NFL Franchise Standings (Super Bowl Era)

[PYPER]

I just finished a project I began a few years ago. It started out with me creating a new Super Bowl standings system which awards teams 1 point for every Super Bowl appearance and 3 points for every Super Bowl win.

After I completed that, I wanted to figure out a way to measure how successful each franchise was in relation to one another. The first criteria I used was the total amount of winning seasons a franchise has had. Not all winning seasons are created equal but in general, if a team has a winning season they are on the right track and their fanbase is entertained. After that I included playoff berths, division titles, #1 seeds, playoff wins, Conference titles, and Super Bowl championships. The point system is listed below.

Number of winning seasons (1 point per season)
Playoff Appearances (1 point per season)
Division Championships (1 point per season)
Top Seeds (1 point per season)
Postseason Wins (1 point per postseason win)
Conference Championships (1 point per Conference Championship)
Super Bowl Championships (5 points per Super Bowl Championships)

It should be noted that each of these points accumulate. The most points a team can earn in any one season is 13.

The total number of points equal what I call "FRANCHISE POINTS". If we divide the Franchise Points by the total number of seasons each franchise has participated in since the Super Bowl Era began in 1966 we'll get their "FRANCHISE POINTS PER SEASON (FPPS) Average". This is necessary to get an accurate feel for where the expansion teams fit in.

Anyhow, here are the results...

(NOTE: Original post contained error. Corrections have been made)

1) Cowboys (144 Pts) - 3.60 FPPS Average
2) Steelers (131 Pts) - 3.28 FFPS
3) 49ers (125 Pts) - 3.13
4) Raiders (115 Pts) - 2.88
5) Dolphins (100 Pts) - 2.50
6) Vikings (96 Pts) - 2.40
T7) Redskins (88 Pts) - 2.20
T7)Broncos (88 Pts) - 2.20
9) Rams (86 Pts) - 2.15
T10)Patriots (79 Pts) - 1.98
T10)Packers (79 Pts) - 1.98
12) Ravens (19 Pts) - 1.90
13) Colts (66 Pts) - 1.65
14) Jaguars (18 Pts) - 1.64
T15) Giants (59 pts) - 1.48
T15) Chiefs (59 pts) - 1.48
17) Bills (58 pts) - 1.45
18) Eagles (56 pts) - 1.40
19) Panthers (15 Pts) - 1.36
20) Titans/Oilers (52 pts) - 1.30
21) Bears (49 pts) - 1.23
22) Browns (47 pts) - 1.18
23) Buccaneers (35 pts) - 1.17
24) Jets (43 pts) - 1.08
25) Seahawks (31 pts) - 1.03
26) Chargers (38 pts) - 0.95
27) Bengals (35 pts) - 0.92
28) Falcons (28 pts) - 0.70
29) Lions (25 pts) - 0.63
30) Cardinals (17 pts) - 0.43
31) Saints (15 pts) - 0.38
32) Texans (0 pts) - 0.00

 

[flutie2phelan]

Nice project, Pyper.
Tied with the Pack at 10th ... not a bad place to be. Top third.

But then consider where this franchise has come from !

 

[PATSNUTme]

Very good work!

Considering all the awful team that we have had pre-1995 (yes, ther were some exceptions), tied for 10th is not too shabby.

If you do the same thing 3 years from now we will have moved up that list a few notches.

 

[Richter]

Your weighting is kind of strange. Everything counts for a point, except a championship which counts for five? I think I'd bump of conference title game appearances to 2 or 3, division wins to 2 points,

 

[PYPER]

Your weighting is kind of strange. Everything counts for a point, except a championship which counts for five? I think I'd bump of conference title game appearances to 2 or 3, division wins to 2 points,

Everything is accumulative.

Let me give an example. If the Patriots and Cowboys both earn their conferences #1 seeds and meet in the Super Bowl, both teams will have accumulated 7 Franchise Points. By winning the Super Bowl they'll get one point for winning another postseason game and then the five point Super Bowl bonus.

