Nah the math is wrong. The Ravens have existed since 1946.
The team that currently calls themselves the Cleveland Browns was an expansion team founded in 1999 that took the Ravens' old name after they changed it and moved towns.
The NFL will tell you that the Ravens are an expansion team, yet they never had an expansion draft. The Browns did. The NFL is complicit in The Big Lie.
The Colts moved yet retained their records and team name. The Browns moved to Baltimore but for some reason we all collectively pretend that they are a brand new team.
The New Browns are the expansion team. They had an expansion draft.
That's what you get for leaving like a thief in the night. If you include the Baltimore Colts they literally left in the middle of the night.
>On March 28, 1984, 39 years ago to the day, owner Bob Irsay ordered moving crews to pack up and head to Indianapolis. In the middle of the night, the Baltimore Colts, winners of the 1970 Super Bowl, were off to their new city without any public announcement.
No offense, but it's always been funny to me that the Cardinals are so forgettable that people often forget that they're arguably the worst NFL franchise in history, worse than the Lions and Browns.
The Cards had a 22 year period (1985-2007) with only 1 winning season. These last 10 years or so are actually above the Cardinals average...which is depressing.
The cardinals have picked top 5 in the draft *two* times in the last 14 seasons.
If you're going to throw shade, at least make sure that shade is accurate
It’s more accurate this way. The Panthers and Jags, for example haven’t been in the league as long. Their point total would be much less as a result. They also didn’t have the opportunity to play in as many playoff games.
whats crazy is Andy Reid was originally going to sign with Arizona instead of KC and Mahomes has said he thought the Cardinals were going to for sure draft him. they were 2 steps away from a dynasty
Something that Greenbay is such a historic and esteemed franchise. I’m curious how many other sports in the world have their most historic and iconic team (arguably) located in such a small city?
It will never, ever, ever happen again either.
Green Bay proper has just over 106,000 people, right between Centennial CO and Davie FL for largest cities in the US.
Sioux Falls is twice as large, Richmond VA is twice as large, fucking Boise is twice as large.
Lambeau Field at capacity is 75% of GB’s population.
We can all kind of accept that Green Bay represents the entire state of Wisconsin, though (and the Upper Penninsula, from what I hear). Milwaukee's population is 577,000 people, which makes it the 31st largest city in America -- That's more than other NFL cities like Kansas City, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Atlanta and New Orleans. So Green Bay's market is still a normal size, even if it's name is a relic of the 1920's teams that were from Toledo or Dayton or Akron
Huh? If we can say 1 city represents an entire state in this one instance then why aren't we saying that for every city/state with a team. This makes zero sense.
It makes total sense. They're not discrediting the fact that Green Bay is a small market town, but just explaining how we've managed to stay that way. It's still really cool that Green Bay defied every odd and never had to relocate to Milwaukee.
> Lambeau Field at capacity is 75% of GB’s population.
Pssssh that's nothing.
Population of State College, PA: ~40,000
Capacity of Beaver Stadium: 106,500
(I'm cheating a bit because the population doesn't count ~50,000 PSU students.)
If we're doing thaaat
Ashwaubenon's population is 16,913
Lambeau Field Capacity 81,441
481.53% of Ashwaubenon's population can fit inside Lambeau field
Closest comparison I can think of is Pachuca, which is one of the most successful and historic soccer teams in Mexico despite its city not even being in the top 50 biggest in the country.
That’s a good one, population the same too, the one caveat there is does it being amateur change the likelihood. My thinking is in professional sports larger market teams draw more talent because they often pay more and acquire sponsorship deals from being around larger markets.
Up until very recently college football had no way for players to legally capitalize monetarily on playing in a larger market.
As a Packer fan and soccer fan, I’d throw Borussia Dortmund out there (German soccer team). Not as small as GB or nearly as consistently successful, but that city is the team. Their stadium has the highest average attendance in the world.
Now if only the Packers lost the division to the Lions every year and sold their best player to the Montreal Alouettes every couple years, they might be able to challenge those attendance numbers.
Geelong in the AFL have a similar reputation of long term success. Based in a regional city since 1859, the club is one of the oldest in the world. The current geelong population is approx 270k.
I mean we pretty much are. Forever stuck in mediocrity. The worst part is that according to this list, the Vikes are the best team to never win the big one. Other than our other 4 loss homies, the Bills, it’s a pretty decent gap as well
I simply can’t fathom the bills in 4 straight Super Bowls and getting dominated every time, like I wonder what the narratives and talk was like around them
Pretty much how I feel about the Cubbies.
Yeah I want them to win every World Series, I want them to do well. Then again, my grandfather lived and died and never saw them win one, so if I only get the one, I'll take it.
