Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-learn!fredrickson
From: fredrickson@learn.DEC
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Super Bowl XX
Message-ID: <694@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 11:02:07 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.694
Posted: Fri Jan 24 11:02:07 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 08:42:16 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 29


>When I hear "How many wins/losses were in the last minute," I wonder.
>But what I wonder about is not the difference, but if these people
>who ask this question want to shorten the game?  If you play for an
>hour, why should scoring in the last two minutes be seen any differently
>than in the first 58?
>-- 
>James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa

The point is raised not to imply that such losses should not count, but 
to put a team's record in the proper perspective. If it can be accurately
stated that two plays were the difference between an 11-5 season and a 13-3
season -- as I believe was the case with the Patriots -- then it is a valid 
consideration in measuring that team's ability. I raised the matter as a way 
of explaining why I believe that a legitimately outstanding team is 
considered a Cinderella-underdog-miracle story -- because of its record and 
wild-card status. Had the Patriots been able to score from the one-foot line 
in Cleveland in the last minute, and had Eason not overthrown Ramsey at the 
10-yard line in Miami in the last minute, they would have been 13-3. Had they 
been 13-3 they would have perhaps been favored to reach the Super Bowl, and 
people wouldn't be so shocked. 

Of course, they also won a game or two this way (Marion's interception in 
Seattle stands out in my memory), which one avoids to mention when it might
diminish one's argument! (Selective memory is always important in building
a good case.)