Sounds like another change in how to define "elite"... like I said in the start that changing of how each defines that, make it's very hard to debate because most define it differently.
Are you talking about the playoffs? If no, then that's not completely true without adding they get schedule to play each other in the following year... which in the following year they might be a completely different team... like the Panthers and are very different than last year and that's where that logic falls apart.
Also falls apart in a team like the Cowboys who didn't finish 1st in their divsion last year and now people are asking if they're elite or not.
Originally Posted by: beast
As I said, Define elite any way you so desire. I assure people will have different opinions. And yet they will still debate it.
Playoffs? No I am talking about the regular season. First place teams will face each other. An argument can be made for the possibility of a 15-1 team not playing anyone of quality but that is not the normal scenario. An argument can be made that every quality team from last year, for one reason or another, falls flat one their face the next year but that too is not the norm.
Winning a division or making the playoffs, like the Panthers did doesn't make them elite. One of the reasons record alone should not determine if a team is elite of not is the softer schedule some teams get. It wasn't that long ago that Atlanta and the Bears both made it to the SB because of soft schedules. Both lost. Both had stronger schedules the following year and both disappeared back into the pack. Even though they were in the SB neither team was elite.
SF and Seattle have their issues but that doesn't preclude them from being elite either.