BillyBilliams
-
Posts
301 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BillyBilliams
-
-
Just now, BLeonard said:
So, KC gets a bye, the Bills play the Bengals, but both advance to the next round, while 4 plays 7 and 5 plays 6?
You'd have KC, BUF, CIN and two other teams in the divisional round. How you gonna have games with 5 teams?
yeah that doesn't make sense either. You also give KC 2 bye weeks.
-
Just now, dma0034 said:
Ravens didn't lose to the Bengals though.....
Oh yeah, you're right, but they're 1.5 games back. I don't really care about their butthurtness.
-
1 minute ago, dma0034 said:
Only way the game could be a tie imo. Which I don't support. I'm firmly in the play the game on Jan 15th
They could base records on a 16 game schedule, rather than the 17 game schedule? Raiders are out of the playoffs, so their game doesn't matter. Just have KC take Week 18 off and have Buffalo play New England. If Buffalo wins, they get the 1 seed. If they lose, it goes to KC. I'm not factoring Cincy simply because they are 1 loss behind both teams. Have them play Baltimore for the division.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
I think you're misreading my point. .Going forward, it's objectively unfair to the rest of the league to not have one team get a loss and one team get a win for this game prior to the conclusion of week 18.
If KC didn't and Baltimore didn't lose to Buffalo and Cincy this season, then the call for unfairness would be in the cards.
-
35 minutes ago, dma0034 said:
So I've been thinking non-stop about this: Call this a tie and modify the playoffs:
Any games between Bills/Chiefs/Bengals would have to be on a neutral site. Chiefs get a bye and home field for round two. If/When the Bills play the Bengals in round 2 it will be on a neutral field. If the Chiefs advance and one of the Bills/Bengals advance it too will have to be on a neutral site.
That doesn't make sense. The Bills were a full game clear on Cincinnati. It benefits Cincy and KC more than Buffalo by doing this. This means Cincy clinches the division and Baltimore doesn't have a chance to advance. Buffalo then loses their advantage for beating KC earlier this season, and KC is awarded the playoff advantage despite losing to Cincy AND Buffalo.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
And the Bills should return the classy move presented by Cinci and forfeit the game if they're unable to resume it without negatively impacting the rest of the league. It's ultimately the Bills who caused the game to be stopped.
No they didn't. It was stopped because of a medical emergency. It wasn't because of a team. According to the NFL though, they said it was "insensitive" to sugest they forced the 5 minute warm up. According to the NFL, THEY were the ones that postponed the game. So it's on the NFL, and not the Bills/Bengals.
-
2
-
-
Just now, BullBuchanan said:
How do you punish Cinci for the Bills being unable to continue a game in which Cinci were winning?
They aren't being punished. Their coaching staff went to the Bills coaching staff during the 5 minute warm up period and they mutually agreed to stop the game. It literally was 1 drive each. The game had just started.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:
This is the only scenario that seems even remotely likely. The idea that both teams could somehow forfeit yet still get a win is a pipedream. It was an incredibly unfortunate thing to happen all the way around. It is what it is.
The blowback by the NFL forcing the Bills to forfeit a game because a member on the team died and was revived on the field would be horrible. You CANNOT punish the Bills and Bengals for this. They took care of their business all year, and this is completely out of their control. I don't really care if everybody else is upset by it. They failed to take care of their own business. Bills and Bengals took care of their business.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:
I just don’t see any way the NFL gives two teams a “W” for a game that could not be completed.
It's the only way that doesn't hurt both teams. It's not the Bengals or the Bills fault a catastrophic incident happened on the field, so you cannot punish the teams for that. WIthout this game, Cincinnati cannot get the 1 seed, and I believe they cannot surpass Buffalo for the 2 seed. Without this game, Buffalo loses their competitive tie breaking advantage for already beating Kansas City.
At the end of the day, I don't really care if giving both teams wins screws KC or Baltimore. Both teams lost to both Buffalo and Cincy, so they should have not lost those games this year, then.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
Hahahaha…I love how your “solution” basically gives the Bills the #1 seed.
