Bills/ Bengals [cancelled - process in OP]

[cmh6476]

In case anyone needs it spelled out, we would play at a neutral site if the AFCCG ends up being Chiefs vs. Bills. All other scenarios abide by the usual rules (so any other game the Chiefs play will be at home).

Old posts:

Spoiler!

The NFL will consider a neutral site for the AFC Championship Game. Full details: pic.twitter.com/oi3fItUWIj

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) January 6, 2023

Breaking News: Of course the game is secondary to #DamarHamlin’s health, but #Bills insider @viccarucci just reported on @wgrz Daybreak that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will make the call on rescheduling the Bills/Bengals game and it would have to be played within 2 days.

— Melissa Holmes (@2MelissaHolmes) January 3, 2023

There is another option according to @viccarucci - the league can add a 19th week so the Bills/Bengals can get in all their games. @wgrz https://t.co/1X1hCHVN8c

— Melissa Holmes (@2MelissaHolmes) January 3, 2023

I assume we'll hear something soon

After speaking with both teams and NFLPA leadership, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell informed the clubs today that the Bills-Bengals game will not be resumed this week.

The NFL has made no decision regarding the possible resumption of the game at a later date.

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) January 3, 2023

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Teams across the league are honoring Damar Hamlin by outlining “3” on their 30-yard lines ❤️

(via @Commanders, @Jaguars) | #ForDamar pic.twitter.com/jbQoI8VwjQ

— NFL On Prime Video (@NFLonPrime) January 6, 2023

[Sassy Squatch]

Halfway convinced the Bengals got ****ed that badly so there will never be a situation like this again. They should've never said anything publicly about not being ready to play either. Just warm up after it happens and if the other team leaves let them forfeit. That's going to be standard procedure going forward for most teams. NFL has just assured it with this shit.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Saw your post on Bengalsboard, an admirable effort to rally the troops after getting the short end of this stick.

How did other owners go along with a vote that didn't coin flip (or something) for the #2 seed? It makes ZERO sense to do that with Baltimore for the division but not for the #2 seed.

[SupDock]

I see some Bengals fans complaining about potentially playing in a neutral site in Pittsburgh , stating it isn’t neutral. I think the Bengals have been screwed, but not because of that, if it happens. It’s not like Steelers fans will show up to root against the Bengals. I wouldn’t have an issue playing in LA or LV.

[DrunkBassGuitar]

Originally Posted by In58men

I’ll be making this 4 hour drive if it’s in Vegas




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

lol "we're here if they need us"

the guy at Guitar Center said the same thing to me when I was feeling down and wanted to buy a new guitar

[DrunkBassGuitar]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

How is it even possible for Rog to completely **** up every single decision he ever has to make?

It's perfectly fine to flip a coin because the Ravens may beat the Bengals twice (though it doesn't matter because the ****ing rule says to go by percentages) but it's not ok to flip a coin for the #2 and #3 seed because a game was taken away from the Bengals.

It's perfectly fine to take HFA away from KC because a game was taken away from the Bills even though THE ****ING RULE SAYS TO GO BY PERCENTAGES, but it's not ok to take a game away from the Bills even though they didn't even play it!

Letting that moron with the stupid hair and utterly punchable face start re-writing the rule book during the season will end up turning this great game into an unwatchable farce.

Bisciotti and Pegula must have had their mouths in rare form the last couple days.

And while we're talking about the bills <---little b to match their little, flaccid dicks, they've been awfully silent about the whole thing right after Zac Taylor defers to them about playing the game and allows them to do "whatever they need to", in a human, compassionate way. Not a single word about anything. Just sit back and reap the benefits of what this unfortunate incident has brought on.

If they don't rest their starters against NE--giving the Bengals at least a chance to get the #2 seed--and they go all out to stay #2, screwing the Bengals and KC out of something they were on their way to earning, what little respect i might have had for them is out the window and i'll look forward to going to Buffalo and beating their asses by 40.

But i'm not mad...

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

How did other owners go along with a vote that didn't coin flip (or something) for the #2 seed? It makes ZERO sense to do that with Baltimore for the division but not for the #2 seed.

I'm not saying I agree with it, because I think they should have just followed the rules, but I don't really have an issue with that aspect of it. The funky rules are designed to deal with two teams who played an uneven number of games. The Bills and Bengals both will have played 16 games, so they don't feel any funky rules are necessary.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

How did other owners go along with a vote that didn't coin flip (or something) for the #2 seed? It makes ZERO sense to do that with Baltimore for the division but not for the #2 seed.

It's logical in my head (considering I made up the logic ), but hard to explain.

My complete guess is....

There are basically three scenarios looking at team vs team when it comes to seeding and so forth...

#1 Bills/Bengals vs another team
#2 Another team vs another team
#3 Bills vs Bengals

When dealing with #1, they have to cater to the fact that "another team" had nothing to do with the outcome on Monday night. The teams who are looking at the NFL and saying "WTF, if >this< had happened in the game, we could be better off".... and they have to compensate for those unknown scenarios. So, the NFL hands the Chiefs the #1 seed if they win today, they came up with the stupid coin flip, and so forth.

#2 is obviously straightforward, same tiebreakers and so forth. Teams played the same number of games, and when comparing say the Chargers to the Dolphins, it has nothing to do with Monday night.

And the only reason I bring up #2 at all is to compare it to #3.... both teams supposedly agreed to not resume play* and call it a no contest. They will have the same number of games played, and since they agreed*, the NFL is handling this like #2 and not #1. No compensation needed when looking at records or "what if the Bengals had won", because they both agreed* to act like the game never existed.



