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

[pokin]

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?

I have no idea but their decision did actively screw the Bengals. My guess is they don’t really give a crap what Mike Brown thinks cause he’s always a pain in the ***. I agree he is. Doesn’t mean they should make a decision that is demonstrably unbalanced.

 

[-OZ-]

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.

Ah. I was just looking at the seeds.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

I get that, I do. And maybe it's the fact that there is a 21% probability (based on betting) that the Ravens even win tomorrow. Then, a 39% probability that the Chargers win. And, I think, those both have to happen for the Bengals to play the Ravens. So, that's an 8% probability that the coin flip occurs, and a 4% probability that the Bengals have to play a road game. So to answer your question, the upside of winning the division is a 96% probability of a home game.

But ... yeah, I'll be really mad if that 4% happens and the Ravens win by a field goal in the Wild Card Round.

ETA: Actually, looking at it more, that 39% for the Chargers is likely based on the fact that their seed would be locked up if the Bengals win. So in the scenario above, the Chargers would probably be playing their starters and have a greater than 39% win probability.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

Ah. I was just looking at the seeds.

This brings up an interesting point though. Had the NFL called the Bengals-Bills game a tie, then there wouldn't be any "unequal number of games" issue. So do you think they would they have done these rule changes, or not?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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.

I think Bayless had an issue with timing. The time to point out an inconvenient fact is not just after CPR was administered.

If a bride's dad collapses before the wedding and it's postponed, it's fair to wonder whether their deposit carries over to another date. But maybe it's not the thing to speculate over when he's in the ambulance.

 

[Statorama]

Does this impact the Saints playoff chances in any way?

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Should have played the game.

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.

Taylor has zero point.

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.

It would be kind of cool if every team up a game in the division with one to play could just take a pass on playing a game and lock in the division. This is on the Bengals for not finishing their game by Wednesday as required by NFL rules.

 

[BassNBrew]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game. Someone posted earlier about a guy who lost out on $800k because the game was cancelled.

By the way, did the Bengals fans get ticket refunds per NFL policy?

 

[pokin]

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.

Should have played the game.

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.

Taylor has zero point.

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.

It would be kind of cool if every team up a game in the division with one to play could just take a pass on playing a game and lock in the division. This is on the Bengals for not finishing their game by Wednesday as required by NFL rules.

They are up a game and a half with one to play. The Bills chose not to play too but got the same result as a tie would have given them. The result of a tie would have given the Bengals the division and a home playoff game. You can try and misunderstand as much as you want but the Bengals got the short end of the stick.

 

[pokin]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game. Someone posted earlier about a guy who lost out on $800k because the game was cancelled.

By the way, did the Bengals fans get ticket refunds per NFL policy?

Yes, they did.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, but is it a causal relationship or do the playoff results come from a correllation between the home team and superiority?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

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 NE's offense is pitiful does not imply a NE victory would be a miracle, particularly since BUF no longer has a seeding motivation to play full out.

Now I fully expect BUF to throttle NE, but when only one team has a playoff motivation stranger things have happened.

Now if KC had lost yesterday, I would label a possible NE victory today as a miracle outcome.

 

[BassNBrew]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game. Someone posted earlier about a guy who lost out on $800k because the game was cancelled.

By the way, did the Bengals fans get ticket refunds per NFL policy?

Yes, they did.

Good. I hope the Bengals send the Bills a bill for half of the lost revenue.

 

[Deamon]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game. Someone posted earlier about a guy who lost out on $800k because the game was cancelled.

By the way, did the Bengals fans get ticket refunds per NFL policy?

Yes, they did.

Good. I hope the Bengals send the Bills a bill for half of the lost revenue.

WTF

 

[BassNBrew]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game. Someone posted earlier about a guy who lost out on $800k because the game was cancelled.

By the way, did the Bengals fans get ticket refunds per NFL policy?

Yes, they did.