So your solution is to punish the Bills for having their player die on the field and get revived on the field and forcing them to lose their tiebreaking edge? Why does KC get to benefit with this devastating incident? Especially when they lost to both teams that were supposed to play last night.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, pi2000 said:
Cancel the game and give them both a tie.
This doesn't benefit the Bengals or the Bills, and only benefits teams outside of who was directly affected. Give both teams the W. Sure, KC Fans will be upset, but you know what, don't lose to both Buffalo and Cincy, and you wouldn't have to rely on teams winning and losing to get to your goal.
-
1
-
-
Just now, PetermansRedemption said:
How about a double forfeit; with both teams losing. I’ve seen the forfeit scenario thrown around where you punish the forfeiting team, so why isn’t a scenario where you reward them equally as plausible? If you are going to do anything to either of these teams, impact them positively, not negatively.
Why don't you double win them, instead of double forfeiting? Give them both a win, yes, Chiefs fans won't be happy, and Ravens fans won't be happy, but it is what it is.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, NUT said:
If the Bills players and coaches are the ones who decide they are not playing, they have to be the ones taking the L.
The Bills players and coaches didn't decide that. Once they announced the 5 minute warm up, it was Zac Taylor coming across the field to talk to McD. It was a mutual decision.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
Can’t see them stating it’s a tie as it affects the play off picture. They’ll either prolong the regular season, wiping out the gap between the Conference Championships and Super Bowl, or use winning percentages.Winning percentages wouldn’t matter. Chiefs are at .813 and Bills are at .800. Unless this game is played, the Chiefs would win the 1 seed
-
1 minute ago, ßookie_tech said:
last I saw there was 88% of cash coming in on Buffalo, which is an absurd number.
Usually the public is wrong. Don't like it.
The money was going to Cincy. The Sharps just dumped a pile on Buffalo which arent usually wrong
-
6 minutes ago, LEBills said:
The Sharps have been on the Bills since the line came out which is why it moved from a pickem to Bills favored. That it continues to grow in our favor shows how confident the pro bettors are in us. Especially since the Bengals have been amazing ATS this year
It was never a pickem. It opened up -1.5
-
Just now, Dick_Cheney said:
This means for one reason or another, a massive, massive amount of money has come in in favor of the Bills.
To go from -1 to -2.5 that suddenly is rather volatile.
Not necessarily. They also start giving a point or so more to take a calculated risk to get significantly paid.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, teef said:
For someone that doesn’t gamble at all, what do you think this signifies?
Vegas really likes the Bills and are enticing people to take points for the Bengals so they can cash in significantly
-
1
-
1
-
-
All week, the Bills were at -1.5 and 60% of the bets have been going to Cincinnati. Despite all this, the line moved to -2 1 hour ago and now it’s at -2.5. Does Vegas know something we don’t know and are waiting to cash in on the people taking the Bengals?
-
If the doctors clear him, and he’s willing to play, let him play. But I don’t want them to force the issue.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Xwnyer said:
I have one more payment in y six month installment due Jan 9 gonna call and cancel on the 8th assuming Bills will be on local that day. If not one more month and I am gone was hoping they could keep NFLST As part of a deal with Google but not looking likely. I get spectrum as part of my HOA also I have enough of the channels I need for free
My daughter watches stuff like NickJr, so we’ll see how all that affects them. It’s looking REAL bleak for DTV right now. They should have seen this coming for about two years, and should have made their prices comparable with streaming services like YTTV. I’m calling them and telling them if I can’t have everything I have for $80 per month and not a dollar more, I’ll be leaving. I’ll gladly pay $15 more per month over YTTV to get a no delay feed and preventing me going over that 1280 GB per month limit -
On 12/24/2022 at 8:41 PM, CLTbills said:
I read a report that said you’d be able to just subscribe to NFLST without being a YouTube TV subscriber (which I already am anyway, have been for 2 years).
That was always my biggest gripe. No matter how much money I was willing to throw at DirecTV, I could not purchase the service without full-time TV service. Archaic. So happy that they’re making this change!
