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

quote:

---

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.

---

You can't assume anything, that is my point. There is no difference here except the Bengals/Bills game was the one canceled. A game that was in Cincinnati. You make a decision based on a ceding change if one team had won but not based on the ceding change if another team had won?

quote:

---

If they beat Cincinnati in the canceled game they would have been the 2 seed, that’s why they “compromised” with the neutral site.

---

If they lose to Cincinnati, Buffalo would have been the three seed and Cincinnati the 2 seed. Again, why one and not the other? Pick a method and stick with that.

But as I said, a moot point.