Ranking the historical Super Bowl teams
Posted by Doug on February 1, 2007
If not now, when? Everyone else is posting lists of the best and worst Super Bowl teams of all time, so I may as well pile on. This one will be different --- not better --- than most because it's completely objective. This is simply a list of all 74 Super Bowl teams since the merger, ranked according to this simple rating system. So really, I'm not ranking the teams. I'm ranking the teams' distance away from their competitors in the given year.
Recall that, under the simple rating system, the units on Rating are points. So the 1991 Redskins' rating of 17.3 means that they were 17.3 points better than an average 1991 NFL team.
Here is the list, Super Bowl winners are marked with an asterisk. A few observations follow:
TM YR Rating SOS Record
===================================
1. *chi 1985 18.1 0.3 18-1
2. *was 1991 17.3 0.4 17-2
3. *gnb 1996 16.3 0.6 16-3
4. *sfo 1989 15.2 -0.0 17-2
5. *mia 1973 14.8 0.4 15-2
6. *sfo 1984 14.4 -1.6 18-1
7. *pit 1975 14.2 0.1 15-2
8. *nwe 2004 13.8 2.7 17-2
9. was 1983 13.7 1.8 16-3
10. stl 2001 13.6 -0.1 16-3
11. *sfo 1994 13.5 -0.7 16-3
12. *dal 1992 13.3 1.0 16-3
13. *nyg 1986 12.9 1.4 17-2
14. *pit 1979 12.8 2.2 15-4
15. *stl 1999 12.2 -4.1 16-3
16. *tam 2002 12.0 0.5 15-4
17. *den 1998 11.9 -1.5 17-2
18. *den 1997 11.7 0.5 16-4
19. *bal 2000 11.7 -0.3 16-4
20. *dal 1971 11.5 -1.7 14-3
21. *was 1982 11.2 1.6 12-1
22. *dal 1993 11.2 1.1 15-4
23. *oak 1976 11.1 2.2 16-1
24. buf 1990 11.1 -0.6 15-4
25. dal 1978 11.0 0.1 14-5
26. *mia 1972 11.0 -2.6 17-0
27. *pit 1978 10.8 -0.6 17-2
28. mia 1984 10.8 -1.4 16-3
29. *dal 1995 10.8 1.1 15-4
30. *dal 1977 10.6 -1.0 15-2
31. den 1977 10.6 3.2 14-3
32. *rai 1983 10.4 1.1 15-4
33. oak 2002 10.1 1.9 13-6
34. mia 1982 10.0 1.8 10-3
35. *pit 2005 10.0 1.2 15-5
36. phi 1980 9.5 0.4 14-5
37. *nyg 1990 9.2 1.0 16-3
38. sea 2005 9.2 -1.3 15-4
39. min 1973 9.1 1.2 14-3
40. min 1976 9.1 1.0 13-3
41. atl 1998 9.0 1.5 16-3
42. *pit 1974 8.6 -0.5 13-3
43. chi 2006 8.6 -2.5 15-3
44. gnb 1997 8.2 -0.2 15-4
45. was 1972 7.9 -0.8 13-4
46. *sfo 1988 7.9 1.1 13-6
47. *nwe 2003 7.6 1.0 17-2
48. mia 1971 7.6 -0.9 12-4
49. dal 1970 7.4 2.2 12-5
50. ind 2006 7.3 2.3 15-4
51. *sfo 1981 7.3 0.6 16-3
52. dal 1975 6.6 0.1 12-5
53. den 1989 6.6 0.9 13-6
54. *oak 1980 6.6 1.4 15-5
55. phi 2004 6.5 -1.5 15-4
56. min 1974 6.4 -0.9 12-5
57. nwe 1996 6.4 -0.4 13-6
58. cin 1988 6.4 -0.7 14-5
59. cin 1981 6.4 -1.0 14-5
60. *was 1987 6.3 -1.3 14-4
61. nwe 1985 6.1 2.5 14-6
62. *nwe 2001 5.3 -0.6 14-5
63. den 1986 5.0 2.9 13-6
64. buf 1991 5.0 -3.1 15-4
65. buf 1993 4.9 0.0 14-5
66. pit 1995 4.8 -0.1 13-6
67. buf 1992 4.6 -0.7 14-6
68. den 1987 4.4 -0.5 12-5
69. nyg 2000 4.4 -1.2 14-5
70. ten 1999 3.9 -0.6 16-4
71. sdg 1994 3.2 0.2 13-6
72. *bal 1970 2.5 -4.4 14-2
73. car 2003 1.9 -0.8 14-6
74. ram 1979 -0.1 -0.8 11-8
Observations
- As you can see, I put the Bears and Colts in there; they're 43rd and 50th respectively. The winner could conceivably move into top half of the list with a blowout. But regardless, this year's winner will rank among the weaker Super Bowl champs. The loser, on the other hand, will be fairly strong (for a loser).
