NFL Seeding Issue. May go by Winning Percentage

[Okiechief1 425]

4 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

Why doesn't NFL have playoff scenario putting potential Bills-Bengals rematch at neutral site?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/why-doesn-t-nfl-have-playoff-scenario-putting-potential-bills-bengals-rematch-at-neutral-site/ar-AA163lBG?cvid=67872afee3154a098ed173cf5e1978f0

 Second, even though the Bengals were declared AFC North champions since they currently retain a 1½-game lead on the Baltimore Ravens, if the Ravens complete a season sweep of Cincinnati on Sunday, then the site of a potential wild-card rematch between the teams would be determined by a coin flip.

Cincy is the one that potentially gets hurt the worst in this.  

[jetlord 10,209]

The Chiefs didn't really come out on the short end this time.  All they lost was HFA if Cincy had won on Monday and the Chiefs beat the Raiders.  They traded the possibility of being shut out of the #1 seed for the AFCCG being at a neutral site.  That only happens if Buff wins their next three games, Sunday, Wild Card, and Divisional round.  It all boils down to beating the Raiders which was always the case.  Cincy fans are the ones most likely to have a gripe with the Ravens fans as well since they lost the chance to win the division.  

[AFCWEST 1,238]

25 minutes ago, jetlord said:

The Chiefs didn't really come out on the short end this time.  All they lost was HFA if Cincy had won on Monday and the Chiefs beat the Raiders.  They traded the possibility of being shut out of the #1 seed for the AFCCG being at a neutral site.  That only happens if Buff wins their next three games, Sunday, Wild Card, and Divisional round.  It all boils down to beating the Raiders which was always the case.  Cincy fans are the ones most likely to have a gripe with the Ravens fans as well since they lost the chance to win the division.  

Maybe not the players and team. For the city , county, state ,season ticket holders, local business, sponsors , stadium employees, advertising and for so many more it is devastating.

[Lamardirts 2,114]

28 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

Maybe not the players and team. For the city , county, state ,season ticket holders, local business, sponsors , stadium employees, advertising and for so many more it is devastating.

Considering it was never a guarantee, I would hardly consider it devastating.  It’s frustrating but overall this worked out well for the Chiefs.   There is a very good chance KC will host the AFCCG at Arrowhead because the path the Bills are facing is daunting to say the least. If we win tomorrow the only way we play that game at a neutral site is if it’s vs the Bills.  

[AFCWEST 1,238]

5 minutes ago, Lamardirts said:

Considering it was never a guarantee, I would hardly consider it devastating.  It’s frustrating but overall this worked out well for the Chiefs.   There is a very good chance KC will host the AFCCG at Arrowhead because the path the Bills are facing is daunting to say the least. If we win tomorrow the only way we play that game at a neutral site is if it’s vs the Bills.  

Business count on those big games and fans in KC live for the big games. I assume you are not a business owner, employee, advertiser, season ticket holder etc. To them moving that game is a very big deal. I owned a chain of sports bars and thrived when the local teams were in the playoffs. In weeks with championship games we would make 500% more. 

[reesebobby 5,662]

10 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

Business count on those big games and fans in KC live for the big games. I assume you are not a business owner, employee, advertiser, season ticket holder etc. To them moving that game is a very big deal. I owned a chain of sports bars and thrived when the local teams were in the playoffs. In weeks with championship games we would make 500% more. 

Your business didn't thrive during championship games because it was a home game that they were attending.  Your business thrived with people that wanted to go put and watch it.  A neutral site would not affect that.  Actually takes 80k people out of bars for a home game 

[AFCWEST 1,238]

2 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

Your business didn't thrive during championship games because it was a home game that they were attending.  Your business thrived with people that wanted to go put and watch it.  A neutral site would not affect that.  Actually takes 80k people out of bars for a home game 

It thrived because it was a home game. We had awesome business all week long. Its clear you have never owned or operated a sports bar. I have and I have that expertise. So its not just sports bars its every business. You get people in town that are from all over and emplyees like sports casters, NFL crews etc. Its business all week long, morning, noon and night.

[reesebobby 5,662]

Just now, AFCWEST said:

It thrived because it was a home game. We had awesome business all week long. Its clear you have never owned or operated a sports bar. I have and I have that expertise. So its not just sports bars its every business. You get people in town that are from all over and emplyees like sports casters, NFL crews etc. Its business all week long, morning, noon and night.

