What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

How will the NFL handle scheduling the remainder of football this year?

  • variation on option 1, where both teams are credited with a win.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    107
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.
I agree with you, but I think we should give everybody in the SP a little credit. I've spent some time on fan forums the last few days, and this place was like the Lyceum compared to those sites.
 
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).
I won’t get into a semantics battle about the difference between what constitutes an “injury” versus a “medical emergency/life threatening event”. I’ve seen them play through a lot of injuries in the past, and I expect that to continue.
 
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).
I won’t get into a semantics battle about the difference between what constitutes an “injury” versus a “medical emergency/life threatening event”. I’ve seen them play through a lot of injuries in the past, and I expect that to continue.
They've played through lots of medical emergencies too. Both of our respective teams can point to examples.

I don't have a problem with it if we decide that we're not going to "force" players to do that any more. The league just needs to realize that their longstanding plan of "gut it out" needs some modification. The time to hash out those modifications is not immediately after a tragedy and the place to hash them out is not social media.
 
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.
No way should they have declared CIN as the winner ahead by 4 points with 51 minutes left to go. Up 28 points with 4 minutes to go in the game? Sure. IIRC, BUF had one possession and scored a FG. CIN was on their second possession . . . meaning BUF would get the ball to start the second half. Not even close to being "decided."

As I mentioned earlier, the league should have scheduled the game to be completed on Wednesday, and if BUF declined to play, then give them a forfeit. But based on what happened in live action in 9 minutes of game time and determine an actual result from that? That wouldn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
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 .
Why wouldn't they flip a coin in this scenario since the outcome of the game that wasn't played would've had 100% impact on HFA.
 
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.
HFA advantage in the regular season AS A LEAGUE WIDE AVERAGE of teams is worth three points. In the playoffs, things change dramatically. I haven't kept up with the last couple of years, but in the first round of the playoffs, the home team won something like 80-85% of the time. In the second round, it was close to 75%. By the championship game level, IIRC, it dipped to like 60-65%. I don't know how that would be computed in terms of point spread, but IMO, that's a lot bigger advantage than only 3 points.
 
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 .
Why wouldn't they flip a coin in this scenario since the outcome of the game that wasn't played would've had 100% impact on HFA.
They should, given they they're fixing the other scanarios. In fact even if the Bengals ended up a full game ahead of the Bills by a full game (I know they can't, I'm just saying if they could), they should flip a coin or do a neutral site there as well.
 
As a Bengals fan, I have no problem with canceling Monday. It was the right thing to do. I do have a problem with the coin flip ********. I understand why it shouldn’t apply to a Cincinnati- Buffalo tiebreak scenario, but why no consideration for the Bengals v. Chiefs? Baltimore gets consideration for their lost opportunity, but no consideration for the Bengals lost opportunity in the same senario with the Chiefs. If you’re doing it for Baltimore (Cincinnati 11-5, Baltimore 11-6), why not for Cincinnati (Cincinnati 12-4, KC 13-4 w/ Bengals having won the HtH game? Creates the appearance of favoritis.
 
As a Bengals fan, I have no problem with canceling Monday. It was the right thing to do. I do have a problem with the coin flip ********. I understand why it shouldn’t apply to a Cincinnati- Buffalo tiebreak scenario, but why no consideration for the Bengals v. Chiefs? Baltimore gets consideration for their lost opportunity, but no consideration for the Bengals lost opportunity in the same senario with the Chiefs. If you’re doing it for Baltimore (Cincinnati 11-5, Baltimore 11-6), why not for Cincinnati (Cincinnati 12-4, KC 13-4 w/ Bengals having won the HtH game? Creates the appearance of favoritis.
There will be a neutral site for a potential Chiefs-Bengals game, if the Chiefs lose today and Bengals win tomorrow.
 
I guess it all comes down to, what is in fact the problem that they are trying to solve. I would think a reasonable "goal statement" would be "to account for any outcomes that would have resulted from the game that was skipped". But if the goal statement is, "to account for teams having an unequal number of games played", that just seems so arbitrary. Every team has a winning percentage. Rulebook says winning percentage is what matters. So how is there a problem?
 
