https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-botched-the-handling-of-bengals-bills-divisional-playoff-game-why-it-should-be-at-a-neutral-site/

See fans, not everyone is against us. Here some of it:


"If you're going to make a drastic change to the postseason, you want to make sure it's fair to everyone, but the NFL apparently forgot that the Bengals exist because the playoff changes definitely weren't fair to them. 

Back on Jan. 6, the league's 32 owners voted on two new postseason rules that mostly impacted just four teams (Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, Ravens). Of those four teams, only one got the short end of the stick: The Bengals. 
It seems that a few owners realized that the new rules weren't fair, which might explain why the proposal only passed by ONE vote. It needed 24 votes to pass and it got 25 (According to NBC Sports, the Bengals, Bears and Dolphins voted against it while the Chiefs, Bills, Raiders and Chargers all abstained). "

Thoughts?

(01-19-2023, 06:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-botched-the-handling-of-bengals-bills-divisional-playoff-game-why-it-should-be-at-a-neutral-site/

See fans, not everyone is against us. Here some of it:


"If you're going to make a drastic change to the postseason, you want to make sure it's fair to everyone, but the NFL apparently forgot that the Bengals exist because the playoff changes definitely weren't fair to them. 

Back on Jan. 6, the league's 32 owners voted on two new postseason rules that mostly impacted just four teams (Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, Ravens). Of those four teams, only one got the short end of the stick: The Bengals. 
It seems that a few owners realized that the new rules weren't fair, which might explain why the proposal only passed by ONE vote. It needed 24 votes to pass and it got 25 (According to NBC Sports, the Bengals, Bears and Dolphins voted against it while the Chiefs, Bills, Raiders and Chargers all abstained). "

Thoughts?

Is he related to Jim Breech? 

Of course it should be at a neutral site. 

I kind feel like the general consensus has been we got screwed.

Saying not everyone is against us seems to imply otherwise.

(01-19-2023, 06:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-botched-the-handling-of-bengals-bills-divisional-playoff-game-why-it-should-be-at-a-neutral-site/

See fans, not everyone is against us. Here some of it:


"If you're going to make a drastic change to the postseason, you want to make sure it's fair to everyone, but the NFL apparently forgot that the Bengals exist because the playoff changes definitely weren't fair to them. 

Back on Jan. 6, the league's 32 owners voted on two new postseason rules that mostly impacted just four teams (Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, Ravens). Of those four teams, only one got the short end of the stick: The Bengals. 
It seems that a few owners realized that the new rules weren't fair, which might explain why the proposal only passed by ONE vote. It needed 24 votes to pass and it got 25 (According to NBC Sports, the Bengals, Bears and Dolphins voted against it while the Chiefs, Bills, Raiders and Chargers all abstained). "

Thoughts?

My takeaway from that is a big WTF to Buffalo. Buffalo abstained.....really?
If anything the Bills should have shut it down immediately. It was our game during the season that was directly affected and they had to of seen how screwed the Bengals were getting in the playoff scenarios. Just weak.

(01-19-2023, 06:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-botched-the-handling-of-bengals-bills-divisional-playoff-game-why-it-should-be-at-a-neutral-site/

See fans, not everyone is against us. Here some of it:


"If you're going to make a drastic change to the postseason, you want to make sure it's fair to everyone, but the NFL apparently forgot that the Bengals exist because the playoff changes definitely weren't fair to them. 

Back on Jan. 6, the league's 32 owners voted on two new postseason rules that mostly impacted just four teams (Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, Ravens). Of those four teams, only one got the short end of the stick: The Bengals. 
It seems that a few owners realized that the new rules weren't fair, which might explain why the proposal only passed by ONE vote. It needed 24 votes to pass and it got 25 (According to NBC Sports, the Bengals, Bears and Dolphins voted against it while the Chiefs, Bills, Raiders and Chargers all abstained). "

Thoughts?

(01-19-2023, 07:01 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Is he related to Jim Breech? 

Of course it should be at a neutral site. 

Jim Breech's son may not be the most non-biased guy on TV, very glad he made the statement though.

Absolutely it should be played at a neutral stadium and anybody with any commonsense at all would agree.

Hope the Bengals and Jax win and cause them to refund all those neutral site tickets they sold for their Chiefs vs Bills part 2 game they seem to want

(01-19-2023, 07:10 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Absolutely it should be played at a neutral stadium and anybody with any commonsense at all would agree.

Hope the Bengals and Jax win and cause them to refund all those neutral site tickets they sold for their Chiefs vs Bills part 2 game they seem to want

Bengals & Jags winning would be the best "Up Yours" to the League in years....

I'd bet a million dollars they do not want that result.

I am so rooting for a Bengals vs Jaguars AFCC game. Not because it would the easiest, not because we'd have home field, but because it would be the biggest "FU" to the NFL.

No doubt a Jags/Bengals AFCCG would absolutely devastate the fine people who work at 345 Park Ave in Manhattan.

Nothing against the writer but to publish the story way to late to make an impact on the choices then its just fake sympathy. Last week it was about the coin toss this week about the neutral field. These stories of support should have been coming out the first few days after the Monday night game not now. Fake sympathy that they can shove up their fake *** IMO.

(01-19-2023, 07:10 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Absolutely it should be played at a neutral stadium and anybody with any commonsense at all would agree.