Good internet doesn’t seem hard to find anymore, though. Readily available pretty much anywhere, although you’ll want to upgrade from the base-level service offered in most cases. Google Fiber is 1GB up and down for $70 a month. Can’t beat it.
Depends on where you live. My father lives in the Mark Twain National Forest area in Missouri, and his top-of-the-line internet service I think is 50 Mbps. Unfortunately for my father, he might be screwed. I'm currently looking at alternative options for my parents, including Starlink.
On 12/25/2022 at 4:28 PM, ILBillsfan said:Some of you have terrible negotion skills I have only paid 99 bucks a year for the NL package on Dtv got 50 bucks off every month w free HBO, reasonablely priced when you do this.
Call in ask for a customer retention rep and they work your bill down and can get multiple monthy discounts if you call in and negotiate. So to say they have horrible customer service is silly. The satellite goes out all the time arguement, on occassion with high thumdercells but snow nope never.
Will be interesting to see for sure moving forward with youtube TV
It's hard to negotiate with a service rep about the service being interrupted when 95% of the year it's blue skies. I rarely have an electric bill ever since I threw solar panels on my roof.
-
It's going to be a cost/analysis decision for me.
1st. I have COX internet here in Tucson, AZ. I'm paying $117.49 per month for Gigablast which does NOT have unlimited data. I'm capped at 1280GB per month. As of right now not exclusively cutting the cord, the most I've used was 900 GB per month. This includes my family watching Netflix/Hulu/Online Games. I'm curious if I could get away with staying at the 1280GB per month and keeping my monthly internet at $117.49. If I add unlimited internet, it's $49.99 a month, which would balloon to about $167.48 per month for internet usage.
I'm currently paying $263.32 for DirecTV while not on a contract. I did this purposely because I knew about the Sunday Ticket change. I have the Xtra package (220+ channels) plus HBO Max. We have two boxes, but now the boxes aren't really needed with the streaming change they came up with finally. I think DirecTV now realizes they cannot go without this feature, and they only blocked it because they knew ST subscribers weren't leaving as long as they owned the rights to carry the games.
YouTube TV does not have regional sports, which does suck for many people. For me, it's not important because I'm in Tucson, AZ and the only two blacked-out games I'll have to worry about are the Sabres/Coyotes. I think I can manage to find two crappy streams to watch those games, and a lot of the time, I'll be attending the games anyways (didn't go to the game in Arizona this year, because I went to the Bills/Dolphins game).
DirecTV needs to figure out how to drop its prices significantly. I would only consider staying if they drop their prices to rival that of YouTube TV. The ONE THING that DirecTV has over YouTube TV is there is a delay and isn't truly "live." YouTube TV will have about a 15-30 second delay compared to cable/satellite. That bothers me because I like to go on Twitter during the games and look for injury updates. Sometimes, the game would be spoiled for me because I do that.
If DirecTV cannot lower its prices significantly, I will switch to YouTube TV and cut the cord entirely. They have two weeks to figure it out, because as soon as the season is over, and I have paid for the Sunday Ticket entirely (they didn't allow me to switch from a six-month payment to a one-time payment because the season already started), I will be calling DirecTV to grab their equipment and disconnect my service.
DirecTV is at a critical point in its business. They either need to change what they're doing significantly, or they will be filing for bankruptcy VERY shortly.
-
10 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:
$65/month for a bunch of cable channels? That's garbage. HBO Max is one-fourth the price and has far better content.
HBO Max also doesn’t do live TV. If you want to binge watch the same shows that’s one thing, but I like watching TV. HBO Max doesn’t have everything you need. They only have what they negotiated for. This is why there are so many different streaming services. When it’s all said and done, you’d need Hulu, Discovery Plus, Disney Plus, Netflix, Peacock, and HBO Max all together so you don’t get burned out on the content, and you STILL don’t have live programming. All those together is more than the $65 per month YTV offers
-
1
-
2
-
How do you feel as a parent about your child playing football?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
This won’t deter me from my kids wanting to play. The same could happen in various other sports, as well.