NFL 2022

[twocoach]

All great news. Hats off to the NFL for having the medical staff in place at the stadium so that players who experience such an event have the best chance at survival. If this happens to some dude working in a warehouse where he gets hit by some equipment in the chest at just the wrong time like this, he is most likely dead right now.

[twocoach]

I think unfortunately it has to be a no contest, no matter the results this weekend.

While the Bengals cannot get the 1 seed, they lock in the AFC North title.
And while the Bills would need the Chiefs to loose to get the 1 seed, they were loosing to the Bengals in the game, 7-3, and the Bengals had the ball, so this is certainly better than calling the game as is.

Pushing things back will be a logistics nightmare, will affect hundreds of thousands of people's travel plans, and will change the way the Super Bowl is set and played.

And it would bring a scenario where most the NFL would have a bye week before the playoffs.
And possibly give both NFC and AFC champs 2 weeks off - which also might not be fair to them.

Yeah, the two weeks off made me nervous. That's a long time to sit and get rusty.

[CrimsonNBlue]

https://twitter.com/thecomeback/status/ ... 7zv-lahniw

[NewtonHawk11]

Pick the bye 10/10

[CrimsonNBlue]

Pick the bye 10/10

It's an interesting exercise.

BUF probably wouldn't feel too bad having HFA until SB given the weather and their style of play.

However, they could use the mental break of a bye.

[NewtonHawk11]

It's kind of strange. But Mahomes is better on the road than he is at home.

Better yards per game, better rating, better TD/INT ratio, better completion percentage and more.

I think anytime you can eliminate a game being played in the playoffs, you do it.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I think anytime you can eliminate a game being played in the playoffs, you do it.

Definitely where I lean.

And makes me wonder if getting the 1 seed is too much of an advantage? Expand the field to 8 per conference?

[pdub]

I have a better idea.
Decrease the field to 6 per conference and have 2 byes.

[jfish26]

I have a better idea.
Decrease the field to 6 per conference and have 2 byes.

I definitely thought that things were set up very neatly before adding a 17th game and 7th playoff team.

The schedule generated itself (in a very fair and logical manner). The playoffs (and seeds/byes) were determined in a very fair and logical manner.

[pdub]

So if you're the 1 seed you could choose to play the 7 at home and then there's reseeding?
If the Pats or the Steelers are the 7 seed, I might slightly consider home field.

I know the Steelers are on a 3 game streak but that's against the Panthers, a completely collapsed and demoralized Carr and a Lamar Jacksonless Ravens.
The Pats defense is one of the better in the league and it's Bill but man, I just see Mac Jones folding at Arrowhead.

[pdub]

I have a better idea.
Decrease the field to 6 per conference and have 2 byes.

I definitely thought that things were set up very neatly before adding a 17th game and 7th playoff team.

The schedule generated itself (in a very fair and logical manner). The playoffs (and seeds/byes) were determined in a very fair and logical manner.

It was perfection.
( well there were on the fence issues with reseeding after each round or giving division winners 1-4 instead of giving every team ranked 1-6 disregarding division - i did think any division winner should get an auto bid but started to lean to being agnostic after that when it came to seeding - but 6 and 16 was the ticket )

[jfish26]

I think anytime you can eliminate a game being played in the playoffs, you do it.

Definitely where I lean.

And makes me wonder if getting the 1 seed is too much of an advantage? Expand the field to 8 per conference?

If you expand to 8, then there are no byes. So, if anything, expanding to 8 would seem to water down the chase for the top seed(s).

[CrimsonNBlue]

I think anytime you can eliminate a game being played in the playoffs, you do it.

Definitely where I lean.

And makes me wonder if getting the 1 seed is too much of an advantage? Expand the field to 8 per conference?

If you expand to 8, then there are no byes. So, if anything, expanding to 8 would seem to water down the chase for the top seed(s).

Oh yeah, duh.

So then let's just go back to what it was, ideally. NFL won't do that, so I guess you'd have to go all the way to 10 teams to reward the best teams in the conference.

[jfish26]

I have a better idea.
Decrease the field to 6 per conference and have 2 byes.

I definitely thought that things were set up very neatly before adding a 17th game and 7th playoff team.

The schedule generated itself (in a very fair and logical manner). The playoffs (and seeds/byes) were determined in a very fair and logical manner.

It was perfection.
( well there were on the fence issues with reseeding after each round or giving division winners 1-4 instead of giving every team ranked 1-6 disregarding division - i did think any division winner should get an auto bid but started to lean to being agnostic after that when it came to seeding - but 6 and 16 was the ticket )

I think division autobids were/are good. I would have changed it to where you don't get an automatic home game, but the bid part makes sense.

[pdub]

That said, I know I am biased, but even subjectively, that's simply not fair ( neutral or 1 seed choice ) to any team that had the chance at the 1 seed that wasn't involved at all in a cancelled game.

[CrimsonNBlue]

If Chiefs lose to the Raiders, then Cincy would feel really raw about it.

It's just a situation with no great solutions because the NFL decided not to make up the game.

[pdub]

If the Chiefs win against the Raiders, they have done everything in their power to get the top seed.
They were uninvolved in the game that can't be made up.

The NFL should have come up with a contingency plan for something like this but because they haven't, they shouldn't alter the rules right before the playoffs.

Additionally, if you are going to alter that rule, you should lock it in now, so that the Chiefs/Raiders game then also has no relevancy.

The most straight forward thing would be to call it a no contest.
It isn't fair to those two teams but it is more unfair for any other team not involved.

[jfish26]

If the Chiefs win against the Raiders, they have done everything in their power to get the top seed.
They were uninvolved in the game that can't be made up.

The NFL should have come up with a contingency plan for something like this but because they haven't, they shouldn't alter the rules right before the playoffs.

The most straight forward thing would be to call it a no contest.
It isn't fair to those two teams but it is more unfair for any other team not involved.

There IS a rule for how to treat a game that neither team won or lost. The same principle should be applied here, where neither team won or lost.

It's absolutely true that, if you're not going to play the game, there will be winners and losers to how you choose to handle the standings/seedings. In my opinion, the chips should fall on the side of the teams that completed their schedule.

There's a difference between unfortunate and unfair, and the Bills "losing out" on the #1 seed because they did not play a complete schedule is not unfair (as unfortunate as it is).

[CrimsonNBlue]

Just looked at the standings again, and I'm guessing yet another one of the problems the NFL faced with making up the game after Week 17 is that there would be no incentive for Cincy to play against Buffalo. Cincy would have been locked into the 3 spot if Chiefs beat Raiders, and that would be the situation to rest guys.

[NewtonHawk11]

All these Damar Hamlin updates happening just now are absolutely incredible.