What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Peterson Wants Playoffs Extended (1 Viewer)

wannabee

wannabee

Footballguy
Chiefs President Wants More Playoff Teams

As Many as Three Teams Could Wind Up 10-6 and Miss Playoffs

By Skip Wood and Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY

Tampa Bay has 10 wins already, but Jon Gruden and the Bucs may be denied a playoff berth.

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.

 
I disagree and his logic is terrible. Since 1990, 3 teams have won 10 games and missed the playoffs. The fact that it may happen to 3 teams in a single season represents more of an abheration than anything else. And how many times have .500 teams made the playoffs? If the NFL wants to do it for money, then just say it. Otherwise, you're only as good as your record, and this year 10-6 may not be good enough.

 
I disagree and his logic is terrible. Since 1990, 3 teams have won 10 games and missed the playoffs. The fact that it may happen to 3 teams in a single season represents more of an abheration than anything else. And how many times have .500 teams made the playoffs?

If the NFL wants to do it for money, then just say it. Otherwise, you're only as good as your record, and this year 10-6 may not be good enough.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Carl is being an idiot.

 
If you add one more team to the playoffs in each conference, I wonder how many clubs with 8-8 or worse records would have qualified for postseason going back to 1990 or so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Horrible, horrible idea.7 teams in each conference is ridiculous. The #1 seed would have too big of an advantage, and you'd create the worse problem of allowing 8-8 teams in on a more regular basis.

 
Last season both the Vikings and Rams got into the playoffs with 8-8 records.The Saints also finished 8-8 but didn't make the playoffs.

 
This quote is priceless:"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.You think? Made me chuckle.

 
Love how the article cites the Bucs with a chance of not making it.Here's what has to happen:-Bucs have to lose AT HOME to the Saints-Giants have to lose to Chokeland-Carolina has to beat Atlanta-Dallas has to win-Wash has to win.If the Bucs can't beat the Saints at home with the division on the line, they don't deserve to go.Expanding the playoffs is extremely stupid.

 
Someone should ask Carl Peterson what he thought of two 8-8 teams makings it in the NFC last year. His way, there would have been three 8-8 teams in the NFL playoffs.

 
Peterson has sung this song before IIRC...and as you all astutely point out, the 10-6 teams not making the playoffs is an exception, not the rule. I believe this was brought forward by the Chiefs owner two years ago at the owners meetings and summarily shot down by near unanimous dissent.

 
This is one very rare instance when I agree with Peterson. You should earn a bye week by having the best record in the conference, but the 2nd best in conference shouldn't earn a bye week. I think a bye week is just way to valuable to be giving to the second place team in the conference. One extra playoff game would generate more $ for the league/players and more interest for the fans. My guess is most 8-8 teams that go on the road and face the 2nd place team in aren't going to make much noise anyway, but I'd rather see the 2nd place team in the conference have to earn their way into the second round. It's also important to point out he proposed the rule change before the season began so it may seem like sour grapes on his part but I don't really think it is.

 
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.

 
This is one very rare instance when I agree with Peterson.

You should earn a bye week by having the best record in the conference, but the 2nd best in conference shouldn't earn a bye week. I think a bye week is just way to valuable to be giving to the second place team in the conference.

One extra playoff game would generate more $ for the league/players and more interest for the fans.

My guess is most 8-8 teams that go on the road and face the 2nd place team in aren't going to make much noise anyway, but I'd rather see the 2nd place team in the conference have to earn their way into the second round.

It's also important to point out he proposed the rule change before the season began so it may seem like sour grapes on his part but I don't really think it is.
Click to expand...
I like the top 2 teams both getting byes. Again, if the #1 seed had the bye, AND the home-field advantage, AND the advantage of always facing the lowest remaining seed, it'd be way too EASY for them to make the superbowl. If they're really the best team in the conference, they should be able to make the SB even if they have to face a #2 seed that had a bye, too.Someone needs to tell Carl Peterson that the top 6 teams make the playoffs, and if his team isn't one of the top 6, it doesn't deserve to go, no matter HOW many wins it has. I mean, even if the Chiefs were 12-4 and about to miss the playoffs, who cares? If they were only the third best WC contender, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

I could see his whining having a point if a 10-6 team was getting left out in favor of an 8-8 division winner. I think division winners should get an automatic playoff berth, but I think seeding should be done entirely based on record. How much of a joke is it that in 1997, Denver finishes 13-3 with the second best record in the AFC, but was only the #4 seed since the first best record belonged to a team in their division? And what about Jacksonville, who was guaranteed by week 12 or so that it could never possibly do any better than the #5 seed, because they happen to play in the same division as Indy?

Oh, and one other thing, if Peterson wants to start whining about the NFL not being fair, he should start looking at the disparities between some teams' schedules. Complain about the brutal slate the Chiefs had to play, not the fact that they're the 7th best team in the conference. Personally, I think strength of schedule should be the #2 tiebreaker, behind only head-to-head.

