Looking beyond a team's record, how can we determine which teams truly have what it takes? I have two pointers in that regard.

In the kind of football that I'm most familiar with, here in England (the kind that you call soccer) there is an expression: "Winning when you don't play well is the sign of a good team". The thinking behind this is that, throughout the season, even the best teams have off-days, where things just don't work as smoothly as they should. Sure, it's easy to win when everything clicks, but if you lose every time you have an off-day, you won't be a successful team. Through the years, you can point at plenty of times where "winning ugly" has proved pivotal to Manchester United, for example.

But I don't think this expression should be limited to "soccer". It holds true in all sports, since in all sports, players and teams have off-days. The first one I want to mention is the team that spurred me to write this article, the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. A week ago, the Jackets scraped to a 10-7 victory over Gardner-Webb, who have been described as "arguably the weakest team on their schedule". From what I read, nothing about the performance was good, but, ultimately, the standings will only records this as another one for the W column.

At this point I want to make a couple of disclaimers (it wouldn't be a NeilyNeily article without a couple of disclaimers): Firstly, of course I'm not suggesting that a team can survive by merely scraping through. They have to be capable of putting together real performances of note - games like Gardner-Webb must be the exception, rather than the rule, but for the Jackets, handsome victories over Mississippi State and Duke in the two preceeding weeks mean we can be confident that that is the case. Secondly, it is quite clear that the Jackets were fortunate that their "off-day" came against Gardner-Webb. Against other teams, a performance like that would not have yielded a win. But it's that kind of fortune that makes a successful team, so the argument holds true there.

The second pointer I want to consider when thinking about the sign of a good team is "winning the close games". Certain elements of this are similar to the factor discussed above, but overall I think it is different enough to warrant separate discussion. This week is a particularly pertinent time to consider this, too, since last weekend, no fewer than 5 games were decided in the closing seconds. As mentioned above, winning is easy when everything goes your way. Putting up 40 points against one of the weakest sides in the league counts for very little if you then go on to lose a close one the next week. Some games will be easy victories, some games - although you hope not very many - will be heavy defeats. It's the ones in between these which might decide a season.

The Vikings, who might also be used as an example of winning when not playing well, won a close one last week so their record now stands at a mediocre 3-3, rather than 2-4, which would be seen by many as unacceptably bad. That the Falcons and the Bears both has 3-2 records going into their match-up was impressive enough, but the Falcons now standing at 4-2 leaves you wondering how far this team can actually go? And the manner in which victory was achieved has led certain commentators to compare Matt Ryan to Tom Brady (surely a bit premature for that?!). The Texans and the Rams have their first win and off the back of that I feel sure that more will follow, whereas another demoralising defeat would have left me wondering where the next victory was going to come from. The Cardinals must surely be considered "the real deal" now - how different things might have been had they fallen to 3-3 against the Cowboys.

Of course fans would love to see their teams win every week, by 40 or even 50 points - but that's not going to happen. If you team struggles, but still narrowly wins, however, that result should be treasured every bit as much as the blow-outs. It may just decide your team's season.

Before I start, I (again) wish to make a couple of disclaimers. The first is I am definitely not, in any way, suggesting that college football has no purpose. My question is a genuine one, not rhetorical. I invite answers. Secondly, in my last post, I was quick to downplay my knowledge of pro football, given that I'm a relative newcomer to the sport, and I live in the UK, where access is not as readily available. However my knowledge of pro football dwarfs my knowledge of college football, so please don't post just to point out how ignorant I am. I know. But at least I'm trying to do something about it.

And the reason I'm trying to do something about it is that, as well as the obvious connection between the pro game and the college game through the draft, I am planning a trip in November to Atlanta, where my friend studies at Georgia Tech. Whilst there, as well as seeing the town and getting a feel for the college environment in the states, I will go to my first ever American football game, featuring Georgia Tech. I am desperate to avoid being as everyone would surely expect a Brit at a football game to be, so I've been doing a little research.

It seems that the Georgia Tech offense is likely to be built around (but not solely rely upon) the triple option. This in itself intrigues me (maybe I'll devote a whole post to it at a later date!), but what really interests me is that this is just unheard of in NFL playbooks. In fact, delving a little deeper, there are a raft of other plays and concepts which feature heavily in the college game, but which just don't apply in the NFL.

Keeping an eye on the draft earlier in the year, I found it interesting to hear comments such as "this guy is NFL-ready" and "this guy has all the attributes, but will need time to adjust to the NFL".

So what I learn is that, in many cases, college football is a different game from pro football. I don't just mean that the standard of the NFL is much higher than that of the NCAA - one would expect that. But a lot of the things you learn in the college game are completely useless in the NFL.

This leads me to the point of the article. What purpose does college football serve? To me, there are two parties with interests at stake here. The first is that select group of players who will eventually make the grade to the pro ranks. It is in these players interests for the college game to give them the best possible platform for success in the NFL - so when they reach that level, they are doing the same things they do now - just "better".

The other group, of course, is the vast majority of players, for whom college football is the pinnacle. For them, college football must provide opportunities to compete, to enjoy, and if possible, to win. So this is where the plays which make an impact at college level, but which are toothless in the NFL must come in. Creating a playbook based solely around preparing your star players for the pro ranks is of no importance to these players, if it means the other 40 of them have no fun, and get beaten every week.

Of course the fans must be considered, but this is a slightly greyer area for me, since I don't know any. What I've heard, however, is that many fans prefer college football precisely because it is a different game, with a different atmosphere around the stadium. So maybe they side with the majority of players there, although I'm sure they'd love to see their hero in the college game go on to make it big in the pro ranks.

So which is it to be? Should colleges protects their own interests and create a team designed to win, ignoring those players who will eventually enter the pro ranks? Or should they try to mirror the NFL as closely as possible, so when a player does make the grade, he has the greatest possible chance of success?

For me, from what I know, the current balance seems about right. College football has a massive fanbase - and to a Brit, this is something completely foreign - and ultimately, if you're good enough, you will make it in the NFL, regardless of your college experiences.

Being British, watching NFL action is not easy. I should also point out that I am a "new" fan - last season was the first one that I really took any notice of - but I'm doing my best to learn the teams, names and terminology, and I think I'm doing well.

As I say, watching live NFL is tough, especially if you don't have pay television, and especially during the pre-season. I'm limited to watching the highlights on NFL.com (incidentally I've no idea why a similar official website doesn't exist for the Premier League here - except that it's probably down to money and greed).

Anyway, having made those disclaimers, I reach the point of my "article" (article is probably an overstatement when it's written with as little knowledge as I have): the Seahawks v Bears game over the weekend. I realise that I'm probably coming at this topic a couple of days late, but I'm going to go with it anyway. NFL.com offers a decent 4.20 of highlights, and from that I just can't fathom how the Seahawks managed to win!

Charlie Frye had a horrible game, not only throwing 3 picks, but having the last one - and by far the worst one - returned. Having a punt blocked does not look good for the special teams, especially when it comes at the expense of a safety - which could easily have been much worse: the ball was loose for a long time in the end zone. Put simply, in the first three quarters, nothing went right for the Seahawks.

If anyone can explain why the Seahawks managed to win without using the words " Rex Grossman" or " Kyle Orton", then I would be very grateful.

Fortunately for Seattle, Matt Hasselbeck is a genuine franchise quarterback (see, told you I was picking up the vocabulary), and Seneca Wallace isn't dreadful, so Frye shouldn't see much playing time this season. They'd better hope so, anyway.