The Ultimate NFL Franchise Ranking

[NWPATSFAN]

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.

If you throw enough balls up in the air you're bound to catch one sooner or later. Besides it sells stories.

 

[cdumler7]

If you throw enough balls up in the air you're bound to catch one sooner or later. Besides it sells stories.

It is true. I'm sure the website encourages some of that from him.

 

[Broncos6482]

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;

View attachment 105056 You're soooooo easy !!!!

This is how I picture you.

 

[packerzrule]

Kinda figured the Cowboys would be ranked so high. They play in the historically best division and are truly Americas Team.

 

[Oldschool739]

This is how I picture you.

Now is that using your scientific formula, because either way yours comes out the same...

add 5 points just to be sure...,Easy !

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@Broncos6482

I commend you for creating a formula... And I am sure it is good enough, but it is not a perfect formula... far from it...

The biggest problems I see, you only take into account seasons played in the how many winning vs losing seasons category... AND you don't take into account enough regular season...


This is what I would do to change it,

( 16X(Career win%) + # of winning seasons + # of playoffs + 5 X # of Superbowl appearances + 5 X Superbowl wins)/ seasons played

It really is the exact same formula you have, except I am including Career win% and all should be divided by seasons played not just the # of win seasons...

 

[Broncos6482]

Now is that using your scientific formula, because either way yours comes out the same...

add 5 points just to be sure...,Easy !

I don't remember crying much on this day.

 

[Oldschool739]

I don't remember crying much on this day.

View attachment 105109

Oh no, that's the qb that you said, SuuHuuHuucked !!!! while sobbing like a 3 yr old...
Sooo Easy

 

[Broncos6482]

Oh no, that's the qb that you said, SuuHuuHuucked !!!! while sobbing like a 3 yr old...
View attachment 105115 Sooo Easy

He did suck. And yet he still won the Super Bowl.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@Broncos6482

I commend you for creating a formula... And I am sure it is good enough, but it is not a perfect formula... far from it...

The biggest problems I see, you only take into account seasons played in the how many winning vs losing seasons category... AND you don't take into account enough regular season...


This is what I would do to change it,

( 16X(Career win%) + # of winning seasons + # of playoffs + 5 X # of Superbowl appearances + 5 X Superbowl wins)/ seasons played

It really is the exact same formula you have, except I am including Career win% and all should be divided by seasons played not just the # of win seasons...

I already disagree with this post. That's the real problem. Very difficult to create a perfect formula.

 

[Oldschool739]

He did suck. And yet he still won the Super Bowl.

View attachment 105119

Wow dude, you dance like you debate, pitiful baaaaaaaaaaaad !!!!

You go Bwoy !!!!

 

[Rockinkuwait]

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.

My bad on the SB wins, was using an outdated source...

I can see that, but SF had more playoff years, more playoff success, the overall wins are exactly equal between the two teams (denver has 7 more reg season wins, SF has 7 more playoff wins)

I get that Denver has 4 more .500 seasons which is the big reason for the discrepancy in losing seasons, but not sure a handful more 8-8 seasons vs. 7 or fewer win ones are enough of a reason for me to swing that vote.

Denver has 5 fewer losing seasons, but SF has 6 more times they made it past the wild card round, and made it to the conf championship 5 more times. To me, 8-8 vs. a 6-10 season should carry a lot less weight than getting deeper in the post-season. Just my thoughts though, I understand your formula, and its a minor thing there, but just personally I would disagree there.

Another fun thing you could do with it, and it would be quite time consuming and all, and probably not change much is put in a multiplier for the years. IE grade playoff appearances by the toughness. AKA 1966 2 teams in the NFL made the post-season out of 15 teams, where as today, 12 do out of 32. So the chance of a post-season spot went from 13% then to 37.5% today. So a playoff spot was about 3 times harder to earn in that era. Probably would be more work than it is worth as they expanded their divisions pretty quickly, but just a fun thought.

