New NFL consideration for Bills-Bengals game and

[Sled21]

(01-04-2023, 01:58 PM)Ell Prez Wrote: If they delete a game for Baltimore and it’s an L, that puts them at 10-6. Say they beat us this weekend. They’re 11-6 and we’re 11-6. They beat us twice head to head. They win afcn. They absolutely should be involved in this scenario. Same for Pitt, miami, NE. Any team on the bubble or who could improve their seeding. It’s too much to decide based on luck.

They need to play the game, some how some way. At this point, I’d even be open to a FG kicking contest to pick a winner. im joking, but to have the playoffs decided by drawling numbers is ridiculous.

We all felt like Bengals were going to win Monday night. Anyone think we would lose this Sunday to Baltimore for the chance to win #1 or #2 seed? We will all be pissed if we lose round 1 or round 2 in the playoffs, on the road, when we should have had a home game or bye.

If they delete a game for Baltimore, I think it needs to be a W, not an L

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 02:01 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair on the advantage.
You could push Week 18 back by 1 week to Week 19 then and have Bengals-Bills the only game this weekend.

Frankly, I don't care about the money-maker part of these things, as I think it's all greed. But I guess some do, so I get your point.

Its not just the NFL making money but the huge number of vendors that have been ramping up for months to service the 2 week SB event.

I absolutely do not like giving our playoff opponent 2 weeks to prepare for us.

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 02:07 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If they delete a game for Baltimore, I think it needs to be a W, not an L

They would only delete a game from the Ravens if they beat us and it has to be random.

[Sled21]

(01-04-2023, 02:07 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Its not just the NFL making money but the huge number of vendors that have been ramping up for months to service the 2 week SB event.

I absolutely do not like giving our playoff opponent 2 weeks to prepare for us.

Tell those teams they are not allowed to be at their facility, practice or meet during that extra week

[Science Friction]

Why use random numbers when the damn rulebook says precisely(reschedule within two days or the following Tuesday) what Goodell is supposed to do?

[KillerGoose]

(01-04-2023, 02:09 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Why use random numbers when the damn rulebook says precisely(reschedule within two days or the following Tuesday) what Goodell is supposed to do?

Because the rulebook also essentially says that Goodell can do whatever he wants.

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 01:40 PM)Ell Prez Wrote: This is the dumbest idea ever. Why stop at only KC, Buffalo, cinci. Randomly delete a game from all playoff and potential play off teams. What if ravnens beat us, and they randomly picked a game for Baltimore to throw out and it was a L. Now they become AFCN champs.

They should have played the game Wednesday. Literally was the most logical scenario. The bills and bengals play 4 days after Wednesday either way. So 4 days is the magic number to cope with all of this?

If we would have gotten beat by the Bills it would be the same thing.


It would be difficult to have teams playing 2 games in 4 days, 3 games in 11 days.  That is just asking for us to lose players before the SB.

[Science Friction]

(01-04-2023, 02:11 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Because the rulebook also essentially says that Goodell can do whatever he wants.

Then they need to just shorten the rulebook that includes just one rule:  "THE COMMISIONER CAN JUST MAKE SHIT UP."

[casear2727]

The more I look at it the random consideration is by far the best for the Bengals.

The team that is the issue is the Chief and we have an 80% chance they drop a Win and we move up to either #1 or #2 if we beat the Ravens.
Not replaying the Bills game we have zero injuries and only get healthy.

If they do a week 19 we could have injuries and our next opponent would have 2 weeks to get healthy and prepare for us.

Not sure why people do not like this idea?

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 02:16 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Then they need to just shorten the rulebook that includes just one rule:  "THE COMMISIONER CAN JUST MAKE SHIT UP."

It is there for a reason, Commissioner is simply another word for the Owners. They want to be able to control every aspect without appearing to do so. 

[Science Friction]

(01-04-2023, 02:12 PM)casear2727 Wrote: If we would have gotten beat by the Bills it would be the same thing.


It would be difficult to have teams playing 2 games in 4 days, 3 games in 11 days.  That is just asking for us to lose players before the SB.

That's why the game should have been rescheduled for Wednesday(today). And any team that doesn't  take the field is given a loss.

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 02:19 PM)Science Friction Wrote: That's why the game should have been rescheduled for Wednesday. Any team that didn't show is given a loss.

3 games in 11 days is moronic.  We could lose several starters for the playoffs.  Last night would have been the only option IMO.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(01-04-2023, 02:18 PM)casear2727 Wrote: The more I look at it the random consideration is by far the best for the Bengals.

The team that is the issue is the Chief and we have an 80% chance they drop a Win and we move up to either #1 or #2 if we beat the Ravens.
Not replaying the Bills game we have zero injuries and only get healthy.

If they do a week 19 we could have injuries and our next opponent would have 2 weeks to get healthy and prepare for us.

