Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Superbowl reps AFC vs NFC

9 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

From 2001-Current, I just realized that the Superbowl reps from the NFC have been very diverse while the AFC has been repped by only 4 teams (dominated by 3 teams).

I'm wondering if this isn't about dynasties, but whether is the conference filled with teams that have ZERO chance to even get to a Superbowl.

NFC: Only 6 different teams haven't been to the Superbowl since 2001:

Dallas, Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco, Detroit, Minnesota,

AFC: Only 4 different teams have: NE, Pitt, Indy, Raiders (yes, the outlier)

Looking at the NFC, I see a few teams which haven't had the players, coach, and luck to reach the SB. Wash, Detroit

Dallas, Minny, ATL (pains me to say it), and SanFran (this year) have had enough pieces to at least get there once in the last 10 years.

AFC: Cincy, Cleveland, Miami, Buff, Houston, Jax, Denver, KC: These I haven't really given a shot due to talent, ownership, coaching, players. There always 2 pieces missing.

So is it really about dynasties or really poor competition in the AFC. In the NFC every team has hope.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

NFC:

2001: St Louis Rams

2002: Tampa Bay Bucs

2003: Carolina Panthers

2004: Philly Eagles

2005: Seattle Seahawks

2006: Chicago Bears

2007: NY Giants

2008: Arizona Cardinals

2009: NO Saints

2010: Green Bay Packers

2011: NY Giants

By Division:

NFC East: 2

NFC North: 2

NFC South: 3

NFC West: 3

AFC:

2001: NE Patriots

2002: Oakland Raiders

2003: NE Patriots

2004: NE Patriots

2005: Pittsburg Steelers

2006: Indianapolis Colts

2007: NE Patriots

2008: Pittsburg Steelers

2009: Indianapolis Colts

2010: Pittsburg Steelers

2011: NE Patriots

NFC East: 1

NFC North: 1

NFC South: 1

NFC West: 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

An interesting metric, indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

poor competition in the AFC. this year it became much more obvious, imo.

great look at things, btw. very interesting to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Please look at the last 10 years and see which conference has the teams with the highest winning %.

I bet the top 3 of 5 are from the AFC and most likely 4 of 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Look at the QBs in the AFC. Horrible. Pretty indicative of their situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

I haven't verified the numbers, but it does seem that way. But is this chicken-egg?

Are the top AFC teams dominating because there are less contenders? There are a lot of teams that have ZERO chance to get hot in the playoffs and knock-off these great teams and get to the Superbowl. I'm not questioning NE, Pitt, Indy, Balt, or SD's awesomeness these last 10 years.

Before Houston this year & Jets last few years, has there been any AFC team other than the ones listed above that could truly get hot and knockoff an AFC leader and represent in the Superbowl.

Yes, the NFC beats each other up (or inconsistent), but how many doormats are there in the NFC that have had ZERO chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What I am trying to say here is that the NFC has been very inconsistant, while the top of the AFC has been very hard to crack into over the same amount of time.

Indy, NE, Baltimore, Pitt, and to a lesser extent SD have won a ton of games over the last 10 years, while many teams in the NFC have been on roller coaster rides.

how many teams in the AFC have had winning seasons over the last 10 years compared to the NFC?

i think it speaks more to parity than consistency.

there has been more parity in the NFC than there has been in the AFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites