- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 7,927
Richter said:"Did the Seahawks deserve to win?" as a justification for the Steelers winning makes no sense. The Steelers didn't deserve to win any more than the Seahawks did, they were just on the right side of lousy officiating. And watching that game, maybe if those horrendous calls that took away most of Seattle's positive plays hadn't been made, you'd look at it differently. The point is though, that because one team sucked doesn't validate the other team's performance when they sucked just as much, if not arguably more (Worthlessburger's performance puts them over the top, in my opinion).
I guess it comes down to what you think "deserve to win" means. For me, it's about scoring more points.
The only time I'd say that the team that scored more points didn't deserve to win is if they benefitted from unfair refereeing. I don't think that the refereeing, atrocious though it was, took the game from the Seahawks.
Not even the most rabid Steelers fan (I'm looking at you, ClosingTime) could deny that both sides were an embarrassment to watch -- they played like a bunch of second-stringers in pre-season. You couldn't help think that the Patriots would have beaten either of them on the day -- my goodness, I think that San Francisco could have beaten them that day.
But that doesn't mean that the Steelers aren't worthy champions. It wasn't luck that they were there and we weren't. They beat Denver in Denver; we didn't.