How will the NFL handle scheduling the remainder of football this year? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

Nobody thinks the Bills were gaming this situation. But we know with 100% certainty that if a rule can be gamed, it will be eventually. "If you don't want to continue, you take the loss" is a rule that is not open to gamesmanship

It sure is. One team could easily bluff to try to get the free win.

Suppose the Bengals players told Zac Taylor they weren't comfortable resuming the game. Then Zac goes over to Sean, thinking "If my guys don't want to play, surely his players don't want to play", and tells McDermott "Yeah, we're ready to resume after a warm-up. You want to, or do you want to forfeit?"

Could you not see someone like Urban Meyer doing something like that?

McDermott says "No thanks -- we're good." If the Bengals players then decide not to play, they take the loss.

 

[Miro Z]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

 

[Miro Z]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

It was clearly the Bills that didn't want to continue, McDermott confirmed it. The Bengals were supportive but had the Bills wanted to play I think the Bengals would have played.

 

[Anarchy99]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

It was clearly the Bills that didn't want to continue, McDermott confirmed it. The Bengals were supportive but had the Bills wanted to play I think the Bengals would have played.

The league should have paused the game on Monday like they did, let the players collect themselves on Tuesday, and then reschedule for Wednesday. They should not have asked the teams if they wanted to play or not. Let one of the teams refuse to play and take a forfeit. That at least would get a W and a L on the books. The league now is making some contingencies for the game having been a win AND a loss . . . but not for everything.

 

[amnesiac]

from an outsider's perspective, this seems to be a good compromise, because all three teams' fans seem upset by it.

(personally, i think it's pretty dumb.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

We're spit-balling here obviously, and I'm open to the idea that I'm overlooking some stuff. What I'm coming around to is something like this:

When a traumatic event occurs ("traumatic event" needs to be defined but at a minimum it would involve any life-threatening injury or a spinal injury, maybe anything involving an ambulance), the referee consults with each team. I'm thinking the HC and the team captains. The message to each team is "Okay, this is a difficult situation, but here's the choice we face. We can play on. Or, if you want to stop play, the game will end. If you don't want to return to the field, that's okay. You won't be punished, nobody is losing any game checks, or anything like that. But this game has to have a result so we can move on. If you decide not to continue, we'll just chalk it up as a loss and that's that. If you and the other team jointly decide not to continue, we'll consider it a tie." Give each team a few minutes to register their choices and then either resume play or call it.

No rescheduled games. No unbalanced schedules. A nice, clean, simple resolution. And it makes teams shoulder the consequences of their own decisions. Self-respecting adults welcome the opportunity to own the consequences of their own choices. Angle-shooters and crybabies don't. We should be creating more incentives for people to behave like self-respecting adults and disincentivize raw appeals to emotion. In other words, a few more dads in the room and few fewer moms.

I'm not some boomer grandpa sitting in his recliner and complaining about how they put skirts on quarterbacks. I'm happy that we do more to protect player safety than we used to. And I'm very open to the idea that we shouldn't automatically expect players to soldier on when they're dealing with serious trauma. But I'm kind of mortified at how this all played out in practice. The league was pushed around by the loudest, most unhinged voices on social media when they needed they opposite of that.

Edit: I know a lot of people of good will disagree, but I'm really opposed to rescheduling games. Baseball? Sure. Soccer? Sure. Football? No. The game is too violent, players need time to recover, and short turnarounds are bad for player safety. If it was up to me, we would not have games on Thursday night.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

 

[Anarchy99]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

We're spit-balling here obviously, and I'm open to the idea that I'm overlooking some stuff. What I'm coming around to is something like this:

When a traumatic event occurs ("traumatic event" needs to be defined but at a minimum it would involve any life-threatening injury or a spinal injury, maybe anything involving an ambulance), the referee consults with each team. I'm thinking the HC and the team captains. The message to each team is "Okay, this is a difficult situation, but here's the choice we face. We can play on. Or, if you want to stop play, the game will end. If you don't want to return to the field, that's okay. You won't be punished, nobody is losing any game checks, or anything like that. But this game has to have a result so we can move on. If you decide not to continue, we'll just chalk it up as a loss and that's that. If you and the other team jointly decide not to continue, we'll consider it a tie." Give each team a few minutes to register their choices and then either resume play or call it.