I guess it all comes down to, what is in fact the problem that they are trying to solve. I would think a reasonable "goal statement" would be "to account for any outcomes that would have resulted from the game that was skipped". But if the goal statement is, "to account for teams having an unequal number of games played", that just seems so arbitrary. Every team has a winning percentage. Rulebook says winning percentage is what matters. So how is there a problem?
The problem is that everybody wanted to litigate their case over social media, with special attention to raw appeals to emotion. You're thinking about this logically, which is great, but logic wasn't driving this process.

I know I keep coming back to this, but look at the hysterical reaction to Skip Bayless. He didn't say anything snarky, and he didn't make any ill-timed attempts at humor. He just pointed out in a matter-of-fact way that suspending play during a game that huge was going to cause serious headaches, and he was obviously right. In principle, we should praise people who remain calm and logical in the face of tragedy, and instead everybody reacted as if he had just wished Hitler a happy birthday. You're not going to get a reasoned outcome when we insist on shouting down people who point out inconvenient facts that people don't want to hear.
 
The sportsbook that I use says that once there's scoring involved by either team of any kind, then the bet is locked in, & since Cincinnati was up on Buffalo 7-3 when the whole Damar Hamlin incident happened, then I don't get my money back. I'm not sure what sportsbook that everyone else uses, but that's just what my sportsbook says & it sucks for me.
 
The sportsbook that I use says that once there's scoring involved by either team of any kind, then the bet is locked in, & since Cincinnati was up on Buffalo 7-3 when the whole Damar Hamlin incident happened, then I don't get my money back. I'm not sure what sportsbook that everyone else uses, but that's just what my sportsbook says & it sucks for me.
I see a class lawsuit on the horizon. If neither side is declared a winner and the sport book keeps all the bets, that seems like a clear case of unethical business practices.
 
The sportsbook that I use says that once there's scoring involved by either team of any kind, then the bet is locked in, & since Cincinnati was up on Buffalo 7-3 when the whole Damar Hamlin incident happened, then I don't get my money back. I'm not sure what sportsbook that everyone else uses, but that's just what my sportsbook says & it sucks for me.
What? Most sportsbooks voided all bets. What sportsbook?
 
I think based on the scenarios, I assume I’m right - Had the Bengals won the Bills/Bengals matchup, was their any opportunity at all for the Bengals to get the 1 seed?

Meaning Bengals had won Monday plus this weekend’s game and Chiefs lose today, we’re the Bengals still the 2 seed or would they have been the 1?
 
I think based on the scenarios, I assume I’m right - Had the Bengals won the Bills/Bengals matchup, was their any opportunity at all for the Bengals to get the 1 seed?

Meaning Bengals had won Monday plus this weekend’s game and Chiefs lose today, we’re the Bengals still the 2 seed or would they have been the 1?
Two Bengals wins and one Chiefs loss would have resulted in CIN earning the one seed.
 
Cincinnati had a better than 50% chance to win that game. So they lose a chance at the #1. They also lose a chance for #2. I don’t see why there is no flip with Buffalo. I think we can agree they had at least a coin flip chance to win that game. If they do any Cincinnati-Buffalo matchup would be in CincinnatI. Bengals got hosed. They lose a chance at the #1. They lose at least a 50-50 chance at the #2. They are locked in at #3, but they can’t rest starters because if they lose to the Ravens they face a coinflip to go to Baltimore. The NFL doesn’t give a crap about the Bengals.
 
Cincinnati had a better than 50% chance to win that game. So they lose a chance at the #1. They also lose a chance for #2. I don’t see why there is no flip with Buffalo. I think we can agree they had at least a coin flip chance to win that game. If they do any Cincinnati-Buffalo matchup would be in CincinnatI. Bengals got hosed. They lose a chance at the #1. They lose at least a 50-50 chance at the #2. They are locked in at #3, but they can’t rest starters because if they lose to the Ravens they face a coinflip to go to Baltimore. The NFL doesn’t give a crap about the Bengals.
If CIN beats BAL and NE beats BUF, the Bengals would be the # 2 seed. As far as resting their starters, the CIN players on later 9 minutes last week.
 
