Do you talk about penises constantly in real life or is this just a thing you do on ChiefsPlanet

We only go to a neutral field if we win and the Bills win this weekend.

We would get Cincinnati at Arrowhead.

I'd say its pretty much a coin flip we get either the Jags or the Chargers should that be the matchup.

But ideally, the Bills lose the first game and we get that scrub while the Chargers and Bengals have to play each other.

Just want to clarify:

Do people think Clark is voting in favor of this or against it because of some crazy idea that the Chiefs got screwed here?

I figured we were all on board with the former but I want to make sure as this thread has been extra spicy.

I think there's a pretty good chance Jacobs doesn't play. He's questionable and really there's no reason to run him out there. He's also due for a contract I think so he probably doesn't have a lot of interest in playing.

to be honest this actually favors the Chiefs...

pewrsonally think the Bills wouldve beat the Bengals. .

so we got gifted a bye. . in that scenario. .

but I hope we can keep our eye on the prize and curb stomp the Raidfers Saturday

JFC man yes you're absolutely still being obtuse.

It's not about it not benefiting the Bills going forward.

It's about the fact that the Bills cried like babies and everybody screamed about how unfair it was with them THEN something got done.

It happened just two years prior in the SAME exact way in a game EVERYBODY was watching and NOBODY gave a ****.

You are absolutely being obtuse by not seeing the clear differences, and the fact that you're acting like when it happened to the Chiefs was also part of the reason something finally got done is hilariously reeruned.

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily go for everyone else.

Going back to the 90s, the Raiders are always a good bet to pack it in this late in the season if they're out of it. They've got vacations planned. Who wants to get injured right before that in a meaningless game?

They've never shown that divisional pride late in the season, when they're out of it, like the Broncos and Chargers do sometimes.

I offered my reasons what was different this time.

How do you compare that versus the prior experience?

The Bills minus 2 starting dbacks were not beating the Bengals if that game resumes...

This works!

I predict that the owners approve the plan after an amendment that says Bills v. Bengals in Divisional can be neutral site because Bengals lost opportunity to give Bills a 4th loss so that teams would end up with a tie with Bengals winning head to head tiebreaker.

The rationale that Bills and Bengals lost opportunity to match the Chiefs record and win tiebreaker should also apply to Bengals Bills in Divisional if both win week 19 games.

I predict it passes after amended to say if Bills and Bengals win week 19 and wildcard games so that they are the 2 v. 3 matchup in Divisional, that game is at neutral site.

I do not think they would have announced it if the owners were not all on board--the vote is just a formality.

Clark is too much of a gentleman to vote no. The Ravens/Bengals...I could see both of those teams maybe voting no...

Absolutely baseless. Nothing about how that game started should make you think that.

If something happens once, people ignore it as it feels like a one-off. If something happens 2 times in 4 seasons, it feels like something that needs to be addressed. Especially as the first time involved Tom ****ing Brady who gets a free pass from everything and the second time involved the greatest game of our lifetimes.