Updated scenario for scheduling to be voted on Friday

[Zerovoltz]

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

That's overall win percentage if I'm reading it correctly.  The last thing NFL owners want is to vote against a new rule proposal that would be viewed as unfair to a team whose player almost died on the field.  Not great optics.

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment.  I am sure all this is moving forward because there is momentum among the vast majority of owners to make rule changes in season due to these circumstances.

 

Again....the best solution would have been to play the games on the field....I understand they are trying to make this as fair as they can even as there is no 100 pct fair way to do it.  

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment.  I am sure all this is moving forward because there is momentum among the vast majority of owners to make rule changes in season due to these circumstances.

 

Again....the best solution would have been to play the games on the field....I understand they are trying to make this as fair as they can even as there is no 100 pct fair way to do it.  

I'd be most upset if I was a Bengals fan.  They had the ability to win the division and the number two seed in their hands before the MNF game.  Now they might not even get to host a playoff game if they lose against the Ravens and lose a coin flip despite technically winning the division.  They also lost the ability to host the Bills in the divisional round if the Bills beat the Pats.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Doc Brown

[BobbyC81]

2 hours ago, The 9 Isles said:

From Tom Pelissero:

 

https://twitter.com/tompelissero/status/1611184918670807041?s=46&t=RrhAPVYRUD6gwIBnYR-f9Q

 

NFL clubs will consider Friday in a Special League Meeting a resolution recommended by the Commissioner and approved today by the Competition Committee, governing both the AFC Championship Game and ramifications on the AFC North winners. Here’s the two-part resolution:

 

1. The AFC Championship Game will be played at a neutral site if the participating teams played an unequal number of games and both could have been the number one seed and hosted the game had all AFC clubs played a full 17-game regular season. Those circumstances involve Buffalo or Cincinnati qualifying for the game as a road team and are listed below:

Scenario 1

Buffalo and Kansas City both win or both tie - a Buffalo vs Kansas City championship game would be at a neutral site.

Scenario 2

Buffalo and Kansas Cit both lose and Baltimore wins or ties - a Buffalo vs Kansas

City championship game would be at a neutral site.

Scenario 3

Buffalo and Kansas City both lose and Cincinnati wins - a Buffalo or Cincinnati vs

Kansas City championship game would be at a neutral site.

2. If Baltimore defeats Cincinnati in Week 18 it will have defeated Cincinnati, a divisional opponent, twice but will not be able to host a playoff game because Cincinnati will have a higher winning percentage for a 16-game schedule than Baltimore will for a 17-game schedule.

If Baltimore defeats Cincinnati and if those two clubs are schedule to play a Wild Card game against one another, the site for that game would be determined by a coin toss. If Cincinnati wins the Week 18 game or if Baltimore and Cincinnati are not scheduled to play one another in the Wild Card round, the game sites would be determined by the regular scheduling procedures.

"As we considered the football schedule, our principles have been to limit disruption across the league and minimize competitive inequities," Goodell said. "I recognize that there is no perfect solution. The proposal we are asking the ownership to consider, however, addresses the most significant potential equitable issues created by the difficult, but necessary, decision not to play the game under these extraordinary circumstances

Even though it’s better than losing out on #1 seed because this game was canceled, it still would be weird for AFC title game to be at neutral site.  Of course, the Super Bowl is always at a “neutral site”, except when the team that plays in that stadium makes it.  So, I’m OK with this solution.

 

Then, if the Bills beat New England and KC loses to the Raiders, a Buffalo/Cincy or KC AFC title game would be played in Orchard Park.  
 

So, my guess would be that KC votes No on this.  If Mark Davis continues the family tradition, he’ll either vote No or abstain.

[BruceVilanch]

[LeGOATski]

If the AFCCG is at a neutral site, it better be outdoors. All the top seeded teams play outdoors.

[Zerovoltz]

One positive for KC...Mahomes is better AWAY from Arrowhead.  So there is that.

[Gugny]

7 minutes ago, Zerovoltz said:

One positive for KC...Mahomes is better AWAY from Arrowhead.  So there is that.

 

That's great.  You should go celebrate with fellow Chiefs fans.

[Dr.Sack]

I don’t see a Time Machine option. 

[Saxum]

4 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

Obviously, I think all of us wish the Bengals/Bills game could be concluded so there would be no question of who should or shouldn't get what.  No one wants an asterik next to their team name in the event they win a super bowl.  

 

 

New England gets one for every Superbowl. The rings should be designed so an asterisk* is prominent part of design. 

 

[Xwnyer]

Just make sure the neutral site is not Detroit or New Orleans the turf in both of those domes is dangerous 

[K D]

6 hours ago, Zerovoltz said:

 

Adding an extra team screws teams that made some IR choices, QB choices etc, thinking they were done...if 8 was on the table last week, the Raiders, Jets, Titans, Ravens ALL may well have done A WHOLE lot of things differently.  

