NFL announces scenarios for a neutral site AFC Championship

[diamondbull424]

4 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

I get what you're saying, but the rule doesn't have exceptions nor have different types of cancellations. The NFL's own press release HERE says "... game will not be resumed and has been cancelled."

And as Joe Mixon shared HERE, "If a game is cancelled, a team's standing in its division or in its conference (e.g., qualification as a Wild Card in the playoffs or position in a playoff seeding) shall be determined on the basis of its final record. When necessary, playoff tiebreakers shall be calculated according to per game average for all teams."

So in this case, rule wise, it was black/white.

Nothing here shows this to be black and white. The rule book you just quoted states cancelled games are to be calculated based off of final record. It does not state based off of “win percentage.”

What’s more within the other section, it states that a tie game counts as a half win and a half loss. The game against Buffalo was not ruled a tie and thus the Bengals are not awarded a half win.

So what we have is a technical loophole whereby “final record” here could mean “win percentage” or it could mean “total wins”. The Bengals weren’t able to prove themselves capable of winning nor losing that game. They did not prove themselves capable of tying the game either.

 

So no, it’s not black and white. None of the language properly defines “final record” and thus it is an assumption that has been attached to it based off the final record typically being calculated with all teams playing the same number of games. In this hypothetical scenario where the Ravens win in week 18 to tie the Bengals record, they would have the same number of wins. One could argue the final record, as defined by wins, is the same. And thus the next tie breaker would be H2H and would thus favor the Ravens in such a hypothetical scenario. Also their divisional record would equally favor them in such a scenario with the next tie breaking scenario.

Now the rules do state that the “division winner is to host the game” however the Bengals were awarded the division by the NFL instead of earning it per final record and thus it makes just as much sense for them to remove the chance of hosting a playoff game from them as well.

But it’s all moot anyways as I’d be shocked it the Ravens don’t continue to rest banged up guys. I’d play Calais until he gets sack #100 and then rest him the rest of the way.

[incognito_man]

Lambeau would be fun for AFCCG

Green Bay would be 7th seed if they get in so they won't have a shot at a home game.

[SteelKing728]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:07 PM, Malfatron said:

32 team tournament.

Lets go

 

All out brawl. Last player standing from their respective team wins the Superbowl.

[Forge]

12 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Lambeau would be fun for AFCCG

Green Bay would be 7th seed if they get in so they won't have a shot at a home game.

I was hoping they would use a college stadium. Do the horseshoe or tiger stadium

[MWil23]

 

[ChazStandard]

…probably should just have finished the game.

[Malfatron]

11 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

…probably should just have finished the game.

Nah.

The nfl changing the rules is dumb (although funny), but finishing the game would have been much much worse. 

[ChazStandard]

27 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

Nah.

The nfl changing the rules is dumb (although funny), but finishing the game would have been much much worse. 

Why?

[Nabbs4u]

4 hours ago, Malfatron said:

Nah.

The nfl changing the rules is dumb (although funny), but finishing the game would have been much much worse. 

The game on that day, during that time yes.

Making it up next week, would not have been. The SB date stays the same since there is a 2 week gap, every playoff game gets moved back 1 week.

It was doable

[ChazStandard]

24 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

The game on that day, during that time yes.

Making it up next week, would not have been. The SB date stays the same since there is a 2 week gap, every playoff game gets moved back 1 week.

It was doable

Why would playing that day have been bad? Denmark did in the exact same situation just a year ago. The Steelers did after Shazier got paralysed, the Bills did after Kevin Everett broke his neck. A game has never been suspended over an injury or illness before.

[scottishpatriot]

14 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

Why would playing that day have been bad? Denmark did in the exact same situation just a year ago. The Steelers did after Shazier got paralysed, the Bills did after Kevin Everett broke his neck. A game has never been suspended over an injury or illness before.

I remember turning on the Denmark game after Eriksen collapsed and coming close to tears as I realised slowly why the commentators were lost for words and the Danish players were in a circle around Eriksen protecting him from the world's cameras (a powerful statement in my view).

No way they should have played on, even after they knew he'd live. The captain Kjaer had to be subbed off his mind was over the place and he was a titan for the rest of the tournament.

And in that game the cardiac arrest had nothing to do with a tackle. Playing on would not make them worry about it happening again. 

No Way could the Bills and Bengals players trust themselves fully in contact situations an hour or two later. The game would have been a disaster of hesitation and low intensity or even worse - tackles where one player commits and the other doesn't. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by scottishpatriot
Typo

[Dome]

13 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

A game has never been suspended over an injury or illness before.

And I never thought a trash can could post on a football forum until you did… sometimes something happens and you just haven’t seen it before. 

It’s a good lesson for you to learn now, I’m glad you’re experiencing something new. 

[Trentwannabe]

With the Chiefs winning it officially eliminated any a scenario for the Bengals getting the one seed.

If the Bills lose today, or lose in the WC round or divisional round, the AFC goes through KC and all the drama and belly aching will have been for nothing. 

[Soggust]

On 1/6/2023 at 11:20 PM, diamondbull424 said:

Nothing here shows this to be black and white. The rule book you just quoted states cancelled games are to be calculated based off of final record. It does not state based off of “win percentage.”

What’s more within the other section, it states that a tie game counts as a half win and a half loss. The game against Buffalo was not ruled a tie and thus the Bengals are not awarded a half win.

So what we have is a technical loophole whereby “final record” here could mean “win percentage” or it could mean “total wins”. The Bengals weren’t able to prove themselves capable of winning nor losing that game. They did not prove themselves capable of tying the game either.

 

So no, it’s not black and white. None of the language properly defines “final record” and thus it is an assumption that has been attached to it based off the final record typically being calculated with all teams playing the same number of games. In this hypothetical scenario where the Ravens win in week 18 to tie the Bengals record, they would have the same number of wins. One could argue the final record, as defined by wins, is the same. And thus the next tie breaker would be H2H and would thus favor the Ravens in such a hypothetical scenario. Also their divisional record would equally favor them in such a scenario with the next tie breaking scenario.

Now the rules do state that the “division winner is to host the game” however the Bengals were awarded the division by the NFL instead of earning it per final record and thus it makes just as much sense for them to remove the chance of hosting a playoff game from them as well.

But it’s all moot anyways as I’d be shocked it the Ravens don’t continue to rest banged up guys. I’d play Calais until he gets sack #100 and then rest him the rest of the way.

They don't have to define "final record" because the NFL defines win % over Total Wins as their tiebreaking procedure elsewhere throughout the rulebook. Defining that seasons with cancelled games are based on "Final Record" is literally clarifying that we don't need to consider difference in games, just use win %.

Mixon even quotes a section that states - "If two or more Division Champions finish with the same win-loss-tied percentage at the end of the regular season, the tie will be broken pursuant to Section F". That seems like what we are talking about, no?

[MWil23]

20 minutes ago, Trentwannabe said:

With the Chiefs winning it officially eliminated any a scenario for the Bengals getting the one seed.

If the Bills lose today, or lose in the WC round or divisional round, the AFC goes through KC and all the drama and belly aching will have been for nothing. 

Except there’s still a scenario where:

Cincinnati gets the 3 seed and has to go on the road to a 6 seed to play after losing a coin flip, while getting the first place schedule in 2023.

Or that Cincinnati has to go TO Buffalo in the AFC semifinals.

So, not really. Just on the KC and Buffalo ends.

Imagine the Bengals getting the 3 seed and not getting a single home game while having to go to a team that they had a home game canceled against.