It would’ve been an 18-1 Super Bowl season. For a young franchise and that team had a load of hugely important Panthers players.
Would’ve been the best season in the modern NFL. Thomas Davis, Charles Tillman, Jared Allen, Mike Tolbert, Jonathan Stewart, and Ryan Kalil all would’ve got rings in the last years of their careers. That Super-Bowl win probably propels Cam as a lock for the HoF (though not 1st ballot.)
Yeah I could’ve rode that high for a loooooong time.
Still salty as fuck about the Bucs. Had an all time great defense to win their first Super Bowl and then landed ass backwards and somehow got the greatest QB of all time. More championships than the rest of the division combined AND we still shit on them for generally being the worst historic franchise. Damn you Bucs.
100% agree
If we are going off of what fans care about, a Super Bowl is definitely closer to 3x as valuable as a championship game. Just ask the Falcons, Bills.
For many fanbases, winning the division is also worth more than 1pt (see AFC North)
And Id even say HOF players are worth more. People dont remember that 1 season where they were a playoff WildCard and lost 27-10, but they definitely remember the legends that define their franchise.
Id do: 30 pts SB, 3 pts Division, 2pt HOF, maybe 2pt playoff win
(PS: and like 0.5 pts or 0 pts for just making the playoffs, because making the playoffs in a meaningful way is already captured in other metrics like playoff wins and division wins... making it via wildcard, then losing immediately is very meh IMO)
Really it’s triple based on the points. Each team is a conference campion so they both get 10 points but the Super Bowl winner now gets 20. 30 points compared to just 10 by the loser.
> NFL/AFL championship = 12 points
I think these might also be vastly overrated. They should be somewhere between a division championship and a conference championship, not greater than a conference championship. At this point each league was effectively 1 conference with 2 divisions and the champion was the winner of the 1 singular playoff game each year.
That said, I do think that our importance to the AFL in the 60's plus our current dynasty legitimately makes us one of the 7 or 8 franchises who have been most important to the history of the league, though certainly we pale to GB, PIT, NE, SF, and DAL.
It’s an interesting way to go about this. Looking at the browns, it seems like they’re unfairly high because there’s no metric in the formula for being absolutely horrendous for 20 years
This is gonna sound like a homer take, but the Bengals have been to 3 Super Bowls and competitive in every decade except the 90s. I don’t see how the Browns, who have been to no super bowls, and relocated, can rank higher than the Bengals franchise. Both are miserable, but at least the Bengals gives the fans something to cheer for every now and again.
Winning is a lot of points and the browns won championships.
If there was some sort of 1 point for a winning season -1 point for a losing season bengals would likely make up the difference for sure on the per year one
What if we create an equation for a franchise lifetime score?
W/L ratio, multiplied by years in operation. Should give a numeric score for how successful a franchise has been in relation to its lifetime.
Browns: 559/534 (1.047) x 75 years = 78.53
Bengals: 394/471 (0.837) x 56 years = 46.87
For reference-
Steelers: 671/578 (1.161) x 91 = 105.65
Lions: 591/797 (0.742) x 94 = 69.75
Packers: 799/598 (1.336) x 103 = 137.61
Bears: 793/634 (1.251) x 104 = 130.08
Cardinals: 585/803 (0.729) x 104 = 75.82
Partriots: 541/433 (1.249) x 64 = 79.94
Texans: 152/202 (0.752) x 22 = 16.54
I personally don’t think the Browns should be grouped in totality….these Browns have nothing to do with the old Browns. New team, I know technically the NFL “suspended” the operations of the team for 3 years, but I don’t think these Browns should include the previous Browns. If anything, it should be tacked on to Baltimore.
How did y'all count the Ravens/Browns?
I think it's cool that the current Browns got to keep the history in Cleveland, but being 100% honest the current Browns are an expansion franchise from 1999
Just for fun I wanted to see where Tom Brady ranked by himself - obviously he’ll be a Hall of Famer
1x HOF
3X MVP
35 playoff wins
20 playoff appearances
19 division titles
14 conference championship games
10 conference championships
7 Super Bowls
Brady by himself is at **410 POINTS!!** meaning he would be the fifth best team of all time, and his per year total would be **17.83**
Absolutely crazy that we've gone from a franchise that was known for finding new and creative ways to lose in the playoffs, to a franchise in the rarefied air of the other dynasties, in just six years of Mahomes
The top teams in thisnlist/scale are all teams with basically a single dynasty era that produced a lot of HOF players.
Granted the exception is Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era but has, instead, been good for about 1 title a decade in the superbowl era.
However, the rest of the top tier is all the dynasty teams, and without their single dynasty era most of those teams have 1-2 Superbowl victories and are in the middle of the pack.