 
The only possible league where adding more teams to the playoffs makes any sense and even then I'm not sold is baseball. I liked the wildcard addition to baseball as it's made things quite interesting. The NHL is now talking about adding MORE teams to the playoffs when I think they should actually have less teams. I don't follow basketball much but I think 16 teams is way too many. I've always liked the NFL's model as it encourages divisional rivalries but also rewards teams that are in a tough division with a chance at a playoff spot.Adding another few teams would make the last few games of the season even more meaningless. There are already too many teams resting players the last couple of weeks of the season and adding the potential for more seems idiotic. I understand the want of more revenue but how would you as a fan in Arizona feel this weekend feel after looking forward to seeing the Colts all season but now get to see Jim Sorgi,Dominic Rhodes and Brandon Stokely. You paid good money for those seats and now you get to see pre-season talent. I know there is nothing one can do about it as the Colts had a great season but ensuring more teams are included in the playoffs would only, in my opinion, add to the teams resting the stars.

 
I agree that it isn't sour grapes, but what it is really all about is Peterson wanting it easier for slightly above average teams to make the playoffs. This is the sweat spot for Carl where the Chiefs can make optimal money and continue to "justify" large price increases in tickets because "they made the playoffs X times in Y years". The fact that they are most often one-and-done should be ignored.

This proposal is not for the good of the league, it is merely a thinly veiled ploy at creating another propaganda point for Carl Peterson. As much as KC fans would like to see the Chiefs make the playoffs I don't think anyone could realistically expect the Chiefs to win a playoff game.

It's similar to the people that complain about "only" 64/65 teams (depending on how you count the play in game) making the NCAA tourney. The bumped teams can not seriously make a run at the title so nothing is lost by leaving these slightly above average teams sitting at home.

There is no need to reward mediocrity.

This is one very rare instance when I agree with Peterson.

You should earn a bye week by having the best record in the conference, but the 2nd best in conference shouldn't earn a bye week. I think a bye week is just way to valuable to be giving to the second place team in the conference.

One extra playoff game would generate more $ for the league/players and more interest for the fans.

My guess is most 8-8 teams that go on the road and face the 2nd place team in aren't going to make much noise anyway, but I'd rather see the 2nd place team in the conference have to earn their way into the second round.

It's also important to point out he proposed the rule change before the season began so it may seem like sour grapes on his part but I don't really think it is.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.
Click to expand...
Not an aspiring netword executive, are you? :P
 
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.
Click to expand...
This sounds kind of interesting at first, but would never work. I have to think that division winners would get in automatically. What if there were five 10 win wild card teams? This could happen if one conference was extremely dominant--it's not that far from happening this year.

If the other conference only produced 4 playoff teams, how would they handle the fact that one conference's playoffs would take 4 weeks and the other's would take just two?

Not very fair to award the weaker conference 2 extra weeks off to get healthy between games and/or before the Super Bowl.

 
Peterson has sung this song before IIRC...and as you all astutely point out, the 10-6 teams not making the playoffs is an exception, not the rule. I believe this was brought forward by the Chiefs owner two years ago at the owners meetings and summarily shot down by near unanimous dissent.
Click to expand...
and if it's brought up again...hopefully it's shot down againexpanded playoffs is one of the main reasons some people, like myself, really don't care about the regular season in baseball and basketball

quit trying to screw with the nfl playoff format peterson

 
The problem isn't lettting too few teams in the playoffs. It's because there are too many bad teams in the league this year. If there weren't like 5 or 6 teams in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes, there wouldn't be as many 10 win teams. It's a function of the disparity between winning and losing. Most years there are a lot more mediocre 6, 7 and 8 win teams, but not so this year.Peterson needs to understand this and live with it. My biggest problem with the new playoffs and 4 divisions in each conference is the potential for a division (NFC North) to suck so bad that a team can have a disproportionate amount of wins from playing 6 games against terrible competition. Worse yet, is when a team wins their division going 7-9.. like the Padres in the NL West in baseball.More divisions is not a good thing, but it's not terrible either. The league went in that direction, now Peterson and the others have to live with it. No way is perfect and there will always be a chance for anamolies. The bottom line is the Chiefs need to win more games. If they do, they'll get in. The Chargers have just as much of a beef.The AFC is far superior to the NFC. Ten years ago it was the opposite.

 
Peterson has sung this song before IIRC...and as you all astutely point out, the 10-6 teams not making the playoffs is an exception, not the rule. I believe this was brought forward by the Chiefs owner two years ago at the owners meetings and summarily shot down by near unanimous dissent.
Click to expand...
and if it's brought up again...hopefully it's shot down againexpanded playoffs is one of the main reasons some people, like myself, really don't care about the regular season in baseball and basketball

quit trying to screw with the nfl playoff format peterson
Click to expand...
Its all about the :moneybag: . You people are thinking about the quality but I am on the side of expanding it for a multiple reasons. For one alone it will keep teams in the race longer and that means more excitement. Look at what adding a wild card spot did to baseball.. Teams that are 10-6 should make the playoffs and I think expanding it so those teams are in is a good idea. This isn't even close to the NBA.. There you have plenty of 500 teams in it.. NFL I don't think you would have that happen (except maybe in teh NFC) :P Hopefully it happens.. More football can't argue with that..
 