If Cincinnati won, they wouldn’t need a miracle win by NE this weekend. There was at least a 50% chance of that happening. Youre right they didn’t play much Monday, but I’m sure did not have a normal week of preparation going into this weekends game. Good chance they lose, and have a 50-50 chance of going to Baltimore.
 
If Cincinnati won, they wouldn’t need a miracle win by NE this weekend. There was at least a 50% chance of that happening. Youre right they didn’t play much Monday, but I’m sure did not have a normal week of preparation going into this weekends game. Good chance they lose, and have a 50-50 chance of going to Baltimore.
The fact that you're so confident about the Bills beating NE and so unconfident about the Bengals beating Baltimore suggests to me that you don't really think you had a 50-50 shot on Monday night. You're telling us all something about who the better team is.
 
If Cincinnati won, they wouldn’t need a miracle win by NE this weekend. There was at least a 50% chance of that happening. Youre right they didn’t play much Monday, but I’m sure did not have a normal week of preparation going into this weekends game. Good chance they lose, and have a 50-50 chance of going to Baltimore.
So CIN against BUF with Allen playing should have been a clear victory, but playing BAL without Lamar is a “good chance” of a loss?
 
If Cincinnati won, they wouldn’t need a miracle win by NE this weekend. There was at least a 50% chance of that happening. Youre right they didn’t play much Monday, but I’m sure did not have a normal week of preparation going into this weekends game. Good chance they lose, and have a 50-50 chance of going to Baltimore.
I agree Cincy got a tough deal here, but there is not a good chance they lose to the NonLamars. A slight chance, but not much.
 
So if i understand everything correctly at this point...if KC wins they lock the number 1 seed but the bills still need to play assuming Cin beats balt
 
I think based on the scenarios, I assume I’m right - Had the Bengals won the Bills/Bengals matchup, was their any opportunity at all for the Bengals to get the 1 seed?

Meaning Bengals had won Monday plus this weekend’s game and Chiefs lose today, we’re the Bengals still the 2 seed or would they have been the 1?
Two Bengals wins and one Chiefs loss would have resulted in CIN earning the one seed.
In that case I really don’t understand why a neutral site KC/CIN playoff game isn’t one of the options they needed to consider.
 
I think based on the scenarios, I assume I’m right - Had the Bengals won the Bills/Bengals matchup, was their any opportunity at all for the Bengals to get the 1 seed?

Meaning Bengals had won Monday plus this weekend’s game and Chiefs lose today, we’re the Bengals still the 2 seed or would they have been the 1?
Two Bengals wins and one Chiefs loss would have resulted in CIN earning the one seed.
In that case I really don’t understand why a neutral site KC/CIN playoff game isn’t one of the options they needed to consider.
It is. If KC and BUF lose and CIN wins and it ends up KC / CIN, that game would be played at a neutral site.
 
So if i understand everything correctly at this point...if KC wins they lock the number 1 seed but the bills still need to play assuming Cin beats balt
Bills still need to play regardless of what Cincy does because of the rule if Buffalo and KC both win Buffalo can draw a Neutral site AFC championship game.
How did you forget that part ?
 
So if i understand everything correctly at this point...if KC wins they lock the number 1 seed but the bills still need to play assuming Cin beats balt
Yup

Thanks...we are still playing so trying to figure out who is startable. I already lost jefferson this apparently...
All Cin/Buf players are startable both teams need to win. Why would other teams matter unless you are playing in some insane league that uses week 18 still.
 
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.
How about the scenario where the Bengals win this week and the Chiefs lose. The Bengals would be 12-4. The Chiefs would be 13-4. They have not played the same number of games. The Bengals would be a half game behind just like the Ravens are currently a half game behind if they win on Sunday. The Ravens get to flip a coin. The Bengals don’t. Why?
 
