Because for the neutral field thing to apply they need to tie KC in the loss column
my guess for the week 18 sch
- Thread starter j-man
- Start date
If you don’t think the Ravens will win the flip against the Bengals should it happen, something about oceanfront property in Nebraska.
For any prospective AFCCG between two of the impacted clubs, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy would seem to be the best venue that is also fairly geographically close to the clubs.
Sometimes I wonder how this website is free.
Smart. And it’s indoors — might be more attractive in January for neutral and corporate tickets, and I believe domed stadiums are ~10% higher scoring.
Strange that (if I'm reading this right) the coinflip only happens if Cincy-Balt are matched up in the wild card. If Balt wins on Sunday,, aren't they going to end up #5 seed? And if they lose ,the coinflip is moot anyway. I don't get it.
Now that the NFL has announced the Week 17 Bills/Bengals game is a no-contest as far as the standings are concerned, has the league announced if that stats that were accumulated in the truncated game will exist, or will they be erased?
Also, this is magnificent:
Also, this is magnificent:
Sorry, missed that Chargers have the tiebreaker over Baltimore.
Still weird that Baltimore only gets the coinflip if they're the 6 seed and not the 5 seed.
I really feel like if both KC and Buffalo win this weekend, or if they both lose and the Bengals win, the AFC ship should it come to the 2 seed vs the Chiefs should be a home game for the 2 seed. The extra rest aside, one less potential elimination game is an enormous advantage for KC. It sounds like the Bills and Bengals were heavily involved in decision making here, so I guess they’re likely good with this outcome, but it’s hard to feel like a neutral site game is a completely fair way to handle it.
Bengals finish a half game ahead of the Ravens (assuming it’s 6 vs. 3): coin flip
Bengals finish a half game behind the Chiefs (if they’re 2 and 3): divisional at Arrowhead
Make It make sense.
Bengals finish a half game behind the Chiefs (if they’re 2 and 3): divisional at Arrowhead
Make It make sense.
And Buffalo getting screwed out of a shot at the bye week.
I really liked the idea of adding an 8th AFC playoff spot mentioned upthread. KC (assuming they win Saturday) hasn't earned a bye week on their own merits. Better to just give neither of them a bye. (Or both of them, killing the #7 seed too, but that''s never going to happen)
I really liked the idea of adding an 8th AFC playoff spot mentioned upthread. KC (assuming they win Saturday) hasn't earned a bye week on their own merits. Better to just give neither of them a bye. (Or both of them, killing the #7 seed too, but that''s never going to happen)
At least the league didn’t act as if the Bills essentially lost the game despite, you know, having about a 60% win expectancy. It’s impossible to overstate how much they fucked the Bengals.
How do you figure? If the Bengals had lost Monday and then lost again this Sunday, the game next week would’ve been in Baltimore. Having the game at a neutral site is better than that for the Bengals, but obviously not as good as playing the game in Cincinnati, where it would have been played if the Bengals had won Monday (regardless of the outcome of this Sunday’s game). The league is splitting the difference between those two outcomes, with the added benefit for the Bengals of being locked into the #3 seed, so they won’t be playing the #1 seed in the divisional round in any event.
Cincy gets screwed in the sense that they may not get a home playoff game when at the time the game was suspended they were heavy favorites to win the division.
If Cincy and Buffalo win that sets up Cincy/Balt as the 3/6 game with home field decided by a coin toss.
If Cincy and Buffalo win that sets up Cincy/Balt as the 3/6 game with home field decided by a coin toss.
My understanding is that the coin toss only comes into play if Cincy loses to Baltimore and finishes 11-5, with the Ravens half a game back at 11-6.
Ah, yeah I see that now. So that seems fair-ish.
I think Buffalo gets screwed the most due to, in all likelihood, losing the bye. I guess the league can say that Buffalo, being down 7-3 with Cincy moving the ball with 6:00 left in the 1st qiarter, had a ~60-65% chance of losing to Cincy and thus being in the same spot this week anyways.
Someone will be harmed because of the unfortunate thing that happened. We don't need to overcomplicate things and affect multiple other teams by changing the entire playoff structure.
Sorry my word choice bothered you but an 8th playoff team is a dumb idea and I said so. Anyway it looks like it won't happen so good.
