Started By
Message

re: Someone explain the "neutral site" reasoning for me.

Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:08 am to
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
31088 posts
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:08 am to
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 by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
59158 posts
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:24 am to
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
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram