Here's an interesting question posed by Mike & Mike today, asking if the team that wins the SB is really the best team in the NFL that year. Some brought out the luck of the draw in the playoffs, as well as having some luck in one game, as opposed to actually being the best team in the league. Others brought up the NBA and baseball where teams play a series against each other, clearly defining the better team. This is impossible to do in the NFL, although a few have suggested the SB being the best of three. Not very likely. Opinions?
Not sure if it always the best team but it is the best way to crown a champion. That is the great thing about football. Any one team can win at any given time.
IMO about 25% of any victory is luck. After that I do think the winner is the team that is among the best in certain areas. Going back over the last 70 years, every champion has been better than their opponents in the passing game during either the regular season or during the post season run. That could be b/c they were great passing teams (usually with elite QBs) and/or b/c the had great pass defense (great pass rush or a secondary that got INTs). I see that as the base requirement. You have to be among the best in that area and then it comes down to luck after that. So you don't have to be the best.
No they are the best team that day. I honestly think the supper bowl should be between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the league that year regardless of conference. So if two AFC east teams have the best record in the league than they should play for the championship. I know its all about money and playoffs yadda yadda but thats just me..
Agreed. In years gone by, with our Phins, Pitt, Dallas, GB, and SF, you always thought it was the best team. Now, I'm not so sure.
If you can catch fire in December and keep it up early into the playoffs, you've got a pretty damn good chance of winning against anybody.
What do you mean by "best team"? Are we talking about consistency throughout the season? The Packers struggled for a good part of the year, but by the end of the season, there wasn't anyone playing better than them.
I think what they meant is that, before parity, you knew the best teams and there was little luck involved. Now, there are no really great teams, where luck matters. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. However, I do miss the REALLY DOMINANT teams of the past. Damn, they were fun to watch. JMO.
Even before you get to the playoffs its hard to tell definitively who the best team is because they don't all play the same teams. Beyond that you guys have covered the problem with a one and done playoffs format. But you can't schedule enough games during the regular season to have every team play each other. And you can't have seven game series in the playoffs. So no I don't think the team that wins the super bowl is necessarily the best team. But I'm not sure there is a better way to do it considering the nature of the game.
The main problem I see with this philosophy is some teams have an advantage when it comes to schedule. For years several years now the divisions that get to play the NFC West on their schedule have better records than divisions that play against he NFC East and AFC East. Given the discrepancy in schedule the best record does not necessarily equate to the best team.
IMO, yes, they are the best team. It's true that some teams squeek into the playoffs, but I also think that most of the teams in the playoffs are the best teams in the league and those teams usually get rid of the ones who don't belong. IMO, there is no better way than the current playoff scenario. Even in the case of the 2008 Patriots, yes, they beat all of their opponents in the regular season, they were a great team, but they weren't the best team. If they had of been they would have beaten the Giants.
I really don't care about this distinction. I'm not saying that to be contrary. The goal is to win the Super Bowl.
Something to consider is that in the past 10 years, 10 different teams have represented in the NFC in the Super Bowl. In that same time frame 4 teams have represented the AFC. That's 25% of the AFC vs 62.5% of the NFC. It's much easier to make the playoffs in the NFC. Look at teams like the Cardinals who snuck in and made it to the Super Bowl. Or the Seahawks this year getting in with a 7-9 record when a 10-6 record in the AFC means you get to watch on tv. And out of the 10 super bowls in question the AFC leads 6-4. The Steelers, Colts and Patriots all have one super bowl loss, as well as at least 1 victory amongst them. The other loss is the Raiders, but they don't really count. THIS is the problem with the Super Bowl. It's not necessarily that the best team doesn't WIN, it's that the best teams don't usually play each other. And until the NFC gets it's act together that's not going to change. But I still don't think any sport has a better playoff system than the NFL.
