At The New NFL.COM "Super Bowl Standings"

[percyhoward]

The Super Bowl "Standings"

This bone-headed list that appears every now and then on the networks (usually ESPN) is up at the new and improved nfl.com. It reminds us that the Niners are the first place team in the "Super Bowl standings."

The logic here is that the teams with the most Super Bowl success are the ones that never lost a Super Bowl. That logic puts the Cowboys currently in 9th place, behind such teams as the Ravens, Jets, and Tampa. If only the Niners had been good enough to go to the Super Bowl 4 more times and lose, we'd be ahead of them. If SF goes to the big game this year and loses, even if the Ravens, Jets, and Bucs all finish 0-16, it will catapult the Ravens, Jets, and Bucs into first place.

Seeing as how there have been 41 Super Bowls, and winning it is every team's goal each year, I have the Cowboys tied with the Steelers and Niners at 5-36 in my Super Bowl standings.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

It is a good year even when you lose the big game, however, I hate to lose that game.

 

[Hostile]

By simple virtue of having got there 4 times, I'd rate the Bills and Vikings over the Eagles, Bengals, Titans, Seahawks, Chargers, and Panthers.

 

[peplaw06]

You know these lists have to come up with some way to knock the Boys off the top spot. Winning percentage is the only way to do it.

 

[Hostile]

You know these lists have to come up with some way to knock the Boys off the top spot. Winning percentage is the only way to do it.

Here's the perfect proof of what you are saying is true and you can ask 49ers fans this very question.

Is it more important to you to stay at 5-0 in Super Bowls, or would you rather be the first team to win 6, even if it means losing some before it happens?

The first team to 6 has the bragging rights.

 

[sago1]

I'm thrilled the Cowboys have won 5 SB -- although not happy that we tied with SF & Pitt. I'm also proud the Cowboys have been to 8 SBs even if it means we've lost 3 of them. I think that's a lot better record then some team winning 1 SB but never again getting back there.

In my list, I'd put SF at top of the list with 5 SB wins and no losses. Then Cowboys next also with 5 SB & 3 losses followed by Pitt with 5 SB & 1 loss. Oops, I guess Steelers probably should be #2 with us #3 cause we had 2 more losses but at least the teams with 5 SB wins would rank ahead of those with less SB wins. Dumb.

 

[AdamJT13]

By simple virtue of having got there 4 times, I'd rate the Bills and Vikings over the Eagles, Bengals, Titans, Seahawks, Chargers, and Panthers.

Here's how the Super Bowl standings actually should look --

Dallas Cowboys 5-3
Pittsburgh Steelers 5-1
San Francisco 49ers 5-0
New England Patriots 3-2
Oakland/L.A. Raiders 3-2
Washington Commanders 3-2
Green Bay Packers 3-1
Denver Broncos 2-4
Miami Dolphins 2-3
Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts 2-1
New York Giants 2-1
St. Louis/L.A. Rams 1-2
Chicago Bears 1-1
Kansas City Chiefs 1-1
Baltimore Ravens 1-0
New York Jets 1-0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1-0
Buffalo Bills 0-4
Minnesota Vikings 0-4
Cincinnati Bengals 0-2
Philadelphia Eagles 0-2
Atlanta Falcons 0-1
Carolina Panthers 0-1
San Diego Chargers 0-1
Seattle Seahawks 0-1
Tennessee Titans 0-1

 

[Pats Fan]

Back Boys Fans.

I counted 26 teams. That means 6 never have been at the big game.

That to me would make me very sad.

Winning more than one, sweet. Never going, ouch!!!

 

[percyhoward]

The Playoff Standings

The Carolina Panthers head this list, which is just as ridiculous, and maybe even moreso because of all the little footnotes they've attached to it.

There ought to be a footnote for the Cowboys that says *actually played in and won more playoff games than any other team, which in itself is more relevant than this entire list.

I'd love to be able to talk to the guy whose idea this was.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That is the dumbest list I have ever seen.

How about a list of who has been to the Big Game most???

Geez, what they won't do to pump thier pet team.

 

[Crown Royal]

That's dumb. Boys have been to 8, won 5. That's a successful franchise.

