'm hoping he sticks with the ole buffoon. Carl has been money in the bank for the Broncos.

Mediocre? Try again Taco John. Marty and Carl actually produced wins and playoff wins. Ever since Marty left, the Chiefs haven't won as much as they used to. Since that MNF meltdown, I'm not pointing it directly on DT. It was pretty much everyone responsible on that team.

Who's responsible for hiring the coaches after Marty left? Carl Peterson. Hired Gunther. Failed. Hired Vermeil. Failed. I'm not too confident on whoever the next head coach will be, becuase it most likely will turn out to be a failure as well.

As for Clark, from what I heard and seen, he's not a Carl Peterson supporter.

Bob Dole
12-30-2005, 06:18 AM
Man, when Carl Peterson starts crying about expanding the playoff system to allow the Chiefs a shot at them, the jokes practically write themselves. How can I possibly resist?

Actually, Bob Dole seems to recall that Peterson proposed the idea last year on behalf of Lamar Hunt.

philfree
12-30-2005, 06:20 AM
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:arrow:

cdcox
12-30-2005, 06:44 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, 07:34 AM
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, 09:35 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.

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:arrow:

cdcox
12-30-2005, 10:22 AM
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.

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.

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:arrow:

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.

Ari Chi3fs
12-30-2005, 10:26 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, 11:01 AM
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:arrow:

dtebbe
12-30-2005, 12:59 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, 01:09 PM
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, 01:10 PM
Please let this thread die.

Carl Peterson is an asshat.

Win a couple more games! :cuss:

Claynus
03-11-2009, 07:33 PM
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
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...