Disagree about 90%. I'll only concede on the smaller sample size, 1 versus at least 4 games in all 3 other major North American sports.
If a "lesser" team beats a "superior" team in the SB, they've pretty clearly proven they are the best since luck is a very minimal component while the superior team's performance can't simply be apologized away by luck. They get an extra week to heal injuries before the divisional round and then both teams get two full weeks to heal up and gameplan for the SB.
Hey Reap, I was curious about your take on this.
I'm here now.
I think a team's performance within an individual game is very much about the luck and the situation. Like, within the paradigm of the Superbowl, I almost always think the winner deserved to win that game, but that doesn't mean they're the better team, which I know makes no sense.
Look at this current Clippers Thunder series. Clippers decisively win game 1 based on the energy from the previous game 7. Thunder kill the Clippers in game 2 because the Clippers finally wear and and because of the KD MVP speech. Game 3 both teams play a high scoring offensive game and the Thunder win by a few points. Game 4 the Clippers have a huge comeback and win.
In each of those games, the right team won. But taken as a whole, the four games show that both teams are very even. We still have no idea who's better yet, which is why it's going to be exciting to see the rest of the series play out.
EDIT: Or, to use a Superbowl, if Football is a best of seven sport, the Giants probably don't win either of their Superbowls. But, because Football isn't best of seven, you can't say they don't deserve them either.