NFL Franchise Standings (Super Bowl Era)

[trickblue]

This was compiled by DieNasty at KFFL. Pretty interesting stuff. He is not a Cowboy fan, but rather a Patriot fan.

Link (http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2893955&posted=1#post2893955)
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) Browns (47 pts) - 1.27
22) Bears (49 pts) - 1.23
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

[ravidubey]

1) Cowboys (144 Pts) - 3.60 FPPS Average


YEAH, baby! Is it a wonder they are the most popular team in the country? Thanks Mr. Murchison, Mr. Jones, and yes even Mr. Bright. Without those guys backing the winning it couldn't have happened. I shudder to think what a Mike Brown or Bill Bidwell would have done with this franchise!

[DBoys]

Cool read thanks for posting

[MossBurner]

One small problem with this system - teams with first round byes are unable to receive as many points as teams that can win a first round playoff game.

[dargonking999]

thats why you can only accumlate 13 points

[skinsscalper]

I've got a bit of a complaint here also. How in the world does the Minnesota Vikings rank above the Redskins (whom I deeply loathe) without a single Super Bowl victory?

SS

[StylisticS]

Whoa...go read the 2nd page of that thread and see what he posts about the Patriots and Cowboys. It is truly hilarious.:laugh2:

Here's a preview of what he said.
So basically the Cowboys won all of their Super Bowls, not b/c they made plays to win them (as the Patriots did), but rather b/c their opponents made the plays to lose them.

[dargonking999]

I've got a bit of a complaint here also. How in the world does the Minnesota Vikings rank above the Redskins (whom I deeply loathe) without a single Super Bowl victory?

SS

because outsidfe of your what one SB win, you guys have done absolutley nothing

[dargonking999]

HEre's an updated version

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

[MossBurner]

thats why you can only accumlate 13 points
Yeah, and 2nd-seeded teams with first round byes can only score 12.

[heels232]

because outsidfe of your what one SB win, you guys have done absolutley nothing

Who are you refering to? Surely not the 'Skins with their 3 SB wins.

[theogt]

Whoa...go read the 2nd page of that thread and see what he posts about the Patriots and Cowboys. It is truly hilarious.:laugh2:

Here's a preview of what he said.I've never seen someone try so hard to discredit the Cowboys. Funny thing is, I don't see a single valid point.

[THUMPER]

because outsidfe of your what one SB win, you guys have done absolutley nothing

The Redskins have won 3 SBs.


I posted my own franchise comparison a few months ago and the outcome is pretty similar but uses a more elaborate, and I hope accurate, formula which takes into account the number of years a team has played.

I actually did two analysis, one for the SB era and one from the beginning of the NFL Playoff (1933).

For the SB era the Cowboys are the most successful franchise but we came in 2nd behind the Browns in the all-time rankings. Those were a lot more difficult to calculate and I am not happy with the results, not because we came in 2nd but because it is nearly impossible to compare different eras accurately.

My top-10 are:
1. Cowboys
2. Steelers
3. 49ERs
4. Raiders
5. Dolphins
6. Broncos
7. Redskins
8. PAckers
9. Vikings
10. Rams

The Giants came in 11th and the Eagles ranked 20th. 3 teams from the NFC East in the top-11 isn't too bad of course 10 SB wins in 18 appearances helps.

I offered before to e-mail my spreadsheet to anyone that wants it. Just remember to give me credit for it if you post/publish it anywhere.

[Yakuza Rich]

I've got a bit of a complaint here also. How in the world does the Minnesota Vikings rank above the Redskins (whom I deeply loathe) without a single Super Bowl victory?

SS

Because that's the way God intended it.


Rich.........

[percyhoward]

Thumper, both lists take into account how many seasons a franchise has existed. Maybe that's why your top 5's are identical. I like your list better though, because in his list the Vikings and Rams are getting too much credit for playoff wins and divisional championships that didn't exist when the Packers (and Cowboys, for that matter) were dominant in the 60's.

[thescarface1989]

Has anyone been reading the other posts, these idiot Pats fans think that thier Patriots could beat the 90s Cowboys!:laugh1:

They also said that when our dynasty was going on their was nothing but bad teams in the NFL at that time! Out of every team saying that the Patriots fans say this! Competition in NFL in their Dynastys time has been a Joke!

[MossBurner]

Has anyone been reading the other posts, these idiot Pats fans think that thier Patriots could beat the 90s Cowboys!:laugh1:


How do you know who would win? Only an idiot would claim to know who would win an inter-era matchup of dynasty teams with arrogant certainty!

[SultanOfSix]

The Redskins have won 3 SBs.


I think he was trying to make a joke in that he didn't count the 2 SBs in strike years.

[THUMPER]

I think he was trying to make a joke in that he didn't count the 2 SBs in strike years.

Ah the "Asterisk Bowls", I should have figured that one out.

[SA_Gunslinger]

Has anyone been reading the other posts, these idiot Pats fans think that thier Patriots could beat the 90s Cowboys!:laugh1:

They also said that when our dynasty was going on their was nothing but bad teams in the NFL at that time! Out of every team saying that the Patriots fans say this! Competition in NFL in their Dynastys time has been a Joke!



they beat the eagles.

we're winning that argument every time.

[superpunk]

How do you know who would win? Only an idiot would claim to know who would win an inter-era matchup of dynasty teams with arrogant certainty!

Because he's psychic.

Only an idiot wouldn't see that right off the bat.

[NorthTexan95]

How do you know who would win? Only an idiot would claim to know who would win an inter-era matchup of dynasty teams with arrogant certainty!

Not necessarily. You can say with "arrogant certainty" that the 2006 Steelers would beat the 1946 Steelers considering how the style of play has changed and how the physical abilites of the players has greatly increased.

I would agree with you that comparing over a much shorter span ('90's to the 00's) maybe you can't really be as "arrogant" but you'll find few (if any) NFL historians who would say the 00's Patriots are better than the 90's Cowboys ... or the 90's 49ers ... or the 90's Bills.

NFL teams pre salary cap were much deeper and stayed together much longer. Parity was not in the NFL's vocabulary.

[skinsscalper]

because outsidfe of your what one SB win, you guys have done absolutley nothing

You might want to read a little more thoroughly, there brainchild. In my original post I stated that I "loathe" the Redskins. Dig out your dictionary and give the word a quick once over.

But, in case you still missed it, I'm a Cowboys fan. I can type bolder or slower whichever will assist in your comprehension.

SS

[TruBlueCowboy]

I notice just about every team in the bottom 8 has been the butt of NFL jokes for some time now. I guess it's accurate in that regard.