NFL - NEWS & NOTES

Maybe, just maybe they could bump the season up to a week longer? Maybe have the Bills and Bengals square off a week from now? Then resume the Playoffs?

Just thinking out loud (something im not equipped to do), but in my opinion, something will have to be done to keep the Playoff scenarios established in a fair manner. A lot hinges on this game (Bengals vs Bills) being played as Joe pointe out... I just cant see it being scratched.

 

Bills and Bengals could play on Thursday. Chargers placed vs 4 seed no matter what their seed. If Chiefs win, then Bengals vs Ravens would be played on Tuesday. Bills or Chiefs would host 7 seed on Tuesday, Chiefs possibly on weekend. If Chiefs lose, then loser plays Ravens Tues.

 

I guess here's my point of contention - time is the most valuable thing in the NFL, especially at this point in the season. Yes, seeding / home field advantage is at stake here. But if you have to compromise the schedule by a full week, or compress two games into the span of one week, is it worth it? Let's say they delayed the start of the playoffs by a week - every team other than Buffalo and Cincy would get an extra week of practice, rest for injured players, and film study.

Now, let's pretend like we're a head coach for a non-Buffalo/Cincy team. Would we rather have that extra week off right before the playoffs, or the advantages that come from a higher seed (assuming that's on the line)? If we're Buffalo / Cincy, would we rather have the same amount of time off before the playoffs as every other team (not playing a game while everyone else rests), or would we rather have a higher seed? In either case, I'm happy to give away the higher seed if it means that I don't have to give other teams the advantage of time.

And maybe I'm wrong here - maybe the seed is what matters most. I'm sure that stadium revenue for whoever hosts those playoff games is sure important to the owners. But I have a hard time seeing a full week - or two games within one week - not being such a big competitive wrench to throw into the mix that just calling off the game isn't likely the more fair solution.

Lastly, while I know Cincy / Buffalo didn't play a full game, they had to practice for one, gear up for one, travel for one, and play at least some of one. When we look at time, they did just about everything you'd do in a normal week. So, it's not like they have the advantage of time here, aside from guys getting fewer game-snaps to get hurt during.

Regardless, this is a fantastically interesting situation brought about by the absolute worst of circumstances.

 

In theory they could delay the playoffs a week to finish this game if they had to. While it would shift the playoffs all back 1 week again in theory the SB could still be played on the same day you would simply play the conference championships the week before. No matter what decision they make a large group of people will say they did the wrong thing.

 

Don't need to delay the playoffs outside a game or two.

 

What if they just declared the game a tie and let the playoff chips fall as they may?

 

I feel like this is probably going to end up being the most competitively fair option.

 

The problem is that that is hardly fair. Chiefs clinch with a win, Ravens automatically eliminated from the division. Same with no-contest.

 

They could just make Buffalo and Cincinnati play a double header next week.

 

There is very literally no fair answer to this problem. However, I do notice that some people are fixating on the seeding and how to get that right, without giving any thought to how an extra week / two games within a week is also inherently unfair.

To my knowledge, all the teams you just mentioned will be in the playoffs, so it's just a matter of seeding. Given that, two things are at stake: home field advantage and a bye week. Well, if we extend the season by a week, effectively giving every other team a bye week, that feels like an entirely counterintuitive reward / outcome.

I'm just saying, it feels like you can either have the seedings right and everything else thrown into chaos, or chalk this game up as a no-contest and just sacrifice the technical integrity of the seedings as a consequence. While nothing is quite that simple, I do feel like one solution offers much more competitive integrity than the other.

 

What about the Steelers, Patriots and Dolphins winning the last spot? If Buffalo can’t get the bye it may just rest their starters and give NE The last position. There was a really good chance Pittsburgh could get the last spot, but if Buffalo hands it to NE to rest, when they could have had the top seed at stake. The Dolphins probably are starting Thompson which gives the Jets a realistic chance to win. The Jets don’t want to let Selah down. He’s a players coach.

 

This happens every year, regardless of whether an issue like this exists. Yes, it's a knock on effect, I just believe that the effects of extending the season or cramming an extra game into a smaller time frame creates larger issues.

 

I keep thinking back to the old days. Deryl Stingley? / Lester Hayes. That was a hit. Do that today? You're suspended for a year and God knows what the fine would be. We've made some progress.

 

I don’t think a suspension would happen at all. He hit him lower on his body and Stingley flipped onto his head on the ground. That really isn’t against any rules.

 

Thinking back to the old days, Wendell Davis is a reminder that we've made a lot of progress in other areas as well.

 

I still think the Bills play to win because if they lose and Cincinnati wins, they have the same conference record as well as the the same win-loss record. I don't know who wins that tie breaker but I still think they both play it out.

I think the way the seedings are, at this moment, is the way they'd end up anyway. Canceling the game may not have a bearing on the seeding at all.

 

Its all so confusing to me, lol.