No rescheduled games. No unbalanced schedules. A nice, clean, simple resolution. And it makes teams shoulder the consequences of their own decisions. Self-respecting adults welcome the opportunity to own the consequences of their own choices. Angle-shooters and crybabies don't. We should be creating more incentives for people to behave like self-respecting adults and disincentivize raw appeals to emotion. In other words, a few more dads in the room and few fewer moms.

I'm not some boomer grandpa sitting in his recliner and complaining about how they put skirts on quarterbacks. I'm happy that we do more to protect player safety than we used to. And I'm very open to the idea that we shouldn't automatically expect players to soldier on when they're dealing with serious trauma. But I'm kind of mortified at how this all played out in practice. The league was pushed around by the loudest, most unhinged voices on social media when they needed they opposite of that.

Edit: I know a lot of people of good will disagree, but I'm really opposed to rescheduling games. Baseball? Sure. Soccer? Sure. Football? No. The game is too violent, players need time to recover, and short turnarounds are bad for player safety. If it was up to me, we would not have games on Thursday night.

In general, I think people are worrying too much about what happens moving forward. It took 87 years for this situation to materialize since the last time they stopped and didn't finish a game. They already have a process, a protocol, and a procedure to follow on the books. The problem is they didn't follow it. I haven't seen whether or not the players will be paid for the game that never happened. That was the leverage the league had over the players. Don't play, don't get paid.

As for your suggestion, I think there is a chance to open up teams to potential abuse. For example, a tie could clinch a playoff spot for one of the teams. A tie could prevent another team from making the playoffs. Not a big fan of giving a team half a win for not playing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

We're spit-balling here obviously, and I'm open to the idea that I'm overlooking some stuff. What I'm coming around to is something like this:

When a traumatic event occurs ("traumatic event" needs to be defined but at a minimum it would involve any life-threatening injury or a spinal injury, maybe anything involving an ambulance), the referee consults with each team. I'm thinking the HC and the team captains. The message to each team is "Okay, this is a difficult situation, but here's the choice we face. We can play on. Or, if you want to stop play, the game will end. If you don't want to return to the field, that's okay. You won't be punished, nobody is losing any game checks, or anything like that. But this game has to have a result so we can move on. If you decide not to continue, we'll just chalk it up as a loss and that's that. If you and the other team jointly decide not to continue, we'll consider it a tie." Give each team a few minutes to register their choices and then either resume play or call it.

No rescheduled games. No unbalanced schedules. A nice, clean, simple resolution. And it makes teams shoulder the consequences of their own decisions. Self-respecting adults welcome the opportunity to own the consequences of their own choices. Angle-shooters and crybabies don't. We should be creating more incentives for people to behave like self-respecting adults and disincentivize raw appeals to emotion. In other words, a few more dads in the room and few fewer moms.

I'm not some boomer grandpa sitting in his recliner and complaining about how they put skirts on quarterbacks. I'm happy that we do more to protect player safety than we used to. And I'm very open to the idea that we shouldn't automatically expect players to soldier on when they're dealing with serious trauma. But I'm kind of mortified at how this all played out in practice. The league was pushed around by the loudest, most unhinged voices on social media when they needed they opposite of that.

Edit: I know a lot of people of good will disagree, but I'm really opposed to rescheduling games. Baseball? Sure. Soccer? Sure. Football? No. The game is too violent, players need time to recover, and short turnarounds are bad for player safety. If it was up to me, we would not have games on Thursday night.