 

So your argument is there were teams not trying to win? I'm sure the NFL would love to hear that. Not a valid excuse. Adding an extra team is good for everyone and takes away the bye which nobody rightfully earned 

[K D]

6 hours ago, Thrivefourfive said:

What ifff… Chiefs 14-3, Bills 13-3,

Bengals 12-4

 

KC gets the bye as the 1 seed, but Buffalo Hosts the AFCCG because they kicked their ass earlier in the year, and are gonna kick their asses again in late Jan. 
 

How bout that?

Even this would be better than what they proposed. KC should not come out ahead in any situation.

 

It should be either or. Either KC gets the bye or they get home field advantage and Bills get whatever they don't choose. And any game between Buffalo and Cinci is at a neutral site (assuming KC wins Sunday and eliminates them from having had a chance at the 1 seed).

 

So to summarize:

*KC would get bye

*Bills get home field

*Cinci would be eliminated from 1 seed contention by KC win anyhow but any game between them and Buffalo should be neutral site

 

Simple and fair

Edited January 6, 2023 by KDIGGZ

[KHAN]

I get that there will be strong, and many negative opinions on this idea. But the league seems to be trying to come up with the best scenario that is the "most fair" for all teams involved.

 

I think that all we can ask for, and just want resolution so we know the path forward, and can get back to business.

[UKBillFan]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'd be most upset if I was a Bengals fan.  They had the ability to win the division and the number two seed in their hands before the MNF game.  Now they might not even get to host a playoff game if they lose against the Ravens and lose a coin flip despite technically winning the division.  They also lost the ability to host the Bills in the divisional round if the Bills beat the Pats.

If the Bengals lose to the Ravens, it will mean they would have been swept by them this year. If I was a Bengals fan I’d be more annoyed with the players and staff for allowing that to happen, then the subsequent fall out. One argument against the Chiefs being given the number one seed is both the Bills and Bengals beat them. The Bengals get the AFC North title despite being swept by the Ravens? And, if the Bills had beaten the Bengals on Monday (difficult, but not an impossibility) the Ravens would have won the division with a win over the Bengals.

[BRH]

6 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

Even though it’s better than losing out on #1 seed because this game was canceled, it still would be weird for AFC title game to be at neutral site.  Of course, the Super Bowl is always at a “neutral site”, except when the team that plays in that stadium makes it.  So, I’m OK with this solution.

 

Then, if the Bills beat New England and KC loses to the Raiders, a Buffalo/Cincy or KC AFC title game would be played in Orchard Park.  
 

So, my guess would be that KC votes No on this.  If Mark Davis continues the family tradition, he’ll either vote No or abstain.

It would be just like the Chiefs to vote against something because it doesn’t give them EVERYTHING. 
 

They are terrified of playing anywhere but Arrowhead.  And they should be. 
 

Edited January 6, 2023 by BRH

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:

If the Bengals lose to the Ravens, it will mean they would have been swept by them this year. If I was a Bengals fan I’d be more annoyed with the players and staff for allowing that to happen, then the subsequent fall out. One argument against the Chiefs being given the number one seed is both the Bills and Bengals beat them. The Bengals get the AFC North title despite being swept by the Ravens? And, if the Bills had beaten the Bengals on Monday (difficult, but not an impossibility) the Ravens would have won the division with a win over the Bengals.

I guess my most major gripe if I was a Bengals fan would be being denied the chance to control their own destiny of being the two seed by beating us.  Thus, not getting a divisional home playoff game if we both win our WC games and having to travel to Orchard Park.  The one thing the NFL could've done differently is maybe making a possible AFC Divisional game against us and the Bengals a neutral site if we both win on Sunday.  We'd be pushing for the same thing if we were in their shoes.

[zow2]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'd be most upset if I was a Bengals fan.  They had the ability to win the division and the number two seed in their hands before the MNF game.  Now they might not even get to host a playoff game if they lose against the Ravens and lose a coin flip despite technically winning the division.  They also lost the ability to host the Bills in the divisional round if the Bills beat the Pats.

 

Their fanbase went from being sympathetic to very angry. Can’t say i blame them. But they are kind of assuming that up 7-3 and driving they would’ve beaten the Bills.

I to view it from the other side. What if Buffalo was in Cincinnati shoes?  How would we feel?

[UKBillFan]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I guess my most major gripe if I was a Bengals fan would be being denied the chance to control their own destiny of being the two seed by beating us.  Thus, not getting a divisional home playoff game if we both win our WC games and having to travel to Orchard Park.  The one thing the NFL could've done differently is maybe making a possible AFC Divisional game against us and the Bengals a neutral site if we both win on Sunday.  We'd be pushing for the same thing if we were in their shoes.

I thought they had? I’ll have to go back and read through the agreement but I concur - if the Bills and Bengals meet in the play offs it should be at a neutral venue.

[babulator]

And of course the Raiders are gonna be raiders and bench Carr.

 

Great.

[Stretch]

Stidham looked better than Carr as of late.  That game will be a one possession toss up.  Take the 9.5 points all day.