Maybe if the NFL controls the venue, the can plan other events, that real football fans could care less about, during the week before. I didn't read the article though.
drop being a season ticket holder if they did that.
Part of the benefit of being a season ticket holder is assurance of playoff game ticket availability at standard price rather than secondary market. Take away the playoffs, why wouldn't I just pay for secondary market tickets for the games I want to go to during the season.
It basically gives the NFL two more Super Bowl style games they can plan around. Full weekend of activities and promotions.
They were able to make the DRAFT a premiere event. Imagine what they can do with more than a few weeks to build an experience around the championship games.
I don't know, the NFL constantly makes stupid decisions
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
Can't see owners approving it - would be very anti-fan friendly.
As opposed to night games, weeknight games, flex scheduling, and international games (obviously some like the excuse of going to see your team play to justify taking an international trip, but I think most ticket holders dislike having a home game taken away from them)? The NFL has, for years, shown a complete lack of friendliness to ticket-buying fans.
That's not to say I think this is coming - Florio is simply speculating and I disagree with him that the league's announcement about these ticket sales is evidence that they're gearing to make this the norm. But I don't think concern about being fan-friendly is anything that would get in the way if owners otherwise decide this is what's best for the league.
RE: I don't know, the NFL constantly makes stupid decisions
but I just can't see enough owners wanting to give up home conference championship games.
If they think they can make the league more money, owners will approve it. Players will approve it too as that would mean more money in their pockets when the salary cap increases.
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
And if the Bills hadn't been deprived the chance to add another win, they'd not only have home field and the bye, they'd also be on the other side of the bracket, with KC and Cincy having to play each other first before Buffalo would have to even worry about either.
Instead, Buffalo had to play in the opening round (instead of having the bye) and now will have to beat both Cincinnati and (probably) Kansas City, rather than having one of those teams knock the other out first.
No AFC team had their playoff path more adversely affected by the non-game than Buffalo. Spare me the unfairness plea on behalf of Cincinnati.
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
And if the Bills hadn't been deprived the chance to add another win, they'd not only have home field and the bye, they'd also be on the other side of the bracket, with KC and Cincy having to play each other first before Buffalo would have to even worry about either.
Instead, Buffalo had to play in the opening round (instead of having the bye) and now will have to beat both Cincinnati and (probably) Kansas City, rather than having one of those teams knock the other out first.
No AFC team had their playoff path more adversely affected by the non-game than Buffalo. Spare me the unfairness plea on behalf of Cincinnati.
Yeah we'll agree to disagree, the only thing I can agree is everybody got a little screwed, but for me CIN was by far the one more affected.
The conference games are expected to be held at the best teams's site and will continue to be.
Can't see owners approving it - would be very anti-fan friendly.
Maybe if the NFL controls the venue, the can plan other events, that real football fans could care less about, during the week before. I didn't read the article though.
And since he obviously has total autonomy in his role, that hatred is both well-directed and productive!
/s
Perhaps they don't want to hurt the feelings of the teams who won't get to host conference title games. We should be thinking about them too.
Part of the benefit of being a season ticket holder is assurance of playoff game ticket availability at standard price rather than secondary market. Take away the playoffs, why wouldn't I just pay for secondary market tickets for the games I want to go to during the season.
That will not happen any time soon.
One of the factors I use to judge posters includes how seriously they take Florio's and other's clickbait nonsense
It basically gives the NFL two more Super Bowl style games they can plan around. Full weekend of activities and promotions.
They were able to make the DRAFT a premiere event. Imagine what they can do with more than a few weeks to build an experience around the championship games.
As opposed to night games, weeknight games, flex scheduling, and international games (obviously some like the excuse of going to see your team play to justify taking an international trip, but I think most ticket holders dislike having a home game taken away from them)? The NFL has, for years, shown a complete lack of friendliness to ticket-buying fans.
That's not to say I think this is coming - Florio is simply speculating and I disagree with him that the league's announcement about these ticket sales is evidence that they're gearing to make this the norm. But I don't think concern about being fan-friendly is anything that would get in the way if owners otherwise decide this is what's best for the league.
If they think they can make the league more money, owners will approve it. Players will approve it too as that would mean more money in their pockets when the salary cap increases.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
Why wouldn't the #1 seed get home field all the way through?
Lame idea and would suck for the teams that try hard all year as well as their fans.
and they may have more teams tanking the last game of the season if they are not playing for home field.
Quote:
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
Quote:
In comment 16003584 RollBlue said:
Quote:
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
And if the Bills hadn't been deprived the chance to add another win, they'd not only have home field and the bye, they'd also be on the other side of the bracket, with KC and Cincy having to play each other first before Buffalo would have to even worry about either.
Instead, Buffalo had to play in the opening round (instead of having the bye) and now will have to beat both Cincinnati and (probably) Kansas City, rather than having one of those teams knock the other out first.
No AFC team had their playoff path more adversely affected by the non-game than Buffalo. Spare me the unfairness plea on behalf of Cincinnati.
Quote:
In comment 16003630 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16003584 RollBlue said:
Quote:
playing in Buffalo this weekend is dumb and unfair too. Here's their chance to make up the game that was supposed to be playing in Cincinnati. If this happened to the Giants, I'd be pissed. Surprised Mara voted for that nonsense.
How is it dumb and unfair? They played the same amount of games and Buffalo had the better record.
The game that was canceled was canceled for both of them. They both lost a chance to add a win (to their standings and to their tiebreakers) and both avoided the risk of adding a loss (to their standings and to their tiebreakers); it's as if the game itself didn't exist at all. The only special consideration was made specifically for the scenarios where winning percentage due to an imbalanced number of games played impacted the standings. That's not the case between Buffalo and Cincinnati: they played the same number of games.
It's not dumb, but it sure is unfair, the game that "didn' exist" would serve to decide where the Div. Round would be played between both teams. It was in CIN and the Bengals were playing MUCH better altough only 16% of game time had been played.
And if we're honest, that's all that matters for them, KC, BUF and CIN are by far the better teams in the AFC, so it wasn't that big of a deal that CIN was "handed" the division in the process (which, btw, isn't completely true either).
And if the Bills hadn't been deprived the chance to add another win, they'd not only have home field and the bye, they'd also be on the other side of the bracket, with KC and Cincy having to play each other first before Buffalo would have to even worry about either.
Instead, Buffalo had to play in the opening round (instead of having the bye) and now will have to beat both Cincinnati and (probably) Kansas City, rather than having one of those teams knock the other out first.
No AFC team had their playoff path more adversely affected by the non-game than Buffalo. Spare me the unfairness plea on behalf of Cincinnati.
Yeah we'll agree to disagree, the only thing I can agree is everybody got a little screwed, but for me CIN was by far the one more affected.