I mean, look at all of those teams fighting for a wild card spot. Look at how all the divisons are close , except for the Bears.
2006-12-15 14:00:07 · 16 answers · asked by ghjkhlh 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
STATS man, only the STATS!!
2006-12-16 00:23:15 · answer #1 · answered by kcdeb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me put it to you this way:
AFC: 11-2, 10-3, 10-3, 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6
NFC: 11-2, 9-4, 8-6, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-7
These records were taken from Yahoo sports on December 15th, 2006. Also, the records are goofy because Thursday Night Footall has started and San Francisco and Seattle have already
played their game for the week. This is why the NFC already has a 14 game (8-6) record.
Now barring any earthquakes or whatever, these are the teams that still have a shot, and look at their records. You say that they are close. Well, before the season starts and all the teams are 0-0, they are close too. What you are not entering into the equation, which you also have to enter, is what those actual records are. Can you see that two teams in the NFC have a chance at a wild card spot with sub .500 records? It was worse last week...
When you look at the records, both conferences have a team at 11-2. But it could be said that the NFC doesn't have a team good enough to be 10-3, where the AFC has two of them. And because of that, we have to include two teams in the NFC with sub .500 records in the play off race.
When you are looking at the weaker of the two conferences, look at the cumulative win-loss records. It doesn't mean that the winner of the Super Bowl will come from the stronger conference, and it doesn't mean that the stronger conference's playoff race will be closer or more exciting. All it means is that there are not the dominant teams in the conference, and that there is more mediocrity (or parity) in the one conference. Now with the lack of dominant teams, it is valid to infer that the better teams are in the less muddled (the AFC) conference and therefore, it is the stronger conference.
2006-12-15 22:49:10 · answer #2 · answered by LongSnapper 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The NFC really does suck. No doubt about it. The divisions are all pretty bad too. NYG is having a team breakdown, NO is running away with the south, and Dallas is likely to east as they are ahead by 2 games. All those teams fighting for a wild card spot pretty much suck too. SF can actually win the west at 8-8 which is pitiful. Phili can also make it too. 'Nuff said. The NFC teams also lose to a lot of the AFC teams. The Saints are 1-3 against AFC teams. They are the best in the NFC right now too! They had losses to CIN, PIT, and BAL. 'Nuff said.
2006-12-15 22:05:28 · answer #3 · answered by ~LT_21~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the problem,it's about how many games you have won,not how many teams fighting for wild card spot(in this case it doesn't even matter because all the wild card teams are 7/6)Plus lot of good players are from AFC.Sure there is T.O(with a mouth as big as a O)Macnab(seems to get hurt a lot poor guy)Shun Alexander(The super bowl curse seems to have found them now).I can't think of any other players.If there are more i am sorry to have forgotten.
Now lets see AFC top players:
Peyton Manning
LT
Drew Bree's(he was with AFC last year)
Carson Palmer
Chad Johnson
Marvin Harrison
Tom Brady(gotta admit he is good when he is playing normal)
Plus more..it's just that more top players come from AFC and not many from NFC.
I wish Eagles would get to super bowl this year.
A NFC east E-A-G-L-E-S fan.
I hope this helps you....
2006-12-15 22:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by bowmaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the NFC was strong--you wouldn't have so many mediocre teams fighting for wild card spots. It's just the way it is and the Super Bowl winner will be from the AFC.
2006-12-16 07:14:38 · answer #5 · answered by ...mr2fister... 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are making that classification because everyone in the NFC has the same record around .500. You could say that people are mistaking weakness with balance/parity and I do think that is some of it, but for the most part the AFC is stronger this year and I'm an NFC guy all the way.
2006-12-15 22:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by Larry W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry to break it to you, and keep in mind my team is in the NFC, the AFC is better because the gaps between playoff spots are so big. The Colts, Chargers, Ravens, and maybe the Jags and Bengals are good enough to take any team in the NFC and probably win. You could probably make a Pro Bowl team out of the Chargers, Colts, and Ravens.
2006-12-15 22:04:20 · answer #7 · answered by Hank 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The NFC is mediocre because a team with an 8-8 record could get in the playoffs. How pathetic is that?
At least it's not as pathetic as the NBA's Eastern Conference.
2006-12-15 22:37:31 · answer #8 · answered by SPRdragon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People say the NFC is weaker because of their records!!! Yes there are a few really good teams. But the rest are not that great. They are all around .500! That's weak compared to the AFC. Thats just the honest truth.
2006-12-15 22:06:39 · answer #9 · answered by duncachinno 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is the weakest.
The Afc beat the NFC in the season series something like 40-20.
AFC has won 7 of the last 9 super bowls, the two NFC teams being the Tampa Bay Buccaneers over the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII, and the St. Louis Rams beating the Tennessee Titans in Super Bowl XXXIV.
2006-12-15 22:05:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is weaker cuz the teams fighting for wild card spots have terrible recors thats y so many r in contetion. In the AFC, teams looking at wild card spots have records like 8-6 or better
2006-12-15 22:03:35 · answer #11 · answered by wa_tailback2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