Buffalo Bills 2022-23

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, JujuFish said:

And give every team except the Bills and Bengals a week to rest and recover. I don't see it happening.

It's more fair than not playing the game at all, if some teams' playoff positioning or even making it  at all is an issue.

[carpandean]

3 hours ago, JujuFish said:

And give every team except the Bills and Bengals a week to rest and recover. I don't see it happening.

They could schedule the makeup game for Thursday (1/12) and give the league the weekend off, so that the Bills and Bengals at least have 9 days (10, if you want to force their respective games to Sunday (1/22).  Not perfectly fair, but at least it would reduce the benefit (plus, some say the week off makes it harder for the team with the bye to be sharp.)

[JujuFish]

11 minutes ago, carpandean said:

They could schedule the makeup game for Thursday (1/12) and give the league the weekend off, so that the Bills and Bengals at least have 9 days (10, if you want to force their respective games to Sunday (1/22).  Not perfectly fair, but at least it would reduce the benefit (plus, some say the week off makes it harder for the team with the bye to be sharp.)

With all the tickets sold and stadiums booked, I find the odds infinitesimally small.

[PASabreFan]

The answer seems obvious. The game didn't happen. And there's no realistic way to play it.

[carpandean]

54 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

With all the tickets sold and stadiums booked, I find the odds infinitesimally small.

For the playoffs?  They don't even know who's playing against whom, or when.  I'm not talking about giving them this coming weekend off, but rather playing Bills/Bengals on a short week (if they'd prefer more rest before the playoffs) and then pushing off the first week of the playoffs.

[MattPie]

2 minutes ago, carpandean said:

For the playoffs?  They don't even know who's playing against whom, or when.  I'm not talking about giving them this coming weekend off, but rather playing Bills/Bengals on a short week (if they'd prefer more rest before the playoffs) and then pushing off the first week of the playoffs.

I think there's a lot more to consider than when they're playing. Think of all the TV contracts, probably chartered transportation and shipping to get all the NFL equipment to the stadiums (wherever they may be), and most of all, all the stuff that's booked at the Superbowl site. Slipping everything a week would be *hard*.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, JujuFish said:

With all the tickets sold and stadiums booked, I find the odds infinitesimally small.

Tickets are not sold for the first round of the playoffs (or for any round except for the Super Bowl), nor are stadiums booked.  They don't even know who plays where yet.  They do this on one week's notice for every round every year.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Eleven

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, MattPie said:

I think there's a lot more to consider than when they're playing. Think of all the TV contracts, probably chartered transportation and shipping to get all the NFL equipment to the stadiums (wherever they may be), and most of all, all the stuff that's booked at the Superbowl site. Slipping everything a week would be *hard*.

If they bump the Flag Football Extravaganza back 2 weeks, the Superbowl isn't affected.  It just ends up 1 week after the Conference Championships rather than 2.

That said, would be surprised if this game gets completed.

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Tickets are not sold for the first round of the playoffs (or for any round except for the Super Bowl), nor are stadiums booked.  They don't even know who plays where yet.  They do this on one week's notice every year.

True.  But teams have had tickets bought by their STHers on a conditional basis already & TV networks have programming blocks already laid out.  (Doesn't matter to them WHERE the game is played, just WHEN it is played.)  They are the ones that will scream the most as they scramble to find some alternative programming for next weekend & then have to bump advertisers of the dog show or some random college hoops game or maybe even the NHL AS festivities & game that would've been shown in that weekend before the Superbowl.  (Not sure if ESPN/ABC has the ASG this year or TNT nor whether ESPN/ABC has a Conference Championship game.  Expect those ate Fox & CBS' properties but not positive of that.)

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Taro T

[MattPie]

The only two outcomes I see are:

• The game goes in the books as a tie
• They could play it the Thursday or Saturday after the season, maybe, in the case that the result is truly important

It'd be interesting to know if there are any guidelines from the COVID era as I know they likely thought through a lot of this with the idea that games would get cancelled more often. I don't remember there being a week between the regular season and playoffs back in the day, maybe that's the contingency.

