(01-06-2023, 01:19 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: That is my point when the post referenced KC and us defeating them, we screwed ourselves also since KC had a better winning % if though we beat them.. that is the point I was making, if we are going to say we should win the division on body of work than we should not complain about KC or Buffalo body of work that is better than ours.. correct ?

If KC wins on Saturday, then their body of work is better than the Bengals. Then there are no issues as far as I am concerned.

But if KC loses on Saturday, then no one can say their body of work is better than the Bengals, because the Bengals, if they had that home game against Buffalo, could have equaled KC record. Indeed, if that happened, the Bengals would have had the tiebreaker with KC.  

So, then, why does the league require that a potential Bengals-KC game, if involving the 2 vs 3 seed, take place in Arrowhead? That is a very unfair and biased decision on the part of the league. And opposite their policy for a Bengals-Ravens game.

It is a policy that would be set in stone that totally favors the Chiefs to the detriment of the Bengals. A shocking departure from the Bengals-Ravens decision, to be honest.

(01-06-2023, 01:27 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: but you agree that by your logic with us having a better % percentage than Ravens,.  it also makes sense that KC and Buffalo would be ahead of us.. too many people are trying to put us on the same line as KC and Buffalo coming into the weekend and we are not.  I said I thought the Bengals should get the division but I also understand that the Ravens were the 4th team most impacted by the no contest so though I am not total agreement my gut is this is one area where the owners today might vote out the coin flip..  

The neutral field is a way to level out the no contest, i understand their reasoning,

The NFL is playing the hypothetical with Buffalo and KC and saying it should be neut field based on "what if" that could have happened Monday. The Bengals aren't getting that same treatment. They should be included in the neut field divisional and championship game. 

If we are being honest, the NFL should not be making up any kind of rules on the fly. They should call the game a no contest, do everything based off of win % and just move on. Sucks for Bengals, Bills, and Ravens but it is what it as at that point. Every team gets shafted to some degree. I hope this is what they eventually do.  

The NFL is a bunch of ***** though and the ONLY reason they aren't doing that is because they want to games this weekend to matter. You go off winning % and half the games this weekend don't matter. NFL is scum.

(01-06-2023, 01:35 PM)Nepa Wrote: If KC wins on Saturday, then their body of work is better than the Bengals. Then there are no issues as far as I am concerned.

But if KC loses on Saturday, then no one can say their body of work is better than the Bengals, because the Bengals, if they had that home game against Buffalo, could have equaled KC record. Indeed, if that happened, the Bengals would have had the tiebreaker with KC.  

So, then, why does the league require that a potential Bengals-KC game, if involving the 2 vs 3 seed, take place in Arrowhead? That is a very unfair and biased decision on the part of the league. And opposite their policy for a Bengals-Ravens game.

It is a policy that would be set in stone that totally favors the Chiefs to the detriment of the Bengals. A shocking departure from the Bengals-Ravens decision, to be honest.

It doesn't. 

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.

(01-06-2023, 01:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's not inconsistent, based on what KC does. 

If they lose and Buffalo wins, they play neutral because the Bills "could" have won in Cincy and tied them, with tiebreak winners.
If they and Buffal lose and the Bengals win, they play neutral because the Bengals "could" have won against Buffalo and tied them both, with tiebreak winners. 

It is absolutely inconsistent based on what KC does under a scenario that you have not addressed.

It is inconsistent if KC loses, the Bills win, and the Bengals win. Because then KC has a half-game lead over the Bengals, but the Bengals could have tied KC (and won the tiebreaker) if the Bengals had beat the Bills in the MNF game. But the league decided that if KC has a half-game lead over the Bengals in the case of KC  being the 2 seed and Bengals the 3 seed, that that game will be in Arrowhead.

It is opposite the decision made in terms of the Ravens, and in terms of Buffalo-KC.

(01-06-2023, 01:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It doesn't. 

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.

By that scenario, the Bengals would be seeded 2nd, the chiefs 1s, and Buffalo third. That is the ONLY scenario where the Bengals get a neutral field.

