The Ultimate NFL Franchise Ranking

[Broncosr0k]

I'm trying to, but I'm seriously struggling with his math.

In his OP with the first example of 19 winning seasons and 21 losing seasons he subtracts 21 from 19 and divides that by the number of seasons (50) and comes up with -4? 19-21 = -2. How do you divide that by 50 and come up with -4?

If someone can actually explain what the formula is, I'd be happy to put it on a google sheet and embed it for people to play with and add/modify.

Maybe it's just been too long of a day, but that OP had me

Appears to be a correction factor. 2/50 = 0.04. Multiply it by 100 and you get 4. If you left it as a decimal the regular season would be nearly meaningless. The best a team could do would be 1 point (number of winning seasons = number of total seasons). Again, maybe somethign worth tweaking.

 

[PatsFan2003]

Just focusing on the SB era does help clear things up and pushes teams like Chicago, Cleveland and even Green Bay down the list.

The best franchises of the Superbowl era are still the usual ones with the top tier teams being Pittsburgh, Dallas and San Francisco in some order. They have had a lot of SB wins, have dominated the league for long stretches and have generally had even good teams for long periods.

And then the next group are teams that have had shorter bursts imo of greatness but still greatness. Teams like Denver, the Giant's, Green Bay and yes the Patriots. (They've actually been really strong for the last 10-15 years but also had long stretches of putridness as well)

And then the newbies like Seattle and Raven's who've done well on occasion but only recently or very short bursts.

 

[Broncos6482]

I'm trying to, but I'm seriously struggling with his math.

In his OP with the first example of 19 winning seasons and 21 losing seasons he subtracts 21 from 19 and divides that by the number of seasons (50) and comes up with -4? 19-21 = -2. How do you divide that by 50 and come up with -4?

If someone can actually explain what the formula is, I'd be happy to put it on a google sheet and embed it for people to play with and add/modify.

Maybe it's just been too long of a day, but that OP had me

I probably didn't explain that well enough. As a way to not overly penalize teams that haven't been around as long, I was trying to come up with a way to make a percentage of winning seasons into a number. So for the Jets, take their 19 winning seasons, subtract 21 losing seasons, and you get -2. Divide that by 50 and you get -0.04, which essentially is their percentage of winning seasons minus losing seasons over their history. So you move the decimal over two places to the right and you get a base score of -4.

I did that for all the teams. Here's a couple of more examples.

Saints - 12 winning seasons minus 30 losing seasons equals -18. -18 divided by 50 equals -0.36, which I made a base score of -36.

Packers - 27 winning seasons minus 18 losing seasons equals 9. 9 divided by 50 equals 0.18, which I made a base score of 18.

I hope that makes sense. I know it's a little convoluted, so if you can simplify it at all go for it.

 

[Broncos6482]

Appears to be a correction factor. 2/50 = 0.04. Multiply it by 100 and you get 4. If you left it as a decimal the regular season would be nearly meaningless. The best a team could do would be 1 point (number of winning seasons = number of total seasons). Again, maybe somethign worth tweaking.

Yep that's it exactly.

 

[Broncos6482]

So how many points for winning an NFL championship before it was named the Superbowl?

None because I only considered the Super Bowl era.

 

[Broncos6482]

Perhaps putting a value on where you exit in the playoffs would work? Say, 1 point for losing in the WC round, 2 points for losing in the DIV round, etc. Or put value simply on playoff wins, then thevalue of a trip to the Super Bowl would take care of itself since you'd have to win at least 2 playoff games to get there.

That's definitely something that's worth considering and would probably be a great idea. Actually adding value to playoff wins would probably do it, but that was something I didn't really have time to go that in depth.

 

[Broncos6482]

That is one I would agree with.

7 regular season wins separates them in the regular season of the SB era for Denver.

SF has 7 more post-season wins (3rd best playoff record vs. 11th best for Denver).

SF has 1 fewer SB appearance but 3 more SB wins.

Tough to put Denver ahead.

San Francisco has 2 more SB wins than Denver, not 3. And they've been 2 fewer times, not 1. What knocked them below Denver was their 19 losing seasons compared to just 14 for Denver.

 

[Broncos6482]

When coming up with my formula, I specifically tried to avoid a ranking that would come out as most Super Bowls = higher rankings. I wanted to put emphasis on winning the Super Bowl, because that ultimately is the goal, but I wanted to reward winning consistently as well. That's why a team like the Vikings, who haven't won a Super Bowl, did so well. They've had 16 more winning seasons than losing seasons, which was one of the highest ratios of winning seasons to losing seasons.

Some of you might disagree and think that winning a Super Bowl trumps all, and maybe I did nerf the Super Bowl winners a little too much. Maybe winning the Super Bowl should have been worth 15 or 20 points instead of 10. Or maybe as someone else said, assign points for playoff wins (1 point for a bye or wild card win, 2 points for a divisional win, 3 points for a conference championship win, 5 points for a Super Bowl win, or something like that).

Ultimately I doubt we'll ever find something that everyone agrees on, but I did think as a first shot this turned out pretty well, and I've tried to be as transparent as possible about my process so everyone could come up with tweaks and adjustments that might make it even better.

So by all means, if you have an idea that you think might make the rankings a little better, by all means go for it! Even if you think my ranking and formula is total garbage and you want to come up with your own, do that too. It's a fun debate to have in a pretty slow part of the season.

 

[Oldschool739]

I thought you were the one Ravens fan that wouldn't go full troll on this board. Used to enjoy our conversations. Sad day for sure. Another one bites the dust.

Grow up man and quit whining.....This is a general sports forum and you aren't going to have everyone agree with you.....It's called banter, not trolling, that's a cop out when sensitive fans get punked....
I like talking to almost everyone on here, and you are the only one I can recall waving the white flag of troll at me..
Whatever helps you sleep at nite....3 in 50 !!

 

[Oldschool739]

That is one I would agree with.

7 regular season wins separates them in the regular season of the SB era for Denver.

SF has 7 more post-season wins (3rd best playoff record vs. 11th best for Denver).

SF has 1 fewer SB appearance but 3 more SB wins.

Tough to put Denver ahead.

Not if you are a Denver fan and the creator of the formula !!!

 

[Oldschool739]

Funny... I think the same of ravens fans. Are there any intelligent raven fans or are you all on the Tgann learning system?

Any ranking system has subjectivity which is why they are popular topics on the interwebs. You can make an argument that suits your team. And then you get the requisite dumbass (Oldschool) who are so offended by it. Like you just kicked them in the ovaries.

 

[Broncos6482]

You assume wrong like most of your opinions are....But the Broncos wouldn't get a 15-20 point advantage in the already bias rankings.....NE has 4 SB wins and piles of playoff wins so they are the ones everyone is chasing....Just face it man, the Broncos are not great...No matter how many formulas you come up with....
And remember your last SB doesn't count to you because as you and cd pronounced, your qb suuhuuucked !!!

 

[Oldschool739]

View attachment 104994

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Well they have broken a lot of hearts. Do you read the site Arrowhead Addict at all? It is one of my favorites as they have a couple of writers that every off season it seems like the Chiefs are the greatest team the NFL has ever seen. I mean one of them the other day wrote an article about how losing Justin Houston isn't a big deal at all.

Sounds like those writers could have jobs in Seattle and Denver as well

 

[Broncos6482]

View attachment 104996

 

[Broncosr0k]

Sounds like those writers could have jobs in Seattle and Denver as well

Hey...broncos won the SB so it means bronco fans get to be insufferable jackasses for the year. It is a honored tradition at the Hoop.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Hey...broncos won the SB so it means bronco fans get to be insufferable jackasses for the year. It is a honored tradition at the Hoop.

One question. When did they ever stop?

But yes when your team wins the big game you're given a little extra leeway

 

[WizardHawk]

I probably didn't explain that well enough. As a way to not overly penalize teams that haven't been around as long, I was trying to come up with a way to make a percentage of winning seasons into a number. So for the Jets, take their 19 winning seasons, subtract 21 losing seasons, and you get -2. Divide that by 50 and you get -0.04, which essentially is their percentage of winning seasons minus losing seasons over their history. So you move the decimal over two places to the right and you get a base score of -4.

I did that for all the teams. Here's a couple of more examples.

Saints - 12 winning seasons minus 30 losing seasons equals -18. -18 divided by 50 equals -0.36, which I made a base score of -36.

Packers - 27 winning seasons minus 18 losing seasons equals 9. 9 divided by 50 equals 0.18, which I made a base score of 18.

I hope that makes sense. I know it's a little convoluted, so if you can simplify it at all go for it.

Nope, that's what I was wondering. So just add *100 to the formula and it works. I really don't need to understand why you are doing it, just how you did it. I can embed a google sheets doc that anyone on a PC can play with. I know the embedding is wonky on some phone/tablet browsers.

I'm on a job site today so I'll look into it later tonight.

 

[Oldschool739]

View attachment 105000

Now if you take that opinion and divide by 3, then ad 5 points for nothing and multiply that by -4 you will come up with;

You're soooooo easy !!!!

 

[cdumler7]

Sounds like those writers could have jobs in Seattle and Denver as well

Well you have a good point there. No I am referring to one certain writer for the Chiefs. He writes probably more articles about the Broncos than he actually does about the Chiefs. Pretty much every one of them is a smear campaign against the Broncos. He actually wrote one last year before the season started about how the Broncos were going to fall apart in 2015 and would be lucky to be .500 for the season. Now obviously writers are wrong all the time but he seems to write that same type of thing over and over again. Like I said he seems more satisfied when the Broncos lose than when the Chiefs win.