If the Ravens and Chargers win Sunday (meaning the Ravens play the Bengals again), the site is determined by a coin flip. They literally changed the protocol on the fly instead of simply going by win percentage. They awarded the Bengals the division title and the first-place schedule that comes with it (I'm going to go out on a limb BUF/KC will still be a lot better than NE/MIA and LAC next year and playing at Arrowhead vs. SoFi is probably the biggest HFA difference in the league) along with the worse draft position, without the guarantee of hosting a playoff game. Okay fine, so they made up a stupid rule for teams with a half-game difference where one team would finish ahead of the other if they won the half-game back. However, that exact scenario could happen with the Bengals and Chiefs and they're potentially not enforcing it. They would play a neutral-site AFCCG if the Bengals finish a half-game back which is fine. If they finish 2-3 though (Bills win, Chiefs lose, Bengals win to finish a half-game behind the Chiefs), that divisional game would be at Arrowhead and not a neutral or a coin flip. How does that make any sense?
Last edited:
The below is written with deference to Damar, his family, and what they have gone through and are going through.
As is their M.O., the league is most interested in doing what's right for the league. I find the statements to be a bit dubious. Goodell's quote provides him cover by listing all of the considerations taken into account. However he doesn't mention the fans, who are the losers here, and doesn't look at how this will be looked at one, five or ten years from now. My take is that the bye before the Super Bowl is important enough to the league that they willingly sacrificed fans who may miss out on seeing a playoff game in person, who now may feel their teams are at a disadvantage or getting 'screwed', etc. It also doesn't mitigate the impacts to competitive balance as much as playing a full schedule would. Lastly, and this is more of a reach, there is the potential that the results of the playoffs, should there be a perception that they were impacted by this decision, could impact the legitimacy of how it gets viewed in the future. The league says they care about all these things, but their actions, to me, don't support that.
Now if the counter is that the Bills/Bengals were willing to accept these as consequences because one or both refused to complete the game, then fine, the league did what they needed to do. I'm sure the league could force a resumption, but not sure they would. However that doesn't remove that in the end, it's the fans that are the losers. The majority of fans don't care about the bye week.
It would be interesting to know if the league/Bengals/Bills were not able to get on the same page as far as restarting the game.
Bengals pushing back on proposed changes
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/as-nfl-vote-on-afc-playoff-modifications-looms-bengals-ownership-pushing-other-teams-to-vote-against-changes/
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/as-nfl-vote-on-afc-playoff-modifications-looms-bengals-ownership-pushing-other-teams-to-vote-against-changes/
Katie Blackburn also recused herself from the vote. Say what you want about Bengals ownership (and god knows there is a lot to say), but they're incredibly honorable to the league. Their reward is getting treated like the redheaded stepchild over and over. Time to start being complete assholes.
This is a compelling argument, and it is healthy that the league will have to rebut it.
To add to this, if they had won Monday (which they had a ~60% chance of doing when it was stopped) they would've been in the driver's seat for the 2 with a chance at the 1. Those things are now greatly diminished/dead, but they still have the possibility of going to Baltimore which is essentially acting as if they lost the game. How is that remotely fair?
Last edited:
The league isn’t putting any stock in the Bengals having perhaps a 60-40 chance of winning the game immediately prior to the suspension, any more than they would put stock in oddsmakers handicapping it roughly 60-40 the other way immediately prior to kickoff. They’re treating the outcome of the game, had it been played, as a total unknown. I think that’s the right way to handle it. If it had been 24-10 late in the 3rd quarter when the game was suspended, I would feel differently, and I’ll bet the league would too.
Applying this logic to the plan for this weekend: there was a 50/50 chance that a loss to Baltimore would cost the Bengals a home playoff game. Those odds have been replicated here. That seems (to me) like the closest to justice that can be achieved under the circumstances.
The Bengals are locked into the #3 seed, whether they win or lose this weekend. That obviously wasn’t the worst-case scenario for them entering Monday night. So they lost a chance to move up to the #2, and a remote chance of getting the #1, but didn’t risk falling to #5 or #6 and are therefore guaranteed not to have to play #1 coming off a bye in the divisional round. I can see how you’d be more upset about losing the upside than relieved about losing the downside, but I don’t think a more equitable result was possible under the circumstances.
Edit: To be clear, I’m treating “the circumstances” as including the league’s decision not to delay the playoff schedule. Of course greater equity could have been achieved for the directly affected teams at the cost of screwing things up for everyone else, but I understand why the league chose not to do that.
