The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The game was canceled/delayed last night and that was the right call. Just keeping it football related for a second, now what? This weekend is the last weekend of the season and this game had major playoff implications. Buffalo is current #1 seed but with a loss, the Chiefs or Cincy would be. The Bills have already returned to Buffalo, it would be harsh to ask them to play tomorrow or Thursday and then again on Sunday or even Monday. Same with Cincy.

What do you think will happen? Calling it a tie would hurt both teams.

Best guess.  Bills Bengals game is finished Jan 15.  Playoffs are delayed by one week.  Bye week between Conf Champ and superbowl gets canceled, 

That would probably be the last scenario they want as it affects all 32 teams and not just a few. I don't think there is an easy answer here, but the end result may just be the Bills and Bengals eating a tie or a no contest and Buffalo losing the #1 spot.

Not sure how that impacts any team that's not in the playoffs? And at least all the teams in the playoffs are impacted the EXACT same way. This seems like a pretty decent solution.

That is a fair point, forgot about the loser teams like us. Still, do they want to shuffle the schedules for all of the other teams? Haven't some arrangements and tickets been sold already? Whatever the solution, it won't be perfect so I don't think it will be criticized too much anyway. I'm glad they stopped the game, it was the right thing to do. However, I kinda think the Bills and Bengals made the decision for the NFL.

They would not be shuffling any games or arrangements.  Other than Bills Bengals none of said games are yet announced.

Play it this week is my best guess.  Then flex next week games to Monday??

Well the Bills and Bengals players/coaches etc are the reason you're stopping the game for the most part. Hard to continue to play under the circumstances although the whole Tua thing was pretty scary as well and they continued to play that game.

I don't think that Tua was comparable.   Players get injured in many games.  First time I can recall one needing cpr.

League announced the game won't be resumed this week, which was kinda assumed but now official.

No word on what to do in the future. The "best thing" for the NFL might be for Buffalo to lose to the Pats while the Chiefs win, so that the game won't matter as far as the #1 seed goes. I don't know what that means for the 2 seed though, but teams will be inconvenienced one way or another, so it's just about the least worst thing now.

Of course, losing to the Pats is terrible for us but whatever.

^^^ Only 1 game separates the Bills and Cincy for the 2nd and 3rd seeds. Both of their last two games matter.

2nd vs 3rd seed doesn't matter all that much.  1 vs 2 is a bye week. but 2 vs 3 isn't all that important. 

It's a home game in the 2nd round against each other if both teams advance. That's pretty important. Not as big as homefield throughout and a bye week, but could be significant. I know they wouldn't publicly complain, but behind the scenes I am sure the Chiefs will be lobbying for this game to be made up if they tried to rule it a no contest and Buffalo gets the #1 seed.

13-3 vs 14-3

Who gets it in that particular scenario?

If KC can lock up the #1 seed then I could see them flipping a coin to determine #2 and #3 if needed.  It does give the Bills more impetus to beat NE though.

I don't think that has ever happened before, but I would imagine the 14-3 team.

You’d have to give it to the team that played the extra game.

What a sad scenario this is man

Yeah, imagine losing the #1 seed because your teammate had to be carted off the field to save his life? On the other hand, hard to find better motivation than that.

If you have a few extra dollars put it on Buffalo to win the SB now.

Seeding is determined by win percentage, and 14-3 is better than 13-3.

Was just listening to Adam Beasley going over scenarios including how Baltimore could still win the division if Cincy loses. I can't see Buffalo or Cincy wanting to go into KC before the AFC Championship either.  I'm thinking they have to play this game.

Yeah, I don't really see any way around it they are going to have to play it or at the very least get a "final" out of it. Was one team or the other ahead at the time the game was stopped? They could simply say the game is over at that point.

Cincy is leading 7-3 with about 6 minutes left in the first quarter. Hardly enough to qualify as a game.

Would both teams also have to agree to play the game? What if Buffalo wants to because KC is now the #1 seed but Cincy doesn't because their division is wrapped up? Can the NFL force them too? Would they then forfeit and the Bills win a game they were losing? So many things to consider with this.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which CIN would willingly forfeit the game (which would be the outcome if one team wants to play but the other does not).