 

[WizardHawk]

 

[WizardHawk]

Should be able to edit, modify, another sheet, etc

 

[NinerSickness]

Second place is just as bad as 32nd place.

The Steelers, unfortunately, are the kings of the NFL with the 49ers & Cowboys behind them. Gotta give credit where credit's due.

Tied for 4th: GB, NYG, *NE

 

[MilkSpiller22]

not sure if this has been talked about yet, but what complicates this even more is that the first SB was 1967, football started in the 1920s...

Even the terrible lions had 4 championships...

 

[WizardHawk]

The truly elite of the elite, the top 5 NFL franchises!

5. San Francisco 49ers - BS 95

5 Super Bowl wins, 1 Super Bowl loss, 27 winning seasons, 24 trips to the playoffs. The only thing holding the 49ers back is 19 losing seasons, which is the highest of the top 5.

4. Denver Broncos - BS 105

Despite losing the most Super Bowls all time (5), the Broncos still have 3 Super Bowl wins to brag about. Add to that 28 winning seasons, 22 trips to the playoffs, and only 14 losing seasons, and it's easy to see why the Broncos rank as high as they did.

3. New England Patriots - BS 118

The Patriots can thank Tom Brady and Bill Belichick for ranking in the top 3. Those two combined for 6 of the Patriots 8 Super Bowl appearances, as well as all 4 wins. They've also helped the Patriots accumulate 34 winning seasons (tied for the most) and 22 trips to the playoffs. Amazingly, none of the Patriots 16 losing seasons can be attributed to them.

2. Dallas Cowboys - BS 122

5 Super Bowl wins and 3 losses for the Cowboys. Like the Patriots, they have 34 winning seasons and just 12 losing seasons (the fewest of any team). They've also made the playoffs 31 times, the most ever. A truly great franchise.

1. Pittsburgh Steelers - BS 138

Appropriately, the team with the most Super Bowl wins is easily the highest scoring BS team. The Steelers have an impressive 6 wins against just 2 losses in the Super Bowl. They've accumulated 33 winning seasons and 28 trips to the playoffs. Only 13 losing seasons mar this franchise's stellar resume.

Something isn't right with your numbers on the Cowboys.

If you look at the table I made in this post -
The Ultimate NFL Franchise Ranking

You will see that 34 winning seasons, 12 losing, in 50 years, and 31 trips to the playoffs, with 3 SB losses, and 5 wins adds up to 140 using your formula, not 122. Either your math on this team was wrong, or one of those numbers was copied wrong into your post.

Every other team came out exactly right so I'm pretty sure something is fishy here.

If your numbers were correct, then the Cowboys actually win your Brian's Score table, not the Steelers.

 

[Dude]

This is truly good work. Kudos to the OP man, that is a magnificent formula, just needs a little ironing out and tweaking for all fans to understand. I would include a ponderation factor. Bravo, yes indeed. Bravo man!

 

[Dude]

oh no man, some native has been beating on a cocunut for like 15 minutes, sounds like a cowbell man

 

[Rockinkuwait]

not sure if this has been talked about yet, but what complicates this even more is that the first SB was 1967, football started in the 1920s...

Even the terrible lions had 4 championships...

Right but he was going with the SB era...

And it is tough to decide if you give a championship the same weight. Sure they were the best team in the league, but take the 1935 championship Lions. They won 1 playoff game (the championship game) and were the best in a 9 team league. Is that better than for example, Carolina winning the NFC championship by winning multiple playoffs to win a 16 team conference? They made the post-season in the last game of the year by beating the Brooklyn Dodgers.. How legit was that win?

Or the Akron Pro's championship year. How tough were the Stogies, Panhandles, Celts, Tigers, Bulldogs, Triangles, Staleys, and All Americans? And is not playing a playoff easier or tougher? 07 Pats would have a championship if there were no playoffs.

I'm not saying it was a weaker championship or it wasn't, just raising a few questions.