- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Someone explain the "neutral site" reasoning for me.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:08 am to Hangover Haven
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:08 am to Hangover Haven
Had Cincy won the canceled game, they would have had the home-field advantage in that game vs Buffalo yet they still played that as though Buffalo Should have home-field vs Cincy. Although I understand a conference championship game is more significant than the qualifying game, there is only one reason it makes sense to me that they would do that in the Buffalo/KC matchup but not the Cincy/Buffalo matchup. I think it was a flyer to test moving the conference championship games to a neutral site to see what the response might be. It is a moot point here, however.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:24 am to mdomingue
quote:
Had Cincy won the canceled game, they would have had the home-field advantage in that game vs Buffalo yet they still played that as though Buffalo Should have home-field vs Cincy
Buffalo had a better record in the same amount of games as Cincinnati. You can’t just assume they would have won if the game was not canceled (and no you can’t use yesterday as “proof” that’s 20/20 hindsight). Buffalo beat KC head to head and had the same amount of loses. If they beat Cincinnati in the canceled game they would have been the 1 seed, that’s why they “compromised” with the neutral site.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 9:27 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News