From: curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:10:34 GMT
Distribution: usa

From article <1992Nov17.085148.9181@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, by lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor):
> In article <26611@optima.cs.arizona.edu> curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson) writes:
>>> 1986 Redskins (12-4) vs 1986 Broncos (11-5), Pasadena
>>
>>Seeing as how Broncos beat the Redskins earlier that year (31-30 or
>>was this '87), I'd have to go with the Broncos in a close game.
> That win was at Mile High due to a missed PAT. The SuperBowl wasn't to 
> be played at Mile High. Seeing how the Broncos performed against a massive
> line at a neutral site .....
> 
Well, the scales have certainly fallen from my eyes.  You are soooo right.
A Bronco victory at home means a massive Redskin victory
at a neutral site.   I am forced to bow down and hail the Redskins as
superior.  Praise be to NFC superiority.
 
>>> 1987 49ers (13-2) vs 1987 Broncos (10-4-1), San Diego
>>One of the better 49er teams.  But then again the Broncos were
>>4-1 against the 49ers in the 80's, so I'll rate it a toss-up since
>>it's on grass.
>But then again the Broncos haven't beaten any one of 49er teams when they were 
> awesome during the regular season.  The ones they beat was in 82 (4-5), 85 
> (10-6) and 88 (10-6).
Again, how foolish of me not to see that except in all the years the Broncos
beat them, that the 49ers just totally outclass the Broncos.  It's 
certainly abundantly clear now that the 49ers would've beaten the snot 
out of Broncos.  All hail NFC superiority.

>>> 1989 Rams (11-5) vs 1989 Broncos (11-5), New Orleans.
>>The general rule is you'd have to be a complete idiot to take 
>>the Broncos in a Dome.  But I'd have to look at the Rams again, 
>>memory says that they were somewhat overrated due to close
>>games against SF earlier in the year.  
> At least they didn't lose by 45 points. Since you are into regular season
> (and we are even talking about the same season), the Rams at least played
> the 49ers close in both games.
Once again you are right Ed.  It's just incredible, how do your do it?  
49ers beat the snot out of both these teams in the playoffs, but I can
certainly see, as could any right thinking individual, that that means
the Rams would've pounded the Bronocos.  NFC superiority, yah that's the 
ticket.

>>> 1989 Giants (12-4) vs 1989 Broncos (11-5), New Orleans.
>>In the regular season, Giants won 19-16 at the Meadowlands in
>>1986 and 14-7 at Denver in 1989.  It's another Dome game so
>>you'd have to take the Giants, but I wouldn't be surprised to 
>>see another closish game between these superior teams.
> Who else call the Broncos superior teams? Based on their history of 
> folding in the SB, I certainly won't.
Gosh, you know, you are right!?  I had forgotten about the Super Bowls.
Well, it's clear to me now that, just like in '86, even though they
played close in the regular season, the Giants were just so superior
that they would've won by 30.  All must worship the most godlike NFC teams.

> competition. What's their regular season record against NFC in the
> three SB seasons?
> 
> total: 7-4-1
> on the road: 3-2-1
> vs NFC playoff teams: 2-4

Again, such persuasive evidence.  I see now that the Broncos (at 2-4) 
were just totally outclassed by the NFC big-boys.  Nowhere near 
playing even against them.  What's an AFC fan to do?

> Let's look at the four NFC losers mentioned above against the AFC:
>                       total      road games      vs AFC playoff teams
>                       13-3           6-2                3-2 

The scales just keep falling.  These guys are also nowhere near playing
even against the AFC playoff teams, 3-2, why that's total domination!

>>Once you get ranking blowouts down to a science, then perhaps
>>we can do some actual ranking, but certainly nothing suggests
>>that a 27 point NFC championship blowout is tangibly better than a 
>>40 point SuperBowl blowout.  
>I haven't seen anything suggesting that a 27 point NFC blowout is equivalent to
> a 45 point SB blowout either.

I've just been bowled over by the sheer mastery of your arguments Ed.
It's time to take off my AFC-colored glasses and see things the way
they really are.  I used to think that a 27 point blowout wasn't much
better than a 40 point blowout (due to that silly law of diminishing returns
and all that jazz), but now, with my newfound wisdom (thanks to you) I 
really consider it to be significantly better.  Plus you throw in the fact
that the 27 point blowout wasn't at a neutral site, if it had been,
that would be another 5 point shift making it only a 22 point blowout,
practically a close game!  Can you believe it Ed, I used to think that 
this was a flimsy basis, at best, for ranking teams.  But now I reckon 
that a team that got blown-out by only 22 has just got to be superior
to one that got blown-out by 40.  It just naturally follows.  More solid 
evidence  (as if any were needed) of NFC superiority.  Once again, my
thanks,

Curtis Dyreson