Therefore the difference between a Super Bowl Winning/Losing season in this example equals 13-7.

Likewise, the difference between a division winner and a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs is 3 points to 1. Plus if the division winner wins any playoff games they'll collect on those.

 

[Aqua4Ever04]

Wow, I have to give you some accolades. This is a very nice research paper. I like seeing the Dolphins at #5. I do know they have the highest winning percentage in the league, but if we could just get some dang Super Bowls! It's been way too long.

 

[Richter]

Everything is accumulative.

I understand that. I just would give greater weight to those accomplishments. Winning a superbowl would still be worth 5 points more than losing it, but losing it would be worth more than just winning your division, and not just by the few points gained for winning a playoff game or two along the way. Also, gaining the bye should count for something. Which season was better, the one where homefield advantage was earned, the division round game was won, and the team suffered a loss in the conference title game (1 point for the playoffs), or the one where the team squeaks into the playoffs as a third or fourth seed or wild card, wins two playoff games and loses in the conference title game (2 points)?

 

[PYPER]

I understand that. I just would give greater weight to those accomplishments. Winning a superbowl would still be worth 5 points more than losing it, but losing it would be worth more than just winning your division, and not just by the few points gained for winning a playoff game or two along the way. Also, gaining the bye should count for something. Which season was better, the one where homefield advantage was earned, the division round game was won, and the team suffered a loss in the conference title game (1 point for the playoffs), or the one where the team squeaks into the playoffs as a third or fourth seed or wild card, wins two playoff games and loses in the conference title game (2 points)?

Good points. The challenge is that the format of the playoffs has changed through the years. I think the criteria must be capable of being relevent in every year that the project incorporates, in this case the Super Bowl Era from 1966 to present.

It's also much simpler to just award the top seeds. They tend to be much easier to spot. Keep in mind the NFL hasn't always seeded it's playoff teams.

Overall though, I don't think the imperfections you mention who change the net result much. I think what you see is a pretty accurate illustration of how the franchises stack up.

 

[shakadave]

I like the formula you're using here. No need to change it. It is what it is.

I guessed the top 3 teams, then it got a little harder for me. Interesting stat --- sort of a "misery index" for NFL cities.

Interesting to see Super Bowl teams (Bengals, Falcons) so low. Suprised to see Eagles, Bills, Jets as low as they are. Vikings must really be coasting off the 1970s. Amazing the Rams are up there with the Broncos!

 

[PYPER]

I like the formula you're using here. No need to change it. It is what it is.

I guessed the top 3 teams, then it got a little harder for me. Interesting stat --- sort of a "misery index" for NFL cities.

Interesting to see Super Bowl teams (Bengals, Falcons) so low. Suprised to see Eagles, Bills, Jets as low as they are. Vikings must really be coasting off the 1970s. Amazing the Rams are up there with the Broncos!

Yeah it just shows you how dominant the Vikings and Rams were in the 70's even though neither won any Super Bowls.

The NFC basically had 3 good teams in the 70's. The Cowboys, Vikings, and Rams.

While researching this, I gained a whole new level of appreciation for the achievements of the Dallas Cowboys, specifically the Tom Laundry Cowboys. They went through 4 different era's of QB's and were successful with each. Don Merideth, Craig Morton, Roger Staubach, and Danny White.

Parcells needs to hurry up and retire so the Cowboys can start having some poor seasons and the Patriots and the rest of the league can catch up to them.

 

[milwaukeebeers44]

Good points. The challenge is that the format of the playoffs has changed through the years. I think the criteria must be capable of being relevent in every year that the project incorporates, in this case the Super Bowl Era from 1966 to present.

It's also much simpler to just award the top seeds. They tend to be much easier to spot. Keep in mind the NFL hasn't always seeded it's playoff teams.

Overall though, I don't think the imperfections you mention who change the net result much. I think what you see is a pretty accurate illustration of how the franchises stack up.

