The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douche Nozzle Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Are you really unable to separate threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opal312 Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richiswhere Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Sports is a very cyclical business always has been (except for the 1946-1964 Damn Yankees, screw them)..... just the way sports is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opal312 Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted October 12, 2016 Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted October 12, 2016 Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 12, 2016 Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 NY Jets are not animals. But they are men. Well Jets from West Side story were anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 12, 2016 Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 NY Jets are not animals. But they are men. Well Jets from West Side story were anyway. I'm afraid even those guys would give the BROWNS a game....well maybe if they kept their switchblades, and they could dance! Now back to the Titans, just what is a titan? Well whatever they're favored by 7 Sunday in what might be a low scoring game, but no switchblades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted October 12, 2016 Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 I'm afraid even those guys would give the BROWNS a game....well maybe if they kept their switchblades, and they could dance! Now back to the Titans, just what is a titan? Well whatever they're favored by 7 Sunday in what might be a low scoring game, but no switchblades. A Titan is a baby tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 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. What I think is that this is quite hilarious and interesting at the same time! You are right, there aught to be an investigation. I wish it was a statistic that I had thought of researching. Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 NY Jets are not animals. But they are men. Well Jets from West Side story were anyway. Right, both Jets and Chargers are not animals. (though a Charger could be I guess) I will have to check on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 I'm afraid even those guys would give the BROWNS a game....well maybe if they kept their switchblades, and they could dance! Now back to the Titans, just what is a titan? Well whatever they're favored by 7 Sunday in what might be a low scoring game, but no switchblades. What about a Giant? Is a Giant a human or an animal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2016 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 Right. What he needs to do is to break down his human vs. animal analysis by going back to the beginning in 1920s. But just briefly here is the deal with defunct teams that won titles: Bulldogs and Yellowjackets are "animals" Pros were human. But what about the Providence Steamroller? Was that in reference to the humans that operated a Steamroller, or the machine itself? And how do we categorize machines. Steamroller and Jets are inanimate object, neither human nor animal. Are you all in favor of "Inanimate Object Rights"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.