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

[wazu]

Originally Posted by DaFace

If we're going to make this a debate about how accurately a rival fan with a ton of rooting interest against the Bills can predict the outcome of a game...I don't really know what we're doing here. Even if you assume that the Bengals were 70% likely to win that game (which is more than the models would suggest), we STILL come out well ahead statistically (since the "no contest" immediately takes that 70% and makes it 100%).

The Bengals were up 7-3, and driving to potentially make it a a 2 score game. Put whatever percentage you want on it, I would much rather they just finish that game. And honestly, if the Bills were to win it, and the Chiefs didn't get the 1 seed, I could handle that. Because those are the rules.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by wazu

Please don't tell me what team represents Russia.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

The problem is, with Damar stabile and improving they should have finished the game...Period. Do you think if the Bills would have came out and said "We want to try and keep the one seed and keep on a path of our ultimate goal of winning a Superbowl for Damar and the City of Buffalo", that this game wouldn't have resumed Tuesday or Wednesday. They knew it was a tall task down 2 starting Dbacks and were most likely to lose. As others have pointed out, if they were up 24-7 or playing the AZ Cardinals 1 qtr. in, do they choose to resume the game? We know the answer...

Literally everyone thinks they should have finished the game. Logistically, it couldn't happen with no slack time available.

I just wish that we, as a fanbase, could at least TRY to be objective about this stuff. All of these are objectively true:

1. The result would have been far more "pure" if they'd played the game. They couldn't.
2. The NFL has rules that should have been used, but those rules absolutely, 100% favored the Chiefs more than any other team. It's BS that they didn't just stick with the rules, but..
3. The Chiefs still came out well ahead here.

I don't understand why we can't just acknowledge that all of those can be true simultaneously.

[Chief3188]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The problem with all of this is that you're griping about losing the CHANCE that the Bills would lose, and the Bills are griping about the CHANCE of winning and preventing us from getting the 1 seed at all. You can't claim that we were cheated out of the former without acknowledging that it might have gone the latter direction just as easily.

I get what you are saying and you are correct of course. But I think you misinterpreted my complaints. I am really not perturbed at how it worked out for the Chiefs. I am irritated at all the loopholes and bridges the Bills have gotten from the NFL and in conjunction with how bad Cincy got screwed in this whole ordeal. I think from a whole competitive standpoint we can all imagine what it would have felt like to be the Bengals, watching your team winning, game gets shut down and now you have no chance at the 1 seed and snowball's chance in hell at the 2 seed when all you did was the compassionate thing.

I really really want to know if the Bengals were offered a chance to finish the game on another day and declined or accepted with the Bills declining. Also to know if the Bills abstained from the vote like the Chiefs and Bengals did. The Bills should have done the honorable thing and stand up for the Bengals as the Bengals did for them to delay/cancel the game. But if the Bills declined to finish the game with the Bengals saying they would and or if they voted for this in season rule change then they need to be exposed for the ruthless shit sticks they are more and more appearing to be as they took full advantage of the Bengals kindness.

[Bearcat]

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by wazu

The Bengals were up 7-3, and driving to potentially make it a a 2 score game. Put whatever percentage you want on it, I would much rather they just finish that game. And honestly, if the Bills were to win it, and the Chiefs didn't get the 1 seed, I could handle that. Because those are the rules.

agreed and again, let's say the Bills were up 21-3 early in the 2nd... Do they choose to resume? We know the answer...

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Literally everyone thinks they should have finished the game. Logistically, it couldn't happen with no slack time available.

I just wish that we, as a fanbase, could at least TRY to be objective about this stuff. All of these are objectively true:

1. The result would have been far more "pure" if they'd played the game. They couldn't.
2. The NFL has rules that should have been used, but those rules absolutely, 100% favored the Chiefs more than any other team. It's BS that they didn't just stick with the rules, but..
3. The Chiefs still came out well ahead here.

I don't understand why we can't just acknowledge that all of those can be true simultaneously.

If the rules in place were used, we would have been further ahead. They were not, and we did come out comparatively ahead, but we still lost the opportunity for HFA. Granted, HFA wasn’t really “in our hands” at this point either.

I think if someone offered us the chance at taking the number one seed and bye, but having a neutral field for the AFC championship most of us would have taken that deal on Sunday night before the Bills/Bengals game.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

Totally agree with you here.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

The Bengals agreed to the no contest with the current rules in place. In that situation, they could have rested players this weekend and basically had an extended bye as they were locked into the 3 with a guaranteed home playoff game. The NFL moved the goalpost by deviating from their rule book on Thursday Eve...

Yeah, I'd love to know exactly what happened... if the Bengals fully assumed they would use win percentage and what not like the current rule book says, or if the NFL gave them any kind of idea what would happen if they agreed.

If they used win % though, it's the same record-wise, but I don't know the tie breaker off the top of my head in that situation to know if it would have changed the 2/3 seed.

[Chief3188]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

I am not complaining about the OT rule change and I personally agree with it. The problem is I agreed with it a few years earlier too. I think some of us are more upset at the hypocritical timing of the change rather than the change itself.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

Correct, the Chiefs did want it, but it didn't become a priority until the Bills whined and whined after that game, despite the fact that the next week the Chiefs were stopped after winning the coin toss and lost the game.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

Are you new here?

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I really don't get why people complain about the OT rule change.

I know Chiefs fans want to play victim on it, but I think part of the rule change is because it's happened multiple times in recent history, not despite 2018.

FFS, it's what the Chiefs wanted, and not changing it after 2018 benefited the Chiefs last postseason... really nothing to bitch about there.

I actually liked the rule the way it was, even after the 2018 game. We let a QB in his mid 40’s convert 3 third and 10’s in OT on our own field without laying a finger on him. Not to mention they drove the length of the field for TD’s on each of their last 3 drives.

I prefer the sudden death finish to OT and think it takes away from game by allowing the team that gave up a TD to have a chance to score. Maybe I’m old school, but if you want to win in OT, maybe play a little defense when you have to. Unfortunately our 2018 team couldn’t do that.

[Chief3188]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

Correct, the Chiefs did want it, but it didn't become a priority until the Bills whined and whined after that game, despite the fact that the next week the Chiefs were stopped after winning the coin toss and lost the game.

Exactly my thoughts.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by Spott

I actually liked the rule the way it was, even after the 2018 game. We let a QB in his mid 40’s convert 3 third and 10’s in OT on our own field without laying a finger on him. Not to mention they drove the length of the field for TD’s on each of their last 3 drives.

I prefer the sudden death finish to OT and think it takes away from game by allowing the team that gave up a TD to have a chance to score. Maybe I’m old school, but if you want to win in OT, maybe play a little defense when you have to. Unfortunately our 2018 team couldn’t do that.

The game is so slanted to offenses these days.