*of course, a lot can be said for "agreeing" and whether the Bengals were simply taking the lead from whether the Bills wanted to play, yet then got ****ed over by not being "the bad guy" and saying they wanted to play and force the Bills to forfeit (if that was even an option)... not saying I agree with the logic and I think the Bengals got screwed over a bit, but looking past how the NFL botched this, I think it's logical to not do anything special for the 2/3 seeds.

[farmerchief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm not saying I agree with it, because I think they should have just followed the rules, but I don't really have an issue with that aspect of it. The funky rules are designed to deal with two teams who played an uneven number of games. The Bills and Bengals both will have played 16 games, so they don't feel any funky rules are necessary.

Wouldnt it have been a lot simpler for everybody if the NFL would have just called it a tie instead of a no contest?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by farmerchief

Wouldnt it have been a lot simpler for everybody if the NFL would have just called it a tie instead of a no contest?

In terms of impact on standings, the numbers vary slightly (since a tie counts as half a win out of 17 games vs. no wins out of 16 games), but the impact is all the same. We'd still be in this same situation.

(Well, we still wouldn't NEED to be in any situation. But the impacts from the NFL's perspective are the same, so they'd undoubtedly still do all this convoluted BS.)

[Chief3188]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm not saying I agree with it, because I think they should have just followed the rules, but I don't really have an issue with that aspect of it. The funky rules are designed to deal with two teams who played an uneven number of games. The Bills and Bengals both will have played 16 games, so they don't feel any funky rules are necessary.

This is where I disagree. They are giving the Bills several benefits where it is almost imaginary that they won the Bengals game (Forgoing winning percentage against KC if we both win this weekend) but they are not granting those same benefits to Cincy.

If they were going to screw with the rules (Which they absolutely shouldn't have and have now set a very bad precedent), they should have just declared Cincy the victor based on score with even number of drives. This scenario gives every team a legitimate chance to obtain the 1 and 2 seeds. But no, the NFL has to butt**** the rules for the sake of PR and feelings which absolutely desecrates the sanctity of the shield.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Chief3188

This is where I disagree. They are giving the Bills several benefits where it is almost imaginary that they won the Bengals game (Forgoing winning percentage against KC if we both win this weekend) but they are not granting those same benefits to Cincy.

If they were going to screw with the rules (Which they absolutely shouldn't have and have now set a very bad precedent), they should have just declared Cincy the victor based on score with even number of drives. This scenario gives every team a legitimate chance to obtain the 1 and 2 seeds. But no, the NFL has to butt**** the rules for the sake of PR and feelings which absolutely desecrates the sanctity of the shield.

What benefits do the Bills receive besides the neutral site vs playing at Arrowhead (granted, it's also not in Buffalo)?

I assume you mean the 2 seed, but I think that just goes back to the teams agreeing to not play... not that I agree with the spirit of it, but if both sides say they don't want to play, they shouldn't turn around and give the Bengals benefits over the Bills for seeding.


(of course, the NFL should have just followed their own rules and used win percentage)

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Chief3188

This is where I disagree. They are giving the Bills several benefits where it is almost imaginary that they won the Bengals game (Forgoing winning percentage against KC if we both win this weekend) but they are not granting those same benefits to Cincy.

If they were going to screw with the rules (Which they absolutely shouldn't have and have now set a very bad precedent), they should have just declared Cincy the victor based on score with even number of drives. This scenario gives every team a legitimate chance to obtain the 1 and 2 seeds. But no, the NFL has to butt**** the rules for the sake of PR and feelings which absolutely desecrates the sanctity of the shield.

A tie (or no contest) benefits teams with a lead in the standings and hurts teams who are behind. That's just the math. That's why we ended up looking pretty good, the Bills came out well against the Bengals but poorly against us, the Bengals came out well against the Ravens but poorly against us and the Bills, and the Ravens got pushed out of the divisional race.

It has nothing to do with the Bills getting an "imaginary" win.

[Chief3188]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What benefits do the Bills receive besides the neutral site vs playing at Arrowhead (granted, it's also not in Buffalo)?

I assume you mean the 2 seed, but I think that just goes back to the teams agreeing to not play... not that I agree with the spirit of it, but if both sides say they don't want to play, they shouldn't turn around and give the Bengals benefits over the Bills for seeding.


(of course, the NFL should have just followed their own rules and used win percentage)

The Bills were given the opportunity to not lose a 3rd consecutive year at Arrowhead in the postseason for starters. But if the game had played out with a Bengals win, then they would have had legitimate competition from 2 teams to lose the 1 seed. Now they only have 1 team to contend with for the 1 seed in the Chiefs. I am not saying we didn't make out the best in this fantasy in season rule creation but there was only 1 team that needed to not play the game. That team should have taken the L if they were going to not follow their own rule book.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What benefits do the Bills receive besides the neutral site vs playing at Arrowhead (granted, it's also not in Buffalo)?

I assume you mean the 2 seed, but I think that just goes back to the teams agreeing to not play... not that I agree with the spirit of it, but if both sides say they don't want to play, they shouldn't turn around and give the Bengals benefits over the Bills for seeding.


(of course, the NFL should have just followed their own rules and used win percentage)

They also get HFA in the divisional round against Cincy, which is the only time they would play each other in the playoffs assuming we win today. If anything, this is the game that should have been played at a neutral site.