Jump to content

NFL 2022 Thread 3: Is Captain Kirk... good?!!?


Rhom

Recommended Posts

I love that the Bengals get hosed by the competition committee. Declared the AFC North champions. May not have a home playoff game. Get first place schedule next year regardless and a worse draft pick. And while they treated the MNF as a loss for the Ravens sake, they treated it as a no contest for the Bills sake so we basically have no shot at the #1 seed, no shot at getting a neutral site game or home field with the Bills but the Ravens get a shot at hosting the wild card game but without any of the ramifications on their season next year. What a fucking world we live in.

In the immortal words of Ian Rapport on behalf of the NFL... alas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

I love that the Bengals get hosed by the competition committee. Declared the AFC North champions. May not have a home playoff game. Get first place schedule next year regardless and a worse draft pick. And while they treated the MNF as a loss for the Ravens sake, they treated it as a no contest for the Bills sake so we basically have no shot at the #1 seed, no shot at getting a neutral site game or home field with the Bills but the Ravens get a shot at hosting the wild card game but without any of the ramifications on their season next year. What a fucking world we live in.

In the immortal words of Ian Rapport on behalf of the NFL... alas

I'm still pissed at this. I get no one likes the Bengals but come on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Get first place schedule next year regardless and a worse draft pick. And while they treated the MNF as a loss for the Ravens sake, they treated it as a no contest for the Bills sake so we basically have no shot at the #1 seed, no shot at getting a neutral site game or home field with the Bills but the Ravens get a shot at hosting the wild card game but without any of the ramifications on their season next year. What a fucking world we live in.

Alright I kind of understand what you're saying.  It seems the Bengals potentially get screwed the worse by the decision.  But the Bills also potentially get screwed.  Seems to me it's the Chiefs that came out benefitting the most from this.

But I'm not clear on a couple of your complaints here.  First, not sure how they get a "worse draft pick."  The draft order is still based on playoff performance, right?  So the Wild Card losers are in one group, then the Divisional Round losers, etc.  If that's the case, I think this is a bit of an overstatement.  I mean, I suppose they could lose a tiebreaker due to the cancellation, but that's gonna be one or two spots late in the round tops.  Doesn't seem much to get up in arms about.

I'm also entirely unclear how the game was treated "as a loss for the Ravens sake" but a no contest for the Bills.  It seems to me it was treated as a no contest for both.  The difference with the Bengals is the Ravens have already beaten them, so if they beat them again and are therefore only a half-game behind, it'd seem very unfair to them NOT to allow for a neutral site game.

I guess my main question is what is the better solution?  Rescheduling the game and delaying the playoffs seems plainly more unfair to many more teams.  As does awarding the Bengals a win because they had the lead in the second quarter.  Would calling it a tie make any difference?  I'm not sure how.  Or...what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Alright I kind of understand what you're saying.  It seems the Bengals potentially get screwed the worse by the decision.  But the Bills also potentially get screwed.  Seems to me it's the Chiefs that came out benefitting the most from this.

But I'm not clear on a couple of your complaints here.  First, not sure how they get a "worse draft pick."  The draft order is still based on playoff performance, right?  So the Wild Card losers are in one group, then the Divisional Round losers, etc.  If that's the case, I think this is a bit of an overstatement.  I mean, I suppose they could lose a tiebreaker due to the cancellation, but that's gonna be one or two spots late in the round tops.  Doesn't seem much to get up in arms about.

I'm also entirely unclear how the game was treated "as a loss for the Ravens sake" but a no contest for the Bills.  It seems to me it was treated as a no contest for both.  The difference with the Bengals is the Ravens have already beaten them, so if they beat them again and are therefore only a half-game behind, it'd seem very unfair to them NOT to allow for a neutral site game.

I guess my main question is what is the better solution?  Rescheduling the game and delaying the playoffs seems plainly more unfair to many more teams.  As does awarding the Bengals a win because they had the lead in the second quarter.  Would calling it a tie make any difference?  I'm not sure how.  Or...what?

