No Cincy Buffalo game this week

[whomper]

7 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

Since I'm involved, I'm going to pull myself from the decision making on this one. I've given 3 guys the power to decide and given them a list of alternatives. 

Good. I feel that the outcome should involve actual play. If you decide to just use their back ups , you know the outcome already. If you decide  take the zero and lump it , its a championship most wouldnt feel good about. At least the week 18 added to week 17 involves players playing to determine an outcome 

[stevegrab]

Not there is talk that the Bills-Pats game scheduled for Sunday at 1PM may be postponed. "It hasn't been ruled out" according to NFL rep Troy Vincent.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/01/04/troy-vincent-doesnt-rule-out-postponement-of-patriots-bills-game/

I understand the Bills players are concerned, but this seems a bit much. Are we just going to suspend the NFL season until they're ready to play again. 

I remember a co-worker being killed in a car accident one year on her way to work. We were devastated (I commuted on the same portion of road where she crashed and died). But we didn't close the office down. Many of us attended the funeral the following week.

Some of the comments in the story are pointing out other tragedies in the NFL that occurred with teams playing without an extra week off. Chris Henry (Bengals) died and team played a few days later. Chiefs player Javon Belcher shot himself in front of his coach and GM, they played a game 2 days later. Neither incident is that long ago, the difference is we all saw this unfold on national TV, in primetime.  Steelers player Ryan Shazier was paralyzed from a hit in a MNF game just 5 years ago, the game continued and nobody seemed to question playing the next week. 

So what has changed? 

Edited January 5, 2023 by stevegrab

[League_Champion]

43 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I understand the Bills players are concerned, but this seems a bit much. Are we just going to suspend the NFL season until they're ready to play again. 

I agree, unfortunately life goes on. Try seeing your Buddy get blown up next to you in a firefight with zero time to process what just happened. Just get out there and do your job. We're all sad but they need to move on and finish what they started. 

[stevegrab]

Just now, League_Champion said:

I agree, unfortunately life goes on. Try seeing your Buddy get blown up next to you in a firefight with zero time to process what just happened. Just get out there and do your job. We're all sad but they need to move on and finish what they started. 

War is very different from everyday life, I wouldn't expect my co-workers to continue if somebody was blown up sitting next to them.

But people lose co-workers on the job (or on their way to work as we had happen) and continue their day. Other NFL players died, one shot himself in front of his coach, no games were suspended. And it wasn't several decades ago, we have several incidents in the last 10-15 years. 

I'm trying not to turn this into a "NFL is getting soft" thing, but it sure seems that way. Not sure if it is public outcry they are afraid of, or just trying to shelter themselves from looking callous. Honestly not even sure why Vincent would make the statement, did somebody ask him if the Bills game is still on for Sunday? 

[League_Champion]

1 minute ago, stevegrab said:

War is very different from everyday life, I wouldn't expect my co-workers to continue if somebody was blown up sitting next to them.

Well, we do, we have to. What choice is there? Do you think they give the whole regiment off and send everyone home when someone is killed?

I'm truly sorry for what happened, but do your job, shizz happens and it's time to move on. You get paid very handsomely to play football, go play. 

[League_Champion]

22 hours ago, whomper said:

At least the week 18 added to week 17 involves players playing to determine an outcome 

I agree, it's not ideal, nothing is but at least it gives them a shot. 

[gilthorp]

On 1/4/2023 at 10:38 AM, whomper said:

Good. I feel that the outcome should involve actual play. If you decide to just use their back ups , you know the outcome already. If you decide  take the zero and lump it , its a championship most wouldnt feel good about. At least the week 18 added to week 17 involves players playing to determine an outcome 

Looks like the crew wants to go with some form of average points attained through the year to make the decision, and again, I've pulled myself from making any decisions in this particular case. I'm not going to fight it over cash or a trophy, when the health of the league, and happiness of the owners is all I really care about. 

Let's say I was up 30 or 40+, I think I'd fight them a little harder. 

[Henry Muto]

Crazy that if this had happened in 2020 or 2021 my leagues had a backup plan in place. Since we had covid and the possible cancelling of games in play those 2 years we were doing backup players for Monday night games the entire year. So in this case I would had something like this in 2 of my leagues.

Burrow (Brady)
Mixon (Jeff Wilson)
-----------------------------------
Diggs (Mike Williams)
Davis (Mike Evans)
-----------------------------------
When a Monday night player was out for covid (who was listed as playing on Sunday) we would sub in the pts and if the entire game got cancelled we would put in all the players.

The fact this happened on Monday night on the final game of our season is what is tricky you do have options like use week 18 guys.

If this happened week 7 you would not have this option. If this had happened for a Sunday game I guess you would have still had the week 18 option.

If it happened week 16 though ?

Should leagues be putting in place what happens when game is cancelled now ? What would you put in place ?

Edited January 5, 2023 by Henry Muto

[gilthorp]

No Cincy/Buffalo game at all. No contest. 

I believe 0's or the 1st quarter numbers would be the way I'd rule if I was King. 

[darin3]

Yes, not confirmed but the BUF/CIN game will reportedly not be resumed/finished.

Instead the NFL is adding an 8th team to the playoff mix AND conference championships will be held at neutral sites.

Just another way for the NFL to make some more coin.

[Def.]

11 minutes ago, darin3 said:

Instead the NFL is adding an 8th team to the playoff mix

Sounds like a manure plan to me. 

[gilthorp]

Just another way to ensure GB makes it in the playoffs. Awesome. 

