Non parity in the AFC
-
Could also be that The Gipper sits around thinking of things to say that make him seem smart. But since he is not able to see outside of his own little world, his perception of smart is quite skewed
Another term for parity is "lack of superiority"
Could also be that The Gipper sits around thinking of things to say that make him seem smart. But since he is not able to see outside of his own little world, his perception of smart is quite skewed
Another term for parity is "lack of superiority"
Has nothing to do with me being smart. It is just that this sort of football history is of interest to me and I spend a bit of time looking and researching it...and I relate it here.
I mean, my interests don't coincide with your interests.
I have no interest in snuffling the smegma of my foreskin as you do. I prefer football statistics.
(but as to your argument that parity means lack of superiority, I might tend to find some value in that....if not for the fact that the NFC teams....all the many various ones that have won titles....have beaten the so called "superior" AFC teams more often than not. So the superiority theory flies out the window)
-
Could be a product of where you drew your line in time, but more likely your criteria. For AFC "parity" looking at the list of AFC Champs would make more sense IMO.
For the same time period a great Bills team is added to the mix. Also added are a couple Dolphins teams. Bengals, Titans and Chargers all drop in for a cup of coffee.
On the other hand more is added to the Pats tally...
Could be a product of where you drew your line in time, but more likely your criteria. For AFC "parity" looking at the list of AFC Champs would make more sense IMO.
Oh, yes, definitely it is a product of where I drew my line in time. While it may be somewhat arbitrary it was consciously adopted as being "the last time any but these 5 AFC teams won"....or more specifically, the last time the Raiders won.
For the same time period a great Bills team is added to the mix. Also added are a couple Dolphins teams. Bengals, Titans and Chargers all drop in for a cup of coffee.
Yes, they all dropped in to get beat. But, still, even with all them....it still meant only 11 AFC teams made Super Bowl appearances since 1983 vs. 15 for the NFC.
On the other hand more is added to the Pats tally...
-
Could it be the Raiders too Kalhil Mack and Derek Carr while we took Gilbert and Manziel? Could it be they've had three good drafts in a row! Look at who the Browns have drafted the last three years! The Colts are the same bad drafting.
DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL SPEED AHEAD! -
Could it be the Raiders too Kalhil Mack and Derek Carr while we took Gilbert and Manziel? Could it be they've had three good drafts in a row! Look at who the Browns have drafted the last three years! The Colts are the same bad drafting.
Could it be the Raiders too Kalhil Mack and Derek Carr while we took Gilbert and Manziel? Could it be they've had three good drafts in a row! Look at who the Browns have drafted the last three years! The Colts are the same bad drafting.
Are you just copying and pasting this into random threads now?
-
Here is another way I look at the parity issue: I take each league and ask: How many teams in a league have won titles in the period that matches the number of teams in that league. Like this:
The NFL has 32 teams. How many of them have won a title in the last 32 years? So, 2016 minus 32 equals 1984 (which means my "since the Raiders won" sort of corresponds to this same period"
And here, the NFL is actually not bad when it comes to parity: 15 of the 32 teams have won titles in the last 32 seasons of play.
Giants, Pats, 49ers have been the "dominant" teams in this era...each winning 4, with Cowboys and Broncos winning 3.
The MLB has 30 teams. In the last 30 seasons (there was a strike year where no WS played)....17 different teams have won the titles. Even more "parity" there. Yankees have been dominant with 5 titles, followed by Red Sox and Giants with 3 each.
The NBA has 30 teams. In the last 30 seasons...only 9 teams have won titles. (only 7 in 28 years). Lakers 7, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Pistons and Heat 3.
The NHL has 30 teams. In the last 30 season...15 teams have won titles. Redwings and Penquins with 4 each, Blackhawks, Devils and Edmonton 3 each. (though....a Candian team has not won since Montreal won in 1993)
So, other than the NBA, each major league has had about half of its teams win titles in the same number of years as there are teams in the league.
-
Could it be the Raiders too Kalhil Mack and Derek Carr while we took Gilbert and Manziel? Could it be they've had three good drafts in a row! Look at who the Browns have drafted the last three years! The Colts are the same bad drafting.
Could it be the Raiders too Kalhil Mack and Derek Carr while we took Gilbert and Manziel? Could it be they've had three good drafts in a row! Look at who the Browns have drafted the last three years! The Colts are the same bad drafting.
Totally off topic. You are explaining why the Raiders are getting good again., but while that is fine, its not what's going on here.
