From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: AFC vs. NFC drivel
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:20:47 GMT

el> Edward Lor
gs> Gary Strand

el> Our point is simply: best of NFC > best of AFC. 

gs> "Best" being defined as "playoff team", correct? 

el> In a sense, yes. In absolute term, it's NFC champs > AFC champs.

  Question is, what does "NFC champ > AFC champ" have to say about the respect-
  ive 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? 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?

gs> Now, when you say ">", do you mean "NFC playoff teams vs. all of AFC is 
    better than AFC playoff teams vs. all of NFC", or "NFC best vs. AFC best 
    is better than AFC best vs. NFC best"?

el> [The] NFC champs are better than AFC champs, and loosely, the NFC playoff
    field is better than the AFC playoff field. The former is supported by the
    past 8-11 Superbowls. The latter is an opinion.

  Ed Lor with an "opinion"? Amazing!

  Anyway, why not include *all* the SBs? Or, why include more than the last 2
  or 3, perhaps 5? Given that the average tenure in the NFL is around 4-5y,
  a given team is quite different at two times 5 years apart.

el> There is no argument about it.  The only way to dodge the argument is:

gs> "Dodging" is a little harsh, wouldn't you say?

el> I wouldn't. Because you keep dodging the comparison of the best teams in
    the two conferences, much to the tone of "Yes, the NFC won a lot of SB,
    but ....." Why the ifs and buts?

  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.
  I prefer to let the facts decide, rather than asking leading questions. I
  also prefer non-circular definitions.

el> 1) compare the AFC vs NFC in the regular season
    2) bring back the 70s SB to make the comparison more even
    3) claim that the 49ers/Redskins/Giants/Bears have NOTHING to do with 
       the NFC; they are just in that conference by accident

gs> 1) is perfectly valid. "AFC" and "NFC" mean members of the two conferences,
    *all* members, not just playoff teams. 

el> Oh, so when I say we are just interested in comparing the best teams, you 
    won't allow us? Who are you that you have to limit our pools of comparison?

  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.

gs> 2) is also valid, if your claim "best of NFC > best of AFC" doesn't include
    a time range. If your time range is "since NFC has won consecutive SBs", 
    the argument becomes a wee bit circular.

el> So it's circular, but this dominance is also a fact, wouldn't you admit it?

  Dominance in a given specific time frame, yes. 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.

  It's a pity you rest your argument on such a narrow foundation, Ed. But,
  since you're a Redskins fan (the "Patriot fan" is a load of BS, and you and
  I know it) it's not unexpected. You're simply a slightly more refined model
  of John Gloria.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF