Playoff Solutions Assuming they don’t replay the Bengals game.

[LabattBlue]

5 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Consider the source 

The Bills, Chiefs and Bengals won’t.

You think they would all choose a 1st round bye instead of home field throughout the playoffs?

 

I am not so sure about that. 

[YoloinOhio]

9 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not with that turf tho.

Dang. You’re right. 

[zow2]

Would be very interesting, as Shefter reported that any AFC conference championship game involving teams that played fewer than 17 games would take place on a neutral field.  That might be the likeliest scenario in play right now.

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, zow2 said:

Would be very interesting, as Shefter reported that any AFC conference championship game involving teams that played fewer than 17 games would take place on a neutral field.  That might be the likeliest scenario in play right now.

so it would be a neutral site if:

BUF KC
BUF CIN
CIN KC

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

You think they would all choose a 1st round bye instead of home field throughout the playoffs?

 

I am not so sure about that. 

Yeah, I think that for sure. 
 

The team that gets the bye still has a decent chance of having home field advantage as the other team will have to win 2 games just to use the home field in the AFCCG.  

[JESSEFEFFER]

12 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I vote for Detroit as the neutral site - our second home

If they were playing the Bengals, Detroit would be very fair.  If they were playing KC, Indy would be a nice host site where fans from both participating cities would have similar travel times.  

[Warriorspikes51]

Just now, JESSEFEFFER said:

If they were playing the Bengals, Detroit would be very fair.  If they were playing KC, Indy would be a nice host site where fans from both participating cities would have similar travel times.  

Or Tennessee, which Bills fans tend to overtake 

[UKBillFan]

8 minutes ago, colin said:

if the chip game is neutral, why would the one seed ever pick the home field vs the bye?  

 

It's either/or. Either the AFCCG is played at a neutral venue or the one seed benefits are split between one and two. Seems a bit harsh on the Bengals as they'd still have a shot at number one seed under normal circumstances if the Chiefs lose on Saturday, and they beat the Ravens. As it is, if the Bills beat the Pats, they'll be stuck at three.

 

It's why I think they should extend both play offs to eight teams, scrap the bye and then implement the suggestion that if two of the Chiefs, Bills or Bengals play one another, it should be on neutral field.

 

An issue then is if the Ravens beat the Bengals. I'd be tempted to given the Ravens the AFC North and number three seed in that circumstance on basis of divisional record (would be 4-2 vs 2-4 the Ravens would have beaten the Bengals twice). The number five seed can then be sorted between the Bengals and Chargers, should the Chargers win, on winning percentage.

[Einstein's Dog]

Couple of questions.  If they do a neutral site, where?  How early would they tell us?  Would love to go to a place like Tenn and catch this.

 

Second- what if only one team between KC/Bills/Cincy makes the AFCCG?  Seems like this option should only be used if 2 of these 3 teams meet in the AFCCG, otherwise seeding was accurate and the team should enjoy the benefit of home field advantage.

[zow2]

2 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

so it would be a neutral site if:

BUF KC
BUF CIN
CIN KC

 

Yeah.  i mean it’s fair if you think about it.  

 

KC did not have control of their own destiny  so they aren’t rewarded because of others misfortune.  

Cincinnati isn’t penalized for not being able to finish a game, and possibly earning the 1 seed…that was through no fault of their own.

Buffalo had control of their own destiny but isn’t penalized by having to play a true road game through sheer misfortune.

[julian]

 GO RAIDERS 

[jrb2590]

i also still like the idea of adding an 8th playoff team in the AFC and eliminating the bye for the 1 seed but it doesnt sound liek thats being considered.  NHL added playoff teams when their season was cut short by COVID a couple years ago.

[Warriorspikes51]

3 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Couple of questions.  If they do a neutral site, where?  How early would they tell us?  Would love to go to a place like Tenn and catch this.

 

Second- what if only one team between KC/Bills/Cincy makes the AFCCG?  Seems like this option should only be used if 2 of these 3 teams meet in the AFCCG, otherwise seeding was accurate and the team should enjoy the benefit of home field advantage.

Adam S mentioned a decision could be made before Saturday's games. As for the venue, based on the 3 teams locations

Detroit

Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Tennessee
 

seem most likely

Edited January 5, 2023 by Warriorspikes51

[Hebert19]

11 minutes ago, zow2 said:

Would be very interesting, as Shefter reported that any AFC conference championship game involving teams that played fewer than 17 games would take place on a neutral field.  That might be the likeliest scenario in play right now.

Yup

[BillsFanSD]

29 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Bills have not earned that. 

 

To me, this is not acceptable. 

 

The NFL did the right thing by suspending the game. 

 

But that doesn't mean the Bills are entitled to neutral AFCCG games, and not playing the Patriots this weekend if they don't want to and so forth. 

 

 

If you think the NFL did the right thing by suspending the game, then you have to accept that the Bills are either going to be given something they haven't earned or be punished for something that was outside their control.  There's no other option.

[YoloinOhio]

5 minutes ago, julian said:

 GO RAIDERS 

I won’t be surprised if the chiefs fumble the bag on the 1 seed this weekend. That defense is bad and Adams and Jacobs have looked good. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

1 minute ago, julian said:

 GO RAIDERS 

Stidham trained some with the Jordan Palmer group.  If he led the Raiders to an upset win, I'd think Josh might owe him a "major award."

[Buffalo03]

39 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

 

So to be clear, if I'm hearing it right, the only time a championship game will be on a neutral field is its Bills vs Bengals or Bills vs Chiefs. If it's Bills vs Chargers, Jaguars, or whoever gets the 7 then the game would be played in Buffalo?

[Scott7975]

10 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is no good option. I think that is the least bad. Moving everything else around to fit this game into a stand alone week 19 is worse IMO.

 

I was reading something today that said something like they are considering having the 1 seed pick either bye week or HFA and the 2 seed would get the other.  That seems interesting.

 

There is definitely no good option where someone or multiple someones dont get the short stick.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

So to be clear, if I'm hearing it right, the only time a championship game will be on a neutral field is its Bills vs Bengals or Bills vs Chiefs. If it's Bills vs Chargers, Jaguars, or whoever gets the 7 then the game would be played in Buffalo?

 

Now listened back - yes, it's only neutral field if Monday's result may have had an impact on the seedings.

[Big Blitz]

So if the Ravens beat the Bengals this week and play them in RD 1 - that game should be at a neutral site.  Per the logic of this plan.  

[17islongenough]

I think the NFL is just releasing possible scenarios to see which one gets the least amount of backlash 

[BLeonard]

1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said:

So to be clear, if I'm hearing it right, the only time a championship game will be on a neutral field is its Bills vs Bengals or Bills vs Chiefs. If it's Bills vs Chargers, Jaguars, or whoever gets the 7 then the game would be played in Buffalo?

Or, Bengals/Chiefs.  That's how I am reading it as well.

 

That said, I also read this as either/or.  Either they're gonna have the AFC Championship at a neutral site, if two of those three teams are involved, OR the #1 seed gets a choice between home field and a bye, while the #2 gets the other.

 

It makes no sense for the Chiefs to get to choose a bye or HFA, only to have the game at a neutral site, if 2 of the Bills, Bengals and Chiefs are in it.  If the Chiefs choose the bye, the Bills should get HFA, regardless of who they play.

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

So if the Ravens beat the Bengals this week and play them in RD 1 - that game should be at a neutral site.  Per the logic of this plan.  

Why is that 

[HappyDays]

As expected. 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

Why is that 

 

Well, the Ravens would be a game back of the Bengals.  With the Bengals not playing Buffalo it’s an opportunity to add a loss to their record and Baltimore catch them in the standings.   
 

They would have 2 wins against them.  
 