Not sure why people do not like this idea?

Because I'm not just in favour of whatever suits the Bengals. I want the Bengals to win the Super Bowl and every game they play, but I want the fairest resolution to this scenario first and foremost. As much as we feel we shouldn't 'be punished' for this situation, why should the Chiefs sign up to a 20% chance they'll get to keep their wins?

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 02:22 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: Because I'm not just in favour of whatever suits the Bengals. I want the Bengals to win the Super Bowl and every game they play, but I want the fairest resolution to this scenario first and foremost. As much as we feel we shouldn't 'be punished' for this situation, why should the Chiefs sign up to a 20% chance they'll get to keep their wins?

This is not unfair to the Chiefs - they were at the mercy of the Bills-Bengals game.  They actually get a free pass to the #1 if a Loss is chosen or they remain the #2 as they are now.  

This method impacts the fewest teams and is the fairest I have seen thus far.  What is better?

[KillerGoose]

(01-04-2023, 02:16 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Then they need to just shorten the rulebook that includes just one rule:  "THE COMMISIONER CAN JUST MAKE SHIT UP."

I don't agree with this line of thinking. That clause is very important and necessary IMO. It is nigh impossible to make a rulebook that has a clean, lined out solution for every possible situation. You need to have a clause in there that allows for human intervention. Hamlin had to be revived on the field. There isn't really a rule in that book that will lay out an efficient and fair procedure for a player temporarily dying on the field and the emotional impact that can have on everyone involved. That is something that needs to be handled by a human with tact and empathy, not the cold efficiency of documentation. 

We also aren't privy to conversations behind the scenes. For all we know, Goodell called Buffalo and Cincinnati and both teams said "we don't want to continue the game, let's find an alternative solution." I suspect you will disagree with this post, and that is fine. I am not the adjudicator on what is right and wrong here - there is no objective answer. You are perfectly entitled to wanting the inverse. I just think that legal language like that is very important because inevitably, you will run into a situation that isn't outlined in the rulebook or requires more intimate management in order to navigate. I think what happened on Monday night is an example of such a situation. 

[Science Friction]

(01-04-2023, 02:21 PM)casear2727 Wrote: 3 games in 11 days is moronic.  We could lose several starters for the playoffs.  Last night would have been the only option IMO.

Tues night would have been fine. Just saying, by rule Goodell is supposed to make every effort to reschedule within two days and, if impossible, then reschedule next Tuesday.  Instead, is he gonna go rogue with random numbers?  How about a crystal ball or ouija board to determine seedings ?

Btw, who on here trusts Roger Goodell's "random" numbers?

Just play the gdamn game!!!

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(01-04-2023, 02:24 PM)casear2727 Wrote: This is not unfair to the Chiefs - they were at the mercy of the Bills-Bengals game.  They actually get a free pass to the #1 if a Loss is chosen or they remain the #2 as they are now.  

This method impacts the fewest teams and is the fairest I have seen thus far.  What is better?

They were at the mercy of the Bills-Bengals game... but to the Bills, not to us. They wanted us to win. Playing the games means they hold their destiny as far as we go, picking random numbers means just a win over the Ravens gives us an 80% chance of finishing above them. That bears no relation to how the standings are.

[Ell Prez]

(01-04-2023, 02:07 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If they delete a game for Baltimore, I think it needs to be a W, not an L

It would be at random. How would it be fair to just take a W away from Baltimore? They played the game and won it.

[Ell Prez]

(01-04-2023, 02:09 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Why use random numbers when the damn rulebook says precisely(reschedule within two days or the following Tuesday) what Goodell is supposed to do?

So they play Sunday and again 2 days later on Tuesday? That’s insane.

[SladeX]

(01-04-2023, 02:30 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I don't agree with this line of thinking. That clause is very important and necessary IMO. It is nigh impossible to make a rulebook that has a clean, lined out solution for every possible situation. You need to have a clause in there that allows for human intervention. Hamlin had to be revived on the field. There isn't really a rule in that book that will lay out an efficient and fair procedure for a player temporarily dying on the field and the emotional impact that can have on everyone involved. That is something that needs to be handled by a human with tact and empathy, not the cold efficiency of documentation. 

We also aren't privy to conversations behind the scenes. For all we know, Goodell called Buffalo and Cincinnati and both teams said "we don't want to continue the game, let's find an alternative solution." I suspect you will disagree with this post, and that is fine. I am not the adjudicator on what is right and wrong here - there is no objective answer. You are perfectly entitled to wanting the inverse. I just think that legal language like that is very important because inevitably, you will run into a situation that isn't outlined in the rulebook or requires more intimate management in order to navigate. I think what happened on Monday night is an example of such a situation. 

Not to harp on my profession, but our catch all rule is 

1.1.1: Maintaining a Safe Course 
In case of doubt or uncertainty, take the safe course.