- 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
Someone explain the "neutral site" reasoning for me.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 8:48 am
Posted on 1/23/23 at 8:48 am
I missed why the idiots in the NFL wanted to do it.
6
Posted on 1/23/23 at 8:51 am to Hangover Haven
Because had Buffalo won out they would have been the 1 seed. KC only had the better win percentage because they played 1 more game.
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
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:36 am to H-Town Tiger
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.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:37 am to Hangover Haven
There is talk this morning from legit people that the NFL wants to move all NFC/AFC Championship games in the future to Neutral sites now. They have apparently fallen in love with the idea supposedly as a way to reward teams with "Super Bowl ready" stadiums.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:38 am to Hangover Haven
Because the NFL feels bad for Atlanta because they’ll likely never make it to another championship game.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:45 am to mdomingue
quote:
You can't assume anything, that is my point.
And they did not, KC was the 1 seed and got the bye plus an easier opponent in the division round because they had the best record.
quote:
Again, why one and not the other?
They went by the record for the seeds. The only difference was the neutral site for the CCG and that’s because Buffalo had the tie breaker on KC if both finished with the same record.
I’m not saying I agree with it, KC should just have been the 1 seed and host It wasn’t that big of a deal but I understand why they “compromised”.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 10:20 am
Posted on 1/23/23 at 9:46 am to Fun Bunch
MMQB: Neutral Sites
Yep, Albert Breer outlined above why ($$$) and that it’s likely sooner rather than later.
The caveat I hadn’t thought of that he pointed out was that NFC stadiums would bid on AFC and AFC on NFC to prevent home field (unless it was NY or LA).
quote:
There is talk this morning from legit people that the NFL wants to move all NFC/AFC Championship games in the future to Neutral sites now. They have apparently fallen in love with the idea supposedly as a way to reward teams with "Super Bowl ready" stadiums.
Yep, Albert Breer outlined above why ($$$) and that it’s likely sooner rather than later.
The caveat I hadn’t thought of that he pointed out was that NFC stadiums would bid on AFC and AFC on NFC to prevent home field (unless it was NY or LA).
Posted on 1/23/23 at 10:15 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
but I understand why they “compromised”.
I guess I do too but it just seems like it was convenient that they arranged this about the time there was some talk about neutral site games for the conference championships in the future. Not sure the talk was anything realistic but there was some.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 10:18 am to mdomingue
quote:
seems like it was convenient that they arranged this about the time there was some talk about neutral site games for the conference championships in the future.
That’s been discussed before, it was actually Lamar Hunt the owner of the Chiefs that first proposed it years ago. The talk resurfaced because of the KC/Buff compromise this year
Posted on 1/23/23 at 10:19 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
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).
I think the better indicator was how the game was playing out prior to Hamlin's injury.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 10:55 am to pjk481
That's a horrible fricking idea. It's going to royally dick over cold weather teams in smaller cities. No way would Green Bay, Buffalo or Cincinnati ever get picked to host a conference championship game under a neutral site scenario.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 10:57 am to timbo
Neutral site games are dog water
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:04 am to BigPerm30
Phuck Atlanta. It's existence is overrated. We need a William Tecumseh Sherman again to deal with that place and THOSE people.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:11 am to pjk481
quote:
The caveat I hadn’t thought of that he pointed out was that NFC stadiums would bid on AFC and AFC on NFC to prevent home field (unless it was NY or LA).
what a stupid arse idea.
How about we also say unless it was TB/Miami, or Hou/Dallas, or New England/NY, or Washington/Baltimore, or Detroit and the AFC North, or Los Angeles/Arizona, etc.
I'd be furious if i was the Eagles and had to go play in LA against the 49ers.
Having the best record means something in the NFL. Don't take that away.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:16 am to mdomingue
quote:
If they lose to Cincinnati, Buffalo would have been the three seed and Cincinnati the 2 seed.
Right but Cincy was 3 and stayed 3 because the game wasn't played. Buffalo was 1 and finished 2 because the game wasn't played. Buffalo had the record and H2H over KC, but because they played one less game ended up with a lower win %. Your hypothetical is that Cincy lost the opportunity to do XYZ, Buffalo lost what they already had. It really isn't a hard concept to understand.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:16 am to Hangover Haven
The Bengals dominating win over the Bills yesterday proved that Bengals @ Chiefs was always going to be the AFCCG.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:27 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
think the better indicator was how the game was playing out prior to Hamlin's injury.
Yes because every game always plays out the exact same as it was looking mid way thru the first Q
Cincinnati was at home and frankly has been playing better of late but you can’t just assume the result for the purpose of seeding.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 11:30 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Yes because every game always plays out the exact same as it was looking mid way thru the first Q
Cincinnati was at home and frankly has been playing better of late but you can’t just assume the result for the purpose of seeding.
No one is saying assume anything. They're saying Cincinnati was dealt a raw deal.
Bengals are clearly the better team though.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News