UKBillFan

The Chiefs have benefited the most, the Bills the second most. The Bengals have been screwed over where a couple of tweaks would make it slightly fairer on them.

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.

Remind me what happened to the Bengals against the Pats after they looked hot in the first half?

More the manner of the defeat to the Vikings, yes, though outside Jefferson and maybe Thielin, they’re average at best who have scraped home due to risk plays paying off and opposition errors more than often this year. Wouldn’t be at all shocked if they were one and done in the play offs.

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 don’t like it. Far too much advantage given to the number one seed which won’t have been truly earned. Then again, into be fair to both conferences, I presume the likes of the Eagles, Cowboys and 49ers pushed back against against any kind of change to the AFC which would affect the NFC, and the AFC refused to make any alterations which would put them at an even greater disadvantage over the NFC. Despite “Pray for Damar” and changing stadium colours, the truth is, at ownership level, the NFL never has been about supporting one another; it’s just been about what benefits each individual franchise and that alone. To be petty, if the Bills wanted a greater shot at the number one seed perhaps they shouldn’t have crumbled against the Jets or the Vikings. If the Bengals wanted a greater shot at the number one seed perhaps they shouldn’t have been defeated by average to poor teams in the Steelers and Browns. The Chiefs only had one ‘poor’ defeat this year and that is ultimately the difference now.

Looked like it. But look how the Bengals offense stalled in the second half against the Pats. And the Bills have had moments of offensive struggles too. I think it would have been a shootout but who knows?

I just said on another thread I was getting irritated at the Bengals fans assuming they would beat the Bills. At the same time there's no way we can say that the Bills would have beaten the Bengals. Calling the game one side or another to forfeit is wrong. This is the best solution, albeit not perfect, in a messy situation.

Even though the Bills may have beaten the Bengals, given the chance?

Just catching up on the Bengals forum and they're little better than the Chiefs about the whole situation, to be honest. Class clearly only goes so far.

Plus, even if the numbers worked out, they would need an extra week to get through the games.

Yes, I said Strength of Schedule earlier but, apologies, looks like it'll be on Strength of Victory. At the moment, the Bill's SOV is .479 whilst the Bengal's SOV stands at .483. But the Bengals have not beaten the Ravens this season whilst the Bills have beaten the Pats which, if I understand SOV correctly, means the Bengals beating the Ravens would have a positive impact on their SOV. Shall we keep it simple? Just beat the Pats. If the Bengals beat the Ravens and the Bills lose to the Pats then the two teams will have identical records against common opponents, I think.

Draft Kings is saying it will be based on SOV so the Bengals could overtake the Bills on Sunday: https://dknation.draftkings.com/nfl/2023/1/4/23538979/bills-vs-bengals-playoff-picture-standings-implications-seeding-tie-vacated-home-field-advantage New York Post agrees: https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/how-potential-bills-bengals-cancellation-could-change-afc-playoffs/ AS is saying the Bengals could claim second seed too: https://en.as.com/nfl/how-does-the-bills-vs-bengals-postponement-affect-nfl-playoff-scenarios-n/ In terms of common opponents tiebreaker, I think both sides have the same winning percentage of 70%, should the Bengals win and Bills lose on Sunday?

Apologies, should have made it clearer.

Asked above, but what tiebreaker do the Bills have over the Bengals?

Which tiebreaker would it be? Record would be the same, division record would be the same, conference record would be the same, no head to head to determine and, on strength of schedule, it's currently 0.496 for the Bills and 0.508 for the Bengals, but the Bengals are facing the sixth seed Ravens, who cannot fall any lower, and the Bills are facing the seventh seed Patriots, who cannot make up any places.

It's an either/or option. They'll either split HFA and the bye OR ask for the AFCCG to be played on a neutral field if circumstances dictate. Not both.

True, though the most common consesus, albeit not officially announced is that Bills-Bengals will be deemed a no contest. If so, the Chiefs will take the number one seed with a win over the Raiders. The Bills will take the number two seed should they beat the Pats. If they lose, the Bengals will take number two should they defeat the Ravens on strength of schedule. As per Adam Schefter the NFL is looking at two possibilities: 1) Number one seed gets to choose either home field advantage or a bye. Whatever they choose, the number two seed gets the other. Lose to the Pats with the Bengals beating the Ravens, and the Bills lose out on this. 2) AFCCG to be played at a neutral venue if the seedings of the competitors involved have been affected by the no contest. Lose to the Pats and the Bills would not have claimed the number one seed even with a win over the Bengals, so no reason for them not to go to Arrowhead instead.

Because the Bills would drop to third seed if Chiefs and Bengals win and they lose. Edit: On basis of strength of schedule when it comes to the Bengals. Also, the rumoured neutral AFCCG field would only be on the basis that Monday's abandoned game could have otherwise affected the seedings. If the Chiefs win and the Bills lose then Monday's game wouldn't have any impact, even if the Bills had beaten the Bengals. We would have still finished second to them as we lost to the Pats.

The Bengals were 22-0 up against the Patriots in week 16. Remind me what happened in the second half? Was it a blow out?

Bearing in mind too that one of the rumours is home field advantage will be negated if it involves teams whose seed placing has been affected by Monday's events. If the Chiefs win (14-3) and the Bills lose (12-4), then Monday's game wouldn't matter - we'd still finish below them in the placings even if the game had been played and we had beaten the Bengals. Which would possibly mean a trip to Arrowhead? Obviously, if the Bengals win and we lose they'd jump us to second seed (12-4) though the home field advantage could be waived in that scenario.

And taking away some of the strength of the first seed as well. The second rumour is they will either ask the first seed to choose between a bye or home field advantage, and the second seed will get the other. This is obviously if they stick to a seven team play off process. The final rumour is should two teams meet where Monday's potential no contest has an impact on seedings, then that game will be played on a neutral field.

I think journalists reported that the NFL were considering this earlier. I responded I felt smug after suggesting it before.

He remembers the game. How much weight a simple question carries.

Would it? It was still being played at the same time as Patriots-Bills earlier in the week, even when the outcome of Bills-Bengals wasn't clear.