I think you're describing the best team to watch.
We often hear 'the best team didn't win that game' or a variation on that, usually meaning the outcome of a game wasn't what was expected because (another favourite saying) 'the best team on paper' didn't win.
There's a whole host of things that determine the outcome of a game (besides a fair and square game) from poor officiating to fluke goals but the best team over the course of a season is the team that outscores their opponents most often. You can't do that by fluke across 38 games. If a team of Allstars was put together and didn't win the league it's because someone else was better at winning games than they were, ie. the whole point of the game. Football leagues aren't run as exhibitions, they are competitions and while I would love to watch glorious football every week and win, the reality is more often one or the other. The Allstars may have played immaculate football that was a joy to watch but by definition they didn't do the only thing that counts, outscore the most. There's no subjectivity to it. In a one off game, maybe, over a season, no.
I accept your point of view, I just think it's flawed.