8 replies to this topic

[poptarts2]

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.

[poptarts2]

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

[dimbee]

An interesting metric, indeed!

[rayzor]

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

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

[thefuzz]

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.

[thefuzz]

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.

[g5jamz]

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

[poptarts2]

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?

[rayzor]

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.