[Big John]

16 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

Just another way to ensure GB makes it in the playoffs. Awesome. 

DET and SEA wins keep the Packers out.

[stevegrab]

30 minutes ago, Big John said:

DET and SEA wins keep the Packers out.

Wait so if SEA loses to the Lambs then the big SNF game with DET-GB is of little meaning? Both teams would be in.

[Big John]

9 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Wait so if SEA loses to the Lambs then the big SNF game with DET-GB is of little meaning? Both teams would be in.

Washington would be back in the playoff picture.

[stevegrab]

10 minutes ago, Big John said:

Washington would be back in the playoff picture.

Right forgot about them, if they can win they're back in the picture with the extra spot, their current 7-8-1 record being better than DET/GB at 8-8. Looks like DET may still need some help, either SEA or WAS loss and win over Packers. 

Going to be funny watching playoff prediction sites try to scramble and fix things for an 8th team. Trying to follow it on ESPN Playoff Machine.

[Sharpie]

On 1/3/2023 at 12:44 PM, gilthorp said:

What if either team or both decide to not play starters at all to risk injury, since both teams have already clinched? This game, as bad as it seems, has to stand as is.

In this case, both teams will need to play to win I presume?  The Bills and Bengals both have something to play for.

[stevegrab]

Adjustments to NFL AFC playoffs, not a fan of it, more making things up as they go. Just seed playoffs based on record (as a percentage, which you see on many sites with standings). They make all these concessions, but not one that could allow the Ravens to win the division, just a chance to play at home, if they face the Bengals, and win a coin toss. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-approve-resolution-to-adjust-afc-postseason-including-potential-neutr

"As far as I'm concerned, we just want the rules to be followed," (Zac) Taylor said, per the Cincinnati Enquirer. "When a game is canceled, you just turn to winning percentage to clarify everything so we don't have to make up rules."

The NFL should modify their rules to make this kind of twist to the playoffs part of the actual rules, instead of tossing existing rules aside a week before the playoffs. Imagine your FF commissioner pulling this kind of stuff. 

[purplemonster]

38 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Adjustments to NFL AFC playoffs, not a fan of it, more making things up as they go. Just seed playoffs based on record (as a percentage, which you see on many sites with standings). They make all these concessions, but not one that could allow the Ravens to win the division, just a chance to play at home, if they face the Bengals, and win a coin toss. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-approve-resolution-to-adjust-afc-postseason-including-potential-neutr

"As far as I'm concerned, we just want the rules to be followed," (Zac) Taylor said, per the Cincinnati Enquirer. "When a game is canceled, you just turn to winning percentage to clarify everything so we don't have to make up rules."

The NFL should modify their rules to make this kind of twist to the playoffs part of the actual rules, instead of tossing existing rules aside a week before the playoffs. Imagine your FF commissioner pulling this kind of stuff. 

It's an interesting problem, I think it is largely the same as the fantasy aspect, in that it is not possible to make it fair for everyone. The Bengals and Bills never got a chance to win (or lose). If the Bills would have won that game, and then had to go to KC to win the AFC Championship game, that's a real disservice to them. 

One thing I don't understand is why can't the Balt/Cincy matchup (if the Ravens beat Cincy this weekend) be played at a neutral site rather than a coin flip? A coin flip doesn't seem quite fair because they could be playing in Baltimore at a disadvantage with a better winning %. At worst they should be playing at a neutral site. 

The rules don't really account for a situation like this, and it also was an act of God, there was nothing the teams could have done to have prevented it, there was no fault. 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by purplemonster

[stevegrab]

25 minutes ago, purplemonster said:

It's an interesting problem, I think it is largely the same as the fantasy aspect, in that it is not possible to make it fair for everyone. The Bengals and Bills never got a chance to win (or lose). If the Bills would have won that game, and then had to go to KC to win the AFC Championship game, that's a real disservice to them. 

One thing I don't understand is why can't the Balt/Cincy matchup (if the Ravens beat Cincy this weekend) be played at a neutral site rather than a coin flip? A coin flip doesn't seem quite fair because they could be playing in Baltimore at a disadvantage with a better winning %. At worst they should be playing at a neutral site. 

The rules don't really account for a situation like this, and it also was an act of God, there was nothing the teams could have done to have prevented it, there was no fault. 

 

Sure seemed like there were clear rules for a cancelled game, nothing about "unless its an act of God" since that was a big part of a potential canceled game (weather is an act of God). Then they made up new rules, because some involved felt existing rules were not fair. They would be wise to add something to at least partially cover this even just "Or... the league and owners will meet to come up with a solution we find acceptable". 

[purplemonster]

17 hours ago, stevegrab said:

Sure seemed like there were clear rules for a cancelled game, nothing about "unless its an act of God" since that was a big part of a potential canceled game (weather is an act of God). Then they made up new rules, because some involved felt existing rules were not fair. They would be wise to add something to at least partially cover this even just "Or... the league and owners will meet to come up with a solution we find acceptable".

I see your point. I was under the impression the preexisting rules didn't capture this scenario but they seem to have covered it adequately. It is unprecedented in that it hasn't happened since 1935 and apparently they felt it was unfair the way it was written. Changing the rules in the middle of the season looks a bit suspect, no doubt. They got the requisite number of owners to agree so it is legal on their end but usually the rules are the rules. It is a scenario they didn't have to deal in modern times until now.

Edited January 7, 2023 by purplemonster

[loaf]

I did lose a super bowl because I lost three players to the cancellation. Not that it matters in the overall scheme of things though