Good. I hope the Bengals send the Bills a bill for half of the lost revenue.

WTF

Apparently a joint decision not to play so that should split the consequences.

 

[Irishod]

On Monday night, Bengals were told the game will resume in 10 minutes - ProFootballTalk

As the Bills and Bengals prepare to resume playing football on Sunday, a question still lingers regarding whether the teams were told that their Week 17 game would resume after appropriate care and attention had been given to Buffalo safety Damar Hamlin.ESPN said during the broadcast that the...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Doesn't sound like a joint decision. Sounds like the Bills made the decision.

 

[pokin]

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 NE's offense is pitiful does not imply a NE victory would be a miracle, particularly since BUF no longer has a seeding motivation to play full out.

Now I fully expect BUF to throttle NE, but when only one team has a playoff motivation stranger things have happened.

Now if KC had lost yesterday, I would label a possible NE victory today as a miracle outcome.

The Bills still need to win to secure the 2 seed. If the Bills lose and the Bengals win the Bengals are the 2. Bills still have plenty to play for.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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 NE's offense is pitiful does not imply a NE victory would be a miracle, particularly since BUF no longer has a seeding motivation to play full out.

Now I fully expect BUF to throttle NE, but when only one team has a playoff motivation stranger things have happened.

Now if KC had lost yesterday, I would label a possible NE victory today as a miracle outcome.

The Bills still need to win to secure the 2 seed. If the Bills lose and the Bengals win the Bengals are the 2. Bills still have plenty to play for.

The Bills faced a similar situation back in 2020 (I think) where they had a choice of just accepting the #3 seed or trying to win and getting the #2 seed. They went all out for the better seed. Considering that the #2 seed for them also comes with not having to play a playoff game in another team's stadium, I don't see them resting any starters. Just my two cents.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

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 NE's offense is pitiful does not imply a NE victory would be a miracle, particularly since BUF no longer has a seeding motivation to play full out.

Now I fully expect BUF to throttle NE, but when only one team has a playoff motivation stranger things have happened.

Now if KC had lost yesterday, I would label a possible NE victory today as a miracle outcome.

The Bills still need to win to secure the 2 seed. If the Bills lose and the Bengals win the Bengals are the 2. Bills still have plenty to play for.

The Bills faced a similar situation back in 2020 (I think) where they had a choice of just accepting the #3 seed or trying to win and getting the #2 seed. They went all out for the better seed. Considering that the #2 seed for them also comes with not having to play a playoff game in another team's stadium, I don't see them resting any starters. Just my two cents.

Hmmmm....I'm forced to agree. So long, Mike Patricia!

 

[Anarchy99]

They were joking on the radio this week. They said the best way for NE to win was to tell Mac Jones that if they beat the Bills, they will fire Matt Patricia and Mac can pick the OC for next year.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Jonathan Jones
@jjones9
6m

Source: If a coin toss for Ravens-Bengals is necessary for the wild-card game, it will be conducted today at Cincy's stadium. In the room would be 2 representatives per team, an NFL official to witness and Roger Goodell watching virtually. Bengals would get to call heads or tails

 

[IHEARTFF]

Jonathan Jones
@jjones9
6m

Source: If a coin toss for Ravens-Bengals is necessary for the wild-card game, it will be conducted today at Cincy's stadium. In the room would be 2 representatives per team, an NFL official to witness and Roger Goodell watching virtually. Bengals would get to call heads or tails

Oh there was a coin toss in cincy today alright

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So the seeding basically turned out the same as if the Bengals had won or if the Bills had forfeited, right? Except for the neutral field thing of course.

 

[IHEARTFF]

So the seeding basically turned out the same as if the Bengals had won or if the Bills had forfeited, right? Except for the neutral field thing of course.

No, if the Bengals had won, they would be the 2 seed hosting Buffalo in the divisional round.