If CIN beats BAL, then the outcome of BUF-CIN determines the #2 seed; specifically, which team would host if those two teams meet up in the divisional round.
If CIN loses to BAL, and also loses to BUF, then LAC would pass CIN as the #5 seed.

This is weird.......

The only transaction for the Bills this year is.....

01/04
Signed S Jared Mayden from the NY Jets practice squad & released CB Xavier Rhodes.

Okay, I get they need another Safety as Damar Hamlin will not be playing.   But why not put Hamlin on IR, instead of releasing Rhodes? Safe bet that Hamlin will NOT be playing again this season even under the most optimistic conditions. 

Also Damar Hamlin is NOT on the injury report. 

I would not bet on that - this could go either way. If they react like the Colts after Tony Dungy's son committed suicide, it could go completely pear shaped in comparison.

The NFL, the Bills and Bengals did the right thing by stopping and postponing the game to allow an initial reset - but the Bills should want to get back on the field before the playoffs to clear their minds of it.

Per @AdamSchefter
 on First Take:

1) Doesn’t think game will be replayed.
2) Two potential scenarios that could happen:
A) 1 seed chooses between home field or bye, 2 seed gets the other
B) If KC vs BUF, BUF vs CIN, or CIN vs KC in AFCCG, game will be played neutral site
11:18 AM · Jan 5, 2023

So, if you likely don't get homefield in the Championship game because it will be played at a neutral site, why would you do anything but take the bye? Also, assuming this happens and Buffalo wins on Sunday, why would the Chiefs be okay with this? There is a better than 50% chance Buffalo would've lost on Monday. If this proposed scenario happens, Buffalo gets a bye and essentially an extra bye week in Week 17. That's a huge advantage to them.

This seems overly confusing.  The simplest way to do this is, if you decide not to play the game, that's that.  The game wasn't played.  Go off of the win percentage and rank the teams accordingly.

All this extra steps of bullshit is unnecessary.

Play the game or don't.

Joe Burrow said they would go with whatever Buffalo wants, which is a nice gesture but in all honesty they could afford to say that. If the game doesn't count, the division is theirs and their seeding of 3 does not change with a win or loss to Baltimore....I believe. Have to see the tiebreakers for Buffalo in case the Bills lose on Sunday.

I know it's horrible luck and a terrible thing to have happened, but the game should not be replayed and the playoffs and schedule should stay the same. If that means Buffalo loses the #1 seed, then so be it. Maybe Kansas City could agree to have the Championship game played at a neutral site as a goodwill gesture in case they meet again, but that should be it.

You're going way too far.  I wouldn't call one of your starting players nearly dying on the field "essentially an extra bye" or a "huge advantage."

While that's nice and all, it's not up to Joe Burrow.  There is a lot of money, contracts, etc -- that ride on the understanding of how this stuff works out.  A home playoff game is big money for lots of things.  Stadium naming rights, food vendors, parking contracts, broadcast rights, etc.  Also, the rest of the league has a vested interest in these games.  There's a lot riding on the outcome.

This is kinda what I was getting into about stopping the game to begin with.  It's fine that they did, but this isn't a willy-nilly decision.  It has huge ramifications for a bunch of industries.

Physically speaking, it's a bye on your body. Obviously, other things to consider but it is at least 3 quarters of football late in the season you aren't playing.

I know. Not replaying the game is a lot of lost revenue, even more so when you imagine it will be the 2nd most watched game of the year next to the Superbowl. Week 19 with no other games to decide playoff seeding. That's a lot of money for the NFL and both teams to forfeit.

^ Not to mention the game impacts where other games will be played in the future.  A home playoff game means hotels, parking, concessions, naming rights exposure, local licenses....there's a whole lot.

And things we haven't even mentioned like player bonuses based on performance or circumstance. 

What ever they decide they need to decide before Sunday, if they wait until after they know who is helped and hurt, it will be a shitshow.

The league just announced that the game won't be made up. No word on any other changes so far.

I think that's the worst decision and seems like a cop-out. As well as affecting many other teams Cincy was ahead but now is reserved to the 3 seed.

I like giving the team with the best record the option of either home field advantage should they play again in the playoffs OR a 1st round bye. And If I'm in that position, I would take the home field advantage and give up the bye.