 

[JackMagist]

Here's how the Super Bowl standings actually should look --

Dallas Cowboys 5-3
Pittsburgh Steelers 5-1
San Francisco 49ers 5-0
New England Patriots 3-2
Oakland/L.A. Raiders 3-2
Washington Commanders 3-2
Green Bay Packers 3-1
Denver Broncos 2-4
Miami Dolphins 2-3
Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts 2-1
New York Giants 2-1
St. Louis/L.A. Rams 1-2
Chicago Bears 1-1
Kansas City Chiefs 1-1
Baltimore Ravens 1-0
New York Jets 1-0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1-0
Buffalo Bills 0-4
Minnesota Vikings 0-4
Cincinnati Bengals 0-2
Philadelphia Eagles 0-2
Atlanta Falcons 0-1
Carolina Panthers 0-1
San Diego Chargers 0-1
Seattle Seahawks 0-1
Tennessee Titans 0-1

We have a winner for the most logical ranking system.

 

[HighTechDave]

man, i hammered some Bears fans with these stats last weeked,,,, didn't like it.

 

[Ren]

I wish we could some day be as sucessfull and the Bucks

 

[THUMPER]

The Playoff Standings

The Carolina Panthers head this list, which is just as ridiculous, and maybe even moreso because of all the little footnotes they've attached to it.

There ought to be a footnote for the Cowboys that says *actually played in and won more playoff games than any other team, which in itself is more relevant than this entire list.

I'd love to be able to talk to the guy whose idea this was.

The Cowboys have played in an NFL record 55 playoff games, that's 9 more than the 2nd place Steelers who have been in the league since 1933. We have also won 4 more than them.

Each year, the goal of every team in the NFL is to get to the playoffs. We have done that at a much higher rate than any other team. Next is to get to the big game, the SB, we have done that 8 times, 2 more than 2nd place. Then the ultimate goal is to win it all and we are tied with the Steelers & Niners with the most at 5 each.

That tells me that the Dallas Cowboys are the most successful franchise in NFL history.

Next.

 

[Ring Leader]

I'm thrilled the Cowboys have won 5 SB -- although not happy that we tied with SF & Pitt. I'm also proud the Cowboys have been to 8 SBs even if it means we've lost 3 of them. I think that's a lot better record then some team winning 1 SB but never again getting back there.

In my list, I'd put SF at top of the list with 5 SB wins and no losses. Then Cowboys next also with 5 SB & 3 losses followed by Pitt with 5 SB & 1 loss. Oops, I guess Steelers probably should be #2 with us #3 cause we had 2 more losses but at least the teams with 5 SB wins would rank ahead of those with less SB wins. Dumb.

So when 9ers were sitting, eliminated, in their livingroom watching Dallas participate in 3 additional Superbowls they were achieving a better status than the Cowboys who had to win 3 additional NFC championships to even make it to the big game?

Please reconsider your position. If you can't see the light please don't reproduce.

 

[HighTechDave]

this made me smile

Philadelphia Eagles 0-2

:trophy:

 

[Hostile]

Here's how the Super Bowl standings actually should look --

Dallas Cowboys 5-3
Pittsburgh Steelers 5-1
San Francisco 49ers 5-0
New England Patriots 3-2
Oakland/L.A. Raiders 3-2
Washington Commanders 3-2
Green Bay Packers 3-1
Denver Broncos 2-4
Miami Dolphins 2-3
Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts 2-1
New York Giants 2-1
St. Louis/L.A. Rams 1-2
Chicago Bears 1-1
Kansas City Chiefs 1-1
Baltimore Ravens 1-0
New York Jets 1-0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1-0
Buffalo Bills 0-4
Minnesota Vikings 0-4
Cincinnati Bengals 0-2
Philadelphia Eagles 0-2
Atlanta Falcons 0-1
Carolina Panthers 0-1
San Diego Chargers 0-1
Seattle Seahawks 0-1
Tennessee Titans 0-1

I agree with this. It rewards teams for getting there too.

 

[percyhoward]

These "standings" are a great example of how the media (and now it seems, the league itself) tries to mold public perception.

nfl.com probably got the idea from ESPN, which has been showing televised versions of the list for as long as I can remember, and which put up this list on the internet back in the 90's. Then si.com (from 2001), as well as about a dozen other sites followed suit.

What makes it even more interesting is that these "standings" seem to be unique to pro football.

Baseball's official site has this list of World Series champions, which makes a lot more sense. There is no "World Series Standings" at mlb.com, just as there is no "NBA Finals Champion Standings" at the nba site, and no equivalent for hockey at nhl.com either. Only the NFL sees fit to include this little piece of absurdity in its offical site.

And neither si.com nor espn have similar "championship standings" for baseball, basketball, or hockey (that I could find). No one seems to be interested in trying to convice the public that the Arizona Diamondbacks are a more successful World Series team than the Yankees.

It's a special kind of hatred that inspires things like this.