Post by Super Paul Mullin on Feb 18, 2015 19:29:46 GMT -5
Well, contrary to the board illumanti, it's not the AFC East. You know the argument . . . "well the Pats do well year in and year out not because they are necessarily good but because they get to beat up on the Jets, Bills, and Phins 6 games each year. If MY team was in the AFC East and got to play the Jets, Bills, and Phins, MY team would go to the playoffs each year."
For reference - this argument was made famous by a notably absent New Yorker who rooted for the Giants.
So I crunched some numbers (bored - waiting for baseball to start).
Since 2010 - the following are the AFC division records against teams in the other three AFC divisions.
AFC East: 67-53
AFC North: 65-55
AFC West: 57-63
AFC South: 51-69
Interestingly enough, the AFC East has the best extra-divisional record over the last 5 years.
Well some naysayer piped up and said "Not fair, you're including the Pats and that's skewing the results in favor of the East." Well despite the fact this sort of hurts the overall argument that the Pats are good only because they play in a weak division, I decided to humor the man.
Since 2010, here are the extra-divisional records, EXCLUDING the best team in each division for the given year. e.g. The Pats W/L is taken out for each of the five years while the Steelers is taken out for this year, but not last year (because the Steelers won the North this year but not last year). This is basically what the Bills, Jets, and Phins (and their counterparts in the other divisions) did over the last 5 years.
AFC North: 44-46
AFC East: 42-48
AFC West: 38-52
AFC South: 32-58
Taking out the division leader's record, we see the AFC East drops a spot behind the AFC North. However, it is clear the AFC East is still doing much better than the lowly AFC South and somewhat better than the AFC West.
Well this same naysayer wasn't satisfied, so he insisted that to get an accurate reflection of the strength of the AFC divisions that wasn't skewed by the Pats awesomeness, I should not only take out the division leaders, but I should also take the wins/losses suffered by the lower three teams at the hands of the division leaders. In other words, any beatings the Pats doled out to the other division teams would be taken off the board (as would losses the Jets, Phins, and Bills suffered at the hands of the other three division leaders). Would that prove the weakness of the AFC East?
Nope!
AFC North: 41-27
AFC East: 37-33
AFC West: 33-36
AFC South: 28-43
Again the AFC East is in second following the mighty North, but a good distance ahead of the lowly south and the west.
No doubt we'll hear the fallacy about the AFC East again and again (especially with the Pats winning the Superbowl) but the numbers prove otherwise.
For reference - this argument was made famous by a notably absent New Yorker who rooted for the Giants.
So I crunched some numbers (bored - waiting for baseball to start).
Since 2010 - the following are the AFC division records against teams in the other three AFC divisions.
AFC East: 67-53
AFC North: 65-55
AFC West: 57-63
AFC South: 51-69
Interestingly enough, the AFC East has the best extra-divisional record over the last 5 years.
Well some naysayer piped up and said "Not fair, you're including the Pats and that's skewing the results in favor of the East." Well despite the fact this sort of hurts the overall argument that the Pats are good only because they play in a weak division, I decided to humor the man.
Since 2010, here are the extra-divisional records, EXCLUDING the best team in each division for the given year. e.g. The Pats W/L is taken out for each of the five years while the Steelers is taken out for this year, but not last year (because the Steelers won the North this year but not last year). This is basically what the Bills, Jets, and Phins (and their counterparts in the other divisions) did over the last 5 years.
AFC North: 44-46
AFC East: 42-48
AFC West: 38-52
AFC South: 32-58
Taking out the division leader's record, we see the AFC East drops a spot behind the AFC North. However, it is clear the AFC East is still doing much better than the lowly AFC South and somewhat better than the AFC West.
Well this same naysayer wasn't satisfied, so he insisted that to get an accurate reflection of the strength of the AFC divisions that wasn't skewed by the Pats awesomeness, I should not only take out the division leaders, but I should also take the wins/losses suffered by the lower three teams at the hands of the division leaders. In other words, any beatings the Pats doled out to the other division teams would be taken off the board (as would losses the Jets, Phins, and Bills suffered at the hands of the other three division leaders). Would that prove the weakness of the AFC East?
Nope!
AFC North: 41-27
AFC East: 37-33
AFC West: 33-36
AFC South: 28-43
Again the AFC East is in second following the mighty North, but a good distance ahead of the lowly south and the west.
No doubt we'll hear the fallacy about the AFC East again and again (especially with the Pats winning the Superbowl) but the numbers prove otherwise.