 

[Deamon]

So Bengals got screwed if they would have won last week.
Bills got screwed if they would have won last week. But they get a neutral field (but lose the bye), so it helps a bit.
Chiefs profit if the Bills would have won last week, but they don't get home field vs Buff now, so it's a bit of a wash.

Cinci big losers

Bills very small losers

Chiefs very small winners.

NFL got it pretty much as best as they could have.

 

[Statorama]

And screw all these rich NFL folk complaining about getting screwed when ten's of thousands of their fans wagering and playing ff got screwed by them not completing the game.

Unofficial NFL Response: "Shut up, Nerds"

 

[Miro Z]

Neither Lamar nor Tua will likely feature this weekend. Fate may somehow be favouring a Bills and Bengals match-up in the next round.

It feels unfair on the Bengals that the Bills host this, given they were leading in their abandoned game and would have displaced them as the no.2 seed had they won. If you are going to have a neutral venue for a Bills/Chiefs game because of competitive inequities created by the cancellation then that argument also applies to Bills/Bengals.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Neither Lamar nor Tua will likely feature this weekend. Fate may somehow be favouring a Bills and Bengals match-up in the next round.

It feels unfair on the Bengals that the Bills host this, given they were leading in their abandoned game and would have displaced them as the no.2 seed had they won. If you are going to have a neutral venue for a Bills/Chiefs game because of competitive inequities created by the cancellation then that argument also applies to Bills/Bengals.

We're going to spend all next week relitigating this issue that we all acknowledge the league handled poorly, right?

 

[eighsse2]

Neither Lamar nor Tua will likely feature this weekend. Fate may somehow be favouring a Bills and Bengals match-up in the next round.

It feels unfair on the Bengals that the Bills host this, given they were leading in their abandoned game and would have displaced them as the no.2 seed had they won. If you are going to have a neutral venue for a Bills/Chiefs game because of competitive inequities created by the cancellation then that argument also applies to Bills/Bengals.

That's what I've been saying. Some are claiming that it's "not the same" as Bengals/Ravens or Chiefs/Bills, because the Bengals and Bills have played the same number of games ... I don't get what that has to do with anything. The game that was cancelled would have given the Bengals the opportunity to claim the 2 seed over the Bills.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wait, so if the Bills and Bengals end up playing, they will be at Buffalo?? That seems odd considering all the other provisions that were made, especially considering the winner of that game would be hosting the other team.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wait, so if the Bills and Bengals end up playing, they will be at Buffalo?? That seems odd considering all the other provisions that were made, especially considering the winner of that game would be hosting the other team.

It's not odd at all if you paid attention to what was going on last week. The league said plain as day that they're drawing a sharp distinction between (a) teams that played the same number of games and (b) teams that played a different number of games.

The Bill and Bengals played the same number of games. The Bills have a better record. Therefore the Bills get to host the Bengals, as usual.

The Bills and Chiefs did not play the same number of games. The league basically gave the Chiefs 3/4 of the #1 seed -- they got the first round bye and won't have to play in Buffalo. But they don't get to host the AFCCG. If it were up to me, I would have just gone by winning percentage and given the Chiefs the whole thing, but the league didn't ask my opinion on the matter and they arrived at a reasonable spot.

If you really think this is odd, it's because you weren't paying attention. If you simply disagree with the league's reasoning, you should just say so and quit pretending that their reasoning is some kind of inscrutable mystery. It isn't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That's what I've been saying. Some are claiming that it's "not the same" as Bengals/Ravens or Chiefs/Bills, because the Bengals and Bills have played the same number of games ... I don't get what that has to do with anything. The game that was cancelled would have given the Bengals the opportunity to claim the 2 seed over the Bills.

And . . . so what? Every single year the league has to figure out how to seed two teams that didn't play one another head-to-head. This isn't a difficult problem to solve. They go by record, then by conference record, and then by strength of schedule or strength of victory or common opponents or however the various tie-breakers are structured. In this case, we don't need tiebreakers because the Bills have a better record than the Bengals.

