Stripes

Kinda glad the Chiefs won. Don’t have to feel screwed out of a clean 1-seed.

Welcome to the zone.

They did it last week too. Just getting him a game check.

The corporate answer for all Bengals/Bills scenarios is “they played the same number of games, and the Bills had a better record”. I think it’s a crap argument, but that’s the argument. Apparently it was also discussed by the competition committee, and there were concerns about “logistics” (whatever the hell that means).

I’m ready for KC to eat an upset in the divisional round vs. LAC.

Get a 20 point lead and then sit 'em.

And that all leaves aside the additional issue that any coin flip rationale needs to be applied consistently to the other playoff rounds.

I think there’s a reasonable argument for giving the Ravens a window, from a philosophy of fairness perspective. However, the fine print is really weird. If the coin flip rationale is accepted, then it shouldn’t be designed to determine who hosts the possible playoff game. 1.) BAL beats CIN, BAL wins coin flip, CIN vs. BAL in WC = Bengals division champions, Ravens home team, Bengals first place 2023 schedule —> Dumb and hard to justify 2.) BAL beats CIN, DEN beats LAC, Bengals vs. LAC in WC = Bengals division champions, Bengals home team, Bengals first 2023 place schedule —> Sure, whatever 3.) BAL beats CIN, CIN wins coin flip, BAL vs. CIN in WC = Bengals division champions, Bengals home team, Bengals first place 2023 schedule —> neener neener 4.) CIN beats BAL —> obviously optimal Option 1 is easily improved by option 5 below. Options 2-4 alleviate the frustration if they come to pass, but that’s not really relevant to “fairness”. ~~~ That’s all to say that the coin flip would need to decide who wins the division instead of who hosts a playoff game: 5.) BAL beats CIN, coin flip decides division champion, BAL wins coin flip = Ravens division champs, Ravens home team, Ravens first place 2023 schedule —> Certainly makes more sense than the first possibility. Being named “division champion” is essentially meaningless without the security of a home game. Nobody collects those trophies on the mantle.

I hope it gets voted down tomorrow. All else aside, if Katie isn’t on board then neither am I.

Everything else aside, I’m glad Mixon is pissed. He’s probably not alone. ”Be pissed” should be a positive mindset for this team as a general rule with respect to performance.

It is also true that if the Bengals/Ravens rationale is accepted, then it must applied the same way to Bengals/Chiefs and Bengals/Bills. That is a glaring omission. I’m reconsidering. While I think there’s an argument from a philosophical and probabilistic perspective, that argument is not being applied consistently. And the inconsistency is strictly anti-Bengals. I see the problem.

Fair gripe from Mixon. Whatever one’s philosophy of “fairness”, this is inconsistent with that doctrine.

I do think the solution could be better for the divisional round forward. The Bengals are the best team in the AFC, and I look forward to them proving it wherever they end up.

The Ravens were denied a fair chance to win the division with the game being canceled. Pretty much every suggestion I have seen this week would have screwed them over worse than anyone else. I don't mind the NFL leaving them a window. The Bengals just have to win the game and make it all moot.

I think the Bengals/Ravens stipulations are reasonably fair. I think it's very dumb that the neutral site games don't include a Bengals/Bills scenario in the divisional round or higher.

It counts.

I keep hearing suggestions that they put the AFCCG at a neutral site if it features two of the three 1-seed candidates. That's fine, but it would irritate me a lot if they don't extend the same rationale to the most important possible meeting --> Bills and Bengals in the divisional round. If they're the 2-seed and 3-seed, then it's impossible for them to meet in the AFCCG.

Woo. All bummers aside, it is the first time the Cincinnati Bengals have ever won a division in consecutive seasons. You could argue it's the second (and the second with a caveat), since the 1981-1982 stretch was screwed by the strike.

I guess there’s this: So this game is not for the AFCN. It’s still possibly for the 2-seed, which I believe is worth chasing.

Twitter is treating the clinched division like a done deal, though I haven’t found anything official.

After being in that stadium, I feel a serious weight lifted from my own shoulders. Keep building, Damar.

Coley Harvey asked a cardiologist (not related to Hamlin’s treatment) to expand on the “neurologically intact” language:

Incredibly good news.

I think it’s to be expected that six days (currently two days) is not sufficient to get past things. They’ll do their best. My main concern would be players playing tentatively and increasing the probability of injuries. The team has such strong leadership though that I am optimistic.

I think that even under the circumstances the Bengals can scrounge together 20 points, and that might be more than enough.