I have owned a sports bar actually 

[AFCWEST 1,238]

Just now, reesebobby said:

I have owned a sports bar actually 

Well you and I did not operate the same. What you stated is simply not reality. Let it go. 

[reesebobby 5,662]

1 minute ago, AFCWEST said:

Well you and I did not operate the same. What you stated is simply not reality. Let it go. 

We were always busy when the chiefs played.  Or ku. Or kstate. That's why they call it a sports bar and not a night club. You weren't?

[AFCWEST 1,238]

6 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

We were always busy when the chiefs played.  Or ku. Or kstate. That's why they call it a sports bar and not a night club. You weren't?

You are so wrong about this. 

Big Games are a full on week of prosperity. My sports bar were huge restaurants, combination night clubs etc. The big draw was sports. They were, still are, set up like Vegas Sports Betting Lounges. Capacity 200+. We were very busy all week every week of the year. When the Big Games were in town, World Series etc, our revenue soared over 500%.. 

[reesebobby 5,662]

2 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

You are so wrong about this. 

Big Games are a full on week of prosperity. My sports bar were huge restaurants, combination night clubs etc. The big draw was sports. They were, still are, set up like Vegas Sports Betting Lounges. Capacity 200+. We were very busy all week every week of the year. When the Big Games were in town, World Series etc, our revenue soared over 500%.. 

Sounds pretty good. 

[jetlord 10,209]

Bottom line is that the Chiefs are more likely to host the AFCCG now than they were five days ago.  All else is speculation.

[Lamardirts 2,114]

2 hours ago, AFCWEST said:

Business count on those big games and fans in KC live for the big games. I assume you are not a business owner, employee, advertiser, season ticket holder etc. To them moving that game is a very big deal. I owned a chain of sports bars and thrived when the local teams were in the playoffs. In weeks with championship games we would make 500% more. 

If your business model counted on the home team to host the AFCCG every year to survive (my understanding of the term devastating in the context of business) then your model sucked.  Im not saying your actual model sucked, but rather pointing out that something that is not guaranteed and in reality is not normally a common occurrence shouldn’t be devestating unless the model was gambling or flat out bad. Sounds like you did well and those games were a big bonus.  I’m not saying local businesses wouldn’t miss out on a huge influx and that would suck and be frustrating but no business should be counting on a game that is normally not a common or frequent occurrence to survive.  

[Lamardirts 2,114]

21 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Bottom line is that the Chiefs are more likely to host the AFCCG now than they were five days ago.  All else is speculation.

That bye is huge if we were to get it and there is also a real good chance we could still host the AFCCG if we make it because the gauntlet the Bills will face will be brutal.

[mex 65,581]

41 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Bottom line is that the Chiefs are more likely to host the AFCCG now than they were five days ago.  All else is speculation.

Not sure that's true.

5 days ago it was highly likely Buff lost to Cin.

5 days later the only way KC hosts the AFCCG is if both Buff and Cin get beat in the playoffs.

[jetlord 10,209]

11 minutes ago, mex said:

Not sure that's true.

5 days ago it was highly likely Buff lost to Cin.

5 days later the only way KC hosts the AFCCG is if both Buff and Cin get beat in the playoffs.

Disagree with you second sentence.  Maybe Cincy would have won.  They certainly have been playing well and got off to a good start in the game.  But the odds makers had KC at 41% to get the #1 seed.  Probably had the Bills/Bengals at near 50/50 with the chance that KC could lose to the Raiders moving it down to 41.  Now, if the Chiefs beat the Raiders (necessary in any scenario) the Bills have to beat NE, a low seed, then probably Cincy to even get to the AFCCG.  Chances in the next Cincy game are no better than the one cancelled Monday.  As for Cincy, the Chiefs would host a game with them unless they lost to the Raiders tomorrow   

[mex 65,581]

4 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Disagree with you second sentence.  Maybe Cincy would have won.  They certainly have been playing well and got off to a good start in the game.  But the odds makers had KC at 41% to get the #1 seed.  Probably had the Bills/Bengals at near 50/50 with the chance that KC could lose to the Raiders moving it down to 41.  Now, if the Chiefs beat the Raiders (necessary in any scenario) the Bills have to beat NE, a low seed, then probably Cincy to even get to the AFCCG.  Chances in the next Cincy game are no better than the one cancelled Monday.  As for Cincy, the Chiefs would host a game with them unless they lost to the Raiders tomorrow   

Assuming we beat LV, which is never a done deal... and both cincy and buff win (likely) cincy and buff will have to play each other before either would play us.  Right? So it's likely the next time we meet either one of them would be on a neutral field, not Arrowhead.