 

[eighsse2]

That's what I've been saying. Some are claiming that it's "not the same" as Bengals/Ravens or Chiefs/Bills, because the Bengals and Bills have played the same number of games ... I don't get what that has to do with anything. The game that was cancelled would have given the Bengals the opportunity to claim the 2 seed over the Bills.

And . . . so what? Every single year the league has to figure out how to seed two teams that didn't play one another head-to-head. This isn't a difficult problem to solve. They go by record, then by conference record, and then by strength of schedule or strength of victory or common opponents or however the various tie-breakers are structured. In this case, we don't need tiebreakers because the Bills have a better record than the Bengals.

Yes, that would be a 100% reasonable response, had they not changed the rules for the Ravens/Bengals, Bills/Chiefs, and Bengals/Chiefs scenarios.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That's what I've been saying. Some are claiming that it's "not the same" as Bengals/Ravens or Chiefs/Bills, because the Bengals and Bills have played the same number of games ... I don't get what that has to do with anything. The game that was cancelled would have given the Bengals the opportunity to claim the 2 seed over the Bills.

And . . . so what? Every single year the league has to figure out how to seed two teams that didn't play one another head-to-head. This isn't a difficult problem to solve. They go by record, then by conference record, and then by strength of schedule or strength of victory or common opponents or however the various tie-breakers are structured. In this case, we don't need tiebreakers because the Bills have a better record than the Bengals.

Yes, that would be a 100% reasonable response, had they not changed the rules for the Ravens/Bengals, Bills/Chiefs, and Bengals/Chiefs scenarios.

Ravens/Bengals -- different number of games.
Bills/Chiefs -- different number of games.
Bengals/Chiefs -- different number of games.
Bengals/Bills -- same number of games.

Look, we get it. You don't like how the league resolved this, and you disagree that "number of games played" should matter. Fine. Take it up with Goodell. The rest of us didn't get a vote on this.

 

[eighsse2]

That's what I've been saying. Some are claiming that it's "not the same" as Bengals/Ravens or Chiefs/Bills, because the Bengals and Bills have played the same number of games ... I don't get what that has to do with anything. The game that was cancelled would have given the Bengals the opportunity to claim the 2 seed over the Bills.

And . . . so what? Every single year the league has to figure out how to seed two teams that didn't play one another head-to-head. This isn't a difficult problem to solve. They go by record, then by conference record, and then by strength of schedule or strength of victory or common opponents or however the various tie-breakers are structured. In this case, we don't need tiebreakers because the Bills have a better record than the Bengals.

Yes, that would be a 100% reasonable response, had they not changed the rules for the Ravens/Bengals, Bills/Chiefs, and Bengals/Chiefs scenarios.

Ravens/Bengals -- different number of games.
Bills/Chiefs -- different number of games.
Bengals/Chiefs -- different number of games.
Bengals/Bills -- same number of games.

Look, we get it. You don't like how the league resolved this, and you disagree that "number of games played" should matter. Fine. Take it up with Goodell. The rest of us didn't get a vote on this.

I don't understand what number of games has got to do with anything. You would think the ultimate problem is "a critical game did not get played, which would have had impacts on several teams' seedings", but apparently the NFL thought the ultimate problem was "some teams played different numbers of games, and we don't know how to figure out which of 14-3 and 13-3 (edit) is the better record".

I'm not going to keep bringing it up, but if it keeps coming up in different conversations, of course I'll state my case. And to be clear, even as a Bengals fan, it's not as much that I'm salty about getting "the short end", as it is annoyance at the reasoning.

 

[eighsse2]

Wait, so if the Bills and Bengals end up playing, they will be at Buffalo?? That seems odd considering all the other provisions that were made, especially considering the winner of that game would be hosting the other team.

It's not odd at all if you paid attention to what was going on last week. The league said plain as day that they're drawing a sharp distinction between (a) teams that played the same number of games and (b) teams that played a different number of games.