 

Here is Mike Florio's 2 cents, from PFT...

A list of possible approaches follows. There may be other options. There may be better options. These are the ones that currently come to mind.

1. Cancel the Bills-Bengals game and proceed with Week 18.

This would avoid any adjustment to the remaining schedule. The Bills-Bengals game would be declared a no contest. The practical impact would be that the Bills and Bengals would have one fewer game. Seeding for the postseason would be determined based on winning percentage.

Under the scenario, the Chiefs would capture the No. 1 seed by beating the Raiders. The Bengals would win the AFC North, regardless of the outcome of Cincinnati’s Week 18 game against the Ravens.

2. Play Bills-Bengals this weekend, and delay Week 18 by a week.

This would ensure that every team plays 17 games. But it would compel the Bills and Bengals to play fairly soon, at a time when no one else is playing. It also would eliminate the bye week between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl.

Yes, the NFL did that when rearranging the schedule in 2001 following 9/11. In those days, the Pro Bowl happened after the Super Bowl. This approach would necessitate cancellation of the reimagined approach to Pro Bowl weekend. (That definitely shouldn’t be viewed as an impediment.)

This approach also would delay by a week the conclusion of the season for teams that have no chance to make the playoffs. The teams that are already eliminated surely don’t want their seasons to linger by another week.

To remedy that approach, Week 18 could be played this weekend, with only Bills-Bengals played the following weekend and the playoffs starting the week after that.

3. Cancel Bills-Bengals and delay Week 18.

This becomes a potentially attractive option, if players throughout the league are struggling to get themselves in the proper frame of mind to play this weekend.

It would require AFC playoff seeding to be determined by winning percentages, and it would eliminate the bye week between the conference championship and the Super Bowl. But it would give all players extra time before being expected to suit up again and play.

Again, it also would delay by a week the commencement of the offseason for the 18 teams that miss the playoffs.

4. Play Bills-Bengals during a reconfigured postseason.

This is an idea that could be getting some traction, as the league tries to come up with the best bad option.

Under this approach, Week 18 would proceed as scheduled. The following weekend, the NFC wild-card games would be played, along with Bills-Bengals. The next weekend, the AFC wild-card games would be played.

Then, the rest of the playoffs would unfold, but without the bye week between conference championships and the Super Bowl.

This would ensure that all teams play 17 games. It would give all AFC playoff teams (except the Bills and Bengals) a week off. It would give the NFC wild-card winners a week off. And the NFC No. 1 seed would go three weeks between games.

Again, there’s no perfect solution. The simplest would be to not play Bills-Bengals at all and proceed with Week 18. Whether the NFL deems that one to be the best remains to be seen.

 

Im also enjoying the cover-up, back-peddling, he said she said, shit going on between Vincent of the NFL and ESPN... quite comical. Someone is a liar, period.

Per; PFT

Interest in ESPN’s comments became heightened by remarks from NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent that strongly challenged the notion that this message came from the league.

“I’m not sure where that came from,” Vincent said during a conference call held just after midnight on Tuesday. “Frankly, there was no time period for the players to get warmed up. Frankly, the only thing that we asked was that [referee] Shawn [Smith] communicate with both head coaches to make sure they had the proper time inside the locker room to discuss what they felt like was best. So I’m not sure where that came from. Five-minute warmup never crossed my mind, personally. And I was the one . . . that was communicating with the Commissioner. We never, frankly, it never crossed our mind to talk about warming up to resume play. That’s ridiculous. That’s insensitive. And that’s not a place that we should ever be in.”


But ESPN’s Joe Buck didn’t pull it from thin air. He told Andrew Marchand of the New York Post that information about the game resuming “came from ESPN’s rules expert John Parry, who was in direct communication with the league.”

In this clip, Parry said he had just spoken with the league office in New York, and that “the situation has risen to a point where they want to give both teams, coaches, personnel, an opportunity to go back into the locker room, regroup themselves, and so the game has temporarily been suspended.”

This implies that there was a plan that changed, once the situation rose to the point that prompted the decision to send the teams to the locker room.

ESPN separately has issued a statement on the situation. Via Jeff Howe of TheAthletic.com, ESPN said this: “There was constant communication in real time between ESPN and league and game officials. As a result of that, we reported what we were told in the moment and immediately updated fans as new information was learned. This was an unprecedented, rapidly-evolving circumstance. All night long, we refrained from speculation.”

While ESPN expressly pointed no fingers, “what we were told in the moment” clearly came from one of the “league and game officials” with whom ESPN was in “constant communication.”

There will be a time to get to the bottom of whether the teams were indeed told that there would be a five-minute warmup before resumption of the game, and if so how that later became a decision to suspend play momentarily and then for the rest of the night, and beyond. For now, it remains possible that the teams were initially told that play would resume, and that the coaches and/or key players pushed back until someone relented.

 

You can tune a piano but
You can’t tuna fish