Yeah, exactly! Here's the breakdown for those that don't watch sportsball!
I'm not a fan of either team (I like the Broncos, Cowboys, and Browns, only one semi-good team there) so I'm totally impartial.
The "logic" goes like this - if the Bills wouldn't have had their regular season game against Cincinnati canceled because one of their players died on the field, then the Bills might have had a chance to finish the season with a better record than the Chiefs. IF that would have happened, then the Bills would have had the first week playoff by and home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
As it turned out, the Chiefs had the better regular season record (14 - 3 or .824) while the Bills were 13 - 3 or .813). Right there, the Chiefs had the better record, and should have home field for the AFC Championship game if they have to play the Bills just based on that record.
In addition, strictly in my opinion, the Bills should have been made to forfeit the regular season game since it was one of their players that died on the field. That, or put it down as a tie. Then their record would have been either 13 - 4 or 13 - 3 - 1. In either case, the Chiefs end the season with a better record and get home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
Instead, in the name of "equity" (put down those that actually work hard and earn something) they decided that if the AFC Championship was Chiefs/Bills then it would be at a neutral site. The geniuses in charge picked war torn Atlanta when they could have picked any domed stadium physically located between KC or Buffalo (Indianapolis, for example).
I know that this might piss off some Bills fans but so be it.
