NFL: Bills-Bengals postponement impact on schedule discussion (UPD: Game cancelled)

[daver]

There's 6 permutations of 1,2,3 between the 6 teams. The most likely was 1)BUF, 2)KC 3) CIN
despite the fact that KC had a slight edge on the race for 1.

The way I look at it is this:

KC had the best chance to be #1 then Buffalo, then Cincy.

Cincy had the best chance to be #3, then Buffalo, then the Chiefs.

Now KC still has the best chance, then Buffalo and Cincy is locked into #3 which they were not before.

You can argue about who got the worse end of this but it doesn't fundamentally change how each team was positioned before the Bills/Cincy game. Bettors would have been putting their money on the Chiefs to get the #1 seed and for Cincy to get the #3 seed.

 

[misterchainsaw]

The way I look at it is this:

KC had the best chance to be #1 then Buffalo, then Cincy.

Cincy had the best chance to be #3, then Buffalo, then the Chiefs.

Now KC still has the best chance, then Buffalo and Cincy is locked into #3 which they were not before.

You can argue about who got the worse end of this but it doesn't fundamentally change how each team was positioned before the Bills/Cincy game. Bettors would have been putting their money on the Chiefs to get the #1 seed and for Cincy to get the #3 seed.

So we've been going on about how the Chiefs had 50% chance tu get the one seed, but that was just one number from a site that doesn't actually use metrics in their game predictions. This site actually had the probability of the Bengals beating the Bills at around 55-60%. Advanced metrics sites and Vegas had the Bills slightly favored. We also know from the same site I used that if the Bills-Bengals game was decided by a coin flip, than the #1 seed odds were also 47-47-6 (KC-BUF-CIN). So it stands to reason that the Bills may have been slightly favored for the one seed with more in depth game simulation, since both Vegas, FPI, and other such metrics had them slightly favored in the Bengals game.

TL;DR version: No, is not clear at all that KC was more likely to gain the 1 seed than Buffalo. It was pretty much a coin flip before the game was canceled.

EDIT: Football outsiders, which DOES use metrics when simulating future games, had Buffalo a slight favorite (44%-43%) for the one seed entering MNF. So let's drop this "KC was a clear favorite for the 1 seed" nonsense. The 50-43 edge doesn't say that (that's a "slight edge" at best), and better sites that use more sophisticated algorithms certainly don't say that. It was a coin flip.

 

[daver]

So we've been going on about how the Chiefs had 50% chance tu get the one seed, but that was just one number from a site that doesn't actually use metrics in their game predictions. This site actually had the probability of the Bengals beating the Bills at around 55-60%. Advanced metrics sites and Vegas had the Bills slightly favored. We also know from the same site I used that if the Bills-Bengals game was decided by a coin flip, than the #1 seed odds were also 47-47-6 (KC-BUF-CIN). So it stands to reason that the Bills may have been slightly favored for the one seed worth more in depth game simulation, since both Vegas, FPI, and other such metrics had them slightly favored.

TL;DR version: No, is not clear at all that KC was more likely to gain the 1 seed than Buffalo. It was pretty much a coin flip before the game was canceled.

EDIT: Football outsiders, which DOES use metrics when simulating future games, had Buffalo a slight favorite (44%-43%) for the one seed entering MNF. So let's drop this "KC was a clear favorite for the 1 seed" nonsense. The 50-43 edge doesn't say that, and better suits that use more sophisticated algorithms certainly doesn't say that. It was a coin flip.

I think the difference is more that the Pats had a better chance of beating the Bill than the Raiders did in beating the Chiefs (better team, still has a playoff chance).

I never said KC was the clear favorite, just the favorite.

I think a better way to solve the #1 seed issue is if there is a tie in wins among the Chiefs and the Bills or the Chiefs, the Bills, and the Bengals, they flip a coin to determine the #1, #2 and #3 seed but still keep the neutral site clause in place.

Given they are using head to head in the Bengals/Ravens scenario, they should consider the Chiefs loss to both the Bills and Bengals to effectively negate the % difference. This could make the Bengals a bit more willing to swallow the Ravens scenario.

 

[misterchainsaw]

I think the difference is more that the Pats had a better chance of beating the Bill than the Raiders did in beating the Chiefs (better team, still has a playoff chance).

I never said KC was the clear favorite, just the favorite.

I think a better way to solve the #1 seed issue is if there is a tie in wins among the Chiefs and the Bills or the Chiefs, the Bills, and the Bengals, they flip a coin to determine the #1, #2 and #3 seed but still keep the neutral site clause in place.

Given they are using head to head in the Bengals/Ravens scenario, they should consider the Chiefs loss to both the Bills and Bengals to effectively negate the % difference. This could make the Bengals a bit more willing to swallow the Ravens scenario.

I think you mean a tie in losses. The Bills not having a chance to get that 14th win and match the Chiefs (and thus win the tiebreaker via head to head win) is the entire problem.

But as I said before, I'm fine with the solution. It's luck in results that made it turn out the way it did, not any wrong doing by the NFL's handling of this. But it's clearly a big advantage for the Chiefs that's evident for anyone with a base in game theory and probability theory, and I will continue to point that out when people try to claim otherwise. The CCG possibly played in a neutral site is a drop in the bucket compared to the change in the #1 seed race and resultant advantages of a bye and avoiding the next best two teams until the CCG.

It literally went from a coin flip to a 5:1 advantage for KC. That's a HUGE swing, even if they might have been "slightly favored" before.

 

[The Note]

Based on points %; the same way that the Chiefs will win the #1 seed. It would be consistent to either include some caveats for all teams affected, including the Ravens or not include them at all.

The difference is the league called the Bengals division winners then said the home game associated with winning your division is now going to be left up to a coin flip. The Chiefs (and Bills, though their direct control of it was lost) still have a shot to earn the one seed by winning their games this weekend. All these teams are making concessions but it seems like the Bengals got the rawest deal. I can't blame them for being mad at how this particular bit of the proposal has shaken out.

 

[misterchainsaw]

The difference is the league called the Bengals division winners then said the home game associated with winning your division is now going to be left up to a coin flip. The Chiefs (and Bills, though their direct control of it was lost) still have a shot to earn the one seed by winning their games this weekend. All these teams are making concessions but it seems like the Bengals got the rawest deal. I can't blame them for being mad at how this particular bit of the proposal has shaken out.

I agree. I think Baltimore and Cincinnati got the worst of it as a Bills fan.

 

[daver]

Interesting discussion:



Discussing that there is a rule already in place for cancelled games - winning % is used to determine seedings. So why is there even a discussion?

I would counter that the game wasn't cancelled initially, it was cancelled subsequently with an idea of some compromise to be worked out.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

This is completely off the rails and I am too tired to even try to figure out that scenario.

 

[misterchainsaw]

This is completely off the rails and I am too tired to even try to figure out that scenario.

Basically if the Ravens and Bengals don't play, home field goes by regular seeding. If Baltimore wins, Cincy is locked into the 3 seed, but Baltimore could move up to 5 if the Chargers lose, meaning LA would go to CIN and BAL would go to JAX/TEN

Also, seeing that the resolution has been passed by the NFL.

 

[mouser]

If they do have a neutral site game I'm curious whether it will be at an outdoor stadium. Notably all three teams play outdoors already.

I doubt they'd use the stadium of a team in the same division. Nor the stadium of a team that could have a home playoff game that late. So that leaves us:

Indianapolis (indoor), probably top candidate
Detroit (indoor), unavailable due to renovations (note, Detroit could make the playoffs but only as a 7 seed meaning they can't host a playoff game)
Atlanta (indoor)
Washington (outdoor)
Carolina (outdoor)
Tennessee (outdoor) - if they miss the playoffs or get the 7 seed

I think it's highly unlikely they'd do Chicago (outdoor)

 

[StreetHawk]

If they do have a neutral site game I'm curious whether it will be at an outdoor stadium. Notably all three teams play outdoors already.

I doubt they'd use the stadium of a team in the same division. Nor the stadium of a team that's in the playoffs. So that leaves us:

Indianapolis (indoor), probably top candidate
Detroit (indoor), unavailable due to renovations
Atlanta (indoor)
Washington (outdoor)
Carolina (outdoor)
Tennessee (outdoor) - if they miss the playoffs

I think it's highly unlikely they'd do Chicago (outdoor)

Washington grass field is notoriously bad. Chiefs play on grass while Cin and Buf on turf. If that matters. Probably should pick a location in between them so Indy makes the most sense or Min if they go out earlier.

 

[misterchainsaw]

If they do have a neutral site game I'm curious whether it will be at an outdoor stadium. Notably all three teams play outdoors already.

I doubt they'd use the stadium of a team in the same division. Nor the stadium of a team that could have a home playoff game that late. So that leaves us:

Indianapolis (indoor), probably top candidate
Detroit (indoor), unavailable due to renovations (note, Detroit could make the playoffs but only as a 7 seed meaning they can't host a playoff game)
Atlanta (indoor)
Washington (outdoor)
Carolina (outdoor)
Tennessee (outdoor) - if they miss the playoffs or get the 7 seed

I think it's highly unlikely they'd do Chicago (outdoor)

Indianapolis is also almost directly halfway between Buffalo and KC so I agree it's the most likely.

 

[BB88]

The way I look at it is this:

KC had the best chance to be #1 then Buffalo, then Cincy.

Cincy had the best chance to be #3, then Buffalo, then the Chiefs.

Now KC still has the best chance, then Buffalo and Cincy is locked into #3 which they were not before.

You can argue about who got the worse end of this but it doesn't fundamentally change how each team was positioned before the Bills/Cincy game. Bettors would have been putting their money on the Chiefs to get the #1 seed and for Cincy to get the #3 seed.

Most likely scenario for Buffalo was either 1 or 3, now you are looking at 2.

So you can’t say that’s the most likely scenario.

Buffalo had the best record in AFC and held their own fate because of it.
Now the thank you for that is that the Chiefs are being handed the #1.

 

[The Note]

We were a phantom Chris Jones personal foul away from avoiding this whole situation.

 

[StreetHawk]

We were a phantom Chris Jones personal foul away from avoiding this whole situation.

Or an Allen fumble at their own goal line vs Minny.

 

[daver]

Most likely scenario for Buffalo was either 1 or 3, now you are looking at 2.

So you can’t say that’s the most likely scenario.

Buffalo had the best record in AFC and held their own fate because of it.
Now the thank you for that is that the Chiefs are being handed the #1.

There was a 50% chance, likely more, that the Bills would have been in the same position they are in now re: the Chiefs. They would need a win and Chiefs loss to get #1.

It should be noted that they cannot go any lower than #2 which is a benefit to them. I agree that the Chiefs are getting to much out of this and maybe something like a coin flip can be added in rather than going by win%.

 

[Troy McClure]

NFL Playoffs Generate No Financial Windfall for Individual Teams

Stadiums will be packed, and the TV audiences will be massive as the NFL playoffs kick off this weekend, but for the teams in the Super Bowl hunt, the playoffs offer little financial upside this season. The NFL’s economic model spreads the wealth. Its massive media contracts, along with a large...

sports.yahoo.com

The NFL’s economic model spreads the wealth. Its massive media contracts, along with a large chunk of gate receipts, are divided equally among the 32 teams. The playoffs are no different. The league collects almost all ticket revenue from playoff games and simply provides a stipend for home and away teams that cover costs for travel and stadium operations. Home teams keep their share of concession and parking revenue, which typically ranges from $1 million to $2 million combined, per game, but it is a rounding error for teams who can expect a check next season from the NFL for shared revenue of roughly $400 million. A Super Bowl run boosts merchandise sales for teams, but much of that revenue is shared equally, as well.