I may be wrong on the seeding. The thought process was that we're the #3 seed but without the benefits of being said seed. If we lost in the wild card round, rather than the 6th seed, we would have had a lower draft pick based on seeding. But I think it's on records so might not matter much.

The only way that the Ravens got a chance to play for the home field advantage was if the Bengals lost to the Bills. So by giving the Ravens that chance, they're essentially saying we lost. If it was a true no contest, then our winning percentage would be higher (with a loss to the Ravens) and we would win the division. Which is what they're saying we did... except, without the benefit of actually having home field advantage which is the whole purpose of winning the division. So the Ravens get a shot even though they have a worse winning percentage than us at a reward for a division they did not win. It shouldn't matter if they beat us twice... they didn't beat enough other teams to have a better winning percentage than us.

In the case of the Bills, by counting it as a no contest, they have a worse winning percentage than the Chiefs. Therefore, yes, they got screwed a bit in terms of the bye next week, but it's made up for the fact that they potentially get a neutral site game if they play the Chiefs in the AFC championship. The Bengals, however, do not get a coin flip with the Bills if the Bengals play the Bills. The game is treated like it never existed, was never on the schedule and never significantly mattered for playoff seeding. So as a result, Bengals do not get the same consideration the Bills get with the Chiefs nor the Ravens get with the Bengals.

How do you fix it? First, you remove the coin flip. The Bengals won the AFC North, they get the reward as such and the Ravens potentially get screwed (they would have never been in that position in the first place if the Bengals won). Or if you keep the coin flip, then you do it for the divisional title and as such, Ravens, if they win it, get the first place schedule in 2023. 

If you do keep the coin flip, then you do the same for the Bengals/Bills game. The Bengals played 7 home games this season to 9 away games. They will potentially have a playoff home game removed from them even though they win the division. It only seems fair to recognize the importance of that MNF game and give equal chance for hosting the Divisional round.

End of the day, the official NFL rulebook says "when a game is cancelled, you seed based on winning percentage" and the NFL selectively applied that and made up new rules to benefit the Ravens while not giving the same competitive consideration to the Bengals. As Zac Taylor said, every team affected by this situation gets some positive out of it while the Bengals only get downside.

Anyway, gotta win Sunday. Playoffs will be a blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Why are we forgetting rock-paper-scissors?

Seriously, though, Ty's wrinkle notwithstanding even THAT at least is like a _game_ of sorts. I mean I would just like t be able, if I were the Bengals or someone, to be able to say "we sent out our man/men for the agreed-on deal to see who gets the win. We lost, but Man/Men had a chance to win it for us. We'll just have to work harder for what we deserve now." 

Like just being able to put it all in that kinda context would, I think, be impossibly more fair than this ad hoc Goodell bullshit

4 hours ago, PyroclasticFlow said:

I’m scared what does triple B’s mean?

Who knows such things? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The only way that the Ravens got a chance to play for the home field advantage was if the Bengals lost to the Bills. So by giving the Ravens that chance, they're essentially saying we lost. If it was a true no contest, then our winning percentage would be higher (with a loss to the Ravens) and we would win the division. Which is what they're saying we did... except, without the benefit of actually having home field advantage which is the whole purpose of winning the division. So the Ravens get a shot even though they have a worse winning percentage than us at a reward for a division they did not win. It shouldn't matter if they beat us twice... they didn't beat enough other teams to have a better winning percentage than us.

Alright I suppose I understand this logic from your side, but I also understand the logic from the Ravens side.  If the Ravens win on Sunday, they'll be 11-6 while winning the head-to-head 2-0 against an 11-5 team.  ANY solution to this is going to be unfair, but it seems to me they should be playing that game at a neutral site rather than a coin flip.  I agree with you there - the location should not be based on a coin flip.  ESPECIALLY because they're already doing the neutral site for the AFC Championship game.  But, according to this, it is going to be a coin flip:

Quote

If Baltimore defeats Cincinnati and if those two clubs are schedule to play a Wild Card game against one another, the site for that game would be determined by a coin toss.

