CBS: All Time Best NFL Franchises of SB Era

[amfootball]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25141830/all-time-nfl-power-rankings-for-all-32-franchises?FTAG=YHF7e3228e

 

This is kind of cool. CBS ranked the best NFL franchises of the Super Bowl era.

 

Here is the criteria (points):

• Super Bowl wins (10 points each)
• Super Bowl losses (5 points each)
• Hall of Famers (3 points each)
• Division titles (1 point each)
• All-time winning percentage (points are the reserve of their Super Bowl-era ranking)

 

No surprise at number one...

 

1. Dallas Cowboys (164 points)

 

• Super Bowl wins: 50
• Super Bowl losses: 15
• Hall of Famers: 45
• Division titles: 22
• All-time winning percentage: 32

The Cowboys have the highest regular-season winning percentage in modern NFL history, they are tied for second all time with five Super Bowl wins and are tied for first with eight appearances. They also have 15 Hall of Famers in the Super Bowl era and have won a ridiculous 22 division titles.

 

Surprise here at number 4...

 

4. Oakland Raiders (126 points)

• Super Bowl wins: 30
• Super Bowl losses: 10
• Hall of Famers: 45
• Division titles: 16
• All-time winning percentage: 25

The Raiders have produced 15 Hall of Famers and have -- rather quietly, at least for those outside of Raider Nation -- been to five Super Bowls. Throw in that they have the eighth-best regular-season winning percentage during the Super Bowl era and 16 division titles in that span and you actually have one of the most successful franchises in modern history.

 

Pats at #6 were hurt by their lack of hall of famers ...

 

6. New England Patriots (112 points)

• Super Bowl wins: 40
• Super Bowl losses: 20
• Hall of Famers: 12
• Division titles: 16
• All-time winning percentage: 24

New England doesn't hang in when it comes to producing Hall of Famers, but a lot of that has to do with the fact its two biggest legends -- Tom Brady and Bill Belichick -- are still active. The Pats weren't really a heavyweight until around the turn of the century, but they're catching up now.

 

Surprised Denver is this far down but they also have lack of HoFers ...

 

10. Denver Broncos (101 points)

• Super Bowl wins: 20
• Super Bowl losses: 25
• Hall of Famers: 12
• Division titles: 14
• All-time winning percentage: 30

Seven Super Bowl appearances and 14 division titles for the third-winningest team in modern NFL history, but only four Hall of Famers and two championships.

 

Colts came in at 11 ... very close with Denver ...

 

11. Indianapolis Colts (95 points)

• Super Bowl wins: 20
• Super Bowl losses: 10
• Hall of Famers: 27
• Division titles: 16
• All-time winning percentage: 22

They've been to fewer Super Bowls than the Broncos but have won just as many championships and have produced twice as many Hall of Famers in the modern era. It's a tossup.

 

 

 

[BloodyChamp]

3 of the top 5 teams (plus the Cowboys lol) have been laughingstocks for atleast 10 years at a time in the SB era. The list is still cool though.

[Pape]

You can really see the bias in the HoF voting for the NFC teams based on this ranking. The number of HoF'ers generated by the NFC teams is staggering.

[dgambill]

You can really see the bias in the HoF voting for the NFC teams based on this ranking. The number of HoF'ers generated by the NFC teams is staggering.

I wonder if its because perhaps more players early on in the HOF may have come from the NFL  instead of AFL? Maybe a bias in the early years of the league for guys that had played in that time frame...and perhaps that changed the balance of NFC vs AFC.

 

Interesting article...pretty cool! Its intersting how they weighted things....personally I would have rather did something like playoff apperance 1 pt bonus pt for winning your division, playoff win 2pts (bye counts),conference championship 5pts, and sb champ like 10pts. That said the only thing that throws this out of balance imo is the weight of HOFers. Just because you've had GREAT TEAMS but not great individual players shouldn't affect this imo. A team like NE that is just as dominant as the 70s Steelers but hasn't got the busts in canton shouldn't set them back. We all know also playing in a small market is harder to get your players recognized and elected too. Another is that winning a SB also is also a deciding factor that will put a player over another into Canton so its like a double reward. All in all it seems it was done with a good intention and its hard to argue with the list. 