The Bill and Bengals played the same number of games. The Bills have a better record. Therefore the Bills get to host the Bengals, as usual.

The Bills and Chiefs did not play the same number of games. The league basically gave the Chiefs 3/4 of the #1 seed -- they got the first round bye and won't have to play in Buffalo. But they don't get to host the AFCCG. If it were up to me, I would have just gone by winning percentage and given the Chiefs the whole thing, but the league didn't ask my opinion on the matter and they arrived at a reasonable spot.

If you really think this is odd, it's because you weren't paying attention. If you simply disagree with the league's reasoning, you should just say so and quit pretending that their reasoning is some kind of inscrutable mystery. It isn't.

Oh, I never heard that. But that's exactly what I disagree with, so that doesn't change anything. It just means that they said something stupid, and then did it.

 

[Miro Z]

What has also been repeated ad nauseum about the league is that their #1 concern was to address the "competitive inequities" created by the cancellation of the game.

The number of games played point cited on the Bills/Bengals ignores the fact that an inequity was created by cancelling a game in which the Bengals were leading and in which had they won they would have hosted a home playoff game against the Bills. In other words, it would only have been fair to separate the Bills/Bengals on the one game difference in their record had the game never been cancelled.

 

[Anarchy99]

What has also been repeated ad nauseum about the league is that their #1 concern was to address the "competitive inequities" created by the cancellation of the game.

The number of games played point cited on the Bills/Bengals ignores the fact that an inequity was created by cancelling a game in which the Bengals were leading and in which had they won they would have hosted a home playoff game against the Bills. In other words, it would only have been fair to separate the Bills/Bengals on the one game difference in their record had the game never been cancelled.

A lot of the points being made are getting repeated. What the league should have done was schedule to complete the game on Wednesday. Either suit up and play . . . or don't. If either team chose not to play, then declare the other team the victor. The NFL rules state that games have to be completed by Wednesday. If they stuck to that rule, then there would not have been a need for alternative proposals, leaguewide votes, coin tosses, neutral fields, etc.

 

[eighsse2]

What has also been repeated ad nauseum about the league is that their #1 concern was to address the "competitive inequities" created by the cancellation of the game.

The number of games played point cited on the Bills/Bengals ignores the fact that an inequity was created by cancelling a game in which the Bengals were leading and in which had they won they would have hosted a home playoff game against the Bills. In other words, it would only have been fair to separate the Bills/Bengals on the one game difference in their record had the game never been cancelled.

A lot of the points being made are getting repeated. What the league should have done was schedule to complete the game on Wednesday. Either suit up and play . . . or don't. If either team chose not to play, then declare the other team the victor. The NFL rules state that games have to be completed by Wednesday. If they stuck to that rule, then there would not have been a need for alternative proposals, leaguewide votes, coin tosses, neutral fields, etc.

Yes.

 

[Gally]

A lot of the points being made are getting repeated. What the league should have done was schedule to complete the game on Wednesday. Either suit up and play . . . or don't. If either team chose not to play, then declare the other team the victor. The NFL rules state that games have to be completed by Wednesday. If they stuck to that rule, then there would not have been a need for alternative proposals, leaguewide votes, coin tosses, neutral fields, etc.

This is exactly what should have happened. I understand the postponement initially as Hamlin's status was emergent and you could see the affect on everyone on the field. Postponing that night was appropriate and understandable. Once Hamlin was stabilized and vitals returning by Tuesday morning it seems reasonable to pickup the game Wednesday as this now is more in line with a major injury situation that happens periodically throughout the year every year. This is where the NFL kind of screwed this up

 

[Miro Z]

I agree they should have rescheduled it for Wednesday as suggested (or even Tuesday).

