I don't get why they didn't just stick with the rules in place. Obviously a crazy situation but isn't that what the rules are there for?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I understand it this is correct. The Chiefs would get the 1 seed, which means the bye and a home game in the second round; but if they meet the Bills in the AFC championship that would be a neutral site.Ok someone smarter than me...I thought the NFL said if KC and Buffalo both win this weekend the AFC title game would be a neutral site? Is that still the case? The game on now is saying with a win KC gets #1 seed. So I'm confused. They get the #1 seed and bye with a win today...but if Buffalo also wins the AFC game will be neutral? Just trying to understand.
Got it. I actually think Bills lose at home tomorrow though so in that case the AFC would still run through KC. But it's ONLY a neutral site game if KC and Buffalo both win and both make AFC title game? Any other scenario means as long as KC keeps winning, they would host the AFC game.As I understand it this is correct. The Chiefs would get the 1 seed, which means the bye and a home game in the second round; but if they meet the Bills in the AFC championship that would be a neutral site.
The Bills (and Bengals) are working with one fewer game than everyone else, and the Bills beat Kansas City during the season, so even though the Chiefs would have the 1 seed the NFL knows the Bills might have lost their shot at the 1 because of that one fewer game, so this is what they came up with. I don’t know why they didn’t go with winning percentage or whatever other tie breaking procedures they already had in place (which are, naturally, based on every team playing the same number of games, so …).
As far as KC is concerned, yes.Got it. I actually think Bills lose at home tomorrow though so in that case the AFC would still run through KC. But it's ONLY a neutral site game if KC and Buffalo both win and both make AFC title game? Any other scenario means as long as KC keeps winning, they would host the AFC game.
My initial thought is that it should be at an NFC field, so as not to give a financial boost to any other AFC team?Curious to where the neutral site game would be.
All three teams are outdoor cold weather teams... will they really put in a dome ?
Indy first one that comes to mind, somewhat equidistant.
Disagree.
It’s not a break. If Bengals had won and Chiefs best Raiders they get #1 seed. So how is that catching a break if they don’t get full benefits of #1 seed?
Chiefs fan here. What they did, not sure about, but it's probably fair all the way around. Strange situation that I hope never happens again.Well, it's approved. Doesn't have a vote breakdown yet.
![]()
NFL owners approve resolution to adjust AFC playoffs, including potential neutral title game site
NFL owners approved a resolution Friday during a Special League Meeting to potentially adjust the AFC postseason, including possibly playing a conference championship game at a neutral site.www.nfl.com
As a Bengals fan, I don't like this. Obviously a lot would have to fall a certain way but before the cancelation they had a shot at the number 1 seed. Now they do not. Plus the NFL followed their own rules by giving them the North based on winning percentage but then changed it and made it possible they would not have a home game. I don't blame Taylor and Bengals ownership for not liking this.
All that said, the Bengals are hot and I think can win anywhere, so I'm hoping this will all be moot in the end.