Friday, December 29, 2006

The Gap Widens?

I was reading "The Gap Widens" today and getting more and more frustrated. The article talks about the AFC dominance of the NFC. However, the same thing can be said for baseball. The AL has been dominating the NL for years. Interleague play is extremely one sided and the all Star game has been won by the AL, having only lost twice since 1988, there was the infamous tie in 2002. But during the same timespan the world series only has the AL winning 11 of 18. A majority, but nowhere near the dominance shown in the all-star game. That's because the world series, is a series, played by teams at the end of the season. Football like baseball has really 2 seasons. First you have to get into the playoffs. That can be as ugly as possible, it doesn't even matter if you have a losing record, if you aren't in the playoffs you have no chance to win. Then you get a fresh start. When the playoffs roll around next weekend all of the teams have no wins and no losses. It's time to start over, and only those that can put together a 4 game season will win. The world series in baseball keeps getting won by the wild card. Last year broke a streak by having a division winner win the world series. It was the division winner with the worst record and the one that backed into the playoffs by narrowly squeaking past Cincinnati. It only takes 4 games. An undefeated team can be out just as fast as one that's 8-8, remember the Indianapolis Colts last year?

And to quote:
With their run defense a shambles, and the Colts losing all three of their division road games -- at Tennessee, at Jacksonville and at Houston -- all the hand-wringing in Indianapolis is well-founded.

But it is possible we're all over-dramatizing the state of affairs for Tony Dungy's team, which lost on a last-second 60-yard field goal at Tennessee and a 48-yarder at Houston. The Colts, in other words, were dangerously close to being 13-2 and entering Week 17 in possession of the AFC's No. 1 seed, based on a better conference record than San Diego.

Just a reminder that sometimes when it seems like the sky is falling, it's actually a case of low-level clouds.

Just a few paragraphs before he talks about the Bears

Top-seeded Chicago struggled to beat lightweights Tampa Bay and Detroit (six wins between them) the past two weeks, and is considered a good bet to be the least regarded 14-2 team in league history.

Does anyone else find it strange how the Bears who did happen to win when struggling are considered a poor team, while the Colts are considered a good team that was just unlucky.

The real difference between the two teams is that the Bears are a defensive team that has won with defense, while the Colts are an offensive team that has not been able to keep up with the points their defense gives up. Even in the Colts big wins, they give up lots of points. I'd much rather have a strong defense that can keep the game in reach of my offense, or for themselves, as they did with the Arizona Cardinals game.