NFL Seeding Issue. May go by Winning Percentage

[mex 65,581]

8 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

It was given to us

No it wasn't. Buffalo could have easily lost that game.

Of course, this is assuming we beat LV which is not a given by any means.

[reesebobby 5,662]

Just now, mex said:

Every #1 seed enjoys that advantage. Along with HFA.

There's still a decent chance we host the AFCCG at home.  

[reesebobby 5,662]

1 minute ago, mex said:

No it wasn't. Buffalo could have easily lost that game.

Yes, but they didn't.  It's a mess, but I don't see how anyone can think the Chiefs got cheated.  

[Okiechief1 425]

2 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

Yes, but they didn't.  It's a mess, but I don't see how anyone can think the Chiefs got cheated.  

I don't think they got cheated as  much as i don't like  the precedent this sets for changing their own rules during the season.  Its just a bad look.  

Have too remember this isn't set yet as the owners could still shoot it down.  

[oldtimer 8,686]

2 minutes ago, Okiechief1 said:

I don't think they got cheated as  much as i don't like  the precedent this sets for changing their own rules during the season.  Its just a bad look.  

Have too remember this isn't set yet as the owners could still shoot it down.  

exactamundo...sure would like to be a fly on that wall

[AFCWEST 1,238]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/owners-will-be-able-to-amend-the-proposal-for-afc-playoff-seeding/ar-AA1636Gu?cvid=94beeab3bea249518c39fa2de06f024e

That said, the owners can choose to split the proposals into two votes, if they want. Other changes can be made. The suggestions can be amended or debated.

Ultimately, the league can do whatever it wants to do — as long as at least 24 owners agree. It takes only a block of nine to compel the league to retain the current rule on the books that contemplates playoff seeding based on winning percentage, with no allowances for neutral sites or coin flips or anything else.

That’s the biggest point that, before last night, had been glossed over. Through multiple conference calls and, undoubtedly, plenty of other off-the-record and/or background conversations with reporters, there  was never an explanation that the NFL already has a rule for dealing with canceled games, and that the league was choosing to flat-out ignore that rule and come up with something else on the fly.

When the owners meet, that should be the first question asked. Why are we changing the rule that was already created for this specific situation?

That’s an explanation, if there is one, that hasn’t been provided to the media. Presumably, it will be provided to the men and women who own the 32 NFL teams.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

1 minute ago, AFCWEST said:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/owners-will-be-able-to-amend-the-proposal-for-afc-playoff-seeding/ar-AA1636Gu?cvid=94beeab3bea249518c39fa2de06f024e

That said, the owners can choose to split the proposals into two votes, if they want. Other changes can be made. The suggestions can be amended or debated.

Ultimately, the league can do whatever it wants to do — as long as at least 24 owners agree. It takes only a block of nine to compel the league to retain the current rule on the books that contemplates playoff seeding based on winning percentage, with no allowances for neutral sites or coin flips or anything else.

That’s the biggest point that, before last night, had been glossed over. Through multiple conference calls and, undoubtedly, plenty of other off-the-record and/or background conversations with reporters, there  was never an explanation that the NFL already has a rule for dealing with canceled games, and that the league was choosing to flat-out ignore that rule and come up with something else on the fly.

When the owners meet, that should be the first question asked. Why are we changing the rule that was already created for this specific situation?

That’s an explanation, if there is one, that hasn’t been provided to the media. Presumably, it will be provided to the men and women who own the 32 NFL teams.

So the NFL does have a rule for cancelled games. They should stick to it!

[AFCWEST 1,238]

I wonder if fans, a city, sponsors and season ticket holders can sue the NFL for not following a rule already in place when they purchased their tickets? Get a good attorney and do a class action. 

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

13 minutes ago, Okiechief1 said:

I don't think they got cheated as  much as i don't like  the precedent this sets for changing their own rules during the season.  Its just a bad look.  

Have too remember this isn't set yet as the owners could still shoot it down.  

according to what i heard on the radio this morning, there is already something in the 2022 rules that covers this scenario and now the NFL wants to change the rules they already approved because they can make money by moving the Championship game. They can then change it in the future to want to have AFC & NFC Championships at Neutral sites like the NCAA Games. 

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

4 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

I wonder if fans, a city, sponsors and season ticket holders can sue the NFL for not following a rule already in place when they purchased their tickets? Get a good attorney and do a class action. 

 I would expect that to happen, but will it matter when the NFL has deep pockets 

[AFCWEST 1,238]

2 minutes ago, KC Warpaint said:

 I would expect that to happen, but will it matter when the NFL has deep pockets 

Deep pockets equal huge awards. If I pay to sponsor a stadium and base what Im willing to pay on the chances that team has to get playoff exposure I am suing big time. I would think teams like KC get bigger revenues than say the Texans based on winning. Fans buy tickets hoping for that playoff game. Is there anything in their contract thats says we may decide you dont get that game? Cities give huge tax breaks to teams hoping to get those big games. It goes on and on.

