ieatcrayonz Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I am getting to the point of anger at reading article after article taking as fact that the AFC is better than the NFC. I watch a lot of football and I see the NFC overall as slightly better than the AFC. It is close, but top to bottom the NFC is better. I have no problem if someone has a difference of opinion but I am perturbed at the reasoning in the articles of the football "experts". Over and over again they state that AFC teams have a better W-L record. What does that prove? Each team plays 12 games within their own conference and only 4 against the other conference. OF COURSE AFC teams would have better records. The get to play teams from the slightly weaker AFC 75% of the time. The NFC teams by contrast have 75% of their games against the tougher teams. What are these geniuses thinking? How can they go by W-L records? There are not level schedules. Maybe these football reporters should actually watch some games and form their own opinions.
ganesh Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I think the whole argument is based on 1. the record in the games between an AFC and NFC team this season and the results in somewhere 70% success rate for AFC teams. Hence the prediction that NFC teams are weaker than their respective AFC teams. 2. A 8-8 team from the NFC made the playoffs and another one stumbled to a 9-7 record and still won their division. Whereas in the AFC at one point (16th week) there was a possibility of a 10-6 team not making the playoffs. 3. Many of the top players this season have come from the AFC rather than the NFC overall. For example there were sterling performance at the QB position in the AFC from Manning, Palmer, Brady and Rivers, while besides Drew Brees there was none in the NFC that was consistent for the 16 games of the season. The same goes with the WR positions.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 I think the whole argument is based on 1. the record in the games between an AFC and NFC team this season and the results in somewhere 70% success rate for AFC teams. Hence the prediction that NFC teams are weaker than their respective AFC teams. 2. A 8-8 team from the NFC made the playoffs and another one stumbled to a 9-7 record and still won their division. Whereas in the AFC at one point (16th week) there was a possibility of a 10-6 team not making the playoffs. 3. Many of the top players this season have come from the AFC rather than the NFC overall. For example there were sterling performance at the QB position in the AFC from Manning, Palmer, Brady and Rivers, while besides Drew Brees there was none in the NFC that was consistent for the 16 games of the season. The same goes with the WR positions. I can buy number 3. I don't agree but understand your reasoning. The other 2 make no sense, especially number 2. Of course and 8-8 team might make the playoffs in the NFC because all year they had to play a tougher schedule with 12 games against NFC squads. It was much harder to win 10 games in the NFC. AFC teams got a softer schedule so they won more games.
plenzmd1 Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I can buy number 3. I don't agree but understand your reasoning. The other 2 make no sense, especially number 2. Of course and 8-8 team might make the playoffs in the NFC because all year they had to play a tougher schedule with 12 games against NFC squads. It was much harder to win 10 games in the NFC. AFC teams got a softer schedule so they won more games. but I would say #1 is THE most important reason. Almost complete domination by the AFC. Now, that does not mean that the eventual winner will come from the AFC, but over the broadest objective sample you can have, interconferance play, the empirical evidence is top to bottom AFC is better
Mike formerly from Florida Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I can buy number 3. I don't agree but understand your reasoning. The other 2 make no sense, especially number 2. Of course and 8-8 team might make the playoffs in the NFC because all year they had to play a tougher schedule with 12 games against NFC squads. It was much harder to win 10 games in the NFC. AFC teams got a softer schedule so they won more games. Try this: NFC best team is Chicago won't (not saying can't) beat SD, or NE, or BALT in the SuperBowl. If NE pasted the Bears, can you imagine what Baltimore and SD would do. The best three teams are in the AFC. The Bills would have made the playoffs with a NFC East schedule because they don't play NE 2X, plus Balt or SD. They probably win two of those games if you subbed the NFC teams with the same formula based on previous year's standings. That makes for a 9-7 record. Thus, a playoff berth.