- Students of the basic mathematics of ranking systems and of AFL/NFL history will know why I have not included the pre-merger Super Bowl teams on the list. Had I included them, the 1969 Chiefs would have been #1, largely on the strength of what the system perceived to be an incredibly difficult schedule. Because all the information we have from that season (one game) indicates that the AFL was better than the NFL (by 16 points!), the system essentially starts from the assumption that the AFL is the much stronger league.
- I was born in 1971. I definitely do not remember the Raiders/Viking Super Bowl of 1976. I definitely do remember the Cowboys and Steelers in 1978. I think I remember the rather forgettable Broncos/Cowboys game in between, but I may be fabricating those memories. Anyway, I had always filed that Bronco team away with the rest of the bumbling Super Bowl losers, but they were a terrific team. They were 14-3 against arguably the toughest schedule of any Super Bowl team in history. They only played four games against teams with losing records. Of their three losses, two were to the eventual champion Cowboys and the other was against the defending champs: an 11-3 Oakland team.
- We all know the 1999 Rams had a weak schedule, but every time I see it it seems to get worse. Here are the regular season win totals of their opponents: 8, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 13, 8, 8, 4, 3, 8, 3, 7, 6, 5. And their playoff opponents were very weak (by playoff standards) too.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:38 am
You know, I love these lists - and this one goes right to the top. I've always felt that the 85 Bears were the best single season team to ever play, and I think this really makes me more comfortable to feel that way.
Also, you get to spread some dap for the 77 Broncos which I've always thought are undervalued as far as Bronco teams, and Superbowl teams.
Great post.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Is it safe to infer that the result of each Super Bowl influences the list? If so, I imagine it would be interesting to see the same list up to, but not including, the Super Bowl. Stated differently, I guess it'd be called "ranking the historical Super Bowl teams leading up to the Super Bowl". Would such a list be much different?
==
Also, on a personal note, had the Bills gone 4-0 in the Super Bowl by the exact opposite scores by which they lost (i.e., Buf 20 - NYG 19, Buf 37 - Was 24, Buf 52 - Dal 17, and Buf 30 - Dal 13), how would that have changed things?
==
Also, any luck simulating the "Super Bowl epoch periods" that I mentioned in a comment a few weeks ago?
==
Again, thanks for another great post, Doug
February 1st, 2007 at 9:40 am
72 Dolphins - #26
73 Dolphins - #5
Not knowing much about either team (aside from the 72 Dolphins perfect season), seeing that is a bit of a surprise.
So what's the correlation of the higher ranking team winning the Super Bowl? Glancing at the list, it appears the ranking system does a pretty good job of predicting the winner.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:23 am
Those 99 Rams played a weak schedule (93 total wins), but nothing like the 70 Colts (68 wins, 78 if pro-rated to a 16-game season). Even if the 70 Colts had 2 more games against the winningest team (70 Vikings, 12-2) that year (impossible given the Vikings were in the other conference)), they still would have played only a 92-win schedule. The -4.4 SOS adjustment only reinforces that point.