Here's my thinking. I'd feel pretty good about my chances against any #7 seed Pittsburgh, New England or Miami (is there anyone else) and you get a home game out of it. Should you then have to go up against the #2 seed you're at home in that game so another home game for your fans. I think that might be an even bigger advantage than having a bye in round 1.

Honestly, I think this is a pretty fair way to handle it considering that Buffalo and Cincy were the ones that agreed to cancelling the game in the first place and it sounds like the NFL made it clear to them that there was the possibility that the game would not be made up. They had the choice and they made it.

^ I don't think that's fair at all to KC.

What if KC wants to win and have a bye and homefield, like they might have had?  It doesn't seem like it's OK for Buffalo and Cincy to agree on terms that's going to affect KC.



What you're suggesting is like making the rules up as you go along.  If you don't play a game, you don't play it, your record reflects that and you get sorted accordingly.

True, but Cincy would need to have won that game as well as have Kansas City lose to the Raiders on Sunday. I could absolutely see them winning but the Chiefs losing as well is very unlikely. They might be content with the pseudo bye week and just let it go. They certainly don't want to play 2 more games just so Buffalo and Kansas City can hash out seeding.

Well if KC wins their last game and Buffalo loses, then there's no choice to be made. KC is the #1 seed and they get a bye and home field advantage. KC only has to choose if either Buffalo or Cincy could have tied them in the standings had they won the game that was cancelled. Don't assume that it's KC that gets the choice, if Buffalo wins their last game and KC loses then Buffalo has a better record, but they played 1 fewer game had they lost they would have been tied, so they get to choose. Same for Cincy. So the last week of the season still matters. All 3 teams have a chance at getting to choose depending upon this weekends outcomes and KC still has a chance at getting the 1st seed outright and not have to choose. If all 3 teams agree to it, what's the problem?

What do you think they are doing? Of course they are making it up as they go along. There aren't any rules for cancelling a game. Once that's been done you HAVE to make things up as you go along. There's no other choice except to make it up as you go along.

Yeah, while we understand why they did it, the reality is that Buffalo and Cincy weren't going to play that game and the best scenario is that only affects them now. The fact that Hamlin is now communicating via writing is amazing news, but it also kinda gives the NFL some PR cover to tell the Bills that "Sorry, we can't change the playoffs for you".

In the end, I think that is what happens.

I don't think this is true.  If the game isn't played, it's ruled a no contest.

We know that ranking teams is based on win percentage, not number of losses.

I think it's all pretty defined at how the rules say it should play out.

The only thing to make up as they go along is whether or not the NFL mandates that a game be scheduled, to which one or both teams could refuse to play.  But if they rule it a no contest, it's pretty clear how it would all go down.  The standings would remain exactly as they are right now.

The game WAS played. It wasn't finished. That's NOT a no contest, the game was cancelled in the middle of it. The NFL is making it up as they go along now and so are you.

We seem to be on the opposite side of a lot of discussions today. Haha..


From what I'm reading, the NFL deemed it a no-contest.  That's what it means.  In boxing...they fight, someone breaks the rules and the fight has to be stopped, they call it a no-contest even though they fought and didn't finish.  From my understanding, it's literally what a no-contest mean -- they stop it and count it as if it never happened.

That's not making it up as you go along? No one broke any rules. They didn't HAVE to stop the game. There's nothing in the rules about this situation. They are making it up as they go along.

If the Chiefs win Saturday, they clinch the number one seed.

The Bills are 12-3.  The Bengals are 11-4.

According the playoff machine, if the Bills lose and the Bengals win, the Bengals get the Number 2 seed.

This gives Miami a glimmer of hope that the Bills will play hard against New England.

Honestly maybe they should have just continued the game, made the Bills forfeit or just cancel the next week entirely IDK.

I hate the 17 games an I hate the soon to be 18 games.

For PR reasons, they probably wouldn't make the Bills forfeit. Someone has to get the short straw and it's probably going to be them rather than several other teams moving things around.

They're voting on it today, but it looks like the seeding will be based off of win percentages and the only thing they are discussing are neutral sites and homefield. I think the Chiefs would be fine with the bye week and a neutral site in the Championship game if they face the Bills or Bengals. Or maybe just the Bills since the Bengals wouldn't be able to catch them if they win on Sunday. Details are scattered at this point.

