East Coast Bias Bowl -- Running Super Bowl XLVI Thread

You really want to do this again? Sure. I'm happy to keep trying to pound this lesson into your head again.

But first, please present your sourcing on the Giants and their payroll ranking. Back up what you write.

But let's assume you are correct. It's cute that you think that is a big point in your favor, but you ignored it in the past when I pointed out that the Giants were dead last in the league in payroll when they won the Super Bowl in the 2007 season.
http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/2007

The gap from the top team payroll to the bottom is approximately $50-$60 million. In baseball, the gap was over $160 million in 2011. The difference becomes even larger when you consider baseball's much smaller rosters.

Bottom one. MLB allows its big markets to buy championships. That is how the Yankees one their last one. Everybody knows it, even the baseball apologists like you. The NFL system does not allow that because it has legitimate revenue sharing, a cap and, most importantly, a salary floor.

You want to make a big deal about two big markets making it to the Super Bowl this year? Fine. Just remember it was Pittsburgh and Green Bay last year.

Next time you want to bring this crap up, at least make an effort. You're making this far too easy.

 

Speaking of bells going off, Dr. Pavlov just got some more mailbox money.

 

Four out of five years that a nine- or 10-win team has made the Super Bowl. The short NFL season and eight-division format continues to reward mediocrity.

 

If the non-mediocre teams played a little better, they could be rewarded as well.
I'd say it's more a case of the "rewards" of being a good team -- namely, the bye week -- being a detriment. You lose a lot of momentum and rhythm from not playing. When teams rest their starters an extra week before the playoffs, it only exacerbates that.
Meanwhile, these 9- and 10-win teams that squeak into the playoffs gain momentum. Sometimes, like this year's Giants, those teams are also more talented than their record indicates. The Giants were always capable of playing at a Super Bowl-caliber level and, for whatever reason, didn't do it every week in the regular season. For the past three weeks they have.

 

Patriots open as three-point faves? I'll take the Giants.

 

Those 11, and 12 and in the case of the Packers, 15-win teams were certainly free to win two in the playoffs and actually, you know, get to the Super Bowl. I don't think a 9-7 team that wins three playoff games to get to the big one is being rewarded for mediocrity.

 

I think it's more that it continues to expose how little is needed to be an elite team -- you just have to be a little better than a whole lot of suck-o-rific teams throughout the year, but a 13-3 record isn't much proof of how good you are against the bulk of the league because, say, the Saints and the Jaguars are playing completely different sports at this point.

 

It's also what happens in a one-and-done tournament. If the NFL played best four out of seven, well, not only would the season last until July, but then you would get the "best" teams in the finals. And then people would complain how boring your league is because upsets ever happen.

 

Sure they are. Win a shitty division that consists of three other joke teams, then get on a lucky roll.

Doesn't really pay to be any good anymore. This garbage rarely happened when you had to actually beat a few good teams to get in the playoffs in the first place.

 

Translation: TSP just got his ass handed to him, so he's changing his argument.

 

For some reason you seem to think every post you make needs a response, so I'll respond to this one.

 

Agreed all the way on that.

At this point, I would rather my team not get the bye, roll up the momentum and catch the fraud team flat-footed.