[xen 1,010,220]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/01/06/proposed-afc-seeding-plan-raises-important-issues-about-rule-changes-precedent/

 

As Commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged in a statement issued on Thursday, “there is no perfect solution” to the cancellation of the Bills-Bengals game. However, the NFL’s Policy Manual for Member Clubs, Game Operations 2022 Edition already has contemplated the imperfect process that will apply in the event a game is cancelled.

Playoff seeding is determined by winning percentages.

That applies to any cancellation of a game, whether in Week One or Week 18 or any week in between. The Bills-Bengals game was indeed cancelled. The league previously created a specific rule that applies to the cancellation of games.

Fair or not, that’s the rule. The NFL is now proposing to ownership an impromptu change to the rules. That’s why 24 owners must approve of this adjustment to the applicable protocol, during the season.

The Bengals, one of the teams directly affected by the proposal on which the owners will vote on Friday, have emphasized this point.

“The proper process for making rule change is in the off-season,” executive V.P. Katie Blackburn wrote in a memo obtained by ESPN.com. “It is not appropriate to put teams in a position to vote for something that may introduce bias, favor one team over another or impact their own situation when the vote takes place immediately before the playoffs.”

The mere fact that a game is canceled, whatever the reason, is highly unusual. It hasn’t happened in a non-strike year since 1935. Whether due to weather or illness or injury or any other extraordinary factor that would keep a game from being played, the league has already determined the approach that will apply.

Frankly, this should have been simple. It shouldn’t have taken multiple days to figure it out. It shouldn’t have required memos and meetings and conversations and backroom deals and efforts to drop grains of rice on the two sides of the scale in order to balance out any potential inequity. The rule is the rule. If a game is canceled, playoff seeding is determined by winning percentage, without neutral sites or coin flips or any other proposal that was discussed or raised or considered, from adding an eighth team to neutralize the benefit of a bye that was obtained unfairly to the arguably kooky notion that the Chiefs, if they beat the Raiders on Saturday, would have had to choose between taking a week off or having home-field advantage in an AFC Championship against the Bills or Bengals.

The league can now claim that the various possibilities that were discussed or raised or considered actually weren’t. The truth is that no other possibilities should have been considered, because there’s already a rule that provides the answer to the question.

Instead, the owners will consider on Friday the ultra-extraordinary step of changes the rules DURING a season. Time and again during the two-plus decades PFT has been in existence, it has been explained that rules deemed to be inappropriate or unfair would not be changed during the season. When voting tomorrow, the owners need to realize the unprecedented nature of the step they’d be taking.

Frankly, the currently proposed approach falls squarely into the category of “making it up as we go.” If the league wanted to have the flexibility to fashion an outcome based on the specific facts of a given case (as it’s doing here), the rules would provide for that. They don’t.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s the right decision or the best of various bad options. There’s a rule on the books. The owners will be considering a change to that rule, during a season.

They have the power to do it, obviously. But everyone needs to understand what this means. Settled, codified rules don’t matter during a given season, if 24 owners suddenly decide they no longer matter. The owners need to be prepared to cross that Rubicon when voting on the proposals they’ll consider on Friday.

It doesn’t matter that the Competition Committee voted in favor of the proposed change. The owners can, and do, reject proposals made by the Competition Committee in the offseason.

It also doesn’t matter that some teams harbor resentment (and they do) toward Bengals owner Mike Brown, who has a habit of voting against proposals on which the vast majority of other clubs agree. Some may be tempted to “stick it” to Brown by approving a rule that, even if the Bengals have a better winning percentage than the Ravens, a head-to-head sweep by Baltimore would result in a coin toss to determine home field, if the two teams are set to play each other in the wild-card round.

The league often justifies the imposition of punishment by explaining that the actions of a team or a person undermine the integrity of the game, and public confidence in professional football. Before ignoring previously-crafted rules in favor of something that seems to better address a given set of facts, the owners need to ask themselves whether that action, in and of itself, undermines the integrity of the game, and/or public confidence in professional football.

Again, they can do whatever at least 24 of them want to do. But they need to realize the broader impact of what they’d be doing.

Once this starts, where does it end? Would the owners change the rules regarding roughing the passer during a season? Would they make pass inference a 15-yard penalty and not a spot foul during a season? Would they alter the overtime rules during a season?

This isn’t about fairness or unfairness to the Chiefs, Bills, Ravens, or Bengals. It’s about whether the rules on the books will remain on the books until a given season ends. If the rules are going to change during a given season, that potentially changes everything.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

6 minutes ago, xen said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/01/06/proposed-afc-seeding-plan-raises-important-issues-about-rule-changes-precedent/

 

As Commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged in a statement issued on Thursday, “there is no perfect solution” to the cancellation of the Bills-Bengals game. However, the NFL’s Policy Manual for Member Clubs, Game Operations 2022 Edition already has contemplated the imperfect process that will apply in the event a game is cancelled.

Playoff seeding is determined by winning percentages.

That applies to any cancellation of a game, whether in Week One or Week 18 or any week in between. The Bills-Bengals game was indeed cancelled. The league previously created a specific rule that applies to the cancellation of games.

Fair or not, that’s the rule. The NFL is now proposing to ownership an impromptu change to the rules. That’s why 24 owners must approve of this adjustment to the applicable protocol, during the season.

The Bengals, one of the teams directly affected by the proposal on which the owners will vote on Friday, have emphasized this point.

“The proper process for making rule change is in the off-season,” executive V.P. Katie Blackburn wrote in a memo obtained by ESPN.com. “It is not appropriate to put teams in a position to vote for something that may introduce bias, favor one team over another or impact their own situation when the vote takes place immediately before the playoffs.”

The mere fact that a game is canceled, whatever the reason, is highly unusual. It hasn’t happened in a non-strike year since 1935. Whether due to weather or illness or injury or any other extraordinary factor that would keep a game from being played, the league has already determined the approach that will apply.

Frankly, this should have been simple. It shouldn’t have taken multiple days to figure it out. It shouldn’t have required memos and meetings and conversations and backroom deals and efforts to drop grains of rice on the two sides of the scale in order to balance out any potential inequity. The rule is the rule. If a game is canceled, playoff seeding is determined by winning percentage, without neutral sites or coin flips or any other proposal that was discussed or raised or considered, from adding an eighth team to neutralize the benefit of a bye that was obtained unfairly to the arguably kooky notion that the Chiefs, if they beat the Raiders on Saturday, would have had to choose between taking a week off or having home-field advantage in an AFC Championship against the Bills or Bengals.

The league can now claim that the various possibilities that were discussed or raised or considered actually weren’t. The truth is that no other possibilities should have been considered, because there’s already a rule that provides the answer to the question.

Instead, the owners will consider on Friday the ultra-extraordinary step of changes the rules DURING a season. Time and again during the two-plus decades PFT has been in existence, it has been explained that rules deemed to be inappropriate or unfair would not be changed during the season. When voting tomorrow, the owners need to realize the unprecedented nature of the step they’d be taking.

Frankly, the currently proposed approach falls squarely into the category of “making it up as we go.” If the league wanted to have the flexibility to fashion an outcome based on the specific facts of a given case (as it’s doing here), the rules would provide for that. They don’t.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s the right decision or the best of various bad options. There’s a rule on the books. The owners will be considering a change to that rule, during a season.

They have the power to do it, obviously. But everyone needs to understand what this means. Settled, codified rules don’t matter during a given season, if 24 owners suddenly decide they no longer matter. The owners need to be prepared to cross that Rubicon when voting on the proposals they’ll consider on Friday.

It doesn’t matter that the Competition Committee voted in favor of the proposed change. The owners can, and do, reject proposals made by the Competition Committee in the offseason.

It also doesn’t matter that some teams harbor resentment (and they do) toward Bengals owner Mike Brown, who has a habit of voting against proposals on which the vast majority of other clubs agree. Some may be tempted to “stick it” to Brown by approving a rule that, even if the Bengals have a better winning percentage than the Ravens, a head-to-head sweep by Baltimore would result in a coin toss to determine home field, if the two teams are set to play each other in the wild-card round.

The league often justifies the imposition of punishment by explaining that the actions of a team or a person undermine the integrity of the game, and public confidence in professional football. Before ignoring previously-crafted rules in favor of something that seems to better address a given set of facts, the owners need to ask themselves whether that action, in and of itself, undermines the integrity of the game, and/or public confidence in professional football.

Again, they can do whatever at least 24 of them want to do. But they need to realize the broader impact of what they’d be doing.

Once this starts, where does it end? Would the owners change the rules regarding roughing the passer during a season? Would they make pass inference a 15-yard penalty and not a spot foul during a season? Would they alter the overtime rules during a season?

This isn’t about fairness or unfairness to the Chiefs, Bills, Ravens, or Bengals. It’s about whether the rules on the books will remain on the books until a given season ends. If the rules are going to change during a given season, that potentially changes everything.

Exactly Correct. Makes AFCWEST Points: This would create hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits. 

Again, they can do whatever at least 24 of them want to do. But they need to realize the broader impact of what they’d be doing.

Once this starts, where does it end? Would the owners change the rules regarding roughing the passer during a season? Would they make pass inference a 15-yard penalty and not a spot foul during a season? Would they alter the overtime rules during a season?