So if i understand everything correctly at this point...if KC wins they lock the number 1 seed but the bills still need to play assuming Cin beats balt
Yup

Thanks...we are still playing so trying to figure out who is startable. I already lost jefferson this apparently...
All Cin/Buf players are startable both teams need to win. Why would other teams matter unless you are playing in some insane league that uses week 18 still.
We are indeed one of those leagues....we just play 18 weeks, whoever is in first wins. 3 way tie for first right now...
 
The NFL is basically treating Monday as a loss for the Bengals.
The NFL is basically treating Monday as a loss for the Bengals.
How is it not the same for the Bills?
Or perhaps, like a tie?
if they would have treated it as a tie The Bills would be the 2 seed (they are) and the Bengals would have been the 3 seed (they are) and had a guaranteed home game (they do not). They treated it as a tie for the Bills but not for the Bengals.
 
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.
How about the scenario where the Bengals win this week and the Chiefs lose. The Bengals would be 12-4. The Chiefs would be 13-4. They have not played the same number of games. The Bengals would be a half game behind just like the Ravens are currently a half game behind if they win on Sunday. The Ravens get to flip a coin. The Bengals don’t. Why?
If those things happen and the Bills also lose, the Bengals would get to play the Chiefs on a neutral field. That is one of the scenarios they covered.
 
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.
How about the scenario where the Bengals win this week and the Chiefs lose. The Bengals would be 12-4. The Chiefs would be 13-4. They have not played the same number of games. The Bengals would be a half game behind just like the Ravens are currently a half game behind if they win on Sunday. The Ravens get to flip a coin. The Bengals don’t. Why?
If those things happen and the Bills also lose, the Bengals would get to play the Chiefs on a neutral field. That is one of the scenarios they covered.
Right, but if the Bills win the Bengals would have to go to KC in the divisional round. No chance for a coin flip or neutral site even though we didn’t play the same number of games.
 
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.
How about the scenario where the Bengals win this week and the Chiefs lose. The Bengals would be 12-4. The Chiefs would be 13-4. They have not played the same number of games. The Bengals would be a half game behind just like the Ravens are currently a half game behind if they win on Sunday. The Ravens get to flip a coin. The Bengals don’t. Why?
If those things happen and the Bills also lose, the Bengals would get to play the Chiefs on a neutral field. That is one of the scenarios they covered.
Right, but if the Bills win the Bengals would have to go to KC in the divisional round. No chance for a coin flip or neutral site even though we didn’t play the same number of games.
Ohh. The case where the Bills are the #1 seed? I see. Yeah you are definitely right about that. I don't get that.
 
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.
How about the scenario where the Bengals win this week and the Chiefs lose. The Bengals would be 12-4. The Chiefs would be 13-4. They have not played the same number of games. The Bengals would be a half game behind just like the Ravens are currently a half game behind if they win on Sunday. The Ravens get to flip a coin. The Bengals don’t. Why?
If those things happen and the Bills also lose, the Bengals would get to play the Chiefs on a neutral field. That is one of the scenarios they covered.
Right, but if the Bills win the Bengals would have to go to KC in the divisional round. No chance for a coin flip or neutral site even though we didn’t play the same number of games.
Ohh. The case where the Bills are the #1 seed? I see. Yeah you are definitely right about that. I don't get that.
Exactly.

It’s incredibly complicated so I get that people who haven’t fully looked through all of the Bengals’ situation don’t necessarily get it but they have a legitimate gripe. It’s frustrating to just see people say “they did as well as they could” when they didn’t. Eliminate the coin toss from Baltimore or add the coin toss if the Bengals end up a half game behind the chiefs as the 2 and 3 seeds and I’d be fine with it.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
Taylor has a point here. Yeah, the Bengals agreed to go along with the game stoppage, but it's not unreasonable for them to expect the league to follow the rules that were in place when they made that decision. To be honest, I'm not sympathetic to any complaints involving the #1 seed -- I'm not going to complain about the Bills losing control of their own destiny, and I'm not going to listen to Bengals fans go on about that issue either. But this thing with Baltimore seems silly to me. I know they're probably going to win anyway and this will all be moot, but still.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
Well there's a decent chance that, in the Ravens-win-tomorrow scenario, had the Bengals-Bills game been played, the Bengals would be the 5 seed. Then they'd almost assuredly be on the road the whole way through. I'm happy with the middle ground of a coin toss and still getting the 3-seed (maybe 2) for possible (or guaranteed, if the 2) home field in the divisional round.