In general, I think people are worrying too much about what happens moving forward. It took 87 years for this situation to materialize since the last time they stopped and didn't finish a game. They already have a process, a protocol, and a procedure to follow on the books. The problem is they didn't follow it. I haven't seen whether or not the players will be paid for the game that never happened. That was the leverage the league had over the players. Don't play, don't get paid.

As for your suggestion, I think there is a chance to open up teams to potential abuse. For example, a tie could clinch a playoff spot for one of the teams. A tie could prevent another team from making the playoffs. Not a big fan of giving a team half a win for not playing.

I'm pretty sure you and I are in directional agreement on all of this. We just disagree on whether this game signifies a shift in the old norm of playing games out to their completion regardless of on-field injuries. I think it does, but I would be happy to be wrong about that.

 

[Deamon]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

 

[Anarchy99]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

I still don’t think any of this will matter. Bills can still earn the 1 seed outright or KC and BUF might not be the AFCCG matchup.

 

[Miro Z]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

This might make sense to you now given the mess the league got itself into, but it doesn't make sense within the broader context, history and traditions of the NFL, which give the sport so much of its value.

They threw away a century of history of NFL teams hosting championship games to move it to a neutral venue because.... what? A guy had a medical issue and they paused the game and then they couldn't figure out how to finish it and then they started messing around with the playoff schedules? Imagine future football historians looking at all this and imagine their bafflement.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field.

Nobody can claim Buffalo would have won monday

 

[ghostguy123]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

This might make sense to you now given the mess the league got itself into, but it doesn't make sense within the broader context, history and traditions of the NFL, which give the sport so much of its value.

They threw away a century of history of NFL teams hosting championship games to move it to a neutral venue because.... what? A guy had a medical issue and they paused the game and then they couldn't figure out how to finish it and then they started messing around with the playoff schedules? Imagine future football historians looking at all this and imagine their bafflement.

Pretty much this.
Also, seems very odd to me that Buffalo or Cincy could actually benefit by not playing that game.

 

[Heatman]

What the NFL is saying is this "If someone is severely injured and/or dies during a game you will play the game or demand a forfeit from the opposing team. If not you will be punished."

Not in those words but essentially that is what they are saying.

Sounds to me like Goodell doesn't like being shown up by a couple of coaches with class.

 

[cheese]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

Except the Bengals aren’t getting a neutral field.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This omnishambles all stems from a failure of leadership on the night. The only conclusions to the situation on MNF should have been:

1) The game is completed or
2) There is a forfeit

Without either of those, we were going to get this mess.

This very modern 'suspension' leading to a cancellation may have been done for the right reasons (ie trying to be humane and understanding) but this is what it has resulted in.

Real leadership on the night by the officials would have been to shepherd two emotional teams through the circumstances into either of the two outcomes above, not to exacerbate the problem with the 'suspension'.

So, should both teams get an L, if neither wanted to continue?

It was clearly the Bills that didn't want to continue, McDermott confirmed it. The Bengals were supportive but had the Bills wanted to play I think the Bengals would have played.

The Buffalo defense actually went back on the field and was preparing to resume. I’m sure that they didn’t feel like it, but they were on the field. Zac Taylor said that when he saw their faces, it just didn’t feel right to him, so that’s when he went over and talked with McDermott and then both teams went to the locker rooms and things went from there. Once in the locker room, the Bills put it to a vote and decided that if it wasn’t unanimous, then they weren’t going back out.

But if Taylor had never stopped and gone over to McDermott and agreed to put a pause in it and figure things out, I think there is a very good chance the Bills would have played.

So yes, the Bills did not want to play. But their reaction to begin with certainly seems to indicate that if the issue would have been pushed by the league and the Bengals to begin with, they indeed would have played.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And I have no idea why the comment box picked up a draft post I had started and deleted like 2 days ago.

 

[The Duff Man]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

This might make sense to you now given the mess the league got itself into, but it doesn't make sense within the broader context, history and traditions of the NFL, which give the sport so much of its value.