Again, agree with you there.  That should be at a neutral site, not a coin flip.  That's egregiously screwing over the Bengals.  Everything else detailed in that link, however, seems like the least unfair solution possible to me.

Bottomline is just win the damn game on Sunday.  Jackson is out, so while I'd have some sympathy for the Bengals' situation, not too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really surprised that the NFL wants to err on the side of making this week's Ravens-Bengals matchup be meaningful.  If the league were to say that the Bengals already have it locked up, then they could rest starters and the NFL doesn't like that.  In addition, the Bengals would potentially have less than one quarter of action in the final two weeks of the regular season, which is a lot of rest right before the postseason.

Options for the WC: 

1. NFL plan.  Screws the Bengals IF they lose to Baltimore this week.

2. Go by percentages.  Screws the Ravens IF they win this week. 

Of those two, I think option 1 is closer to fair, because the Bengals at least get the option to rectify the problem by winning this week. 

 

For a potential Bengals vs Bills divisional matchup, yes, they are pretending that the game never happened, and therefore Buffalo having one fewer loss is the key thing.  Yes, the Bengals lose the opportunity to beat and pass Buffalo. 

Options for Divisional Round (in the event of a Buffalo vs Cincy matchup)

1.  NFL plan, go by percentages.  Screws the Bengals because they don't get the opportunity to take homefield. 

2.  Coinflip or neutral site game.  Screws the Bills because in actual games that were played the Bills have a better record and are not getting rewarded. 

Of those two, I again think option 1 is closer to fair, although it does suck that the Bengals are the one getting screwed both times.  I'd be fine with a neutral site as well (coinflip is stupid). 

 

According to this article, Cincy will only play the championship game at a neutral site if KC and Buffalo both lose in week 18.  To me that is actually really dumb and unfair.  If Cincy is in the championship game against KC, then what difference does it make if Buffalo lost in week 18?  The only thing that should matter is if KC lost in week 18.  If KC loses vs Vegas then Cincy would have controlled their own destiny in weeks 17 and 18 if the Buffalo game had occurred.  The fact that homefield in the championship game is contingent on Buffalo makes no sense at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Why?  Fans will still show up.  It would be a great atmosphere. 

It defeats the purpose of having to go into another team's stadium, especially if they do this with the AFC Championship game. The game should have been treated as a tie and just move on. We don't need to create all these moving parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not really surprised that the NFL wants to err on the side of making this week's Ravens-Bengals matchup be meaningful.  If the league were to say that the Bengals already have it locked up, then they could rest starters and the NFL doesn't like that.  In addition, the Bengals would potentially have less than one quarter of action in the final two weeks of the regular season, which is a lot of rest right before the postseason.

Options for the WC: 

1. NFL plan.  Screws the Bengals IF they lose to Baltimore this week.

2. Go by percentages.  Screws the Ravens IF they win this week. 

Of those two, I think option 1 is closer to fair, because the Bengals at least get the option to rectify the problem by winning this week. 

 

For a potential Bengals vs Bills divisional matchup, yes, they are pretending that the game never happened, and therefore Buffalo having one fewer loss is the key thing.  Yes, the Bengals lose the opportunity to beat and pass Buffalo. 

Options for Divisional Round (in the event of a Buffalo vs Cincy matchup)

1.  NFL plan, go by percentages.  Screws the Bengals because they don't get the opportunity to take homefield. 

2.  Coinflip or neutral site game.  Screws the Bills because in actual games that were played the Bills have a better record and are not getting rewarded. 

Of those two, I again think option 1 is closer to fair, although it does suck that the Bengals are the one getting screwed both times.  I'd be fine with a neutral site as well (coinflip is stupid). 

 

According to this article, Cincy will only play the championship game at a neutral site if KC and Buffalo both lose in week 18.  To me that is actually really dumb and unfair.  If Cincy is in the championship game against KC, then what difference does it make if Buffalo lost in week 18?  The only thing that should matter is if KC lost in week 18.  If KC loses vs Vegas then Cincy would have controlled their own destiny in weeks 17 and 18 if the Buffalo game had occurred.  The fact that homefield in the championship game is contingent on Buffalo makes no sense at all. 

