From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:22:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan21.211205.28843@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.175740.44740@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>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.

Hey Ed...  
similar (adj.) -  " alike in a general way but not exactly ".   

I would say that this qualifies as similar...  

>
>>>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.

No, there records aren't EXACT, therefore tie-breakers are not applicable.
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.  Strength of schedule
is considered a factor in just about every ranking system around, such as
Sagarin and others...


>>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.

Didn't say they were, but it shows what merit the league puts on head-to-head
matchups.  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.  

>>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).

Sort of.  They did use it, but it doesn't have any bearing on the AFC, as it
was an NFC ranking.  Does the SF record give them any playoff advantage 
over the AFC teams??? No, didn't think so...

>>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 ....

That's YOUR opinion.  Many others believe the #2 team is the one that lost
the SuperBowl.  
>
>>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 not always.  When the records are as SIMILAR as these two teams are, 
most people will look at other factors.  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.  But, it is SIMILAR
enough that people look at things other than record.  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.

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

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.
You can talk about records and such all you want, but unless the two teams 
meet, who can say.  
>
>>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"

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....
-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"