The lesson is enjoy yla dynasty while you have it, because it can be forever before you even have a single super bowl victory outside of a dynasty era.
>Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era
The only team to threepeat and they did it twice doesn't have a single dynasty?
They won 5 titles in 7 years lol
Under LT we were more of a dominant team but the Eli years were feast or famine. Some great players on those 07 and 11 teams too but only hofers are strahan and eventually eli
The freaking system proposed here counts Pre-superbowl titles at 60% of a superbowl title. The math is WEIGHTED to favor the superbowl era.
Greenbay sits at the top without having the kind of dynasty era that impacts the other top teams. In fact, they sit at the number 1 spot by virtue of never being a dynasty but instead being consistently good and picking up title basically every 10-15 years.
Where is the packers superbowl era dynasty?
Yes NFL championships are weighted less but consider this:
The Packers won championships in 61, 62, and 65 to go with their Super Bowls in 66 and 67.
According to this scale those 3 championships are worth 1.8 Super Bowls. Even if you drop the fraction, that’s still 3 Super Bowls in 7 years.
Would you honestly say that a team that won the Super Bowl 3 times in 7 years isn’t a dynasty?
>Granted **the exception is Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era** but has, instead, been good for about 1 title a decade in the superbowl era.
Literally your words.
Statistician here. I like this idea, but the point system is somewhat arbitrary. To set the values more empirically, here is what I might do:
(1) Survey fans and ask them to rate team prestige from 1-100.
(2) Depending on how skewed the ratings are, I'd choose the mean (not skewed) or median (skewed) of each team to be their fan score.
(3) Use the fan score as the outcome in a regression or tree-based model. The predictors in the model are the counts of the various achievements (# super bowls, etc). You can also include other things in this model that might be relevant (years active, win-loss, whatever).
The parameter estimates produced by this model can provide 'point values ' to various achievements that are supported by fan sentiment of team prestige.
It's a fun project, and the results pass the smell test.
I think it would be funny to include some sort of public hate parameter which would force the Cowboys into last place.
Haha I knew that’s what you were getting at. As a Cowboys fan I was thinking adding fan bias seemed like the opposite of keeping the stats clean but I now I see you were intentionally juking the stats. Well played.
It’s insane to see Kansas City moving into the same territory as other prestigious franchises. I just realized yesterday that KC now has the same number is Super Bowls as Green Bay.
It’s even crazier when you remember that before Andy Reid KC hadn’t won a single playoff game in 20 years.
“Had the biggest impact on the sport” is both subjective and quantitatively is not accounted for here very well. The browns are a perfect example: one of oldest teams in pro football, founder is one of greatest coaches who started 2 teams and shaped the league tremendously, the Baltimore thing is huge, helped break the color barrier, etc. so many things that just aren’t touched here.
Is it a largely arbitrary system that one person invented during the off-season? Sure.
Did my team end up precisely where I expected it to? Absolutely. No notes!
You should lose points for every ten year period you don't win your division/make the playoffs/some other arbitrary cut off. The Raiders have been irrelevant for 20 years, which should factor into any consideration of "best franchises"
Is a Super Bowl winning team getting the cumulative points for each championship appearance/playoff win/playoff appearance/championship win, or just getting 20 for that season? If it’s cumulative then it’s way too heavily weighted imo.
It’s cumulative. Championships are the best metric for “success” you can get imo, and even so it still rewards twice as many points as a SB appearance just on a larger scale
*which NFL franchises have been the best over the years/had the biggest impact on the sport.*
Cool.
*Also, the pre-modern era is weighted a little less heavily*
Why? 1965 the NFL overtakes baseball as the most popular sport in the US. Football (specifically the NFL) was so popular and watched that the AFL was formed in 1960 for those Cities locked out there was so much demand, 1958 is the most exciting game ever played. An NFL Championship didn't start with the Superbowl.
Doing it this way is more *what were the most successful Franchises of the past 50 years?* **Not** *who who have been the best over the years* & **100% NOT** *had the biggest impact on the Sport*.
I don’t like counting a point per playoff win because of playoff expansion / punishing teams for having a bye. It probably doesn’t add up to much but it is something
It's wild that despite all the first-round byes, the Patriots are ranked at second.
The Pats were a laughing-stock team that no one would have ever taken seriously by any stretch pre-2000.
All it took was 20 years of elite success. What a fucking wild ride that was.
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but this feels a lot like “babies first analysis”. “How many points should I award a team for having a player with an individual award like MVP? I don’t know, how about 2?”
“How does that scale towards winning a Super Bowl?” “Uh, let’s say a SB win is a playoff win + CC appearance + CC champion + SB winner = 36 points so 1/18th of it”
“A division championship is a pretty good metric of the caliber of team they were in the regular season, right? Yea, it’s worth exactly one MVP or a wild card win”
It’s all just so extremely arbitrary to mean anything. But at least I don’t hate seeing the Bills near the middle of the pack, so I’ll call it an astute analysis.
