From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:12:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.175740.44740@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>You based your opinion on one game
>>among 16, I based my opinion on 16. 
>
>But, my one game was played between the two teams in question, 
So? when have people started ranking a set of teams by just looking at
every head-to-head matchups between the teams in the set?

>your 16 total
>games were played under very different circumstances against different teams.
your one game was also played under very different circumstance: 1 out
of 16 which form the merits of the season, the most insignificant regular
season game (inter-conference), early in the season .....

>Sorry for the typo, in al the other cases, I did state 15-3...  Still looks
>very similar.  15-3 vs. 14-5 is very similar.
That's only your minority opinion. I don't see any similarity at all. Neither
does the league, the fans, nor the Vegas line.

>>Strenght of schedule, in the NFL tiebreaker totem pole, is the 8th important
>>criteria or so. 
>Exactly, so it is one of the many other factors.  Thanx for proving my point.
And since their records aren't similar, tie-breakers are not applicable.
So there is no premise to apply strength of schedule.

>>>Can you honestly say that SF is "Definitely" better than Phoenix??  
>>Yes.
>Then why didn't they beat Phoenix????
They can't beat a team on a particular October Sunday doesn't => they aren't a
better team, or no team can be called "the best team" in any season in NFL 
history  except 1972.

>But, that one game has a lot of merit as well.  It is #1 on the NFL tiebreaker
>list... Head-to-head matchups...
But your premise is not true. Their records aren't tied.

>>Yes, like SF is 14-2 and Phoenix is 5-11. So you are saying that one game
>>defines who's the best? Nope, the league doesn't use that criteria.
>Yes they do.  They use it in the case of tiebreakers.  
If there is no tie, tiebreakers are useless. So you have no premise to
stand on to apply tiebreakers.

>And, the league doesn't
>say that since SF is 14-2, and has the best record, that they are the league's
>best team.  
They are the league's best team for the regular season, since the league
use records to determine merits (division champs, draft order, seeding).

>That is what the SuperBowl is for.  All it does is rewards them
>by giving them the best chance at getting to the SuperBowl...
Then what happen to the teams that don't win the SB? are you saying that
there is no way to rank them? The tournament only sort out the #1 team,
not the #2 team ....

>But they don't...  Why, because no one seems to agree with you that the team
>with the best record should get the award.
But people seems to agree with me that in general, team A with a better 
record > team B with a worse record.

>But, that W/L during the season is a largely different situation.  Different
>teams, different locations, different conditions, etc... all help to define
>those situations.  The head-to-head is the ultimate challenge.
Whose ultimate challenge? certainly not the 49ers. That game wasn't even
as significant as a divisional game against the Falcons. To the 49ers, the 
ultimate challenge for the regular season is to get the best record in the 
league.

Maybe to a team that lost 2 SB with strong inferiority complex, winning
at Candlestick is the ultimate challenge.

>Why, the 49ers weren't good enough to get there.  
But getting there is not the goal, winning is. Getting there among a
weak AFC field doesn't prove anything, since you advocate 

     "different teams, different locations, different conditions"

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com