Odd, but the Raiders...

[donkhater]

...could sweep the division and not win the division. I can't believe that has ever happened before.

How?

Next week: KC beats SD, Oakland loses at Jax

then KC beats either STL or Tenn (need only one) to win the division. Oakland beats Denver and KC (in a game with no playoff implications) to go 6-0.

It could happen. Weird crap has happened all year in the NFL.

[Dante84]

I hope we weird our way onto the lombardi trophy presentation stage.

[MMXcalibur]

You're insinuating that the Raiders beat the Chiefs at Arrowhead, you harlot.

[HotRoute]

Originally Posted by KCtotheSB

You're insinuating that the Raiders beat the Chiefs at Arrowhead, you harlot.

If the scenario he is explaining happens there would be a greater need for the chiefs to give the starters some much needed rest that week.

I would much rather have everyone healthy going into the playoff instead beating the raiders and risk someone taking a cheapshot at one of our players and getting them hurt

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by KC111110

If the scenario he is explaining happens there would be a greater need for the chiefs to give the starters some much needed rest that week.

I would much rather have everyone healthy going into the playoff instead beating the raiders and risk someone taking a cheapshot at one of our players and getting them hurt

If we win the rest of our games up to that point, we would be in a great position to possibly take the #2 seed in the playoffs. New England and the Jets both have some tough ass matchups to close out the year.

I'd gladly beat the Raiders if it meant getting that 1st round bye.

[tymania]

Originally Posted by SNR

If we win the rest of our games up to that point, we would be in a great position to possibly take the #2 seed in the playoffs. New England and the Jets both have some tough ass matchups to close out the year.

I'd gladly beat the Raiders if it meant getting that 1st round bye.

We need to finish ahead of the Ravens or Steelers too.. Its going to be a tall task to get that first round bye.. but it is do-able.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by tymania

We need to finish ahead of the Ravens or Steelers too.. Its going to be a tall task to get that first round bye.. but it is do-able.

We're already tied with the Ravens at 4 losses and only one game behind the Steelers.

Not saying it's likely, but it just might happen.

[Frosty]

They lost at home to the Cardinals. That should be an automatic playoff disqualifier.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by donkhater

...could sweep the division and not win the division. I can't believe that has ever happened before.

How?

Next week: KC beats SD, Oakland loses at Jax

then KC beats either STL or Tenn (need only one) to win the division. Oakland beats Denver and KC (in a game with no playoff implications) to go 6-0.

It could happen. Weird crap has happened all year in the NFL.

The unfortunate consequences of having 4 team divisions. You also get the possibility of teams making the playoffs with .500 (or worse) records. There should be a "10 win" rule. Division winners with 8 or 9 wins shouldn't be in the tourney. Period. IF, by some chance there isn't a 10 win team for the last spot, then "won division" should be the first tiebreaker.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by mcan

The unfortunate consequences of having 4 team divisions. You also get the possibility of teams making the playoffs with .500 (or worse) records. There should be a "10 win" rule. Division winners with 8 or 9 wins shouldn't be in the tourney. Period. IF, by some chance there isn't a 10 win team for the last spot, then "won division" should be the first tiebreaker.

Post fail.

If you're going to do that, just do away with all divisions. And when you do that, you do away with all historical rivalries.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Post fail.

If you're going to do that, just do away with all divisions. And when you do that, you do away with all historical rivalries.

The divisions would be for the purposes of KEEPING rivalries and having an organized schedule.

[bowener]

Originally Posted by mcan

The divisions would be for the purposes of KEEPING rivalries and having an organized schedule.

Give it up, it was a terrible idea.

What is probably going to happen is that Division winners will be guaranteed a playoff spot like usual, but they will seed the spots by W/L record... Thus the NFCW winner would be seeded last (if they have the worst record of the 6 NFC playoff teams). This will give teams that have locked up their own division incentive to win the rest of their games too (call this the anti-Indy rule). By winning the most games in your conference you guarantee the #1 seed for yourself.

Honestly, it makes too much damn sense, there is no reason it shouldn't have been done before... which also means the NFL will probably never do it.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by bowener

Give it up, it was a terrible idea.

What is probably going to happen is that Division winners will be guaranteed a playoff spot like usual, but they will seed the spots by W/L record... Thus the NFCW winner would be seeded last (if they have the worst record of the 6 NFC playoff teams). This will give teams that have locked up their own division incentive to win the rest of their games too (call this the anti-Indy rule). By winning the most games in your conference you guarantee the #1 seed for yourself.

Honestly, it makes too much damn sense, there is no reason it shouldn't have been done before... which also means the NFL will probably never do it.

I think this idea should be incorporated anyway. It's just silly to reward some 7-9 or 8-8 team with a home game. I'm just saying, they shouldn't be in the playoffs at all. Would people be more for my proposal if we lowered the restriction to 9-7? All rules are the same, except for times where a division winner is 8-8 or worse. Those teams are disqualified (call it a skunk rule, or whatever) and add another wildcard.

But yeah, seeding should be independent of division winner status.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by mcan

The unfortunate consequences of having 4 team divisions. You also get the possibility of teams making the playoffs with .500 (or worse) records. There should be a "10 win" rule. Division winners with 8 or 9 wins shouldn't be in the tourney. Period. IF, by some chance there isn't a 10 win team for the last spot, then "won division" should be the first tiebreaker.

So what if you have a division with four really good teams and others thathave some really horrible teams? That division winner does not get in? We might as well get rid of divisions and conferences with what your implying. Where will it end? I mean if I win 11games and somebody in the nfc got in with then I deseve it more.

System is perfect now for who gets into the playoffs.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Valiant

So what if you have a division with four really good teams and others thathave some really horrible teams? That division winner does not get in? We might as well get rid of divisions and conferences with what your implying. Where will it end? I mean if I win 11games and somebody in the nfc got in with then I deseve it more.

System is perfect now for who gets into the playoffs.

So, this is supposed to be an argument FOR your position?

Sounds to me like it's a perfect argument for MINE... Why on Earth would you want (by definition) a "horrible" team in the playoffs?