From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:39:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.162228.58424@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.211205.28843@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Hey Ed...  
>similar (adj.) -  " alike in a general way but not exactly ".   
>I would say that this qualifies as similar...  
Well, how is a 3-game differential in the L column "alike"? How is
the .700 and .833 alike? Care to define "alike" too?

Whose .700? Buffalo, if they lose the SB (14-6). That's all this argument
is about. If they win the SB, the point is moot.

>Learn you definitions, Ed.   And, as the league does not recognize the
>team with the best record as the league's best team (or champion), you can't
>use the criteria of "best regular season record" either.  
Well, the league recognizes the better record as the better team in the 
regular season. That's why they get higher seeding, division champs, 
lower draft pick ....

Your only argument is that "best team in regular season" != champions, but
that's because there is a playoff to sort out the champions. Had there been
no playoffs, best team in regular season is the champion, as in the NFL
in the 20s and 30s. And since there is no playoff to sort out the 2nd best
team, regular season record plays a very big factor. In case of a 3-game 
difference, it is the sole factor in many people's opinion (Vegas, media).

>Strength of schedule
>is considered a factor in just about every ranking system around, such as
>Sagarin and others...
Strength of schedule can't offset a 3 game difference in the L column.
The NYT power rating rated the 49ers #1, the Bills #10. 

>Didn't say they were, but it shows what merit the league puts on head-to-head
>matchups.  
But that merit is nominal compared to the merit the league puts on record.

>It is the 2nd quality they use to differentiate between teams with
>the EXACT same record in the same conference/division.  The 1st is overall
>record.  
Glad you see the light.

>Sort of.  They did use it, but it doesn't have any bearing on the AFC, as it
>was an NFC ranking.  
The NFC and AFC ranking (records) are intermixed in the draft order. So the
league considers that the NFC records have bearing on the AFC, i.e. inferior
record drafts higher, need more help. 

>>there is no way to rank them? The tournament only sort out the #1 team,
>>not the #2 team ....
>
>That's YOUR opinion.  Many others believe the #2 team is the one that lost
>the SuperBowl.  
Again, who are these many others? isn't that your sole opinion? Nobody has ever
considered the Broncos the 2nd best team in the years they lost the SB.
And based on the media's opinion, not this year either. 

>>But people seems to agree with me that in general, team A with a better 
>>record > team B with a worse record.
>But not always.  When the records are as SIMILAR as these two teams are, 
>most people will look at other factors.  
But a 3 game difference in the L column is only similar IN YOUR OPINION.
Who else considers them similar? not Vegas, not the media ...

>Factors such as head-to-head, 
>strength of schedule, and others.  Many people believed Dallas to be the
>NFC's best team, but they didn't have the best record.  
Yep, but Dallas proved it on Candlestick in January. Had they lost last Sunday, 
as in 1981, who would have believed? Buffalo has no chance to do it in Jan.

>But, it is SIMILAR
>enough that people look at things other than record.  
You get any supporting evidence that they are similar enough? By judging
various criteria. Buffalo is still #10 in the NYT power rating.

>Similar situation with
>Buffalo.  Most people did and still do consider them the AFC's best team.  
>However, even with SIMILAR records, they were the 4th rated AFC team.
1) They have identical records with the #1 - #3 seeds.

2) Because they proved it on the field in the playoffs. Buffalo didn't prove
such thing against SF in the playoffs.

>Didn't say that facing the 49ers was the ultimate challenge, but rather 
>that the head-to-head matchup is the ultimate challenge between two teams.
But why would the 49ers care about the ultimate challenge between two teams?
Their season objective is to be the #1 team in the league, not 
#1 in {SF, Buffalo} in the regular season. 

>You can talk about records and such all you want, but unless the two teams 
>meet, who can say.  
Maybe you can't, but we sure can. Head-to-head wasn't needed
to evaluate many pairs among 100. Alabama didn't beat FSU, FSU didn't 
beat Miami, Miami didn't beat Notre Dame. Yet the final tally was 

  Alabama > FSU, FSU > Miami, Miami > Notre Dame 

>Pretty lame from a team that couldn't even get there.  And, I wouldn't call
>the field necessarily weak.  But, it does prove at least one thing...
>They were at least good enough to get there.  SF was not.  Period....
Well, since you say that NFC regular season ranking has on bearing on the
AFC, how can the AFC path to the SB has any bearing to the NFC?

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