But the reason they didn't is not because they were incompetent but because they were fearful. They thought they were going to get killed on social media for being heartless if they did (it would have been 'a man is fighting for his life, his team-mates are traumatised, and the heartless NFL is insisting they play, they are putting their financial interests before these young men's mental health') and maybe they were right.

 

[eighsse2]

I agree they should have rescheduled it for Wednesday as suggested (or even Tuesday).

But the reason they didn't is not because they were incompetent but because they were fearful. They thought they were going to get killed on social media for being heartless if they did (it would have been 'a man is fighting for his life, his team-mates are traumatised, and the heartless NFL is insisting they play, they are putting their financial interests before these young men's mental health') and maybe they were right.

Also yes. I hate this world

 

[Anarchy99]

I agree they should have rescheduled it for Wednesday as suggested (or even Tuesday).

But the reason they didn't is not because they were incompetent but because they were fearful. They thought they were going to get killed on social media for being heartless if they did (it would have been 'a man is fighting for his life, his team-mates are traumatised, and the heartless NFL is insisting they play, they are putting their financial interests before these young men's mental health') and maybe they were right.

Tuesday apparently was not a consideration. The Bills planned to fly back to Buffalo after the game, and they did not have hotel reservations for after the game on a holiday weekend. When the game was stopped and not continued, the team waited for everyone to get back from the stadium / hospital to the airport before thew flew back around midnight. By the time players got home, IIRC, it was 1 or 2 in the morning. At that point, making them make the return trip and play on the following day would have been too difficult and (and likely not allowed through the NFLPA and CBA).

One of the biggest issues in all of this is the league went against their own rules and past precedent, and by doing so they created the mess they made of their own volition. Other players suffered tragic injuries or had heart attacks on the field . . . and they kept playing. A player died on the field 50 years ago, and they played out the game. Times are different these days, but the league needed to take the stance that life goes on. Both sides agreed it would have been dangerous to keep playing (and the quality of play would have likely been subpar).

IMO, the Bills wanted to see how their player recovered before committing to play. While that's understandable, it's also a bit unreasonable. Unfortunately for Bengals fans, when CIN said they would go along with whatever the Bills wanted and whatever BUF decided, that left them in a precarious position.

I initially was much more supportive and sympathetic for both teams than I am now. The Bills had the option to finish out the game and it seems like they weren't that interested. The Bengals had the option to press the issue with the league and compel the Bills to either play out the game or forfeit, and they opted not to do that either. At this point, both teams had the power to avoid the way things played out and chose not to. IMO, at that point, both teams lost their right to complain about whatever the outcome was.

 

[Miro Z]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wait, so if the Bills and Bengals end up playing, they will be at Buffalo?? That seems odd considering all the other provisions that were made, especially considering the winner of that game would be hosting the other team.

It's not odd at all if you paid attention to what was going on last week. The league said plain as day that they're drawing a sharp distinction between (a) teams that played the same number of games and (b) teams that played a different number of games.

The Bill and Bengals played the same number of games. The Bills have a better record. Therefore the Bills get to host the Bengals, as usual.

The Bills and Chiefs did not play the same number of games. The league basically gave the Chiefs 3/4 of the #1 seed -- they got the first round bye and won't have to play in Buffalo. But they don't get to host the AFCCG. If it were up to me, I would have just gone by winning percentage and given the Chiefs the whole thing, but the league didn't ask my opinion on the matter and they arrived at a reasonable spot.

If you really think this is odd, it's because you weren't paying attention. If you simply disagree with the league's reasoning, you should just say so and quit pretending that their reasoning is some kind of inscrutable mystery. It isn't.

I don't think ANY of the games should have a neutral site. I think it's dumb.
However, since they DID make those decisions, the most obvious neutral site game should be if Buffalo faces Cincy. As I said, had they played their game, the winner would be hosting the playoff game. The fact Buffalo's record is better right now is irrelevant in that respect.

 

[eighsse2]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

Exactly. But that also may be from the power of social media. "Bengals Insist Bills Continue Playing or Forfeit after Watching their Teammate Likely Pass Away on Field".

 

[Anarchy99]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

Exactly. But that also may be from the power of social media. "Bengals Insist Bills Continue Playing or Forfeit after Watching their Teammate Likely Pass Away on Field".

It likely would not have come to an optics or sensitivity issue on social media. There have been other serious injuries or cardiac events that required players to be revived on the field before. The league never temporarily paused or full out cancelled a game like that before . . . they just moved the player off the field and played out the game. The P.R. spin from the league should have been that they rescheduled the game for Wednesday, and the Bills chose not to participate and took a forfeit instead. It should have had nothing to do with the Bengals at all.

Name any other business, industry, or walk of life. Things might be suspended temporarily, but businesses don't close down for days for a near fatal episode. The Army doesn't give troops a break and say we'll be back in a few days if we feel up to it. A utility company doesn't shut down because there was an accident. I've worked at places where someone passed away suddenly . . . heart attack, accident, suicide, emergency surgery, etc. They didn't even think about closing. There was likely more trauma seeing it play out on a football field. It doesn't make someone heartless or insensitive to hope for the best for someone and support a full recovery, while also suggesting things need to get back to normal.

 

[eighsse2]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

Exactly. But that also may be from the power of social media. "Bengals Insist Bills Continue Playing or Forfeit after Watching their Teammate Likely Pass Away on Field".

It likely would not have come to an optics or sensitivity issue on social media. There have been other serious injuries or cardiac events that required players to be revived on the field before. The league never temporarily paused or full out cancelled a game like that before . . . they just moved the player off the field and played out the game. The P.R. spin from the league should have been that they rescheduled the game for Wednesday, and the Bills chose not to participate and took a forfeit instead. It should have had nothing to do with the Bengals at all.

Name any other business, industry, or walk of life. Things might be suspended temporarily, but businesses don't close down for days for a near fatal episode. The Army doesn't give troops a break and say we'll be back in a few days if we feel up to it. A utility company doesn't shut down because there was an accident. I've worked at places where someone passed away suddenly . . . heart attack, accident, suicide, emergency surgery, etc. They didn't even think about closing. There was likely more trauma seeing it play out on a football field. It doesn't make someone heartless or insensitive to hope for the best for someone and support a full recovery, while also suggesting things need to get back to normal.

This is what I expected to happen while I was watching the game live. My expectation was wrong. So after seeing the reactions from the general public, I feel like there would certainly be some outrage toward Cincinnati, if not a lot, had they not gone over-the-top sensitive about it immediately.

 

[Anarchy99]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

Exactly. But that also may be from the power of social media. "Bengals Insist Bills Continue Playing or Forfeit after Watching their Teammate Likely Pass Away on Field".

It likely would not have come to an optics or sensitivity issue on social media. There have been other serious injuries or cardiac events that required players to be revived on the field before. The league never temporarily paused or full out cancelled a game like that before . . . they just moved the player off the field and played out the game. The P.R. spin from the league should have been that they rescheduled the game for Wednesday, and the Bills chose not to participate and took a forfeit instead. It should have had nothing to do with the Bengals at all.

Name any other business, industry, or walk of life. Things might be suspended temporarily, but businesses don't close down for days for a near fatal episode. The Army doesn't give troops a break and say we'll be back in a few days if we feel up to it. A utility company doesn't shut down because there was an accident. I've worked at places where someone passed away suddenly . . . heart attack, accident, suicide, emergency surgery, etc. They didn't even think about closing. There was likely more trauma seeing it play out on a football field. It doesn't make someone heartless or insensitive to hope for the best for someone and support a full recovery, while also suggesting things need to get back to normal.

This is what I expected to happen while I was watching the game live. My expectation was wrong. So after seeing the reactions from the general public, I feel like there would certainly be some outrage toward Cincinnati, if not a lot, had they not gone over-the-top sensitive about it immediately.