As a Bengals fan, my only objection is the coin flip for home field for a potential Ravens/Bengals playoff game even if the Bengals win the week 18 game. That doesn't seem right. Other than that, there is no perfect solution and the league is trying to do the best that they can.

The extra parking and concessions money isn't a rounding error to the poorer owners like Brown.

 

[misterchainsaw]

We were a phantom Chris Jones personal foul away from avoiding this whole situation.

Against the Bills? That was last year's regular season game, man. And that game ended 38-20 so....

You won the game with the "phantom" (really just shitty rule) roughing the passer call against Clark this year against the Raiders.

 

[BB88]

There was a 50% chance, likely more, that the Bills would have been in the same position they are in now re: the Chiefs. They would need a win and Chiefs loss to get #1.

It should be noted that they cannot go any lower than #2 which is a benefit to them. I agree that the Chiefs are getting to much out of this and maybe something like a coin flip can be added in rather than going by win%.

Buffalo had played the entire year to get that #1 and it was taken away from them without them losing a game, you agree with that?

Chiefs were handed the controll of #1 without earning it, you agree with that?

Bengals despite winning their division may not play a home game in these playoffs.

It absolutely makes a major difference whether you need to face Chiefs/Bills/Bengals x2 in these playoffs or one of Chiefs/Bengals/Bills.

Chiefs were handed a easier path to Super Bowl without earning it and 2 teams were punished without deserving it

 

[The Note]

Against the Bills? That was last year's regular season game, man. And that game ended 38-20 so....

You won the game with the "phantom" (really just shitty rule) roughing the passer call against Clark this year against the Raiders.

Wasn't talking about any of that. Was talking about Chris Jones effectively ending the Colts game then getting flagged for saying something mean to Matt Ryan. And the RTP call against the Raiders was also Chris Jones, I was at the game.

 

[misterchainsaw]

Wasn't talking about any of that. Was talking about Chris Jones effectively ending the Colts game then getting flagged for saying something mean to Matt Ryan. And the RTP call against the Raiders was also Chris Jones.

Ah. So a taunting penalty. You have no idea what he said so how exactly can you judge (I just looked it up, it was unsportsmanlike conduct, not roughing the passer, so again, taunting). I mean geez man, there's super questionable penalties called (and obvious ones not called) all over the NFL every freaking week.

I mean the guy even got fined for it...maybe you should be mad at him for running his mouth?

 

[The Note]

Ah. So a taunting penalty. You have no idea what he said so how exactly can you judge (I just looked it up, it was unsportsmanlike conduct, not roughing the passer, so again, taunting). I mean geez man, there's super questionable penalties called (and obvious ones not called) all over the NFL every freaking week.

Christ, I was just trying to inject a levity into the seeding discussion, I know every team can point to one or two plays a week. I never said it was RTP I said it was personal foul. You were the one that flew off the handle about RTP calls.

 

[daver]

Buffalo had played the entire year to get that #1 and it was taken away from them without them losing a game, you agree with that?

Chiefs were handed the controll of #1 without earning it, you agree with that?

Bengals despite winning their division may not play a home game in these playoffs.

It absolutely makes a major difference whether you need to face Chiefs/Bills/Bengals x2 in these playoffs or one of Chiefs/Bengals/Bills.

Chiefs were handed a easier path to Super Bowl without earning it and 2 teams were punished without deserving it

What is your solution then? I can easily post my complaints just as easy as you. Noone is going to treated to be equal in this scenario.

I think they can tweak what they have done but fundamentally they are trying to cover all of the scenarios in a fair way.

If you have an alternative, I am all ears.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

The NFL is ridiculously stupid for not going by their written rule on this and just randomly deciding to change it midseason. There would be zero issue at all with just going by win % for seeding, as is written into the current rules. Instead they come up with these ridiculous scenarios. There should never be a neutral site playoff game unless there's a friggin hurricane or something. Not surprised though, the league has been trending downward and making stupid decisions for a while now.

 

[daver]

Chiefs were handed the controll of #1 without earning it, you agree with that?

No, so how about a coin flip for #1 rather than relying on winning %?