Hope the Bengals and Jax win and cause them to refund all those neutral site tickets they sold for their Chiefs vs Bills part 2 game they seem to want

That would be awesome!!!! Hope this happens. I’m still mad over this. I know more than normal things have been going our way the past 2 years but damn some bad luck still lingers. Finally make it back to the SB and we play a team in their stadium. Now all this neutral site crap, league just completely ignored the fact we were on track for the #2 seed. Not to mention making it the whole season with a healthy line that was jellin only to limp into the playoffs with perhaps a worse line than last year. Tons of pressure on this team this time around. Sucks we’re not playing Buff here or a neutral site but the good thing is…They have to play us. Let’s kick some ass and cancel some sequels.

Praying for a Jaguars/Bengals AFC Championship. I wouldn't even be terribly mad if we lost the game and the Jags won it all
after this. Agree with everyone, this is late too as Bong said so it doesn't really matter that much, also don't like that the Bills
didn't have our back to make it fair but I heard abstaining was about the same as shutting it down...

I could be wrong though and the Bills are not our bros like Rfaulk says and he is right a lot of the time!

No sense beating dead horses. Just win!

(01-19-2023, 11:33 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Praying for a Jaguars/Bengals AFC Championship. I wouldn't even be terribly mad if we lost the game and the Jags won it all
after this. Agree with everyone, this is late too as Bong said so it doesn't really matter that much, also don't like that the Bills
didn't have our back to make it fair but I heard abstaining was about the same as shutting it down...

I could be wrong though and the Bills are not our bros like Rfaulk says and he is right a lot of the time!

Them abstaining is the same as voting against it. It took 25 teams to say yes. Bills were not one of the 25.

(01-19-2023, 09:54 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Nothing against the writer but to publish the story way to late to make an impact on the choices then its just fake sympathy. Last week it was about the coin toss this week about the neutral field. These stories of support should have been coming out the first few days after the Monday night game not now. Fake sympathy that they can shove up their fake ***  IMO.

Personally, I see it as not letting the issue just die.  We live in a very fast and short-lived news cycle.  Keeping things as part of the conversation is probably good instead of letting it slide.  Some pressure should remain on the league for this nonsense.  I didn't read the article in full honesty, but I don't know that just showing up late is false sympathy.  And I don't think publishing this when the league was calling their vote and making up their own plan would have made any difference in the decision.  

That said, from a typical fan perspective as well as the team, nothing can be done, just go in and spoil the party in NY.  

(01-19-2023, 09:54 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Nothing against the writer but to publish the story way to late to make an impact on the choices then its just fake sympathy. Last week it was about the coin toss this week about the neutral field. These stories of support should have been coming out the first few days after the Monday night game not now. Fake sympathy that they can shove up their fake ***  IMO.

Agree.  I was joking, but when people told me that the game was till a toss-up when it was called, I responded "then we should agree that if the Bengals meet the Bills in the playoffs, the game should start with the Bengals up 7-3 with a first down in Bills territory with (6?) minutes left in the first quarter.  If you think that's unfair then the game wasn't a toss-up.

(01-19-2023, 07:13 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Bengals & Jags winning would be the best "Up Yours" to the League in years....

I'd bet a million dollars they do not want that result.

(01-19-2023, 09:21 PM)Brandon00151 Wrote: I am so rooting for a Bengals vs Jaguars AFCC game. Not because it would the easiest, not because we'd have home field, but because it would be the biggest "FU" to the NFL.

(01-19-2023, 09:36 PM)JumboTron Wrote: No doubt a Jags/Bengals AFCCG would absolutely devastate the fine people who work at 345 Park Ave in Manhattan.

(01-19-2023, 11:33 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Praying for a Jaguars/Bengals AFC Championship. I wouldn't even be terribly mad if we lost the game and the Jags won it all
after this. Agree with everyone, this is late too as Bong said so it doesn't really matter that much, also don't like that the Bills
didn't have our back to make it fair but I heard abstaining was about the same as shutting it down...

I could be wrong though and the Bills are not our bros like Rfaulk says and he is right a lot of the time!

I am rooting as hard for the Jaguars to beat the Chiefs tomorrow as I'm rooting for our guys to beat the Bills.

(01-20-2023, 01:29 AM)Ell Prez Wrote: Them abstaining is the same as voting against it. It took 25 teams to say yes. Bills were not one of the 25.

Is this true? Thought I read it needed 24 votes to pass (sounds like a 75% pass). Meaning not voting would work in our favor.

I'm truly unsure on this.

I agree. You guys got screwed. I think this game could’ve been played at a neutral site and I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. But if that were the case, the Bills would’ve been ultra screwed

We went into the game controlling our own destiny. The game wasn’t played……and we lost control of our own destiny. If that’s not being screwed, I don’t know what is

It was a situation where someone was going to get screwed unless the game was played. This way, we got screwed in the battle for the #1 seed and you guys got screwed in the battle for the #2 seed. As it played out Cinci never had a chance at the #1 seed.

I think the only way to make things right would’ve been to eliminate the extra week before the SB, push the playoffs back a week and have had Cinci and Buffalo play the game last week. The NFL decided their pro bowl money was too much to lose. Sadly

(01-20-2023, 02:09 PM)R3stangs Wrote: Is this true? Thought I read it needed 24 votes to pass (sounds like a 75% pass). Meaning not voting would work in our favor.

I'm truly unsure on this.

You are correct and, so, abstaining was basically voting 'No'