If you add one more team to the playoffs in each conference, I wonder how many clubs with 8-8 or worse records would have qualified for postseason going back to 1990 or so.
Click to expand...
10 additional teams since 1990 would have made the playoffs with records of 8-8 or less:2005 Saints

2001 Redskins

1999 Packers or Panthers

1998 Bucs or Giants

1998 Oilers, Raiders or Seahawks

1995 Broncos, Seahawks or Raiders

1993 Saints or Eagles

1991 Jets AND Patriots

1990 Dallas Cowboys

Every one of those teams was 8-8 except for the 1990 Cowboys, who were 7-9.

 
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.
Click to expand...
Why don't they take a page from some Fantasy Football Leagues that I've seen mention on this board:4 division winners

+next best 2 record

+team with the most points that didn't make the playoffs

....and if you couldn't tell, I'm using :sarcasm: :rolleyes:

 
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking he should propose next. Carl is saying that any team with 10 wins should be in. :no: Also, he says that he doesn't want it to be like the NBA where half of the teams make it. By adding two more, he's getting there.

 
Now: 12 of 32 teams in playoffs = 37.5%Proposed: 14 of 32 teams = 43.8%Increase in the amount of bad playoff football: 100%.Peterson would have more of a case if he didn't have a dog in the hunt, but he doesn't. Thus, it comes off sounding like sour grapes or :cry: . Either way, he should just shut up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The system is fine the way it is. Sure there are more 10-6 teams this year but tie-breakers will determine the better of those teams. I'd be curious to see when an 8-8 team made the play-offs how much SOS effected the record.

 
12 of 28 in 1990 = 42.9%
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. That 42.9 seems a lot closer to 43.8 than it does to 37.5 to me.Strange, I don't remember thinking the playoffs were deluged with mediocre teams back in 1990. Does anyone else?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the current system and see no reason to change. However, while I like the reward for the top two teams in each conference, I have always thought it was bad from a fan perspective to have the best teams in the league play fewer games than everyone else. It'd be nice if there were some way around that that didn't make it less likely for the top teams to make the Superbowl.

 
The AFC is far superior to the NFC. Ten years ago it was the opposite.
Click to expand...
Actually, from top to bottom, the AFC has really been the superior conference almost all throughout history. Even when the NFC won the SB 15 times in 16 years from 1982 to 1997, the AFC had the better head-to-head record 6 times, the NFC had the better head-to-head record 6 times, and the two conferences tied 4 times.The dominant teams in the NFC tended to be better than the dominant teams in the AFC, but the AFC has won the head-to-head record much more often than they've lost it.

Also, the NFC isn't a ton worse than the AFC this season, a lot of that is carryover in perception from last season, when the AFC set an NFL record for superiority. So far this season, the AFC is only 32-28 against the NFC.

 
I'm not saying I would like to see what I am about to propose become reality, but try this:

A system where the number of playoff clubs is not set. At season's end, anyone with at least 10 victories gets a berth. Various tournament setups will be drawn up ahead of time to suit all scenarios, such as having 7 playoff clubs or just 4.
Click to expand...
An interesting aspect of that is that teams that have clinched early(Sea/Indy this year for example) would still have something to play for in games against 8 or 9 win teams because keeping another team out of the playoffs would greatly help their odds of winning it. And more competitive and hard fought games are always good. :thumbup:
 
The cool thing about football, as opposed to certain other pro sports, is that the regular season actually matters quite a bit. Nearly every game in the regular season matters.I like things the way they are.

 
The cool thing about football, as opposed to certain other pro sports, is that the regular season actually matters quite a bit. Nearly every game in the regular season matters.

I like things the way they are.
Click to expand...
But don't you think the regular season games mattered in 1990 when 43% of teams made the playoffs?If the #1 and #2/#3 teams were all battling it out for the bye then IND's and SEA's would have more meaningful regular season games. You'd have teams at the top battling it out for the only bye, teams in the middle of the playoff hunt battling to get home field advantage, and teams at the end of the playoff race battling just to make the playoffs like you have it now.

So in reality the regular season games would matter even MORE if there was only one bye week awarded per conference.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yogibear
Yogi's Projected 2024 NFL Playoff Picture
Replies
1
Views
172
Deamon
Deamon
ChiefD
The Teams That Look The Best - Right Now
Replies
48
Views
764
Anarchy99
Anarchy99
Ministry of Pain
Projected Win totals for all 32 teams
Replies
24
Views
646
Alex P Keaton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top