-
On the issue of parity among the NFC and AFC....in the last 30 years the NFL leads 18-12.
Including all Super Bowls played, the NFC/NFL has a 26-24 edge on the AFC/AFL.
-
I know, this is off subject about how bad the Browns are, but it is something that occurred to me yesterday after it was noted on the TV that it appears that the Raiders are now a legitimate contender possibly for the AFC title.
The AFC has not experienced the same parity as the other conference. Since the Raiders won their last Super Bowl in 1983, only the following 5 AFC teams have won a Super Bowl:
Broncos (3)
Patriots (4),
Steelers(2),
Ravens(2),
and Colts (1)
Where, in the NFC, since 1983 the following 9 NFC teams have won titles:
Seahawks 1
Rams 1
Saints 1
Bears 1
Bucs 1
49ers 4
Cowboys 3
Giants 4
Redskins 2
In that same era, of the 16 NFC teams 15 have made the Super Bowl....only the Lions have not.
But, in that same era, only 11 of the AFC teams have not made a Super Bowl.
Browns, Jets, Chiefs, Texans, Jaguars have not.
So, I am not sure what this means..but it seems, as I said, the AFC experiences less parity.
Well its not as if the Browns, Jets, Chiefs and Jaguars all haven't had legitimate Super Bowl quality teams since 1983 but for various reasons they just didn't make it.In that same era, of the 16 NFC teams 15 have made the Super Bowl....only the Lions have not.
But, in that same era, only 11 of the AFC teams have not made a Super Bowl.
Browns, Jets, Chiefs, Texans, Jaguars have not.
So, I am not sure what this means..but it seems, as I said, the AFC experiences less parity.
-
Sorry about that. But doesn't Front offices, coaching and drafting factor in? The Patriots have had the same system for almost fifteen years. The Broncos now have Elway at the helm and he's making good decisions (Brockweiler stinks). The Cowboys have Jones and tons of money, Pittsburgh has consistency year after year. These teams have Front Offices and Owners who hate to lose! The Seahawks have built a winning culture under their owner and Pete Carroll.
So what's the winning recipe? Draft better players, don't trade down when you have the second pick? Quantity isn't quality! Don't draft head cases and hire better scouts.
The Browns fired several scouts before the 2016 draft and it shows.
-
Sorry about that. But doesn't Front offices, coaching and drafting factor in? The Patriots have had the same system for almost fifteen years. The Broncos now have Elway at the helm and he's making good decisions (Brockweiler stinks). The Cowboys have Jones and tons of money, Pittsburgh has consistency year after year. These teams have Front Offices and Owners who hate to lose! The Seahawks have built a winning culture under their owner and Pete Carroll.
So what's the winning recipe? Draft better players, don't trade down when you have the second pick? Quantity isn't quality! Don't draft head cases and hire better scouts.
The Browns fired several scouts before the 2016 draft and it shows.
Sorry about that. But doesn't Front offices, coaching and drafting factor in? The Patriots have had the same system for almost fifteen years. The Broncos now have Elway at the helm and he's making good decisions (Brockweiler stinks). The Cowboys have Jones and tons of money, Pittsburgh has consistency year after year. These teams have Front Offices and Owners who hate to lose! The Seahawks have built a winning culture under their owner and Pete Carroll.
So what's the winning recipe? Draft better players, don't trade down when you have the second pick? Quantity isn't quality! Don't draft head cases and hire better scouts.
The Browns fired several scouts before the 2016 draft and it shows.
All owners hated to lose. That is not the point. For as bad an owner as he was, Art Modell admittedly hated to lose. That didn't make him competent....nor anyone else.
Winning recipe: get a competent talent evaluator.....get an outstanding HC and assts., get a killer QB, and many other good players....and get the owner to get the fuck out of the way. (though, OK, the owners main job is to hire those competent subordinates...GM/HC....that is his job......that an writing the checks.
-
Not surprising that the NBA, where you can basically win with 7 players, has been the easiest league to dominate.
And with the way stars are now attracting stars which in turn attracts role players on the cheap, it seems to be getting even easier. Easiest it's been since the bad old days of iron-clad contracts.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Not surprising that the NBA, where you can basically win with 7 players, has been the easiest league to dominate.
And with the way stars are now attracting stars which in turn attracts role players on the cheap, it seems to be getting even easier. Easiest it's been since the bad old days of iron-clad contracts.
Not surprising that the NBA, where you can basically win with 7 players, has been the easiest league to dominate.
And with the way stars are now attracting stars which in turn attracts role players on the cheap, it seems to be getting even easier. Easiest it's been since the bad old days of iron-clad contracts.
But, at least some new blood is winning: Cavs, obviously. Warriors won for first time in 40 years. Fuck Lakers and Celtics and Bulls.
-
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
-
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
Sad.. The Browns have lost more than Emails "laughs"
-
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
Perhaps not. But originally I was looking at just the Super Bowl wins....and the NFC's 9 vs. AFC 5 seemed statistically significant.
-
Gip - I haven't run any statistical analysis on it, but my guess would that 15 vs. 11 may not be statistically significant based on small sample size. Doesn't meet the eye test, but I'm too lazy to break out my old stat books.
Edit-besides the Browns have skewed (or screwed) all the data!
Perhaps not. But originally I was looking at just the Super Bowl wins....and the NFC's 9 vs. AFC 5 seemed statistically significant.
Perhaps not. But originally I was looking at just the Super Bowl wins....and the NFC's 9 vs. AFC 5 seemed statistically significant.
... but is irrelevant to your hypothesis.
-
Eh, that non parity is much to do about nothing.
What I found startling is the lack of parity between man and animal.
There are 16 teams named after a man, and 16 after an animal or thing.
If a team's nickname is human, then the chances of winning a Super Bowl are far greater than if a teams nickname is that of an animal or thing.
No parity between man and animal. This is not fair. Needs to be investigated.
Man with 37 SB victories, animal with 13.
What do you think Gip?
Steelers 6
49'ers 5
Cowboys 5
Packers 4
Patriots 4
Giants 4
Raiders 3
Redskins 3
Buccaneers 1
Chiefs 1
Saints 1
Browns
Titans
Vikings
Bills
Texans
Broncos 3
Ravens 2
Colts 2
Dolphins 2
Rams 1
Bears 1
Seahawks 1
Jets 1
Falcons
Eagles
Cardinals
Bengals
Lions
Jaguars
Panthers
Chargers
At least the browns got that going for them!
Poor bengals.
-
Eh, that non parity is much to do about nothing.
What I found startling is the lack of parity between man and animal.
There are 16 teams named after a man, and 16 after an animal or thing.
If a team's nickname is human, then the chances of winning a Super Bowl are far greater than if a teams nickname is that of an animal or thing.
No parity between man and animal. This is not fair. Needs to be investigated.
Man with 37 SB victories, animal with 13.
What do you think Gip?
Steelers 6
49'ers 5
Cowboys 5
Packers 4
Patriots 4
Giants 4
Raiders 3
Redskins 3
Buccaneers 1
Chiefs 1
Saints 1
Browns
Titans
Vikings
Bills
Texans
Broncos 3
Ravens 2
Colts 2
Dolphins 2
Rams 1
Bears 1
Seahawks 1
Jets 1
Falcons
Eagles
Cardinals
Bengals
Lions
Jaguars
Panthers
Chargers
At least the browns got that going for them!
Poor bengals.
Eh, that non parity is much to do about nothing.
What I found startling is the lack of parity between man and animal.
There are 16 teams named after a man, and 16 after an animal or thing.
If a team's nickname is human, then the chances of winning a Super Bowl are far greater than if a teams nickname is that of an animal or thing.
No parity between man and animal. This is not fair. Needs to be investigated.
Man with 37 SB victories, animal with 13.
What do you think Gip?
Steelers 6
49'ers 5
Cowboys 5
Packers 4
Patriots 4
Giants 4
Raiders 3
Redskins 3
Buccaneers 1
Chiefs 1
Saints 1
Browns
Titans
Vikings
Bills
Texans
Broncos 3
Ravens 2
Colts 2
Dolphins 2
Rams 1
Bears 1
Seahawks 1
Jets 1
Falcons
Eagles
Cardinals
Bengals
Lions
Jaguars
Panthers
Chargers
At least the browns got that going for them!
Poor bengals.
The Browns have more championships than the Steelers, you dumb fuck.
Did you know they were championships before they gave them the name "Super Bowl"?
Let's throw out all World Series before playoff series, all Basketball championships before expansion, and any hockey championships by the original 6 while we are at it.
Just because the Steelers were fucking awful before 1970 doesnt mean it didn't happen.
Z
-
NY Jets are not animals.
But they are men. Well Jets from West Side story were anyway.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login