One of my biggest complaints about the NFL is they have a variety of rules depicted in several different places. They are generally often unclear and often contradict each other. There's an NFL rule book, an operations manual, a players' handbook, CBA, salary cap, substance abuse policy, and several other policies and procedures. Some rules have been forwarded to teams piece meal by memo, letter, or email. Some things need to be voted on by teams. Some have to be approved by the NFLPA. Some the commissioner gets to decide. Some things get arbitration, other things don't. And as we just witnessed, they can even make stuff up on the fly.

The point being, the Bengals (admirably wanting to be nice, humane, and do the right thing) should have known they were potentially opening themselves up for an ordeal. Maybe things would go their way, maybe they wouldn't. Granted, they shouldn't have had to get clarification and an agreement in writing BEFORE making a decision on whether to cancel the game, but the practical reality is they should have known better.

If I were the owner / GM / head coach of the Bengals, I would have said to hold off on finishing the game Monday night, but I would have made it clear before everyone left the field that the rules say all games have to be completed by Wednesday. Hope your guy heals up, but see on Wednesday (or not), but we'll be suited up and ready to go. And I CERTAINLY would have said no way, no how should CIN end up worse off for A BILLS PLAYER having a life-threatening incident. But yet here we are, everything that happened since MNF went away from the various rules, and this is where we ended up (sadly).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Bills refused to play, the difficult but correct response from the officials would have been to announce they forfeited. I think the Bengals were guilty of being too humane and were perhaps a little naive. When the Bills refused to play and a suspension was discussed, the Bengals were apparently under the impression the game would be continued Wednesday. They should have extracted an agreement it would continue before okaying the suspension. After all, they were up and driving and at home, they were in a pretty good position for the #2 seed, they shouldn't have surrendered that without clarity about what happened next.

Exactly. But that also may be from the power of social media. "Bengals Insist Bills Continue Playing or Forfeit after Watching their Teammate Likely Pass Away on Field".

It likely would not have come to an optics or sensitivity issue on social media. There have been other serious injuries or cardiac events that required players to be revived on the field before. The league never temporarily paused or full out cancelled a game like that before . . . they just moved the player off the field and played out the game. The P.R. spin from the league should have been that they rescheduled the game for Wednesday, and the Bills chose not to participate and took a forfeit instead. It should have had nothing to do with the Bengals at all.

Name any other business, industry, or walk of life. Things might be suspended temporarily, but businesses don't close down for days for a near fatal episode. The Army doesn't give troops a break and say we'll be back in a few days if we feel up to it. A utility company doesn't shut down because there was an accident. I've worked at places where someone passed away suddenly . . . heart attack, accident, suicide, emergency surgery, etc. They didn't even think about closing. There was likely more trauma seeing it play out on a football field. It doesn't make someone heartless or insensitive to hope for the best for someone and support a full recovery, while also suggesting things need to get back to normal.

I mostly agree with you, but the Bengals organization would not have wanted to replay this game any more than the Bills did. If I'm Zach Taylor, how come my team has to play a game on Wednesday night and then turn around and play again on Sunday right before the playoffs, when it was the other team that refused to continue on Monday?

If a tornado blows through the stadium or some other act of God makes it impossible to continue play, hey those are the breaks. But that's not what happened here. One team took a moment, thought it over, and made an informed, rational decision not to return to the field. That's an understandable decision. I'm happy to defend it even if it probably isn't the decision that I would have made if I was there. We just shouldn't treat a choice variable as an act of God when it clearly isn't.

In the future, the policy should be that play resumes. Period. If a team chooses not to continue, that's on the them and they take the loss. No rescheduling that screws up things for the other team.

(Edit: To address the post that you made right above mine, the Bengals shouldn't have to be ***holes while a player is laying lifeless on the field to protect their rights. That's why we have a league office. They need to be the enforcers so that teams don't have to be.)