The Bengals do not get a neutral field if the Chiefs are seeded 2nd and the Bengals 3rd, despite the Bengals having the same number of losses. I.e. the chiefs lose, the Bengals win, and Buffalo wins. 

That is a totally inconsistent policy on the part of the NFL. it is opposite of the Ravens decision and opposite of the Buffalo and KC getting a neutral field if they are separated by a half game.

(01-06-2023, 01:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It doesn't. 

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.

So why is Buffalo and Cincinnati not at a neut site if they meet in the divisional game? INCONSISTENT. 

(01-06-2023, 01:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It doesn't. 

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.

It does.  What I stated is absolutely the proposal:  I.e., "so, then, why does the league require that a potential Bengals-KC game, if involving the 2 vs 3 seed, take place in Arrowhead? "

And that is despite the Bengals winning against the Ravens and the Bengals having the same number of losses as KC.

The biggest problem is have besides being forced to play starters Sunday is potentially having to go to Buffalo if both teams win the next two games. We are giving all parties the benefit of the game not being played except that scenario. Which doesn't make sense to me at all.

(01-06-2023, 01:42 PM)Nepa Wrote: It is absolutely inconsistent based on what KC does under a scenario that you have not addressed.

It is inconsistent if KC loses, the Bills win, and the Bengals win. Because then KC has a half-game lead over the Bengals, but the Bengals could have tied KC (and won the tiebreaker) if the Bengals had beat the Bills in the MNF game. But the league decided that if KC has a half-game lead over the Bengals in the case of KC  being the 2 seed and Bengals the 3 seed, that that game will be in Arrowhead.

It is opposite the decision made in terms of the Ravens, and in terms of Buffalo-KC.

It's my understanding that the neutral site and if's only come into play for the championship round. Everything in the WC and division round is based on %s, with the exception of a Bengals loss to the Ravens which results in a coin flip. That is definitely not equal. 

So, if we're talking about potential AFCCG matches, it's fair, considering what a Bengals win does, while not being unfair if the Bengals lose...what is, as you pointed out, unfair is the %s for everyone but the Bengals, if the Bengals lose. 

I was talking about what happens if Bengals, Bills or Chiefs are in the AFCCG. 

(01-06-2023, 01:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It doesn't. 

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.

That should be easy enough..... this is a total cluster, I don't get how anyone could defend this garbage.

(01-06-2023, 01:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's not inconsistent, based on what KC does. 

If they lose and Buffalo wins, they play neutral because the Bills "could" have won in Cincy and tied them, with tiebreak winners.
If they and Buffal lose and the Bengals win, they play neutral because the Bengals "could" have won against Buffalo and tied them both, with tiebreak winners. 

That is the problem with all of this... it only factors in "Bills could have won", where is the consideration that the "Bengals could have won"???????

(01-06-2023, 01:50 PM)Nepa Wrote: By that scenario, the Bengals would be seeded 2nd, the chiefs 1s, and Buffalo third. That is the ONLY scenario where the Bengals get a neutral field.

The Bengals do not get a neutral field if the Chiefs are seeded 2nd and the Bengals 3rd, despite the Bengals having the same number of losses. I.e. the chiefs lose, the Bengals win, and Buffalo wins. 

That is a totally inconsistent policy on the part of the NFL. it is opposite of the Ravens decision and opposite of the Buffalo and KC getting a neutral field if they are separated by a half game.

I don't meant this towards you but holey shit, this is all making my head hurt. It's kind of a never ending debate because they're "consistent" in everyone playing by percentages in the divisional round but playing by "if's" in the championship round.

There's a valid argument to be made about playing by percentages or if's for both rounds.

It's all so muddled and ****** up...i'm about done with it. Again, no disrespect to you, i'm just over it at this point. 

(01-06-2023, 02:06 PM)casear2727 Wrote: That is the problem with all of this... it only factors in "Bills could have won", where is the consideration that the "Bengals could have won"???????

If it's possible that all 3 teams could end up with a tied record, the 'Bengals could have won' is considered.