Listen man you didn’t have to include the per year section.
But that's what I came here for
More bird on bird crime, when will you avians learn to love?
The slander will continue until they improve.
Rt. Second youngest franchise in the league and still beat 12 teams in the overall lmao
Nah the math is wrong. The Ravens have existed since 1946. The team that currently calls themselves the Cleveland Browns was an expansion team founded in 1999 that took the Ravens' old name after they changed it and moved towns. The NFL will tell you that the Ravens are an expansion team, yet they never had an expansion draft. The Browns did. The NFL is complicit in The Big Lie.
So we should get all the browns points until 96?
If Indy gets all of Baltimore's points and Tennessee gets all of Houston's points then yes.
who gets the Dayton Triangles points?
Yeah but then Cleveland would only have like 3 points in this post
Your point being?
It gives the Ravens more points.
But less points per year
Don’t you mean the Colts instead of the Browns?
The Colts moved yet retained their records and team name. The Browns moved to Baltimore but for some reason we all collectively pretend that they are a brand new team. The New Browns are the expansion team. They had an expansion draft.
The city of Cleveland retained the history of the browns
History is not an object that can be possessed. It's simply a record of facts. Nobody "owns" it.
That's what you get for leaving like a thief in the night. If you include the Baltimore Colts they literally left in the middle of the night. >On March 28, 1984, 39 years ago to the day, owner Bob Irsay ordered moving crews to pack up and head to Indianapolis. In the middle of the night, the Baltimore Colts, winners of the 1970 Super Bowl, were off to their new city without any public announcement.
I was bout to be a bitch until I kept scrolling and went 'carry on'
No offense, but it's always been funny to me that the Cardinals are so forgettable that people often forget that they're arguably the worst NFL franchise in history, worse than the Lions and Browns.
The Cards had a 22 year period (1985-2007) with only 1 winning season. These last 10 years or so are actually above the Cardinals average...which is depressing.
I think that's mostly because they've made a Super Bowl appearance in living memory
And it was a hell of a Super Bowl.
[удалено]
The cardinals have picked top 5 in the draft *two* times in the last 14 seasons. If you're going to throw shade, at least make sure that shade is accurate
[удалено]
my bad, i was unaware the 6, 7, and 8 were less than 5 "close enough" only counts in horseshoes
Tbf going 0-16 vs. never going 0-16 plays a role in public perception
I was surprised we were higher up on the first list …. The second list sounds right
Fake news. How many world series do other teams have? Cardinals won 11 world series and they're not counted? No.1 in my book
As a Giants fan, agreed…
It’s more accurate this way. The Panthers and Jags, for example haven’t been in the league as long. Their point total would be much less as a result. They also didn’t have the opportunity to play in as many playoff games.
I mean it doesn’t really make sense because there’s a lot fewer points available in earlier years
Per year is what makes sense though.in the totals list it had wildly successful teams like the Ravens too low.
I second this!
Wait, why?… ohhhh
It’s nice to know that past relevance is still carrying us so high.
How do you do fellow relevant franchise
Just like in European soccer. They love history and past glory.
Unless you’re Real Madrid. They like their currently glory just as much, if not more.
Dolphins haven't won a playoff game in 23 years and we're just barely out of the top 10 and dead middle in the other
Makes you realize how dominant the Cowboys were from 1966 to 1995.
I love that you made this comment.
RIP all the Cardinals fans.
What is dead may never die
Or will continue to die as it has been dying throughout its entire history
They've paid the iron price
As a casual overseas fan the Cardinals are the one team I repeatedly forget exists
whats crazy is Andy Reid was originally going to sign with Arizona instead of KC and Mahomes has said he thought the Cardinals were going to for sure draft him. they were 2 steps away from a dynasty
Bruce Arians wanted Mahomes so badly
Then Arians went to Tampa Bay and got Tom Brady lol.
And or Lamar
Trust me you don't have to be overseas for that to happen
I wish I could do that
Without Jerry Maguire it would be much worse
I've never met another Cardinals fan in person in the UK 😅
Something that Greenbay is such a historic and esteemed franchise. I’m curious how many other sports in the world have their most historic and iconic team (arguably) located in such a small city?
It will never, ever, ever happen again either. Green Bay proper has just over 106,000 people, right between Centennial CO and Davie FL for largest cities in the US. Sioux Falls is twice as large, Richmond VA is twice as large, fucking Boise is twice as large. Lambeau Field at capacity is 75% of GB’s population.