They would have 1 more loss but played 1 more game.   

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Well, the Ravens would be a game back of the Bengals.  With the Bengals not playing Buffalo it’s an opportunity to add a loss to their record and Baltimore catch them in the standings.   
 

They would have 2 wins against them.  
 

They would have 1 more loss but played 1 more game.   

 

If the Ravens beat the Bengals this week, and if they end up being the Wild Card matchup, then I think it would be most fair that the game be played on a neutral site since the result of the Bills v Bengals would have determined the AFC North winner. 

 

That would be rendered moot if the Bengals win. 

[PrimeTime101]

Give KC their choice, Home Field Advantage or Bye. Call the game a tie. Solves everything. 

[YoloinOhio]

9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Well, the Ravens would be a game back of the Bengals.  With the Bengals not playing Buffalo it’s an opportunity to add a loss to their record and Baltimore catch them in the standings.   
 

They would have 2 wins against them.  
 

They would have 1 more loss but played 1 more game.   

I see

[Hebert19]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

So to be clear, if I'm hearing it right, the only time a championship game will be on a neutral field is its Bills vs Bengals or Bills vs Chiefs. If it's Bills vs Chargers, Jaguars, or whoever gets the 7 then the game would be played in Buffalo?

Correct.  And same for chiefs if bills or Bengals are out. 

[BillyBilliams]

13 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Why is that 

 

If the Bills and Bengals played out and Buffalo won the game, Baltimore could have won the AFC North with a win over Cincy.  I don't think Cincy should be in this equation for HFA.  They need so many different components.  They need to win and two specific teams to lose.  For the Bills, they just needed to win their games.  

[BIGFOOTspaceman]

One scenario must be chosen and you are not going to have a 100% agreeableness on any of them.  I like the neutral site idea....especially if its indoors.  

[TheyCallMeAndy]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

As expected. 

 

 

Only shame is it gives KC the one seed unless they lose to LA. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

56 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You can lose at home. You can NOT lose if you don’t have to play. 

True but being at home gives you an edge in the game you are more likely to lose in the second round. I think most teams would pick the bye but it’s the most fair thing I’ve heard.  I wonder how they decide who gets to pick though…I’d assume kc has the first crack 

[zow2]

3 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Only shame is it gives KC the one seed unless they lose to LA. 

 

Well something has to give.  but at least if the neutral site option is chosen, a Bills game vs KC would not be at Arrowhead.

[RiotAct]

32 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

So to be clear, if I'm hearing it right, the only time a championship game will be on a neutral field is its Bills vs Bengals or Bills vs Chiefs. If it's Bills vs Chargers, Jaguars, or whoever gets the 7 then the game would be played in Buffalo?

Not possible to have a 1-7 Championship game (or 2-7 for that matter).

[Buffalo03]

2 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

Not possible to have a 1-7 Championship game (or 2-7 for that matter).

You know what I mean lol

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Sounds like the resolution they're working towards is making the most reasonable of a suboptimal situation. Given the Bills had a terrible event out of their control occur and this is on the table- I'd take it. At least the Bills don't get "boned" completely like could have happened.

Edited January 5, 2023 by D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

[PetermansRedemption]

13 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Only shame is it gives KC the one seed unless they lose to LA. 

They could really win me over as a fan if they come out and say they don’t deserve the 1 seed and will forfeit their game against Vegas. 

Just now, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

Sounds like the resolution they're working towards is the most reasonable of a suboptimal situation. Given the Bills had an act out of their control occur and this is on the table I'd take it. At least the Bills don't get "boned" completely like could have happened.

They literally do though. It might as well be a loss. It will cost them the one seed provided KC takes care of Vegas like we all expect. The same scenario needs to happen as if the bengals game was a loss. 

[tomur67]

1 minute ago, PetermansRedemption said:

They could really win me over as a fan if they come out and say they don’t deserve the 1 seed and will forfeit their game against Vegas. 

that will never happen