Gene Wojciechowski, in his latest ESPN.com article "Cowboys look good beating Pack ... but they're no Pats," perpetuates the myth that the AFC is somehow so much stronger than the NFC.
"The undefeated Patriots of the more muscular AFC remain the best team in the league."
"The 11-1 Cowboys are the class of the NFC which, compared to the unbeaten Patriots, is like saying Britney Spears is the class of rocker parents."
"Their best-ever 11-1 start is no small thing. In fact, it's a very big thing. In the NFC."
More muscular AFC? How so? I'll agree that it just feels that way when you watch the games, but if you look at the numbers, you see a significantly different picture.
Let's look at the average winning percentage of the two conferences (as of week 13).
We can also look at the number of teams with a .500 or better record (as of week 13).
And of course, as several of the online sports mags have done throughout the season, let's look at the inter-conference record (as of week 13).
If this isn't parity, I don't know what is. The NFC is obviously doing a bit better, but not significantly so. Are these sports writers simply fanboys, incapable of doing basic addition? I did have to do division to get the winning averages, so I'll cut them a some slack. Long division is hard!
© 2002-2007 Michael Gauthier
Bother the webmaster at email@example.com.