They threw away a century of history of NFL teams hosting championship games to move it to a neutral venue because.... what? A guy had a medical issue and they paused the game and then they couldn't figure out how to finish it and then they started messing around with the playoff schedules? Imagine future football historians looking at all this and imagine their bafflement.

Some think they would look back in bafflement.

Others think they will look back with respect as this being a key event that raised the national consciousness about the importance of mental health.

Maybe the difference comes from thinking it was a “medical issue”.

 

[Irishod]

My beef is with the coin flip. If the Bengals finish 11-5, and the Ravens finish 11-6, we go to a coin flip to determine home field. They will still call Cincinnati the #3 seed but in truth they will be the #6 seed. Yet if the Bengals finish 12-4, and the Chiefs finish 13-4, and the Bengals having beaten the Chiefs, there is no coin flip to determine #2 and #3 seed. Seems like a blatant double standard. I want someone from the league to justify that.

 

[massraider]

The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that the city declined the NFL’s request to host the AFC Championship Game. It is not known whether Indianapolis was the NFL’s first choice or one of several possibilities.

Indianapolis has scheduling conflicts with the Indy convention center booked. A national volleyball tournament expected to draw as many as 30,000 visitors to town will take place at Lucas Oil Stadium. The city has peak hotel room occupancy exceeding 7,000 rooms that weekend

Report: Indianapolis turns down NFL's request to host AFC Championship Game if needed

NFL owners on Friday approved a resolution that could result in the AFC Championship Game being played at a neutral site later this month.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

 

[amnesiac]

The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that the city declined the NFL’s request to host the AFC Championship Game. It is not known whether Indianapolis was the NFL’s first choice or one of several possibilities.

Indianapolis has scheduling conflicts with the Indy convention center booked. A national volleyball tournament expected to draw as many as 30,000 visitors to town will take place at Lucas Oil Stadium. The city has peak hotel room occupancy exceeding 7,000 rooms that weekend

Report: Indianapolis turns down NFL's request to host AFC Championship Game if needed

NFL owners on Friday approved a resolution that could result in the AFC Championship Game being played at a neutral site later this month.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

i'm pretty sure Cleveland doesn’t have anything going on that weekend.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

My beef is with the coin flip. If the Bengals finish 11-5, and the Ravens finish 11-6, we go to a coin flip to determine home field. They will still call Cincinnati the #3 seed but in truth they will be the #6 seed. Yet if the Bengals finish 12-4, and the Chiefs finish 13-4, and the Bengals having beaten the Chiefs, there is no coin flip to determine #2 and #3 seed. Seems like a blatant double standard. I want someone from the league to justify that.

I am so behind on the coin flip news today
This sounds terrible and I can understand why Taylor feels the need to speak out
I think Taylor would be better served by saying they're gonna crush the Ravens anyways so it's a moot point
I'm not kidding, this guy leads one of the Top 2-3 QBs in the NFL and is coming off a Super Bowl, what's he sweating?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that the city declined the NFL’s request to host the AFC Championship Game. It is not known whether Indianapolis was the NFL’s first choice or one of several possibilities.

Indianapolis has scheduling conflicts with the Indy convention center booked. A national volleyball tournament expected to draw as many as 30,000 visitors to town will take place at Lucas Oil Stadium. The city has peak hotel room occupancy exceeding 7,000 rooms that weekend

Report: Indianapolis turns down NFL's request to host AFC Championship Game if needed

NFL owners on Friday approved a resolution that could result in the AFC Championship Game being played at a neutral site later this month.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Question: Is that the Colts or the City of Indy meaning like the mayor? Irsay didn't really have a say in the matter I'm assuming?

I'm sure Hard Rock would be happy to host, not like the Dolphins will be needing it that weekend.

