Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very true, playoffs definitely a different situation. I can't find an article I read about lower seeds winning the SB more than 1 & 2 seeds or maybe I have it reversed, brain fade, happens more than I care to admit.
I was curious about this so I looked it up.
The NFL went to its current playoff format for the 1990 season (top 2 division winners in a conference getting a bye, remaining division winners and best non-division winners per conference for a total of 6 teams in each conference, every round high seed plays low seed).
Since then the following seeds have won Super Bowls:
#1 seeds - 12 (including the last three)
#2 seeds - 6
#3 seeds - 1
#4 seeds - 4
#5 seeds - 1
#6 seeds - 2
This looks about right. The sole title by a #3 seed (the 12-4 2006 Colts) is a little odd, but it's probably just a manifestation of a very small sample size (only 8 titles total among all #3, #4, #5 and #6 seeds). Note that two of those #4 seeds that won it all were before 2002, when the #4 seed was the best wild-card, which often had as good a record as one or more of the division winners. Since realignment in 2002 there have been three wild-card champions (the 11-5 #6 Pittsburgh Steelers in 2005, the 10-6 #5 New York Giants in 2007, the 10-6 #6 Green Bay Packers in 2010) spread out over fourteen seasons.
So, to sum it up, any team that claws its way into the postseason can win it all. But the teams with the byes clearly have the best shots, and the odds are pretty long if you don't win your division because you have to win three games in the road (unless you're the #5 seed going up against the #6 seed in the conference title game, but the odds of that are very unlikely).
Not picking on you at all, susancruzs! I was just interested in this statistical set, and I've often heard it said that lower seeds have been just as competitive as higher ones, so I thought I'd look into it.
The NFL went to its current playoff format for the 1990 season (top 2 division winners in a conference getting a bye, remaining division winners and best non-division winners per conference for a total of 6 teams in each conference, every round high seed plays low seed).
Since then the following seeds have won Super Bowls:
#1 seeds - 12 (including the last three)
#2 seeds - 6
#3 seeds - 1
#4 seeds - 4
#5 seeds - 1
#6 seeds - 2
This looks about right. The sole title by a #3 seed (the 12-4 2006 Colts) is a little odd, but it's probably just a manifestation of a very small sample size (only 8 titles total among all #3, #4, #5 and #6 seeds). Note that two of those #4 seeds that won it all were before 2002, when the #4 seed was the best wild-card, which often had as good a record as one or more of the division winners. Since realignment in 2002 there have been three wild-card champions (the 11-5 #6 Pittsburgh Steelers in 2005, the 10-6 #5 New York Giants in 2007, the 10-6 #6 Green Bay Packers in 2010) spread out over fourteen seasons.
So, to sum it up, any team that claws its way into the postseason can win it all. But the teams with the byes clearly have the best shots, and the odds are pretty long if you don't win your division because you have to win three games in the road (unless you're the #5 seed going up against the #6 seed in the conference title game, but the odds of that are very unlikely).
Not picking on you at all, susancruzs! I was just interested in this statistical set, and I've often heard it said that lower seeds have been just as competitive as higher ones, so I thought I'd look into it.
No doubt ..and that is why its laughable when Cowboy fans say they would be satisfied with less than a SB appearance. Assuming they get 1 seed which is likely.
No problem, thanks so much! I remember Packers having to win 3 on the road as a 6th seed in 2010. I did think there were more 5th & 6th seed winners so good to know there were not. Of course, we know we should never assume!
Watching the game tonight, and those Giants, tricky team although Packers beat them during this season. They really blasted the 15-1 Packers in 2011. I'll always say that team was overly affected by the death of Joe Philbin's son right before they played. Rodgers was really close to Joe and he couldn't talk about it. He was like shell shocked and the whole team played like it, instead of a tragedy working in a positive way, which happens sometimes, it seemed to drain them.
No doubt ..and that is why its laughable when Cowboy fans say they would be satisfied with less than a SB appearance. Assuming they get 1 seed which is likely.
You can be presumptuous if you want.. but i am already more than satisfied.. so there ya go!
So the Giants lose and they are the team talking heads have been touting lately. Another example of the playoffs are no guarantee and all teams have flaws, weaknesses, bad games, mistakes might be made.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