silvermike Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 The AFC playoff teams went 21-3 against the NFC. 21-3! New England, San Diego, and the Chiefs were undefeated. Meanwhile, the NFC playoff teams went a mere 10-14. The reason the NFC teams had worse records isn't that they were beating each other up, it's that they were all losing to the AFC. After all, the intra-AFC winning percentage is the same as the intra-NFC winning percentage. In fact, it has been so every season in league history. Saying that NFC teams have worse records because they keep losing to each other is nonsense.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 but I would say #1 is THE most important reason. Almost complete domination by the AFC. Now, that does not mean that the eventual winner will come from the AFC, but over the broadest objective sample you can have, interconferance play, the empirical evidence is top to bottom AFC is better Let me get this straight: The NFC teams were under 500 overall. You attribute this to the 25% of games they played versus AFC teams??????? What about the 75% of games they played against NFC teams? To me that is the main reason they were under 500 as a whole. This pretty much means the NFC was tougher. What you're saying is like running your fingernails over a car and then keying it and then saying your fingernails caused the scratches. I'm calling the key the culprit.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 Try this: NFC best team is Chicago won't (not saying can't) beat SD, or NE, or BALT in the SuperBowl. If NE pasted the Bears, can you imagine what Baltimore and SD would do. The best three teams are in the AFC. The Bills would have made the playoffs with a NFC East schedule because they don't play NE 2X, plus Balt or SD. They probably win two of those games if you subbed the NFC teams with the same formula based on previous year's standings. That makes for a 9-7 record. Thus, a playoff berth. I'm not talking about individual teams. I picked Baltimore to win in another thread. I'm talking about the AFC vs NFC as conferences.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 The AFC playoff teams went 21-3 against the NFC. 21-3! New England, San Diego, and the Chiefs were undefeated. Meanwhile, the NFC playoff teams went a mere 10-14. The reason the NFC teams had worse records isn't that they were beating each other up, it's that they were all losing to the AFC. After all, the intra-AFC winning percentage is the same as the intra-NFC winning percentage. In fact, it has been so every season in league history. Saying that NFC teams have worse records because they keep losing to each other is nonsense. You can pick and choose stats anytime you want. It is still a small percentage of the games. Conference records are used as tiebreakers and since the NFC was so tough and had close races, teams may have focused on this and overlooked games against AFC opposition.
YOOOOOO Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Seattle won there division while having the worst season a division winner has had in a long while.... The Eagles won there with !@#$ing Jeff Garcia... The Giants played the worst month of football imaginable and still made the playoffs.... The Bears while having the best Defense in the NFC, have one the worst offenses in the league..... They don't have worse records cuz they were playing tougher teams.....they have worse records cuz they are mediocre teams, playing inconsistently against other mediocre teams, that btw were absolutely dominated by the AFC this year....
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 .....they have worse records cuz they are mediocre teams, playing inconsistently against other mediocre teams, that btw were absolutely dominated by the AFC this year.... 75% of the games have nothing to do with the NFC being under 500 but 25% of the games are the cause? Run those keys over your car because your paint is safe, but keep your fingernails away. The NFC is under 500 because they play more NFC teams. This does not prove the conference is better but it goes a long way.
1billsfan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I am getting to the point of anger at reading article after article taking as fact that the AFC is better than the NFC. I watch a lot of football and I see the NFC overall as slightly better than the AFC. It is close, but top to bottom the NFC is better. I have no problem if someone has a difference of opinion but I am perturbed at the reasoning in the articles of the football "experts". Over and over again they state that AFC teams have a better W-L record. What does that prove? Each team plays 12 games within their own conference and only 4 against the other conference. OF COURSE AFC teams would have better records. The get to play teams from the slightly weaker AFC 75% of the time. The NFC teams by contrast have 75% of their games against the tougher teams. What are these geniuses thinking? How can they go by W-L records? There are not level schedules. Maybe these football reporters should actually watch some games and form their own opinions. Maybe it's because the Steelers, Bengals and Broncos (all teams that just missed the playoffs in the AFC) would all have a good shot at going to the Superbowl if they were entered as NFC wildcards. There's not one NFC team that's better than the Chargers, Ravens or Pats. I watch a lot of football and the NFC sucks.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 Maybe it's because the Steelers, Bengals and Broncos (all teams that just missed the playoffs in the AFC) would all have a good shot at going to the Superbowl if they were entered as NFC wildcards. There's not one NFC team that's better than the Chargers, Ravens or Pats. I watch a lot of football and the NFC sucks. The NFC sucks but they are under 500? That makes no sense. They play almost all of their games against tough opponents and that is why they are under 500. The AFC plays against easy teams 12 times. That's why they are over 500. I am a Bills fan like all of us but I am being objective. You are being subjective. Tougher games = more losses. That's why the NFC was under 500.