 

[massraider]

Tough luck to those AFC players who were hoping to enjoy some February Indianapolis nightlife

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

Oh you care and so do I and so do a great many other fans.
I would say in order to be a fan of this you must have what i refer to as Suspension of Disbelief

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

Oh you care and so do I and so do a great many other fans.
I would say in order to be a fan of this you must have what i refer to as Suspension of Disbelief

Really? Why? We'll never know for sure who would have "earned" HFA so they're leveling the playing field and having a neutral site if it comes to that. They play the Super Bowl on a neutral site, except for the last two. So it's not a detriment to a playoff team. Neutral field seems fair to all involved since we don't know who would have earned it.

I admit I don't get the coin flip thing. The Cin/Bal game should be played in Pittsburgh, with tickets free to Pittsburgh fans so they can boo both teams.

 

[Miro Z]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

KC should be happy that the game will be in Indy instead of in Buffalo.

Can we all not just admit that maybe the NFL got something right for once? It's like a witch-hunt where they can do no good sometimes.

Agreed. No team can claim they definitely would have won home field, so a neutral site is fair to everyone. Nobody gets to play at home and nobody has to go play on the road.

This might make sense to you now given the mess the league got itself into, but it doesn't make sense within the broader context, history and traditions of the NFL, which give the sport so much of its value.

They threw away a century of history of NFL teams hosting championship games to move it to a neutral venue because.... what? A guy had a medical issue and they paused the game and then they couldn't figure out how to finish it and then they started messing around with the playoff schedules? Imagine future football historians looking at all this and imagine their bafflement.

Some think they would look back in bafflement.

Others think they will look back with respect as this being a key event that raised the national consciousness about the importance of mental health.

Maybe the difference comes from thinking it was a “medical issue”.

Mental health? The league's prevarication, obfuscation, dithering and virtue-signalling has driven many of us nuts.

 

[eighsse2]

My beef is with the coin flip. If the Bengals finish 11-5, and the Ravens finish 11-6, we go to a coin flip to determine home field. They will still call Cincinnati the #3 seed but in truth they will be the #6 seed. Yet if the Bengals finish 12-4, and the Chiefs finish 13-4, and the Bengals having beaten the Chiefs, there is no coin flip to determine #2 and #3 seed. Seems like a blatant double standard. I want someone from the league to justify that.

They will effectively be the #6 seed? Only if they face the Ravens, and only if the coin flip goes the wrong way for them.

While I understand that a coin flip and a neutral site are two different things, I see them as very equivalent in fairness. They're both even splits, either a split of the HFA, or a split of the odds to win HFA.

 

[eighsse2]

My beef is with the coin flip. If the Bengals finish 11-5, and the Ravens finish 11-6, we go to a coin flip to determine home field. They will still call Cincinnati the #3 seed but in truth they will be the #6 seed. Yet if the Bengals finish 12-4, and the Chiefs finish 13-4, and the Bengals having beaten the Chiefs, there is no coin flip to determine #2 and #3 seed. Seems like a blatant double standard. I want someone from the league to justify that.

They will effectively be the #6 seed? Only if they face the Ravens, and only if the coin flip goes the wrong way for them.

While I understand that a coin flip and a neutral site are two different things, I see them as very equivalent in fairness. They're both even splits, either a split of the HFA, or a split of the odds to win HFA.

However, I will add that if HFA needed to have a resolution ... why not the bye? Why can't the Bills get a coin flip for the bye if they win? Or the Bengals, if they win and the Bills and Chiefs lose? I guess the bye was maybe deemed too significant to mess around with. Which is reasonable.

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

 

[ghostguy123]

I am in utter disbelief they are going the route of potential neutral site AFC championship game. Absolutely flabbergasted.
Not upset or anything, I really don't care, but wow.
The potential punishment of teams who were not involved in that Monday game is crazy to me, regardless of what happened to end that game.
KC fans should be upset.
Buffalo/Cincy have nothing to be upset about. You didn't play the game. It might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

Oh you care and so do I and so do a great many other fans.
I would say in order to be a fan of this you must have what i refer to as Suspension of Disbelief

Really? Why? We'll never know for sure who would have "earned" HFA so they're leveling the playing field and having a neutral site if it comes to that. They play the Super Bowl on a neutral site, except for the last two. So it's not a detriment to a playoff team. Neutral field seems fair to all involved since we don't know who would have earned it.

I admit I don't get the coin flip thing. The Cin/Bal game should be played in Pittsburgh, with tickets free to Pittsburgh fans so they can boo both teams.

They are literally changing their own rules

 

[IHEARTFF]

I understand why the nfl chose the route they did, but how would we feel about it if they had called the game a win for Cincy say Thursday or Friday? Maybe it’s easier to think about now that Hamlin is recovering nicely.
They were at home with a 4 pt lead and the ball past midfield and a Bills starter now out for the game. Cincy was favored to win at that scenario.
Now they will have to go to Buffalo in the 2nd round assuming all 3 win this weekend. Seems like Cincy took the worst of it football-wise considering that turn of events.

 

[jobarules]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

This is like saying if the 49ers and Vikings both finish tied why don't they flip a coin to determine HFA since they didn't play each other.

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I understand why the nfl chose the route they did, but how would we feel about it if they had called the game a win for Cincy say Thursday or Friday? Maybe it’s easier to think about now that Hamlin is recovering nicely.
They were at home with a 4 pt lead and the ball past midfield and a Bills starter now out for the game. Cincy was favored to win at that scenario.
Now they will have to go to Buffalo in the 2nd round assuming all 3 win this weekend. Seems like Cincy took the worst of it football-wise considering that turn of events.

This may come across as hair-splitting, but I don't think it makes any sense to pretend that a 7-3 lead midway through the first quarter means anything. That's just background noise. I would be opposed to calling a game based on such a flimsy score.

That said, I would have no problem declaring Cincinnati the winner because it was their opponent who chose not to continue. I would feel the same way if the Bills had been leading 7-3. Same result, just different rationale. Consider this a concurring opinion I guess.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

We just disagree on whether this game signifies a shift in the old norm of playing games out to their completion regardless of on-field injuries

This wasn’t an “injury”.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

Lots of hypothetical games-that-weren't-played have all sorts of implications for things. If the Ravens had played the Chargers, that game might have determined HFA for a playoff game, but that game didn't happen so it doesn't. That's why we have other tie-breakers besides H2H.

 

[jobarules]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

Why don't they flip a coin for HFA for MIn vs SF if they both finish tied?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We just disagree on whether this game signifies a shift in the old norm of playing games out to their completion regardless of on-field injuries

This wasn’t an “injury”.

Well, yes it obviously was. It was a more grievous injury than your typical high ankle sprain, but it was an injury caused by a tackle. (A clean tackle -- this wasn't a personal foul or anything).

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

Why don't they flip a coin for HFA for MIn vs SF if they both finish tied?

Because they have tie-breakers in place. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

 

[jobarules]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

Why don't they flip a coin for HFA for MIn vs SF if they both finish tied?

Because they have tie-breakers in place. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

They have tie breakers in place for two teams that have the same # of wins and played the same # of games.

If cincy wins and Buffalo loses who would get HFA?

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

Lots of hypothetical games-that-weren't-played have all sorts of implications for things. If the Ravens had played the Chargers, that game might have determined HFA for a playoff game, but that game didn't happen so it doesn't. That's why we have other tie-breakers besides H2H.

The argument you make here would be totally fine with me, if no changes were being made outside of the rules right now. That makes sense. "The game didn't happen. Here are the standings. Here are the playoff seeds based on the standings. And higher seeds play at home. Everything just like always." However, I'm saying, given the fact that the league is adjusting things to help teams with lost opportunities (the Ravens lost the opportunity to win the division, the Bills lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs, the Bengals lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs), then shouldn't Bengals-Bills fit that same criteria?

 

[jobarules]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

Lots of hypothetical games-that-weren't-played have all sorts of implications for things. If the Ravens had played the Chargers, that game might have determined HFA for a playoff game, but that game didn't happen so it doesn't. That's why we have other tie-breakers besides H2H.

The argument you make here would be totally fine with me, if no changes were being made outside of the rules right now. That makes sense. "The game didn't happen. Here are the standings. Here are the playoff seeds based on the standings. And higher seeds play at home. Everything just like always." However, I'm saying, given the fact that the league is adjusting things to help teams with lost opportunities (the Ravens lost the opportunity to win the division, the Bills lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs, the Bengals lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs), then shouldn't Bengals-Bills fit that same criteria?

No because all those scenarios involve a team playing 17 games vs a team playing 16 games.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

Lots of hypothetical games-that-weren't-played have all sorts of implications for things. If the Ravens had played the Chargers, that game might have determined HFA for a playoff game, but that game didn't happen so it doesn't. That's why we have other tie-breakers besides H2H.

The argument you make here would be totally fine with me, if no changes were being made outside of the rules right now. That makes sense. "The game didn't happen. Here are the standings. Here are the playoff seeds based on the standings. And higher seeds play at home. Everything just like always." However, I'm saying, given the fact that the league is adjusting things to help teams with lost opportunities (the Ravens lost the opportunity to win the division, the Bills lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs, the Bengals lost the opportunity to surpass the Chiefs), then shouldn't Bengals-Bills fit that same criteria?

Fair enough. I'm not going to defend every aspect of the specific solution the NFL came up with here. It's not what I what I would have would picked, but they didn't ask for my input and I didn't get a vote. Frankly, I wish my team wasn't involved because I'd rather not have a rooting interest in this resolution.

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

Why don't they flip a coin for HFA for MIn vs SF if they both finish tied?

Because they have tie-breakers in place. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

They have tie breakers in place for two teams that have the same # of wins and played the same # of games.

Yeah but normally teams with better records (like 14-3 Chiefs) are ranked ahead of teams with worse records (like 13-3 Bills). So why should they change that to a neutral site, if it were to happen?

To be clear, if you're saying that everyone should have just followed the rules instead of messing with the HFA, I'd be fine with that too. But if you make special provisions for some affected teams, why not all?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Some observations....

- those posting here recently can't even agree on who is getting the short straw

- the notion of the league forcing the game to continued that night or within two days while a player was potentially on his deathbed is laughable from an optics standpoint

Usually I'm one of the curmudgeons complaining about how league ownership is greedy and tone-deaf. In the current situation, I thought ownership did a bang-up job of navigating the morass of social media driven popular backlash to arrive at a solution that didn't perfectly squelch all potential criticisms but is at least workable, and I'm mostly disappointed by the whining coming from fans (expressed here and elsewhere). Homefield advantage is worth 3 points. In a game where DPI can place the ball on the 1 yard line from mid-field, that's not a burden that a playoff caliber team should be crying about.

Just my $0.02.

 

[eighsse2]

Actually, am I missing something? If the Bengals and Bills either both win or both lose this weekend, shouldn't there be a coin flip or neutral site for a potential Bengals-Bills meeting in the divisional round? (Since a Bengals win in the non-game would have given them the 2 seed.)

Nope. Both teams played 16 games. Bills have one less loss. The game never happened. This is the easiest one to justify.

But the outcome of the game that wasn't played would 100% have determined which team would play at home. Who cares that they played the same mumber of games? I thought it was about fixing the missed opportunities that the lost game caused.

ETA: It's supposed to be based on win percentage, so they're making a complete rule change for the other scanarios, but not this one. Even if one team played two games and finished 1-1, that's better than 8-9. It's just how it works.

Why don't they flip a coin for HFA for MIn vs SF if they both finish tied?

Because they have tie-breakers in place. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

They have tie breakers in place for two teams that have the same # of wins and played the same # of games.

If cincy wins and Buffalo loses who would get HFA?

Cincinnati, as I understand it .