MNF Week 17: Buffalo Bills @ Cincinnati Bengals

[LAOJoe]

 

[coffeedrinker]

21 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

I honestly don't think the NFL should do any neutral site nonsense....just use win percentage

The Bengals are likely the ones to get screwed the most here - they had a lead against the Bills and were at home, and are on fire. I think it was more likely than not that the Bengals were going to win that game, which likely gets them the 2 seed.

Not only does that get them home field in the divisional round potentially, it gets them an easier game in the wildcard round.

 

Assuming the Chiefs, Bengals and Bills all win next week:

Chiefs are lucky to get the one seed

Bills are unlucky to lose the one seed, but lucky to have the 2 seed without having to have played the hottest team in the NFL

The Bengals are just....unlucky in this scenario. They get nothing by this game not being played, except clinching the north which....again, this is assuming all three win next week so that would have happened either way in that scenario.

If we want to add that the Bengals got lucky for clinching the north without needing to beat Baltimore next week, then all three teams got some luck from the game being cancelled. 

Just use win percentage and move on

Chiefs are getting screwed more than the Bengals.  But both are getting the short end of the stick.  In your scenario the Bengals beat the Bills, so the Chiefs have the best record in the AFC, so the Chiefs are the #1 seed (assuming all 3 teams win in week 18).  So the Chiefs have homefield through out.  But with the proposed set up, the Chiefs lose the advantage in the AFCCG.

I mentioned above, I think the only fair thing and honest thing is for the Bills to forfeit the game and have it count as a loss for them and a win for the Bengals.

For the record, I am a Colts fan, so i really don't have any skin in this decision.

Edited January 6, 2023 by coffeedrinker

[wackywabbit]

Just now, coffeedrinker said:

Chiefs are getting screwed more than the Bengals.  But both are getting the short end of the stick.  In your scenario the Bengals beat the Bills, so the Chiefs have the best record in the AFC, so the Chiefs are the #1 seed (assuming all 3 teams win in week 18).  So the Chiefs have homefield through out.  But with the proposed set up, the Chiefs lose the advantage in the AFCCG.

I mentioned above, I think the only fair thing and honest thing is for the Bills to forfeit the game and have it count as a loss for them and a win for the Bengals.

Chiefs will get a bye with a win against the Raiders. They benefit the most.

[coffeedrinker]

Just now, wackywabbit said:

Chiefs will get a bye with a win against the Raiders. They benefit the most.

I disagree that they benefit the most.  A bye is not nearly as valuable as Home field in the AFCCG

[iknowcool]

10 minutes ago, BofaDeez54927 said:

That can't be right. 

 

EDIT: I'm just wondering how you award a division champ with unequal games played yet dismiss the current #1 seed due to unequal games played. I don't know, just seems like trying to make everyone happy when in actuality it makes no one happy. 

The current #1 seed by win % are the Chiefs.  The current AFC North champs by win % are the Bengals.  There is no way for the Ravens to win the AFC North because it is impossible for them to have a higher win % (which is why, if the Ravens win, they are being given a chance to have homefield via coin toss).  Who is being dismissed?  Bills can still earn the bye week if they win and Chiefs lose.

[Trentwannabe]

1 minute ago, coffeedrinker said:

I disagree that they benefit the most.  A bye is not nearly as valuable as Home field in the AFCCG

I can guarantee no team believes that.

Besides they would play at home in the AFCCG against 4 possible teams. Only 2 they wouldn’t and those 2 would have to play one another before then 

[wackywabbit]

Just now, coffeedrinker said:

I disagree that they benefit the most.  A bye is not nearly as valuable as Home field in the AFCCG

HIGHLY disagree.

A bye and it is neutral field. If the game was played and buffalo won (and all the favorites won week 18) they would have: no bye which is a game without rest that they have some chance to lose AND lose home field to Buffalo for an AFCCG AND would have both Buffalo and Cincy in their playoff path instead of just 1.

[coffeedrinker]

2 minutes ago, Trentwannabe said:

I can guarantee no team believes that.

Besides they would play at home in the AFCCG against 4 possible teams. Only 2 they wouldn’t and those 2 would have to play one another before then 

Second line is a good point.  First line, I guarantee that most teams believe that.

[coffeedrinker]

4 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

HIGHLY disagree.

A bye and it is neutral field. If the game was played and buffalo won (and all the favorites won week 18) they would have: no bye which is a game without rest that they have some chance to lose AND lose home field to Buffalo for an AFCCG AND would have both Buffalo and Cincy in their playoff path instead of just 1.

My last word on the bye vs home field, is you guys do not realize how much routine factors in the a players prep.  And it screws the Chiefs if the Bengals get to the AFCCG because there is no reason that should be at a neutral location, at least at this point.

But I did read the scenario's over and it's only at a neutral site if Buffalo and Kansas both win or both lose.  

That being said, the only real solution is for Buffalo to forfeit the Cincy game.

[iknowcool]

Just now, coffeedrinker said:

That being said, the only real solution is for Buffalo to forfeit the Cincy game.

This is just asking for bad PR.  And sometimes PR shouldn't dictate decisions... but in this situation it absolutely should.  Putting an L on the Bills record because they couldn't finish the game due to something out of their control sends a horrible message.  

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, coffeedrinker said:

That being said, the only real solution is for Buffalo to forfeit the Cincy game.

why is that the only real solution?  Why does Buffalo have to forfeit?

[coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

why is that the only real solution?  Why does Buffalo have to forfeit?

Because, as tragic as the incident was, it was because of the Buffalo Bills that the game was originally suspended.

[coffeedrinker]

7 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

This is just asking for bad PR.  And sometimes PR shouldn't dictate decisions... but in this situation it absolutely should.  Putting an L on the Bills record because they couldn't finish the game due to something out of their control sends a horrible message.  

It would be spun so it became bad PR, I agree.  Like you stated, decisions should not be made on PR.

You think putting an L on the Bills for something out of their control is bad, but taking away home field advantage for the Chiefs or the Bengals for something out of their control sends a horrible message as well.

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, coffeedrinker said:

Because, as tragic as the incident was, it was because of the Buffalo Bills that the game was originally suspended.

I thought both teams left the field in a mutual type decision?  Do you have other info that it was solely BUF that refused to play?

[iknowcool]

5 minutes ago, coffeedrinker said:

You think putting an L on the Bills for something out of their control is bad, but taking away home field advantage for the Chiefs or the Bengals for something out of their control sends a horrible message as well.

I don't think they are at all comparable.  You would be putting a loss on the Bills record because their player suffered cardiac arrest that caused the game to end.  There is no spinning it.  That would literally be what happened.  And it isn't like the Bengals/Zac Taylor were rushing to play the game.  By all accounts it seems like both teams didn't want to continue, so why should it be the Bills taking the loss and not the Bengals?

Edited January 6, 2023 by iknowcool