I was a Colt fan back then, so I'm not a "hater". I just consider it karmic payback for '68 and especially '67 (11-1-2, tied for div title and best record in the league but missed the playoffs on a tiebreaker).
February 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Matty, this is not the first time I have seen the 1973 Miami team rank ahead of the 1972 team. I have also heard subjective rankings of the teams put 1973 ahead. The 1972 team was another great NFL team that played a historically weak regular season schedule.
I wonder how long the Dolphins would have been great if the WFL hadn't stolen some of its best players.
I am a Dolphins fan, but I was only 1 in 1973.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I agree with Bill M. that a list of regular-season-only games would be very interesting as well. It seems counter-intuitive to count the actual results of the Super Bowl itself in a judgement of the quality of the teams that are reaching the Super Bowl.
------
I also find it interesting that the 1978 Steeler team, which is often cited as being the best of the Steeler dynasty, actually rates lower than the '75 and '79 version, and even lower than the 1978 Cowboys team that they beat in Super Bowl XIII!
February 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Any system that ranks the 2001 Super Bowl winner as the 62nd best team, but the Super Bowl losing team as the 10th best clearly has some HUGE problems somewhere.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
What if we looked at superbowl teams not solely on pf/pa performance for that year, but as part of a group of years, with the specific year in question weighted most heavily?
After all, while every year the team is somewhat different, there is a correlation between year to year performance. Knowing that a team was good either in the two years before or after the year in question might allow us to rank a team on dominance. And some perception of how good a superbowl champion was, is tied to how they performed over a period of time.
For example, you could use the year in question, plus the two best years out of the 4 years (two on either side of the SB year). Weigh the year in question as 50%, and the other two best as 25% each. For example, the 99 Rams rating would also incorporate 2000 and 2001, as 99 wasn't a fluke, just the start of a run.
I calculated this for Pit 75 (doing only a 1st order simple rating calc of other years), and it came out 12.9 (using 74 and 76 also). This is a drop, but not as big of one as some other teams, and would I suspect put the 75 Steelers near the top. On a side note, I had no idea how dominant the 76 team was that did not win the Superbowl. That may have been the "best" Steelers team, but the one that didn't win a Superbowl during that stretch.
p.s. can I make a future request? It would someday be cool to see the simple rating system ratings for all teams posted on a page, either on the year page or a separate one. Certainly not an overnight project though.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I looked up that 76 Steeler team, which led to the 76 Raider team who beat them twice (regular and post season). I noticed the 76 Raiders played FIVE straight road games (weeks 2-6). How did that happen? I checked and the A's didn't make the playoffs that year...
Apparently it was fairly typical for OAK then:
'71: road games wk 1-4
'72: road three of 1st 4 games
'73: 5 straight road games (weeks 3-7); 6 of 1st 7 (week 1)
'74: 6 of 1st 8 games on the road
'75: 1st 5 games on the road, plus week 7
'76: 5 straight road games weeks 2-6
'77: 5 road games weeks 1-7
'78: 4 of 1st five games on the road
'79: 1st 4 games on the road
'80: 3 of 1st 4 on the road
'81: 4 of 1st six on the road
'82: they were all on the road as far as Oakland was concerned as the team moved to LA
So it was worst around the mid 70s. It seems to have started when the A's moved to OAK from KC and gradually gotten worse. It was a little better by the end of the Raiders' 1st stay in Oakland but without checking I surmise it was part of Davis' reasons for leaving.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Dang, the over/under on this comment was noon and I took the under. What took you so long?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yes, Doug, but where's his outrage over the 1990 Bills being ranked ahead of the 1990 Giants?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
In answer to a few other questions...
Bill M, yes, the Super Bowl game is included. If you look at the pre-SB rankings, the 91 Redskins edge out the Bears for the #1 slot. A few other teams move around, but it's not different enough to be terribly interesting.
MattyP, the team with the higher end-of-season rating has won 31 of the 36 Super Bowls. BUT, the team with the higher pre-SB rating has only won 24 of 36. So in a lot of cases, the result of the Super Bowl determined the order of the two SB teams. It might be like that this year.
JKL, I'm going to take your idea (including some information on pre- and post- years) and run with it. I'll get it posted tomorrow hopefully. Or maybe we'll have a bonus Saturday post.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Re: 77 Broncos
That was the first Super Bowl I watched. I recently looked at a play-by-play for that game and it's unbelievable. Read the last 6-7 minutes of the 2nd quarter and it will tell you everything you need to know about the game. A terribly played game on so many levels.
I'm stunned to see 2 of the Viking teams that high (39 and 40). They weren't remotely competitive in either Super Bowl VIII or XI.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Very interesting and enjoyable. I had been compiling a list of the 20 greatest Super Bowl losers-NFL Films, this is a positive gold mine here, 20 straight hours of sheer bitterness-so, it's interesting to see which losing squads were more powerful than many of the winners. I thought the top five teams to lose a Super Bowl were pretty cut and dried, although the ranking was not- 90 Bills, 83 Redskins, 01 Rams, 78 Cowboys and 68 Colts, who didn't end up on your list due to your cut off.
Re 7: Except that any system that relies on any data is going to have the same result. By pretty much any measure, the 2001 Patriots beating the 2001 Rams was one of the great flukes in sports. Had those teams played ten games, St. Louis would have won nine of them. New England had a great gameplan and, frankly, they caught the Rams sleeping. All credit to them, but the relative rankings of the teams are absolutely unsurprising.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Yes! I've been waiting to see this list since the Simple Ranking System was introduced last year! And I am STUNNED that the 01 Pats are not the worst Super Bowl winner of all time. I'll have to look at that 1970 Colts team closer.
MattyP: The 1972 Dolphins didn't play a team with a winning record ALL SEASON, then won three playoff games by a total of 17 points. (Granted, their Super Bowl win wasn't as close as the 14-7 final made it look.)
Andrew Grigg: This system ranks every game -- early, late, playoffs, Super Bowl -- as exactly the same level of importance. Any criticism of that fact is completely valid. However, any realistic analysis of the 2001 season would not have the Patriots on top. They were not the best team in the NFL that year. They may not have been in the top FOUR teams in the NFL that year.
Yes, they won the Super Bowl, and of course that's MORE IMPORTANT than being the best team. But it doesn't MAKE THEM the best team.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
two things ( or problems with using points )
Point inflation: Is 17-10 in 1972 of the same value as 17-10 in 2006? Was it harder to get 7 points in the past?
SOS: Is a 4-10 team the same as a 4-12? Is losing by 30 points and losing by 1 point reflected in the SOS?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
"MattyP: The 1972 Dolphins didn’t play a team with a winning record ALL SEASON,"
Actually, they played two teams with winning records that season, the 8-6 Kansas City Chiefs and the 8-6 New York Giants. They only played 14 games back then, so 8 wins was a winning record.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Alex: Thanks for correcting me. I screwed up my facts.
The 1972 Dolphins did not beat a PLAYOFF team all season. Until the playoffs, obviously.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 am
Texsays,
That's a valid criticism of the simple rating system. I don't think leaguewide scoring averages have changed too much over the years, though.
No and yes. The SOS figure you see listed is simply the average of the ratings of all that team's opponents.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I very much enjoy this site, and just recently started checking the blog with interest. I would be interested in results for the simple rating system for all teams/season. Anyway,is it possible to gain access to this information for a project I'm working on? Thanks in advance and keep up the good work.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Doug, I'm grateful for your application and lucid explanation of the BCS "simple rating system" in your Greatest Super Bowl Teams blogs. Have you or will you applied/apply and explain another one of their rating systems to the super bowl teams? I'd be very intrigued to see it. If you've done so already, could you email me the web site address? Thanks.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Tampa Bay won the 2002 Super Bowl, not the Raiders.