Granted. I get it. Making up rules is stupid when there is already a rule to cover the situation. But I don't feel shafted by the Ravens thing. I feel like we got really lucky to win the division (IF we lose tomorrow). So the coin flip deal is just meh. It's missing out on the bye or a better chance at the 2 seed that I find a bigger deal. Which would just be "tough luck" and it would be whatever. But then they go playing around with stuff, yet don't fix that.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
Taylor has a point here. Yeah, the Bengals agreed to go along with the game stoppage, but it's not unreasonable for them to expect the league to follow the rules that were in place when they made that decision. To be honest, I'm not sympathetic to any complaints involving the #1 seed -- I'm not going to complain about the Bills losing control of their own destiny, and I'm not going to listen to Bengals fans go on about that issue either. But this thing with Baltimore seems silly to me. I know they're probably going to win anyway and this will all be moot, but still.
I'll give you that. If you're making a decision and counting on the league to literally just follow its own freaking rules, that could be very frustrating when they don't.

Funny though, how I'm thinking the reverse of you, regarding the Ravens situation versus the Chiefs or Bills situations. I really feel like if I were the Ravens or a fan thereof, if they didn't adopt the coin flip exception, I would feel totally shafted of the chance to win the division. Still I would just take it, because, why would they change the rules? It would just be unfortunate that the Bengals were off the hook and skated to the title.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
Well there's a decent chance that, in the Ravens-win-tomorrow scenario, had the Bengals-Bills game been played, the Bengals would be the 5 seed. Then they'd almost assuredly be on the road the whole way through. I'm happy with the middle ground of a coin toss and still getting the 3-seed (maybe 2) for possible (or guaranteed, if the 2) home field in the divisional round.

Granted. I get it. Making up rules is stupid when there is already a rule to cover the situation. But I don't feel shafted by the Ravens thing. I feel like we got really lucky to win the division (IF we lose tomorrow). So the coin flip deal is just meh. It's missing out on the bye or a better chance at the 2 seed that I find a bigger deal. Which would just be "tough luck" and it would be whatever. But then they go playing around with stuff, yet don't fix that.
I guess I don’t get the upside of winning the division but not getting the home playoff game guaranteed. We got some of the downside of having lost Monday night with none of the upside. If that game just doesn’t exist anymore (like many on here are saying) then we should be division champs with the home game guaranteed.
 
What's weird to me is that Zac Taylor is whining about it. He's the one who agreed to stop playing the game. You know at that moment you're potentially giving up the opportunity to get the 1 seed or 2 seed (2 is still possible, but much less likely now). The Baltimore thing actually makes some sense because the Bengals got the division wrapped up as a freebie, when they should've had to win another game to get it. But you're the one who let Buffalo off the hook, so why complain?

I don't really mind the decision too much, as a Bengals fan. It's just home field advantage, and it's very likely the coin flip scenario will not even come up. It's more confounding than irritating. Drawing the line where some 0.5-game differences are okay to make up mitigating rule exceptions, while other 0.5-game differences, and a 1.0-game difference, do not require any mitigating exceptions. Even though all of the scenarios are ones that would entirely hinge on the Buffalo-Bills game result.

ETA: And also the drawing of the line where "we can mess around with home field advantage, but not the first-round bye".
My understanding is he’s bitching purely about the coin toss and that they didn’t just follow the established rules and give us the 3 seed and the home playoff game. I think we crush the Ravens tomorrow but if we do lose and then lose the coin toss the Bengals will be division champions with the worse draft pick and harder 2023 schedule that comes with it but have to travel to Baltimore for the playoff game. That’s crap.
Do you think the NFL is actively trying to screw the Bengals?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top