I don't know if this is an acceptable opinion,

[pseudonym]

but the Buffalo/Cincinnati game should be at a neutral site.*

If Cincinnati had beaten Buffalo in Cincinnati on January 2nd, the playoff game would be in Cincinnati. And for those that don't remember: Cincinnati had the lead at home and was driving when the injury happened.

And don't forget that if Buffalo wins and meets Kansas City, that game will be played at a neutral site. The logic behind this is that Buffalo wasn't able to finish a game (the game they were trailing on the road) that if they had won would have given them the #1 seed.

And what did Kansas City do to lose home-field advantage in a potential Buffalo matchup? If this week's game is in Buffalo because they have the better record, why would next week's game not be in Kansas City because they have the better record?

To sum up: In the Cincinnati/Buffalo matchup, the better record trumps the lost opportunity to complete a game. In a potential Kansas City/Buffalo matchup, the lost opportunity to complete a game trumps the better record.

Make it make sense. I believe the answer is that it's an emotional attempt to treat Buffalo like the good guys. My question is, how do you make Cincinnati and Kansas City the bad guys? We are all happy and relieved that it appears Damar Hamlin will make a full recovery, but from a competitive standpoint, this solution doesn't make a lot of sense.

* - ETA: OR Kansas City should have home-field advantage regardless of opponent. My point is consistency, whatever the decision.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Home field doesn't mean nearly as much in the pros. It's a non-factor, really.

But even still, the way they handled the game originally, was the problem. And even if they had to reschedule, that could have been done. They did it all throughout COVID. It was all an emotional reaction.

 

[ronpolk]

but the Buffalo/Cincinnati game should be at a neutral site.

If Cincinnati had beaten Buffalo in Cincinnati on January 2nd, the playoff game would be in Cincinnati. And for those that don't remember: Cincinnati had the lead at home and was driving when the injury happened.

And don't forget that if Buffalo wins and meets Kansas City, that game will be played at a neutral site. The logic behind this is that Buffalo wasn't able to finish a game (the game they were trailing on the road) that if they had won would have given them the #1 seed.

And what did Kansas City do to lose home-field advantage in a potential Buffalo matchup? If this week's game is in Buffalo because they have the better record, why would next week's game not be in Kansas City because they have the better record?

To sum up: In the Cincinnati/Buffalo matchup, the better record trumps the lost opportunity to complete a game. In a potential Kansas City/Buffalo matchup, the lost opportunity to complete a game trumps the better record.

Make it make sense. I believe the answer is that it's an emotional attempt to treat Buffalo like the good guys. My question is, how do you make Cincinnati and Kansas City the bad guys? We are all happy and relieved that it appears Damar Hamlin will make a full recovery, but from a competitive standpoint, this solution doesn't make a lot of sense.

It does not make sense. What the NFL should have done was play the game. There is already a built in bye week between the championship games and the Super Bowl. Should have just moved everything back one week and played the bills/bengals game this past weekend.

 

[patdog]

It's acceptable, but I disagree with it. You can only go based on games played. And the Bills have a better record than the Bengals do. Where the NFL 17ed up was not following their own written rules for dealing with cancelled games, which called for the Chiefs to host the Bills in a potential AFC final since their 14-3 record is better than Buffalo's 13-3 record.

 

[patdog]

It does not make sense. What the NFL should have done was play the game. There is already a built in bye week between the championship games and the Super Bowl. Should have just moved everything back one week and played the bills/bengals game this past weekend.

It's a lot harder to "just move everything back" than you realize. In fact, it's damn near impossible in some cases.

 

[Dawgg]

To be fair to Buffalo, they did beat Kansas City head to head in Kansas City and I think the NFL was trying to avoid a PR problem by being seen to 'punish' the team that had (at that time) a player fighting for his life.

I'm not saying the solution that was given was a perfect solution (or even a great solution), but I understand why it was the solution they went with.

 

[pseudonym]

It's acceptable, but I disagree with it. You can only go based on games played. And the Bills have a better record than the Bengals do. Where the NFL 17ed up was not following their own written rules for dealing with cancelled games, which called for the Chiefs to host the Bills in a potential AFC final since their 14-3 record is better than Buffalo's 13-3 record.

That is exactly my point. They are treating Cincinnati/Buffalo and Kansas City/Buffalo differently without an objective justification as far as I can tell. However they decide to handle it, it should be consistent across the board.

 

[patdog]

That is exactly my point. They are treating Cincinnati/Buffalo and Kansas City/Buffalo differently without an objective justification as far as I can tell. However they decide to handle it, it should be consistent across the board.