Buffalo vs KC -> Neutral Site
Bengals vs KC -> Neutral Site

One of the things NOT considered is if the Championship game ends up Cincy vs Buffalo, why is that game not at a neutral site? If both Buffalo and Cincinnati win this weekend, Cincinnati COULD HAVE been #2 by beating Buffalo last Monday. But the NFL is, instead, saying that the winning percentage, 13-3 is better than 12-4. That game should ALSO be at a neutral site.

(01-06-2023, 02:03 PM)casear2727 Wrote: That should be easy enough..... this is a total cluster, I don't get how anyone could defend this garbage.

Total cluster. But is it really surprising, considering?

(01-06-2023, 01:59 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: The biggest problem is have besides being forced to play starters Sunday is potentially having to go to Buffalo if both teams win the next two games. We are giving all parties the benefit of the game not being played except that scenario. Which doesn't make sense to me at all.

For the neutral site involving KC, Buffalo and Cincinnati.... let's just play at the other stadium.

KC vs Buffalo @ Cincinnati
KC vs Cincinnati @ Buffalo
Buffalo vs Cincinnati @ KC

Let's really get the fans of all these teams upset! :) 

(01-06-2023, 01:27 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: ...too many people are trying to put us on the same line as KC and Buffalo coming into the weekend and we are not...

Coming into this past weekend they pretty much were.


K.C. was the #2 seed and needed to win their last 2 games plus have Cincinnati or NE beat Buffalo to be #1

Cincinnati was #3 and needed to win their last 2 games plus have K.C. lose 1 of their last 2 games to be the #1

Buffalo was #1 and needed to win their last 2 games including obviously the game in Cincinnati they were losing before it was canceled to get the #1.

No doubt the Bengals are getting screwed by the NFL

K.C.  is making out like a bandit.  

(01-06-2023, 02:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I don't meant this towards you but holey shit, this is all making my head hurt. It's kind of a never ending debate because they're "consistent" in everyone playing by percentages in the divisional round but playing by "if's" in the championship round.

There's a valid argument to be made about playing by percentages or if's for both rounds.

It's all so muddled and ****** up...i'm about done with it. Again, no disrespect to you, i'm just over it at this point. 

Yeah, sorry again. I'm peeved at the league, not you in any shape or form. I apologize for my emotional reactions.

But I think someone needs to stand up and publicly point out the hypocrisy of this ruling. I doubt the league would change it, because the Chief fans would scream bloody murder if they had to flip a coin, or play in a neutral site, against the Bengals in a 2 vs 3 game if the Bengals end up 12-4 and the Chiefs 13-4. But at least the public should see how unfair this is to the Bengals. I feel like we're being walked on out of fear of the wrath of the Chief fans or the sympathy toward the Bills.

(01-06-2023, 02:16 PM)Bbeagle Wrote: If it's possible that all 3 teams could end up with a tied record, the 'Bengals could have won' is considered.

Buffalo vs KC -> Neutral Site
Bengals vs KC -> Neutral Site

One of the things NOT considered is if the Championship game ends up Cincy vs Buffalo, why is that game not at a neutral site? If both Buffalo and Cincinnati win this weekend, Cincinnati COULD HAVE been #2 by beating Buffalo last Monday. But the NFL is, instead, saying that the winning percentage, 13-3 is better than 12-4. That game should ALSO be at a neutral site.

Exactly, the Chiefs are gifted the #1 seed and bye - which doesnt bother me too much as the Bills were getting beat Monday, but the Bills are gifted the 2nd round home game vs the Bengals.

(01-06-2023, 02:19 PM)Bbeagle Wrote: For the neutral site involving KC, Buffalo and Cincinnati.... let's just play at the other stadium.

KC vs Buffalo @ Cincinnati
KC vs Cincinnati @ Buffalo
Buffalo vs Cincinnati @ KC

Let's really get the fans of all these teams upset! :) 

It wouldn't solve anything, but I weirdly like this idea haha. Would be like the ultimate s**thousing towards whoever misses out.

(01-06-2023, 02:16 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Total cluster. But is it really surprising, considering?

Of course not it's us...