From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: AFC vs. NFC drivel
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:24:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.212047.1083@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Question is, what does "NFC champ > AFC champ" have to say about the respect-
>  ive conferences? 
The question is, when I am NOT interested in comparing respective conference,
why do you insist on getting me to compare respective (overall) conferences?

>   Is it possible, say, for one conference to dominate in the
>  top-to-bottom regular-season games yet the other conference's champion wins
>  the SB? 
It is possible. It is also possible that the #6 seed winning the SB, or the
#8 qualifier winning the Olympic Gold Medal in the 100-meter free-style. 
It's just extremely unlikey.

>  Or, to get more narrow, for the NFC (say) champion to have a losing
>  record against its AFC opponents during the regular season (which can include
>  the future AFC champion) and yet the NFC champion wins the Super Bowl? Does
>  this confuse the simplicity of your argument a bit?
Well, so what? as long as it wins the SB, the claim that "NFC champs > 
AFC champs" still stands.

>  Anyway, why not include *all* the SBs? Or, why include more than the last 2
>  or 3, perhaps 5? 
Because this streak gives the maximum support in my argument. Like I say
two weeks ago, that's what "streaks" are for.

>  Mainly because you define the terms of the question "Which conference is bet-
>  ter, the NFC or AFC?" such that the answer cannot be anything but the NFC.
Cite the article that I want to argue with you about "which conference 
(overall) is better". That's exactly what you want to argue but I don't.

>  I prefer to let the facts decide, rather than asking leading questions. I
>  also prefer non-circular definitions.
Right, a non-circular definitions is also a fact. You can't argue against
it, why not get into something totally outside this definition?

>  Nope. *You're* the one limiting the comparison to two single teams in one 
>  single game, I'm *expanding* the comparison to examine 52 games between 28
>  teams, in a regular regular season.
Well, you "limit" that in any comparison, the pool HAS to be between the 
whole conferences, nothing else.  Isn't that a limitation?

>  Dominance in a given specific time frame, yes. 
OK, that's an admission of dominance IN MY CONTEXT. Then why argue about 

   "in the past decade of so, the NFC champs > AFC champs"

with all these ifs and buts? Whether this claim is meaningless or not,
it's an undeniable claim. Adding all these ifs and buts still doesn't refute
this claim.

>  Dominance, period, no. There
>  is no reason to give special preference to the last 8 years, any more than
>  there is to only look at the period 1968-1980, when the AFL/AFC won 11 of
>  13 Super Bowls.
There is also no reason to use something prior to this streak to discount
this streak either. Your reasoning is as weak as "The 49ers dominated the
80s. Yes, but look how awful they were in the preceding 20 years", or
"The Steelers dominated the 70s. Yes, but look how awful they were in
the preceding 40 years".

>  It's a pity you rest your argument on such a narrow foundation, Ed. 
Narrow or not, that's something you can't argue against. It's a pity that
you have to resort to some totally irrelevant arguments to refute. How 
about adding "Bush did the right thing to attack Iraq" and "Clinton is a 
good choice" to support your case against my claim? 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro