So, this is one argument you don't want to debate with me, considering that I'm actually an English teacher getting their Master's Degree in TESL.

Your first comment put extreme emphasis on the "even if". That was your argument, so own up to it. He did not imply that, nor did he type it. At all. Nowhere. Nothing. The semantics are not there.

Your two "scenarios" are sentences you made up. Those are not what we're looking at. Here's the actual comment:

Counterpoint: These are the Bills. It took them three seasons to fire Dick Jauron. Rex likely wont be gone by 2017 unless he leaves on his own volition.

Okay, let's look at the language meanings:

These are the bills

Implying that they're notorious for something.

It took them three seasons to fire Dick Jauron.

Basically saying "it took them 3 seasons to fire a [bad coach.]". So, they hold onto bad coaches, apparently.

Rex likely wont be gone by 2017 unless he leaves on his own volition.

Given that we've already established the first 2 linguistical meanings of the aforementioned, we come to this point. Here, it's being stated that the Bills will probably keep Rex on the team, unless he leaves first. I see no other way to interpret this, semantically, at all. Once we piece all of this together, one thinks, "Oh, since Rex is a bad coach, like Dick Jauron, the Bills probably won't fire him for a while, like they didn't with Dick."

There is no other way for me to personally interpret that other than what it's actually written as within the context. The pragmatics as a whole don't change the literal language. By looking at that, I come to the conclusion.

But, you know, I've got lesson planning and quite a few other things to do tonight. If you still want to debate an actual linguist saying they "don't have good reading comprehension", then by all means, bring it on, because I'll bring out the textbooks honey.