YOOOOOO Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 The NFC sucks but they are under 500? That makes no sense. They play almost all of their games against tough opponents and that is why they are under 500. The AFC plays against easy teams 12 times. That's why they are over 500. I am a Bills fan like all of us but I am being objective. You are being subjective. Tougher games = more losses. That's why the NFC was under 500. Jeat who is tougher?? SEattle?? Philly?? Giants?? Falcons?? Panthers?? 49ers?? cmon now...who exactly is tough in the NFC?? I mean it is the better conference right?? I think your confusing tough with mediocrity
1billsfan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Jeat who is tougher?? SEattle?? Philly?? Giants?? Falcons?? Panthers?? 49ers?? cmon now...who exactly is tough in the NFC?? I mean it is the better conference right?? I think your confusing mediocrity with toughness He's crunching the numbers with little regard for comparing the teams that actually define how good a conference is, the winning teams.
Dibs Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 They play almost all of their games against tough opponents and that is why they are under 500. The AFC plays against easy teams 12 times. That's why they are over 500. I love this thread.....I don't believe people are actually arguing the things that they are arguing. Just to keep you honest.......but it is funny watching the reactions you get. There were 96 games played by NFC teams against NFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not under) 500. There were 96 games played by AFC teams against AFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not over) 500. Keep up the good work.
ganesh Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 The NFC sucks but they are under 500? That makes no sense. They play almost all of their games against tough opponents and that is why they are under 500. The AFC plays against easy teams 12 times. That's why they are over 500. I am a Bills fan like all of us but I am being objective. You are being subjective. Tougher games = more losses. That's why the NFC was under 500. In the same vein you could say, inconsistent teams = more losses. You are being as subjective as others. When people threw stats you pooh-pooh them as marginal stats...but you yourself have not come up with any stats to bolster your tougher games = more losses theory......PERIOD.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 The AFC is better. If you're pulling your usual joke here crayonz, so be it. If you're serious, you're WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again ganesh's #1 point from the 2nd post says it all. The better conference will win more games because they have better teams.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 In the same vein you could say, inconsistent teams = more losses. You are being as subjective as others. When people threw stats you pooh-pooh them as marginal stats...but you yourself have not come up with any stats to bolster your tougher games = more losses theory......PERIOD. Maybe you're right. Easier games =more losses. Look, I like the Bills and thus the AFC as much as anyone. I wish they were better than the NFC but they're not. I am being objective. The NFC teams combined for more losses than wins. Saying Jeff Garcia stinks so the AFC is better makes no sense at all. I never said the NFC is better because of Duke Preston. And don't start with the "this team would beat that team in the Super Bowl" stuff. I'm discussing the conferences as a whole, not individual teams.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 I love this thread.....I don't believe people are actually arguing the things that they are arguing. Just to keep you honest.......but it is funny watching the reactions you get. There were 96 games played by NFC teams against NFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not under) 500. There were 96 games played by AFC teams against AFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not over) 500. Keep up the good work. Why 96 games? Don't make this like the thread that said Losman would get better in his 17th game. 96 games is 6 years. So over the last 6 years the conferences are even. Great. I'm just talking about this year. There is so much player turnover I don't think you can realistically go beyond 1 year in any analysis.
Recommended Posts