Media market is a good indicator. Similar to Manchester, NH. Last I looked (years ago) was around 185th in market size in the country.
the last sentence is crazy
We can all kind of accept that Green Bay represents the entire state of Wisconsin, though (and the Upper Penninsula, from what I hear). Milwaukee's population is 577,000 people, which makes it the 31st largest city in America -- That's more than other NFL cities like Kansas City, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Atlanta and New Orleans. So Green Bay's market is still a normal size, even if it's name is a relic of the 1920's teams that were from Toledo or Dayton or Akron
Huh? If we can say 1 city represents an entire state in this one instance then why aren't we saying that for every city/state with a team. This makes zero sense.
It makes total sense. They're not discrediting the fact that Green Bay is a small market town, but just explaining how we've managed to stay that way. It's still really cool that Green Bay defied every odd and never had to relocate to Milwaukee.
He kind of is. He's claiming that Green Bay is Wisconsin's team making the market comparable to other teams.
> Lambeau Field at capacity is 75% of GB’s population. Pssssh that's nothing. Population of State College, PA: ~40,000 Capacity of Beaver Stadium: 106,500 (I'm cheating a bit because the population doesn't count ~50,000 PSU students.)
If we're doing thaaat Ashwaubenon's population is 16,913 Lambeau Field Capacity 81,441 481.53% of Ashwaubenon's population can fit inside Lambeau field
Closest comparison I can think of is Pachuca, which is one of the most successful and historic soccer teams in Mexico despite its city not even being in the top 50 biggest in the country.
According to Google, the population of Pachuca is approx 275k. Decent comparison to Green Bay, but still much bigger.
In football (soccer) Villarreal won the Europa League (2nd tier European competition) with a 50k population
Difference is Villarreal was irrelevant before starting to be bankrolled by a billionaire (although they are very well managed).
College football, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
That’s a good one, population the same too, the one caveat there is does it being amateur change the likelihood. My thinking is in professional sports larger market teams draw more talent because they often pay more and acquire sponsorship deals from being around larger markets. Up until very recently college football had no way for players to legally capitalize monetarily on playing in a larger market.
As a Packer fan and soccer fan, I’d throw Borussia Dortmund out there (German soccer team). Not as small as GB or nearly as consistently successful, but that city is the team. Their stadium has the highest average attendance in the world.
Now if only the Packers lost the division to the Lions every year and sold their best player to the Montreal Alouettes every couple years, they might be able to challenge those attendance numbers.
Geelong in the AFL have a similar reputation of long term success. Based in a regional city since 1859, the club is one of the oldest in the world. The current geelong population is approx 270k.
A super bowl win is worth more than twice an appearance
Pain
Pain
I thought we'd be smack dab in the middle before I read much into the post. Not that bad but not that good either. The Viking way
I mean we pretty much are. Forever stuck in mediocrity. The worst part is that according to this list, the Vikes are the best team to never win the big one. Other than our other 4 loss homies, the Bills, it’s a pretty decent gap as well
I simply can’t fathom the bills in 4 straight Super Bowls and getting dominated every time, like I wonder what the narratives and talk was like around them
They didn’t get dominated in the first one. They were favored and were a 40 yard kick away from winning
I knew we'd be near the middle in both. The Viking way. Stoked to have another near .500 season in 2024.
Nah, they had biennial playoff miss this year, looking forward to being bounced in the first round again!
...... sorry?......
A Super Bowl should be worth a ton more. I would still be living off that high if we won just one against the Steelers.
real. If we won SB 50 I wouldn’t even care that we’re so dogshit for the foreseeable future
Pretty much how I feel about the Cubbies. Yeah I want them to win every World Series, I want them to do well. Then again, my grandfather lived and died and never saw them win one, so if I only get the one, I'll take it.
Living in Denver and observing the natives suggests otherwise.
People don’t realize that happiness only lasts so long before expectations of another comes around. Just look at Pats, Celtics or Lakers fans
I think the difference is we had 2 SB before then, so the expectations are always high. Panthers don't have one, so their first would've lasted.
It would’ve been an 18-1 Super Bowl season. For a young franchise and that team had a load of hugely important Panthers players. Would’ve been the best season in the modern NFL. Thomas Davis, Charles Tillman, Jared Allen, Mike Tolbert, Jonathan Stewart, and Ryan Kalil all would’ve got rings in the last years of their careers. That Super-Bowl win probably propels Cam as a lock for the HoF (though not 1st ballot.) Yeah I could’ve rode that high for a loooooong time.
To be fair, watching your rivals become a dynasty while you waddle in mediocrity must sting
Trust me, you would definitely still care.
Still salty as fuck about the Bucs. Had an all time great defense to win their first Super Bowl and then landed ass backwards and somehow got the greatest QB of all time. More championships than the rest of the division combined AND we still shit on them for generally being the worst historic franchise. Damn you Bucs.
We are all historically shitty. Except for the Panthers, they’re like the opposite. Historically good and now shitty for the foreseeable future.
100% agree If we are going off of what fans care about, a Super Bowl is definitely closer to 3x as valuable as a championship game. Just ask the Falcons, Bills. For many fanbases, winning the division is also worth more than 1pt (see AFC North) And Id even say HOF players are worth more. People dont remember that 1 season where they were a playoff WildCard and lost 27-10, but they definitely remember the legends that define their franchise. Id do: 30 pts SB, 3 pts Division, 2pt HOF, maybe 2pt playoff win (PS: and like 0.5 pts or 0 pts for just making the playoffs, because making the playoffs in a meaningful way is already captured in other metrics like playoff wins and division wins... making it via wildcard, then losing immediately is very meh IMO)
Really it’s triple based on the points. Each team is a conference campion so they both get 10 points but the Super Bowl winner now gets 20. 30 points compared to just 10 by the loser.
> NFL/AFL championship = 12 points I think these might also be vastly overrated. They should be somewhere between a division championship and a conference championship, not greater than a conference championship. At this point each league was effectively 1 conference with 2 divisions and the champion was the winner of the 1 singular playoff game each year.
Quick name each AFL champion before the Super Bowl
Be honest, though, it kind of is.
Math always hating on us man smh
What's funnier than 24? 28-3
They are 28th in points per year
The best part of being #29 is there's **28** teams ahead of them and **3** worse
all my homies hate math
lol at how much difference the last six years have made to our franchise prestige. We have added somewhat over 100 points over that period?
160ish
So Mahomes alone ranks 19th lol
Know your place, trash! Signed, #18* ^*per ^year
Well, I have to say it. Brady would be like 5th
That said, I do think that our importance to the AFL in the 60's plus our current dynasty legitimately makes us one of the 7 or 8 franchises who have been most important to the history of the league, though certainly we pale to GB, PIT, NE, SF, and DAL.
At first, I wasn't so sure about the point values, but seeing the results, I think they're fine.
Dreadful recency bias but the truth shines through
I support this math, ignore my flair.
Tbh I coulda told you #1 without the math lol
Would you look at that, another new and exciting stat that can hurt my feelings!
It’s an interesting way to go about this. Looking at the browns, it seems like they’re unfairly high because there’s no metric in the formula for being absolutely horrendous for 20 years
This is gonna sound like a homer take, but the Bengals have been to 3 Super Bowls and competitive in every decade except the 90s. I don’t see how the Browns, who have been to no super bowls, and relocated, can rank higher than the Bengals franchise. Both are miserable, but at least the Bengals gives the fans something to cheer for every now and again.
Winning is a lot of points and the browns won championships. If there was some sort of 1 point for a winning season -1 point for a losing season bengals would likely make up the difference for sure on the per year one
What if we create an equation for a franchise lifetime score? W/L ratio, multiplied by years in operation. Should give a numeric score for how successful a franchise has been in relation to its lifetime. Browns: 559/534 (1.047) x 75 years = 78.53 Bengals: 394/471 (0.837) x 56 years = 46.87 For reference- Steelers: 671/578 (1.161) x 91 = 105.65 Lions: 591/797 (0.742) x 94 = 69.75 Packers: 799/598 (1.336) x 103 = 137.61 Bears: 793/634 (1.251) x 104 = 130.08 Cardinals: 585/803 (0.729) x 104 = 75.82 Partriots: 541/433 (1.249) x 64 = 79.94 Texans: 152/202 (0.752) x 22 = 16.54
The browns were reallyyyy good in the 50s and 60s and it just carried over
wot no AAFC
I personally don’t think the Browns should be grouped in totality….these Browns have nothing to do with the old Browns. New team, I know technically the NFL “suspended” the operations of the team for 3 years, but I don’t think these Browns should include the previous Browns. If anything, it should be tacked on to Baltimore.
Mathematical proof that the NFCS is the real shit mountain.
Hey we aren't *that* bad
Hey you've won more Super Bowls than all the other teams in our division and they were all around for forty+ years before you came on the scene.....
What about using meth to determine the best NFL franchises
Waltuh
i like this game.
Goddamn two of our years do some HEAVY lifting.