[Taro T]

19 minutes ago, MattPie said:

The only two outcomes I see are:

• The game goes in the books as a tie
• They could play it the Thursday or Saturday after the season, maybe, in the case that the result is truly important

It'd be interesting to know if there are any guidelines from the COVID era as I know they likely thought through a lot of this with the idea that games would get cancelled more often. I don't remember there being a week between the regular season and playoffs back in the day, maybe that's the contingency.

There's 2 other options.  One that's kind of appealing is don't play the game & for playoff seeding also discount the Ravens & Chiefs week 17 results.  (Or a randomly selected game not including either the Bills nor Bengals.)

Or, just skip the game, don't include it in the standings & go off winning %age as the 1st tiebreaker.  (Realizing that barring a Raiders miracle Saturday that gives the Chiefs the 1 seed even though they lost to both Buffalo & Cincy.)

[shrader]

41 minutes ago, MattPie said:

The only two outcomes I see are:

• The game goes in the books as a tie
• They could play it the Thursday or Saturday after the season, maybe, in the case that the result is truly important

It'd be interesting to know if there are any guidelines from the COVID era as I know they likely thought through a lot of this with the idea that games would get cancelled more often. I don't remember there being a week between the regular season and playoffs back in the day, maybe that's the contingency.

Calling it a tie could potentially cause some issues with tie breakers and draft rankings. Conference records, strength of schedule… it changes all of those. They’re better off just removing the game and I do think that’s what they do. 

[JujuFish]

1 hour ago, carpandean said:

For the playoffs?  They don't even know who's playing against whom, or when.  I'm not talking about giving them this coming weekend off, but rather playing Bills/Bengals on a short week (if they'd prefer more rest before the playoffs) and then pushing off the first week of the playoffs.

Week 18. But I was misreading what you meant.

Edited January 4, 2023 by JujuFish

[Eleven]

30 minutes ago, shrader said:

Calling it a tie could potentially cause some issues with tie breakers and draft rankings. Conference records, strength of schedule… it changes all of those. They’re better off just removing the game and I do think that’s what they do. 

I'll admit that I haven't worked through this in my brain, but mathematically, how is a tie different than just a "no contest"? 

[JujuFish]

27 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I'll admit that I haven't worked through this in my brain, but mathematically, how is a tie different than just a "no contest"? 

It lowers the winning percentage for both teams. That in turn lowers their opponents' SOS and SOV

Edited January 4, 2023 by JujuFish

[shrader]

29 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I'll admit that I haven't worked through this in my brain, but mathematically, how is a tie different than just a "no contest"? 

It’s a half win basically. Take a look at the giants winning percentage.  They are 9-6-1, which comes out to 0.594.

9.5/16=0.59375

Edit: Remove that tie and they are 9-6, which would be 0.6

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by shrader

[That Aud Smell]

14 hours ago, Taro T said:

Or, just skip the game, don't include it in the standings & go off winning %age as the 1st tiebreaker.  (Realizing that barring a Raiders miracle Saturday that gives the Chiefs the 1 seed even though they lost to both Buffalo & Cincy.)

I think this is what happens - “no contest.”

I saw an intriguing Tweet about how they could play a Buffalo-KC  AFC Championship game at a neutral site (Indianapolis seeming the most likely). Interesting thought.

[carpandean]

13 hours ago, shrader said:

It’s a half win basically. Take a look at the giants winning percentage.  They are 9-6-1, which comes out to 0.594.

9.5/16=0.59375

Edit: Remove that tie and they are 9-6, which would be 0.6

If they don't play the Bills-Bengals game, then as far as Chiefs vs. Bills for #1, how you count a skipped game (tie or no contest) wouldn't matter, regardless of what happens in Bills-Patriots and Chiefs-Raiders ...

