why DALLAS is better than INDY

I think the national media is starting to discover what the readers of this blog already knew: that winning percentage is a poor measurement for assessing how good a team is. A game is only 60 minutes long and there are only 16 of them. That isn't a large enough sample size to measure who is the best team. To assess the best team, what we should do is analyze a team's roster and statistics rather than look at actual games, which, after all, put too much emphasis on chance (official's bad calls, weird bounces) and things that have nothing to do with physical talent (penalties, fluke interceptions, bad playcalling). In other words, as Terry said today, "if we can minimize turnovers and penalties"--things that have little to do with physical talent--"there is [not] a team out there capable of just beating us physically or out playing [sic] us."

Finally, to determine who will win a single game, simply assess which team needs to win the game more. In this case, Dallas' roster is clearly more talented (look at is depth: 2 awesome tailbacks and a defense that is so well-stocked that a first-round draft pick barely gets on the field). It is only because of some chance happenings that have nothing to do with their talent that the Cowboyrs are not aso 9-0. But because of these, they have more need of a win than Indy, which has already padded their "W" stats.

In this light, it is obvious how a 5-4 team that hasn't won a playoff game in 10 years is clearly better than a 9-0 team that perpetually plays deep into January every season. In sum, the Cowboys should beat Indianapolis on Sunday because they have more physical talent and need the win more. But if they don't win, everyone knows that they are still the BEST TEAM regardless of the antiquated tools of measurement (w/l).

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.