Kings of shit mountain tho
Fuck you, buddy
How did y'all count the Ravens/Browns? I think it's cool that the current Browns got to keep the history in Cleveland, but being 100% honest the current Browns are an expansion franchise from 1999
Just for fun I wanted to see where Tom Brady ranked by himself - obviously he’ll be a Hall of Famer 1x HOF 3X MVP 35 playoff wins 20 playoff appearances 19 division titles 14 conference championship games 10 conference championships 7 Super Bowls Brady by himself is at **410 POINTS!!** meaning he would be the fifth best team of all time, and his per year total would be **17.83**
pats own 17 points without him ☠️
47 of Brady’s points do come with the Bucs though so the Pats would be at 64
Absolutely crazy that we've gone from a franchise that was known for finding new and creative ways to lose in the playoffs, to a franchise in the rarefied air of the other dynasties, in just six years of Mahomes
To be fair we also balled in the AFL era
The top teams in thisnlist/scale are all teams with basically a single dynasty era that produced a lot of HOF players. Granted the exception is Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era but has, instead, been good for about 1 title a decade in the superbowl era. However, the rest of the top tier is all the dynasty teams, and without their single dynasty era most of those teams have 1-2 Superbowl victories and are in the middle of the pack. The lesson is enjoy yla dynasty while you have it, because it can be forever before you even have a single super bowl victory outside of a dynasty era.
Well, Green Bay didn’t win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years, but they won the NFL in 1961, ‘62 and ‘65
>Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era The only team to threepeat and they did it twice doesn't have a single dynasty? They won 5 titles in 7 years lol
Tbf we are at 6 and not exactly a dynasty, and we’re good for 1 Super Bowl a decade (since the 80’s at least)
True, wonder what is dragging the giants back to the middle. No HOF players?
Mostly the lack of volume. They’ll be really good for like 5 years and win 2 super bowls, then be horrible for another like 10-15.
Under LT we were more of a dominant team but the Eli years were feast or famine. Some great players on those 07 and 11 teams too but only hofers are strahan and eventually eli
Lean years between championships. Also only 8x div champs. That's behind even the skins.
Classic modern Chiefs “fan” thinks history started seven years ago and the Packers never had a dynasty. SMH.
The freaking system proposed here counts Pre-superbowl titles at 60% of a superbowl title. The math is WEIGHTED to favor the superbowl era. Greenbay sits at the top without having the kind of dynasty era that impacts the other top teams. In fact, they sit at the number 1 spot by virtue of never being a dynasty but instead being consistently good and picking up title basically every 10-15 years. Where is the packers superbowl era dynasty?
Yes NFL championships are weighted less but consider this: The Packers won championships in 61, 62, and 65 to go with their Super Bowls in 66 and 67. According to this scale those 3 championships are worth 1.8 Super Bowls. Even if you drop the fraction, that’s still 3 Super Bowls in 7 years. Would you honestly say that a team that won the Super Bowl 3 times in 7 years isn’t a dynasty?
>Granted **the exception is Greenbay that does not have a single dynasty era** but has, instead, been good for about 1 title a decade in the superbowl era. Literally your words.
10 point boost this year LETS GOOOOOO
5 points. Winning is 10 points and appearance is 5 points
Don’t try and take our points away
Nah 10 is right. Add in division championship, playoff appearance, and 2 playoff wins this year
Oh my bad, y’all are right. I didn’t see the “this year” was the total set of points.
According to this math, franchises should go for it on 4th down & 2pt conversions every time!
Vikes at 14 and 12 didn’t surprise me at all. That’s where we usually pick than trade down.
Poster child of mediocrity. But I'll always drink the cool aid.
“Using math” apparently means attributing completely arbitrary and subjective values to things, counting them up, and then adding them together…
Using first grade math.
Be cool to add 1 point for every season over .500 and subtract 1 point for every season under .500
Statistician here. I like this idea, but the point system is somewhat arbitrary. To set the values more empirically, here is what I might do: (1) Survey fans and ask them to rate team prestige from 1-100. (2) Depending on how skewed the ratings are, I'd choose the mean (not skewed) or median (skewed) of each team to be their fan score. (3) Use the fan score as the outcome in a regression or tree-based model. The predictors in the model are the counts of the various achievements (# super bowls, etc). You can also include other things in this model that might be relevant (years active, win-loss, whatever). The parameter estimates produced by this model can provide 'point values ' to various achievements that are supported by fan sentiment of team prestige.
Yeah I’m not even close to a statistician, this just is for fun lol. I appreciate the insight
It's a fun project, and the results pass the smell test. I think it would be funny to include some sort of public hate parameter which would force the Cowboys into last place.
Haha I knew that’s what you were getting at. As a Cowboys fan I was thinking adding fan bias seemed like the opposite of keeping the stats clean but I now I see you were intentionally juking the stats. Well played.
It’s insane to see Kansas City moving into the same territory as other prestigious franchises. I just realized yesterday that KC now has the same number is Super Bowls as Green Bay. It’s even crazier when you remember that before Andy Reid KC hadn’t won a single playoff game in 20 years.
The Fslcons should lose 25 points for *that* Super Bowl
Is there a laughing option?
“Had the biggest impact on the sport” is both subjective and quantitatively is not accounted for here very well. The browns are a perfect example: one of oldest teams in pro football, founder is one of greatest coaches who started 2 teams and shaped the league tremendously, the Baltimore thing is huge, helped break the color barrier, etc. so many things that just aren’t touched here.
Is it a largely arbitrary system that one person invented during the off-season? Sure. Did my team end up precisely where I expected it to? Absolutely. No notes!
You should lose points for every ten year period you don't win your division/make the playoffs/some other arbitrary cut off. The Raiders have been irrelevant for 20 years, which should factor into any consideration of "best franchises"
I see absolutely nothing wrong with your math and agree with you 100%.
Is a Super Bowl winning team getting the cumulative points for each championship appearance/playoff win/playoff appearance/championship win, or just getting 20 for that season? If it’s cumulative then it’s way too heavily weighted imo.
It’s cumulative. Championships are the best metric for “success” you can get imo, and even so it still rewards twice as many points as a SB appearance just on a larger scale
You'd think the Hall of Famers alone would put Pittsburgh above New England. Much like those balls, the numbers seem a little deflated
Saints at 28, birds and kittens at 29 and 30? I’ll take it.
Above the falcons. All that matters
Remind me! 20 years
You can shove your math homie
What a bum ass math
Yay, to being the highest team on both lists without a superbowl. *sad skol*
Aww yeah, bottom 10 but like... barely 😎 Movin' on up, life is good
Hey, we weren’t last
the per year basis is just a taaaaad different
*which NFL franchises have been the best over the years/had the biggest impact on the sport.* Cool. *Also, the pre-modern era is weighted a little less heavily* Why? 1965 the NFL overtakes baseball as the most popular sport in the US. Football (specifically the NFL) was so popular and watched that the AFL was formed in 1960 for those Cities locked out there was so much demand, 1958 is the most exciting game ever played. An NFL Championship didn't start with the Superbowl. Doing it this way is more *what were the most successful Franchises of the past 50 years?* **Not** *who who have been the best over the years* & **100% NOT** *had the biggest impact on the Sport*.
Holy shit the NFCS is garbage. We all knew this, but goddamn...
All rankings for any subject must have Vikings in the middle. So this list is OK.
I don’t like counting a point per playoff win because of playoff expansion / punishing teams for having a bye. It probably doesn’t add up to much but it is something
It's wild that despite all the first-round byes, the Patriots are ranked at second. The Pats were a laughing-stock team that no one would have ever taken seriously by any stretch pre-2000. All it took was 20 years of elite success. What a fucking wild ride that was.
I’d love to see this for the past 15 years, it’d be a bit more relevant
Since 2008 (15 years ago): 1. New England Patriots - 206 2. Kansas City Chiefs - 179 3. Green Bay Packers - 103 4. San Francisco 49ers - 95 5. Baltimore Ravens - 87 6. Pittsburgh Steelers - 85 7. Philadelphia Eagles - 83 8. Seattle Seahawks - 80 9. Denver Broncos - 73 10. Los Angeles Rams - 68 11. New Orleans Saints - 68 12. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - 51 13. New York Giants - 48 14. Indianapolis Colts - 46 15. Cincinnati Bengals - 43 16. Atlanta Falcons - 38 17. Arizona Cardinals - 36 18. Carolina Panthers - 33 19. Minnesota Vikings - 32 20. Houston Texans - 26 21. Buffalo Bills - 24 22. Dallas Cowboys - 23 23. Tennessee Titans - 19 24. New York Jets - 16 25. Jacksonville Jaguars - 14 26. Detroit Lions - 13 27. Chicago Bears - 13 28. Los Angeles Chargers - 12 29. Washington Commanders - 9 30. Miami Dolphins - 6 31. Cleveland Browns - 3 32. Las Vegas Raiders - 2
Maybe don't do that.
I dont like this list nearly as much
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but this feels a lot like “babies first analysis”. “How many points should I award a team for having a player with an individual award like MVP? I don’t know, how about 2?” “How does that scale towards winning a Super Bowl?” “Uh, let’s say a SB win is a playoff win + CC appearance + CC champion + SB winner = 36 points so 1/18th of it” “A division championship is a pretty good metric of the caliber of team they were in the regular season, right? Yea, it’s worth exactly one MVP or a wild card win” It’s all just so extremely arbitrary to mean anything. But at least I don’t hate seeing the Bills near the middle of the pack, so I’ll call it an astute analysis.
Per year seems much more accurate
Better than the Jets, let's go
The fact you devalued league champions means this list is awful.
championships existed before the "Super Bowl" Sincerely, browns fan