Agree with this. They also would have screwed Cincy if they had lost to Pitt in the last week of the season by making them flip a coin to determine home field. They managed to find 3 different ways to deal with the cancelled game, and potentially use them all (didn't have to because Cincy beat Pitt). That's ridiculous. And why even have any written rules for dealing with exactly this scenario if you're just going to ignore them when it happens.

 

[pseudonym]

To be fair to Buffalo, they did beat Kansas City head to head in Kansas City and I think the NFL was trying to avoid a PR problem by being seen to 'punish' the team that had (at that time) a player fighting for his life.

I'm not saying the solution that was given was a perfect solution (or even a great solution), but I understand why it was the solution they went with.

Kansas City has a better record. Head-to-head is only a tiebreaker if the teams have the same record. You have to assume a Buffalo win on January 2nd (they were trailing on the road) for the head-to-head to become a factor.

 

[Dawgg]

Kansas City has a better record. Head-to-head is only a tiebreaker if the teams have the same record. You have to assume a Buffalo win on January 2nd (they were trailing on the road) for the head-to-head to become a factor.

The Bills were down by 4 in the first quarter. It's not like Cincy had them on the ropes and were trying to get a first down to put the game away. That "trailing on the road" portion is the most irrelevant piece of all of this.

Again, I'm not saying it was the right call, but I understand why it was made.

 

[pseudonym]

The Bills were down by 4 in the first quarter. It's not like Cincy had them on the ropes and were trying to get a first down to put the game away. That "trailing on the road" portion is the most irrelevant piece of all of this.

Again, I'm not saying it was the right call, but I understand why it was made.

By mentioning that Cincinnati was leading at home while driving with the ball, I'm not suggesting we should assume a Cincy win. We shouldn't assume a win for either team. My point is Buffalo gets credit for a potential win and Cincinnati doesn't. And in searching for a justification for this, you can't find it in the flow of the game in question.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Home field doesn't mean nearly as much in the pros. It's a non-factor, really.

But even still, the way they handled the game originally, was the problem. And even if they had to reschedule, that could have been done. They did it all throughout COVID. It was all an emotional reaction.

They were never tested with an entire game cancellation scenario that late in the season during COVID. All the major outbreaks that affected entire teams happened when the bye weeks were still in play as a contingency.

The only time it came close was that Broncos- Saints game, which ended up getting played as scheduled anyway in spite of the Broncos having no healthy QB’s.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It's a lot harder to "just move everything back" than you realize. In fact, it's damn near impossible in some cases.

It’s impossible overall because you can’t move the Super Bowl, and you can’t only have the one week between the CC games and the Super Bowl without affecting the competitive integrity of the biggest game of the year in all of American sports.

 

[preacher_dawg]

but the Buffalo/Cincinnati game should be at a neutral site.*

If Cincinnati had beaten Buffalo in Cincinnati on January 2nd, the playoff game would be in Cincinnati. And for those that don't remember: Cincinnati had the lead at home and was driving when the injury happened.

And don't forget that if Buffalo wins and meets Kansas City, that game will be played at a neutral site. The logic behind this is that Buffalo wasn't able to finish a game (the game they were trailing on the road) that if they had won would have given them the #1 seed.

And what did Kansas City do to lose home-field advantage in a potential Buffalo matchup? If this week's game is in Buffalo because they have the better record, why would next week's game not be in Kansas City because they have the better record?

To sum up: In the Cincinnati/Buffalo matchup, the better record trumps the lost opportunity to complete a game. In a potential Kansas City/Buffalo matchup, the lost opportunity to complete a game trumps the better record.

Make it make sense. I believe the answer is that it's an emotional attempt to treat Buffalo like the good guys. My question is, how do you make Cincinnati and Kansas City the bad guys? We are all happy and relieved that it appears Damar Hamlin will make a full recovery, but from a competitive standpoint, this solution doesn't make a lot of sense.

* - ETA: OR Kansas City should have home-field advantage regardless of opponent. My point is consistency, whatever the decision.

As a Bills' fan, I kind of agree with you. Part of it was I think they spent so much time trying to get the AFC game right, they really did not think about the site of this game that much. However, playing somewhere like Pittsburgh or Cleveland would have been fairer.

 

[maroonmania]

NFL really just dealt with a very, very difficult situation as best they could. I really don't see where Cincinnati has a beef when a 12-5 Dallas team had to go on the road to play an 8-9 team. THAT is the type thing that should get fixed. Winning a division should get you a spot in the playoffs but it absolutely should not guarantee you a home game. Why should you get rewarded with a home game just because you play in a division with a bunch of really crappy teams?