[BloodyChamp]

How can their be bias in a list determined by numbers?

[dgambill]

How can their be bias in a list determined by numbers?

Depends on the numbers being used. Numbers aren't biased...but perhaps the categories they used could be. That said I think people are talking about the bias with the HOF voting....having almost whole teams being voted in like Pittsburg in the 70s ect. Smaller market teams also have a hard time garnering interest and players often fly under the radar of some of the big name markets like NY, DAL, LA etc. I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with it....just the values they gave perhaps to these categories perhaps.

[NFLfan]

Depends on the numbers being used. Numbers aren't biased...but perhaps the categories they used could be. That said I think people are talking about the bias with the HOF voting....having almost whole teams being voted in like Pittsburg in the 70s ect. Smaller market teams also have a hard time garnering interest and players often fly under the radar of some of the big name markets like NY, DAL, LA etc. I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with it....just the values they gave perhaps to these categories perhaps.

I read the same article on a Vikings site last Friday. Minnesota is not a big market team, but they have a comparatively high number of players in the HoF.

One Vikings fan wrote that the numbers used to rank the teams were skewed in favor of teams that were in the NFL before the merger (skewed against the AFL teams). I don't know if that is accurate. Anyway,

Quote:

9. Minnesota Vikings (104 points)

"I was a bit surprised to discover that the Vikings have the sixth-highest regular-season winning percentage in modern NFL history, ahead of teams like the Ravens, Packers, Patriots and Colts. Throw in 13 Hall of Famers and they fare pretty well for a franchise that hasn't won a Super Bowl in 49 attempts. On this scale, that's enough to edge out Super Bowl winners Denver, Indy, Baltimore, Kansas City and Chicago."

Super Bowl wins: 0

Super Bowl losses: 20

Hall of Famers: 39

Division titles: 18

All-time winning percentage: 27"

[-JJ-]

I wonder if its because perhaps more players early on in the HOF may have come from the NFL  instead of AFL? Maybe a bias in the early years of the league for guys that had played in that time frame...and perhaps that changed the balance of NFC vs AFC.

 

Interesting article...pretty cool! Its intersting how they weighted things....personally I would have rather did something like playoff apperance 1 pt bonus pt for winning your division, playoff win 2pts (bye counts),conference championship 5pts, and sb champ like 10pts. That said the only thing that throws this out of balance imo is the weight of HOFers. Just because you've had GREAT TEAMS but not great individual players shouldn't affect this imo. A team like NE that is just as dominant as the 70s Steelers but hasn't got the busts in canton shouldn't set them back. We all know also playing in a small market is harder to get your players recognized and elected too. Another is that winning a SB also is also a deciding factor that will put a player over another into Canton so its like a double reward. All in all it seems it was done with a good intention and its hard to argue with the list. 

Don't forget prolly most of those HOF are pre- cap era thus stayed with the team.

[BloodyChamp]

The Vikings have never been consistently bad. They just haven't won a SB somehow. Their biggest consecutive losing seasons streak is 3, and that came during their first 3 years.

[backshoulderfade]

How can their be bias in a list determined by numbers?

Selection bias

[BloodyChamp]

Selection bias

Were they suppose to include NBA teams or something?

[backshoulderfade]

Were they suppose to include NBA teams or something?

That's not what selection bias is.

[oldunclemark]

Great franchises 'in the Super Bowl era' is like ranking TV stars since cable

[BloodyChamp]

That's not what selection bias is.

It's closer to selection bias than a list based on points is.

[chad72]

Once Peyton retires and is in HOF as a Colt along with Marvin Harrison, and when Luck wins and then keeps winning his SBs , Colts will surpass Broncos, hands down .