Overall, this is nice. If you wanted to seriously make something of this, I suggest you talk to a statistician, who can provide advice regarding category weighting and incorporating other measures (such as maybe points for/points against as measures of offense and defense).

 

[SamBam39]

This sort of stuff can be really interesting and fun.
I've done almost the same sort of ranking system myself,
but with my own variations. The point is just to try and fairly compare
how franchises compare for success through the years.

However...

I do have one major critique of your success comparison:

You limited it to only the super bowl era. what's up with that?
that is totally bogus no matter how you explain it away.

so all those titles the Green Bay Packers won, earning them the
nickname 'title town' just simply go away because things have changed
since then? That's bull. The Giants, The Bears ?? they get totally screwed.
In my rankings, I included every championship won since the NFL began,
as should yours. (remember, it's not uneven because your dividing by years
in the league) - so the fact that the steelers stunk for a few decades before becoming good would matter. the years and years of futility for the eagles, lions and cardinals matter too. but you are erasing half of all pro football history like it never happened. that's just fantasy. the browns won some a few titles and they won't get counted. Hell I even counted the teams that won the AFL titles as championships, because, that's just what they were. At the time they happened, if you won the AFL title, you were the world champion. There was just more than one champion for those few years.

If you include all of history, the packers and bears move up significantly, as they should. They earned it by dominating the football world for years.

just my opinion. by the way, I think they should incorporate something like this for the nfl - a sort of 'historical standings'. as they should for each sport, and then one that combines all 4 sports to rank sports cities. of course, new york's spending power gives them an unfair edge, but that is what really happens so why shouldn't the standings show it. the only way around it would be something like 'championships won - per year in league - per dollar spent!' - just kidding.
nice work.

 

[I'm Ron Borges?]

This sort of stuff can be really interesting and fun.
I've done almost the same sort of ranking system myself,
but with my own variations. The point is just to try and fairly compare
how franchises compare for success through the years.

However...

I do have one major critique of your success comparison:

You limited it to only the super bowl era. what's up with that?
that is totally bogus no matter how you explain it away.

so all those titles the Green Bay Packers won, earning them the
nickname 'title town' just simply go away because things have changed
since then? That's bull. The Giants, The Bears ?? they get totally screwed.
In my rankings, I included every championship won since the NFL began,
as should yours. (remember, it's not uneven because your dividing by years
in the league) - so the fact that the steelers stunk for a few decades before becoming good would matter. the years and years of futility for the eagles, lions and cardinals matter too. but you are erasing half of all pro football history like it never happened. that's just fantasy. the browns won some a few titles and they won't get counted. Hell I even counted the teams that won the AFL titles as championships, because, that's just what they were. At the time they happened, if you won the AFL title, you were the world champion. There was just more than one champion for those few years.

If you include all of history, the packers and bears move up significantly, as they should. They earned it by dominating the football world for years.

just my opinion. by the way, I think they should incorporate something like this for the nfl - a sort of 'historical standings'. as they should for each sport, and then one that combines all 4 sports to rank sports cities. of course, new york's spending power gives them an unfair edge, but that is what really happens so why shouldn't the standings show it. the only way around it would be something like 'championships won - per year in league - per dollar spent!' - just kidding.
nice work.

The guy probably has a life you know? My guess is if he went beyond the Super Bowl era, it would have taken much longer to complete and involved much more work. You have his formula so if you think the Packers are getting screwed, go to it. You mentined "your rankings" and then didn't provide us with anything. I think it was a great system and I enjoyed it.

The only thing I would disagree with is Parcells needs to retire. He isn't doing anything in Dallas but keeping them mediocre in my opinion. Good work.

 

[PYPER]

I just made a small change to the scoring system. I increased the value of winning the conference championship from one point to two points.

The results are updated below.

Number of winning seasons (1 point per season)
Playoff Appearances (1 point per season)
Division Championships (1 point per season)
Top Seeds (1 point per season)
Postseason Wins (1 point per postseason win)
Conference Championships (2 points per Conference Championship)
Super Bowl Championships (5 points per Super Bowl Championship)

It should be noted that each of these points accumulate.

The total number of points equal what I call "FRANCHISE POINTS". If we divide the Franchise Points by the total number of seasons each franchise has participated in since the Super Bowl Era began in 1966 we'll get their "FRANCHISE POINTS PER SEASON (FPPS) Average". This is necessary to get an accurate feel for where the expansion teams fit in.

Anyhow, here are the results...


1st) Cowboys (152 Pts) - 3.80 FPPS Average
2nd) Steelers (137 Pts) - 3.43 FFPS
3rd) 49ers (130 Pts) - 3.25
4th) Raiders (120 Pts) - 3.00
5th) Dolphins (105 Pts) - 2.63
6th) Vikings (100 Pts) - 2.50
7th) Broncos (94 Pts) - 2.35
8th) Redskins (93 Pts) - 2.33
9th) Rams (89 Pts) - 2.23
10th) Patriots (84 Pts) - 2.10
11th) Packers (83 Pts) - 2.08
12th) Ravens (20 Pts) - 2.00
13th) Colts (68 Pts) - 1.70
14th) Jaguars (18 Pts) - 1.64
T15th) Giants (62 pts) - 1.55
T15th) Bills (62 pts) - 1.55
17th) Chiefs (61 pts) - 1.53
T-18th) Eagles (58 pts) - 1.45
T-18th) Panthers (16 Pts) - 1.45
20th) Titans/Oilers (53 pts) - 1.33
21st) Browns (47 pts) - 1.27
22nd) Bears (50 pts) - 1.25
23rd) Buccaneers (36 pts) - 1.20
T-24th) Jets (44 pts) - 1.10
T-24th) Seahawks (33 pts) - 1.10
26th) Chargers (39 pts) - 0.98
27th) Bengals (37 pts) - 0.95
28th) Falcons (29 pts) - 0.73
29th) Lions (25 pts) - 0.63
30th) Cardinals (17 pts) - 0.43
31st) Saints (15 pts) - 0.38
32nd) Texans (0 pts) - 0.00

 

[thechris]

How are the Jags so high? Especially higher than the Giants? That's real surprising to me.

 

[PYPER]

How are the Jags so high? Especially higher than the Giants? That's real surprising to me.

B/c they're a much younger franchise. They've only been around for 10 or 11 years so every successful season they have affects they're FPPS average more.

That's why I included the total points so everyone can get a better picture of where the expansion teams fit in.

Keep in mind that the Jags played in 2 AFC Championship games in their first five years in the league.

If I had weighed them then, their average probably would have been #1.

Likewise, if Houston were to make a quick turnaround they're average could shoot up very quickly b/c they've only been around for 4 seasons.

 

[Tunescribe]

Wow, I have to give you some accolades. This is a very nice research paper. I like seeing the Dolphins at #5. I do know they have the highest winning percentage in the league, but if we could just get some dang Super Bowls! It's been way too long.

Here's hoping your wait continues for many, many years to come.

 

[Crowpointer]

Nice project, Pyper.
Tied with the Pack at 10th ... not a bad place to be. Top third.

But then consider where this franchise has come from !

That's a great point. Where did we rank prior to winning Super Bowls ? It would be interesting to see how far we have climbed from prior to the 2001 season to now.

 

[PYPER]

Wow, I have to give you some accolades. This is a very nice research paper. I like seeing the Dolphins at #5. I do know they have the highest winning percentage in the league, but if we could just get some dang Super Bowls! It's been way too long.

Thanks for the props.

I'm curious if what you say about the Dolphins is true. I know they're up there but are they really #1?

I always thought the Raiders were #1.

I could be wrong, I never looked it up. I don't have the energy to do that. I wonder if there's any sites that would keep track of that kind of information. Let me know if you know of any.

Later,