This isn’t about fairness or unfairness to the Chiefs, Bills, Ravens, or Bengals. It’s about whether the rules on the books will remain on the books until a given season ends. If the rules are going to change during a given season, that potentially changes everything.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

This part is Stupid. Who knows if  Buff or Cinn will make it to the AFCCG? Crazy. KC choses home field and can lose in the wild card game. Nuts. It seems intended for KC to waive home field.

that the Chiefs, if they beat the Raiders on Saturday, would have had to choose between taking a week off or having home-field advantage in an AFC Championship against the Bills or Bengals.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

NFL Network's Ian Rapoport reports Bills S Damar Hamlin talked to his teammates Friday morning. 

His breathing tube removed, Hamlin -- who collapsed on the field Monday night in Cincinnati -- was able to speak with Bills players for the first time since he was sedated at a nearby hospital. Doctors have been highly encouraged by Hamlin's progress over the past 72 hours; the removal of his breathing tube means he can breathe on his own. The University of Cincinnati Medical Center announced Thursday that Hamlin's "neurological condition and function is intact." It's the best possible news for the 24 year old as he makes his recovery. If remains to be seen when, or if, he will rejoin the Bills. 

[mex 65,581]

14 minutes ago, xen said:

Playoff seeding is determined by winning percentages.

Fair or not, that’s the rule. The NFL is now proposing to ownership an impromptu change to the rules. 

My point entirely.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

5 minutes ago, mex said:

My point entirely.

Maybe if the players knew the rule on the books they would have PLAYED? The players union should also sue the owners if they do not follow the rules and for not telling the players what happens if they decided not to play. 

WHAT A SHIT SHOW

ITs Jan 6th. Time for an insurrection. STOP THE PLAYOFF STEAL. 

[Okiechief1 425]

42 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

exactamundo...sure would like to be a fly on that wall

Yea no kidding. Clark won't go against what the committee suggested imo

.I wouldn't want Jones as an owner but i can't see if this was happening to Dallas Jerry would be good with it either. 

[AFCWEST 1,238]

3 minutes ago, Okiechief1 said:

Yea no kidding. Clark won't go against what the committee suggested imo

.I wouldn't want Jones as an owner but i can't see if this was happening to Dallas Jerry would be good with it either. 

Clark may well go against this. If he votes yes and Im a sponsor etc i would sue him, the team,  personally. This is a legal windfall for Attorneys. 

Every small business owner in KC should sue. This list is infinite. The rule is on the books.

[mex 65,581]

5 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

Maybe if the players knew the rule on the books they would have PLAYED? The players union should also sue the owners if they do not follow the rules and for not telling the players what happens if they decided not to play. 

WHAT A SHIT SHOW

ITs Jan 6th. Time for an insurrection. STOP THE PLAYOFF STEAL. 

Meh... they play football for a living... probably should understand the rules of the game.

[oldtimer 8,686]

4 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

Maybe if the players knew the rule on the books they would have PLAYED? The players union should also sue the owners if they do not follow the rules and for not telling the players what happens if they decided not to play. 

WHAT A SHIT SHOW

ITs Jan 6th. Time for an insurrection. STOP THE PLAYOFF STEAL. 

ignorance of the rules is no excuse. every team has an NFLPA  rep usually one of the smarter people in the locker room. The players made an emotional decision .. that what people do these days. Seriously I'm past he point of caring anymore...Play Ball

[AFCWEST 1,238]

1 minute ago, mex said:

Meh... they play football for a living... probably should understand the rules of the game.

I seriously doubt they were aware that if the game is cancelled this could happen. They play the game not the BUSSINESS of Football.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

ignorance of the rules is no excuse. every team has an NFLPA  rep usually one of the smarter people in the locker room. The players made an emotional decision .. that what people do these days. Seriously I'm past he point of caring anymore...Play Ball

That may apply to laws. I doubt player reps, still players, knew about this rule. I doubt they held a formal meeting and took a real vote.

[mex 65,581]

Just now, oldtimer said:

Seriously I'm past he point of caring anymore...Play Ball

I'm with you... I've been following some buffalo and cincy boards and it's hilarious that each team thinks they're getting hosed. The buff fans think the Chiefs are getting away with murder, simply because buff won the head-to-head which is absolutely meaningless and kinda funny being as how last year buff beat us in the reg season and still lost in the playoffs.

Fans can rationalize anything...

[mex 65,581]

2 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

I seriously doubt they were aware that if the game is cancelled this could happen. They play the game not the BUSSINESS of Football.

The whole point of playing the game is to win a championship. That is the ultimate goal of every player in the league. 

Not knowing the rules is on the players. There's no difference between the rules for playoff seeding, than the rules for canceling a game.

They are professionals. Football is what they do.