 

Chiefs win% would be:

Win: 14-3 (14/17 = 0.824)

Loss: 13-4 (13/17 = 0.765)

 

Bills win% would be:

Win: 13-3 (13/16 = 0.813) or 13-3-1 (13.5/17 = 0.794)

Loss: 12-4 (12/16 = 0.750) or 12-4-1 (12.5/17 = 0.735)

 

So, the Chiefs would get the #1 seed unless they lose to the Raiders and the Bills beat the Patriots, irrespective of whether you count it as a tie or as no contest.  In essence, it would count as loss by the Bills in the Bills-Bengals game for this purpose.

 

Unfortunately for the Bengals, in the case where the Bills and Chiefs both lose their final games, but the Bengals win theirs, the missed game would also count as a loss for them.  They would miss the chance to take the #1 seed by beating the Bills.  (Note: Bill-Bengals for #2 vs. #3 would come down to the third tie-breaker, common game win%, since they'd both have the same conference record in this scenario.)

 

 

 

[shrader]

@carpandean, that's all true, but what they do potentially impacts so many other teams as well.  I don't know if there are many ties out there and how records shake out, but it could flop draft order somewhere down the line.  I can't see them messing with any of that by creating an artificial result of a game.

Here's another interesting angle.  If that game didn't happen, do the stats still count?  What if that WR misses a bonus by 1 TD or if some LB needed a certain number of tackles?  Obviously everyone will put Hamlin first, but they would definitely fight that somewhere down the road.

[MISabresFan]

It will be tough just to show up and compete against the Patriots, let alone finish the Bengal game.  

[PASabreFan]

26 minutes ago, MISabresFan said:

It will be tough just to show up and compete against the Patriots, let alone finish the Bengal game.  

I think if the good news continues the Bills will be fine.

[That Aud Smell]

28 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think if the good news continues the Bills will be fine.

And the good news definitely took an uptick just now.

I still think there'll be no resumption of the Bengals game.

[That Aud Smell]

fascinating.

 

[shrader]

8 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

fascinating.

 

It all feels a bit too gimmicky to me.  First of all, crazy things can happen and the teams involved may wind up losing earlier than expected.  That could completely wipe out either of those scenarios.  Do you book a neutral site a few weeks in advance, maybe even sell some tickets, and then the game doesn't wind up happening?  Just settle it by winning percentage and be done with it.

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, shrader said:

It all feels a bit too gimmicky to me.  First of all, crazy things can happen and the teams involved may wind up losing earlier than expected.  That could completely wipe out either of those scenarios.  Do you book a neutral site a few weeks in advance, maybe even sell some tickets, and then the game doesn't wind up happening?  Just settle it by winning percentage and be done with it.

Yeah, it's gimmicky, but by virtue of playing in a division where the other teams are roughly as good as the AFC South, even though KC lost to both Buffalo and Cincy they'll end up w/ the bye week and also hosting the AFC Championship game for something like the 5th time in a row simply because the Bills & Bengals weren't given the opportunity to earn 1 more win.

Slightly surprised they aren't talking about allowing an 8th team into the playoffs on both sides (to keep from giving the Eagles or 9ers the only bye) to keep from having the 1 seed in the AFC providing such an advantage to the team that gets it.

Realize it would cause scheduling issues for the network(s) picking up the extra 2 games, but considering the ratings that playoff games get, they'd deal with it.  Or, the games could go to Prime Video.  Either way, the NFL makes even more money.

But expect the league is hoping for only one of Buffalo or KC to win w/ the Bengals losing as that leaves the 1 seed set regardless of what would've happened on Monday night.  (Yeah, that nonplayed game would've still affected seeding for the other slots, but the bye week is the big carrot & no road games only a 2ndary one; who you play over 3 weeks to get to the SB & where isn't as important as only having to play 2 games to get there.)