I am a little confused. If ECC is stronger and can use a smaller bit key than a symmetric algorithm, why would a larger ECC key that is 224-bit have the same strength as a smaller 112 bit symmetric key?

Not a smaller key than a symmetric key algorithm, but rather an asymmetric one.
According to this, you'd need a 2048-bit rsa (asymmetric) key to have the strength equivalent to an 112-bit symmetric key. In your quote, you mention that ECC can do the same with only a 224-bit key. This means that ECC keys are much smaller than RSA keys of the same strength.

Ok, I see. Thanks. Curiouse....can I use ECC to encrypt a filesystem instead of AES? And since ECC is asymmetric and AES is symmetric does this mean AES is stronger/more secure/better?

The blog on this link summarizes it pretty well. Symmetric and asymmetric keys are typically used for different purposes. One of the challenges that Asymmetric keys solve is how to initiate secure communications in an unsecured channel. An example would be establishing an SSH or VPN connection. Some method is needed to authenticate the clients and allow them to begin secure communications without divulging secure information in the clear. The Diffie-Hellman algorithm is an example of how this is done using asymmetric keys. Once the communications has been established, a change is generally made to symmetric keys, which are computationally faster.

Generally speaking, a symmetric key of X bits will be considered equivalent to an asymmetric key of Y bits, with X being less than Y.

more secure? not yet, but possibly in the future. read the relative effects on quantum computing on asymmetric and symmetric ciphers in the wikipedia link i mentioned. but, symmetric ciphers are less computationally intensive than asymmetric ones, so you need a good reason to use an asymmetric cipher in the first place, such as key exchange as Noway2 mentions.