And there in lies the problem. They used one method to decide in the Bengals/Ravens game (coin flip) and one in the Bills/Bengals game (winning percentage). And it doesn't address that the Bengals are declared AFC north champions regardless of whether the Ravens host the playoff game or not so they get the downside of playing the Bills, Chiefs and Vikings next year and none of the upside of hosting a home playoff game. This after they refunded everyone from the MNF game and only had 7 home games this season compared to 9 away.

I recognize this is all moot if the Bengals win on Sunday but it's more about equitability and fairness. 

Ok I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And there in lies the problem. They used one method to decide in the Bengals/Ravens game (coin flip) and one in the Bills/Bengals game (winning percentage).

Yeah, this is where I'm on team Bengals.  If you're gonna go for neutral site games due to the problem, then be consistent about it.  Otherwise you're compounding the unfairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And there in lies the problem. They used one method to decide in the Bengals/Ravens game (coin flip) and one in the Bills/Bengals game (winning percentage). And it doesn't address that the Bengals are declared AFC north champions regardless of whether the Ravens host the playoff game or not so they get the downside of playing the Bills, Chiefs and Vikings next year and none of the upside of hosting a home playoff game. This after they refunded everyone from the MNF game and only had 7 home games this season compared to 9 away.

I recognize this is all moot if the Bengals win on Sunday but it's more about equitability and fairness.

I get that if Cincy loses this week (they won't), that it sucks to use win % in the divisional round but not the WC, and that it screws Cincy both times.  But I do think that the fact that week 18 still has to be played is factoring into the decision.  The NFL wants that game to be meaningful, because meaningful games are good for the NFL. 

In addition, if the Bengals lose to Baltimore with a backup qb, they have only themselves to blame, that team has not looked like a playoff squad since Jackson went down.  They look like an easier out than either New England or LAC.  And while it's not fair that the Bengals still need to win this game, it does give the Bengals a readily available remedy to solving this problem.  Beat a very beatable team at home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It defeats the purpose of having to go into another team's stadium, especially if they do this with the AFC Championship game. The game should have been treated as a tie and just move on. We don't need to create all these moving parts.

I'm weird so I think about it as in like the context of the grander story.

Bengals, I know it would suck to have to go on the road because of a lost sumo match (that you can run a Hamlin live fundraising drive during) that made your injured comrade $20,000,000 but baby after that all you gotta do is win! Just start winning anyway and don't stop. All the greater your glory for the path forced to claim it

 

 

Eta: I know Hamlin is a Bill, I meant broader NFL comade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, this is where I'm on team Bengals.  If you're gonna go for neutral site games due to the problem, then be consistent about it.  Otherwise you're compounding the unfairness.

Or coin/flip both games. Just be consistent given the ramifications of the MNF game.

49 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I get that if Cincy loses this week (they won't), that it sucks to use win % in the divisional round but not the WC, and that it screws Cincy both times.  But I do think that the fact that week 18 still has to be played is factoring into the decision.  The NFL wants that game to be meaningful, because meaningful games are good for the NFL. 

In addition, if the Bengals lose to Baltimore with a backup qb, they have only themselves to blame, that team has not looked like a playoff squad since Jackson went down.  They look like an easier out than either New England or LAC.  And while it's not fair that the Bengals still need to win this game, it does give the Bengals a readily available remedy to solving this problem.  Beat a very beatable team at home. 

Bengals offense just watched a guy die on the field and be brought back to life. Sometimes weird things happen when a mentally unprepared offense faces a very good, focused defense. While I fully expect the Bengals to win, I also understand the ways freaky things can happen (see NE) in a divisional game of significant importance.

Anyway, it is what it is. It's not surprising, just disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, Cinnci best three Madden players vs Buffalos three best, battle royal using their teams in Madden and winner gets to claim the victory from last weeks. Stream it live and money made from advertising goes to the injured player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...