I think the NFL would be wise to limit tickets to 50-50 for each team. Bills fans are as white trash and degenerate as they come, they will max out their Mother's credit card to buy a ticket and fly to a neutral site to watch the game. Don't want a stadium that is 95% Bills fans.

Well I guess that’s the best way they can handle it. There’s no way around it that certain teams got a little screwed but I suppose it is what is it.

I hope and it looks like Hamlin will recover, grateful for that but to be honest I hope Buffalo gets bounced out of the playoffs early.

On a different note I  was winning my fantasy league championship by about 70 points my opponent had Allen and one other guy from Buffalo so what now? I mean it’s minor in comparison but it’s not like that 125 I was set to win is nothing either.

How would this work?

I don't play fantasy football, but aren't those leagues normally over before the final week of the season?

I would guess one of two outcomes:

1) erase week 17 from standings and use week 18 instead
2) retroactively end the league at week 16 and work backwards to determine who the champion would be

edit:  Actually, I think I have a better one... if week 18 is not normally used, then since BUF and CIN are both playing meaningful games against motivated opponents in week 18, if you have Bills or Bengals players on your FF squad, use their week 18 stats for week 17.

Probably by location. 40,000 tickets for people who live in whichever state this particular Kansas City is in (I hate that we have two). The other 40,000 for NY/NJ/PA people. Maybe season ticket holders get first cracks at it too. It won't be perfect but if it's going to be at a neutral site, they should try to make it without a significant fan advantage.

I think it would be impossible for there to be a truly neutral site as the vast majority of non-aligned fans will be rooting for the Bills for the rest of the season.  Heck, I am a Patriots fan thru and thru, but part of me wants the Bills to be able to award the winning game ball to Damar Hamlin at the end of the game. 

Of course, but if they're going to go this route, they should at least try. They got what, 3 weeks to get this setup? With modern technology, should be done in a day.

The Super Bowl is at a "neutral site" and they don't do this for that.  Seems unnecessary to do it for the AFCCG.

The difference is the Super Bowl is always neutral while the Championship Game is always at a team's venue.

Right, but for that game which is always intended to be at a "neutral site," there is no significant effort made to maintain parity in the crowd.

So if the intention is for this year's AFCCG to be neutral, why would it need to be any "more neutral" than the annual Super Bowl?
In other words, if you think the existing standards the league uses every year for a "neutral site" game (that literally decides the league championship, no less) are not enough to provide crowd parity, why shouldn't they enforce such standards for the Super Bowl, too?

In short: if the existing "neutral site" rules are good enough for the Super Bowl, they should be good enough for the AFCCG, and vice versa.

Because the NFL would be taking away the home game from the #1 seed. So, at the very least try not to have 90,000 Bills fans in the parking lot jumping through tables and vomiting all over their 2008 Honda Civics.

^LOL

Doesn't this screw the Dolphins over because now the Bills have no motivation for Sunday?

If that's what you believe, the appropriate remedy is to give the #1 seed their home game back, not to play the game at a neutral site.

The problem is that who the #1 seed should be is unclear... but the answer to that problem is not to rewrite the rules on what constitutes a neutral game.  For over 50 years, it has been determined that between the two conference champions, we ignore their records and play the game at a neutral site.  No effort is made to ensure parity in the crowd, even if this disparity benefits the team with a worse record.  This is the way "neutral site" games in the NFL work.

But you're saying this rule needs to be changed this one year, for this one game, which doesn't make sense.  Either change it for all neutral site games going forward, or leave it alone.  It's absurd to say that it's unfair for 90,000 Bills fan to be at the "neutral site" AFC Championship Game, but then totally reasonable for those same 90,000 Bills fans to be at the "neutral site" Super Bowl two weeks later.

BUF absolutely has motivation for Sunday: if BUF loses to NE and KC beats LV, then KC wins the #1 seed outright, regardless of the outcome what the outcome of the BUF-CIN game could have been.  And if CIN also happens to win against BAL, it would be a BUF-CIN Divisional Round game that would have to be played at a neutral site (so CIN is equally motivated for Sunday).