[jetlord 10,209]

1 minute ago, mex said:

Assuming we beat LV, which is never a done deal... and both cincy and buff win (likely) cincy and buff will have to play before either play us.  Right? So it's likely the next time we meet either would be on a neutral field, not Arrowead.

Don't think so.  BUFF?  Yes.  CINN?  No because if KC beats LVS, CINN would have finished behind them even if they won out.  My understanding is that the only was KC and CINN play on a neutral site is if KC loses to LVS and CINN wins out.  Then KC would be the #2 seed (assuming BUFF wins Sunday) based on win percentage but play on a neutral site because CINN would have been ahead of them if they had finished and won on Monday.  The neutral site issue only arises if the results could have been changed by finishing the Monday game. 

[reesebobby 5,662]

18 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Don't think so.  BUFF?  Yes.  CINN?  No because if KC beats LVS, CINN would have finished behind them even if they won out.  My understanding is that the only was KC and CINN play on a neutral site is if KC loses to LVS and CINN wins out.  Then KC would be the #2 seed (assuming BUFF wins Sunday) based on win percentage but play on a neutral site because CINN would have been ahead of them if they had finished and won on Monday.  The neutral site issue only arises if the results could have been changed by finishing the Monday game. 

Correct.  If we win our divisional game we either play Cincinnati at arrowhead or Buffalo at a neutral site. 

[AFCWEST 1,238]

10 hours ago, Lamardirts said:

If your business model counted on the home team to host the AFCCG every year to survive (my understanding of the term devastating in the context of business) then your model sucked.  Im not saying your actual model sucked, but rather pointing out that something that is not guaranteed and in reality is not normally a common occurrence shouldn’t be devestating unless the model was gambling or flat out bad. Sounds like you did well and those games were a big bonus.  I’m not saying local businesses wouldn’t miss out on a huge influx and that would suck and be frustrating but no business should be counting on a game that is normally not a common or frequent occurrence to survive.  

OK if you take devastating literally you are correct. 

[oldtimer 8,686]

47 minutes ago, AFCWEST said:

OK if you take devastating literally you are correct. 

can the word "devastating" be defined any other way?

 reminds me of A FEW GOOD MEN's "Grave Danger" interaction

[Holmes4six! 968]

10 hours ago, reesebobby said:

Correct.  If we win our divisional game we either play Cincinnati at arrowhead or Buffalo at a neutral site. 

Do we have a sense of who we would play if we end up with one seed? What about if we are two seed? 
I know the last wild card is up for grabs and could be pats, dolphins or Steelers. 

[Okiechief1 425]

6 minutes ago, Holmes4six! said:

Do we have a sense of who we would play if we end up with one seed? What about if we are two seed? 
I know the last wild card is up for grabs and could be pats, dolphins or Steelers. 

If the seedings stay the same KC as the 1 seed would get the winner of chargers jax in the divisional rd.  2 seed might be bmore with a potential matchup of cincy after that.  Assuming buffalo is 1 and win their divisional rd kc would go to buff.  

[oldtimer 8,686]

Chiefs abstained from voting on AFC playoff changes for 2022

When NFL owners met to vote for the approval of Resolution G-1, Kansas City Chiefs CEO and Chairman Clark Hunt was among the few to abstain from voting on the proposal.

According to ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler, the Chiefs decided to abstain from voting on the playoff changes because they felt the teams directly impacted shouldn’t vote due to potential bias. The Cincinnati Bengals are presumed to be among the teams to have voted “no” to the proposal after executive vice president Katie Blackburn pushed back against it.

Blackburn’s qualm with the proposal was simple — voting to make this change during the season introduces bias into the equation.

“The proper process for making rule change (sic) is in the off-season,” Blackburn wrote, via ESPN. “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.”

It appears that the Chiefs agreed with Blackburn’s concerns.

According to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, the proposal passed with 25 “yes” votes. It needed just 24 votes in order to pass. Florio says that three to four teams voted “no” and that the rest abstained from voting.