TitanSlim Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 1 hour ago, August4th said: The writing was on the wall for this. I hate it if it happens. Save neutral site games for the Super Bowl. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 1 hour ago, August4th said: 1 seeds who will now get screwed out of 2 ticket gates. Fantastic job NFL. I hate this league, legitimately awful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 1 hour ago, August4th said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 I mean that’s a good plan to keep Mahomes from breaking Brady’s championship record. Not getting to play at Arrowhead in the Championship games… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 Really the only way to make this fair is if you play all champions ship games in the same stadium. It should go to whatever stadium hosts the most games during regular season… oh Wait all Championship games are now in Sofi? I’m with it. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 So there's less incentive to get the 1 seed with that move? All to make a few million more, in a billion dollar business. This is the same NFL that won't take on player safety measures like natural grass over turf, or the Gazoo helmets....for reasons. SMH if this actually flies. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 (edited) 18 hours ago, MWil23 said: Which is stupid logic for a lot of reasons, namely that KC had to play Cincinnati while Buffalo didn’t and is being penalized despite having a better win %, aside from going against their own bylaws. Because KC played one more game than both of them as far as the NFL record books and front office are concerned. The league voted unanimously on a neutral site AFCCG, including Cincinnati because of the uneven number of games played. There wasn’t an uneven number of games between Cincy and Buffalo, however. In their eyes (“their” being the keyword), it’s 16 between the 2 of them, 1 less than KC (and the rest of the league for that matter). I don’t disagree with you that BUF-CIN should be on a neutral site as well, but the two situations are slightly different in that said game’s cancellation isn’t the reason for the Bengals having more losses than the Bills as they already had more losses, but it is the reason for KC having the 1 seed. They didn’t before the week ended (as the Bills had the same record and the tiebreaker because they beat them) and only “got” it because the Bills and Bengals couldn’t finish their game for obvious reasons. Edited January 21, 2023 by KManX89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 3 hours ago, KManX89 said: The league voted unanimously on a neutral site AFCCG, including Cincinnati because of the uneven number of games played. "NBC Sports’ Peter King reported the vote to approve a neutral-site game wasn’t unanimous. Three-fourths (24) of NFL owners had to approve the plan, and King said it received 25 yes votes. Three no votes were cast by the Bengals, Dolphins and Bears, King reported, while the Chiefs, Bills, Raiders and Chargers abstained. ESPN’s Seth Wickersham reported that Bengals executive vice president Katie Blackburn “urged teams to vote against the scenarios. Her reasoning stemmed from the timing of a rule change in this scenario away from the standard of winning percentages.” Chiefs made two requests for neutral site AFC title game | The Kansas City Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 3 hours ago, KManX89 said: I don’t disagree with you that BUF-CIN should be on a neutral site as well, but the two situations are slightly different in that said game’s cancellation isn’t the reason for the Bengals having more losses than the Bills as they already had more losses, but it is the reason for KC having the 1 seed. They didn’t before the week ended (as the Bills had the same record and the tiebreaker because they beat them) and only “got” it because the Bills and Bengals couldn’t finish their game for obvious reasons. See but this is trying to argue fairness of the decision, but it doesn't address the real issue. The issue the Bengals have (and I think is 100% legitimate) is that during the offseason, when rule changes are traditionally proposed and negotiated, the league came to an agreement that when a game is cancelled (for whatever reason), we are going to handle it a certain way. There was a protocol in place. Then, when a game actually got cancelled and the league realized that they didn't like the results, they decided mid-week to hold a vote to change the rules to benefit certain teams (Bills) over others (Chiefs/Bengals). You might argue that the Chiefs were benefitted by the situation as a whole, but they were certainly screwed by the league's decision. I think it's fair for the Bengals and Chiefs to have an issue with that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Soggust said: See but this is trying to argue fairness of the decision, but it doesn't address the real issue. The issue the Bengals have (and I think is 100% legitimate) is that during the offseason, when rule changes are traditionally proposed and negotiated, the league came to an agreement that when a game is cancelled (for whatever reason), we are going to handle it a certain way. There was a protocol in place. Then, when a game actually got cancelled and the league realized that they didn't like the results, they decided mid-week to hold a vote to change the rules to benefit certain teams (Bills) over others (Chiefs/Bengals). You might argue that the Chiefs were benefitted by the situation as a whole, but they were certainly screwed by the league's decision. I think it's fair for the Bengals and Chiefs to have an issue with that. If you really want a tin-foil hat theory - the league secretly was unhappy CIN went along with BUF for not resuming the game. If CIN insists on playing, BUF forfeits - no league headache. The league can't outright penalize BUF given how MNF went down, PR is clearly on BUF's side. And there's no way you can really ding CIN publicly for being, well, human. I mean, the decent and upstanding thing was to do what CIN did. It just created the NFL a mess to deal with afterwards. Hence the decision. The fact CIN didn't get included in the scenarios for AFCG, but also got told that BAL-CIN was up in the air, it's so tilted against CIN, I can't help think this has merit. I wasn't the one who came up with this, but when I heard it, it did make a lot of sense. Take it FWIW. Edited January 21, 2023 by Broncofan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) I have a better idea The team with the best record hosts the super bowl Moving even more stuff to a netural site will neuter the fan experience and the crowd womt be a racuous Edited January 24, 2023 by Malfatron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 So the #1 seed will be pointless going forward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 LOL That is so ******* stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Neutral site championship games removes any advantage of earning the higher seed to secure home field. If this moves forward - and the NFL has shown recently to make idiotic decisions - I suspect we'll see fewer starters playing the final weeks as seeding would be made more irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Still dumb with expanding the playoffs (Not expanding it but not adjusting it to suit the higher seeds better) and taking away the no.2 seeds bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.