Last edited:
That's totally fine - I was just adding they were favored when the game was stopped to the absurdity of it all. Again though, they lost everything (destiny for 2, chance at 1, automatic home game) for now and gained nothing. The league literally made up a rule and then selectively enforced it twice against them on opposite sides (Bengals up a half-game on Ravens is a coinflip, Bengals down a half-game to Chiefs is at Arrowhead if Chiefs are 2). If all three teams win it'll be as if none of this happened (besides a neutral Bills-Chiefs CG), but there are no guarantees and the principles involved and the precedent it sets are a joke.
The NFL could have went with a neutral site for a potential Cincy-Balt game rather than a coin flip. I'd guess Baltimore probably would have or did push back on that pointing to possibility of beating the Bengals twice in that scenario.
With the possible exception of pushing games back, no perfect way and teams are going to be harmed no matter what. Which actually might be a good case to stick with the existing rules.
Nonetheless, if Bengals win as they should the coin flip is moot. They have homefield v Balt in their control. And still have a chance even with a loss. Hard to argue too much against that.
With the possible exception of pushing games back, no perfect way and teams are going to be harmed no matter what. Which actually might be a good case to stick with the existing rules.
Nonetheless, if Bengals win as they should the coin flip is moot. They have homefield v Balt in their control. And still have a chance even with a loss. Hard to argue too much against that.
Why wouldn’t - under the specific scenarios identified by the league in its proposal - a theoretical BUF-KC, CIN-BUF or KC-CIN matchup in round 2 or the AFCCG warrant a coin flip for HFA, too? Conversely, if w the NFL prefers a neutral site solution why not make BAL-CIN a neutral site game if BAL wins on Sunday?
We all acknowledge that multiple teams were gonna lose something here no matter what solution was adopted, but the solution doesn’t seem to be operating under internal consistently premises as to the use of a coin flip v neutral site. They certainly haven’t explained with particularity the logic for the different treatment of these scenarios.
We all acknowledge that multiple teams were gonna lose something here no matter what solution was adopted, but the solution doesn’t seem to be operating under internal consistently premises as to the use of a coin flip v neutral site. They certainly haven’t explained with particularity the logic for the different treatment of these scenarios.
That's what Bengals fans are so angry about - the no contest rule was already in the rulebook. Instead, they made up a new rule and enforced it twice against them on completely opposite sides.
I guess they don't want neutral site games before the CG but as you said, there's zero consistency not only with how the rules are enforced but in what rounds. It's a level I didn't even think 345 Park could stoop to, but there's truly never a bottom with them.
This is the same league that credited an official’s recollection of which pressure gauge was used, except for the one time they needed it to be the opposite gauge. All of which is to say that I understand your frustration but not your surprise.
I think Goodell wanted:
- To discourage refusing to play over an injury
- To give Buffalo and Cincy a reason to play seriously this weekend
- Since someone had to get screwed, it was them (see #1)
Zac Taylor wants the rules followed.
"It's black and white, it's in the rule book."
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/KelseyLConway/status/1611413672785494038
"It's black and white, it's in the rule book."
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/KelseyLConway/status/1611413672785494038
I get why the Bengals are mad, but they didn't get "nothing", they got a guaranteed AFC North title. That means no chance of having to go play in JAX/TEN, and guaranteed homefield if the Chargers lose and the Ravens win.
No chance of having to go to the AFCS winner is…not really the best thing. And if they simply just followed the no contest protocol as it says in the league ops manual for god knows how long, they wouldn’t have to worry at all about going on the road in the first round despite having worse draft position because of their record and a first-place schedule next year. They’re going to crush Baltimore on Sunday so that part is moot anyways, but the whole thing is ridiculous.
Sure, but the league made the new rule because that was part of the terms of issuing a no contest instead of making them play. The rulebook would honestly say that they should have rescheduled. I have no problem with the league saying "if we're cancelling this game, we want to put in some fairness for the teams that get kinda screwed by having their chances to win the division, or get a higher seed taken away."
And yes having to go on the road to the AFC South winner is still bad because then you play at the 1 seed who just came off a bye.
I get the Bengals' argument, but I think it's dumb to complain about the league doing you a favor and in the process throwing the people who might get screwed by it a bone, which only hurts you if you fail to control your own destiny.
Schragers said on BS’s show (not specifically about Bengals) that the covid rule was that if a game is missed it is cancelled and record determined by winning percentage. My opinion is that it seems like it should be the same for this.