What Does It Mean To Be Seeded #1 or #2 & An Interesting Twist on SOS

[Bemular]

As we get ready for the playoffs, here are some interesting factoids I wanted to share with the board:


In the 42 Super Bowls (involving 84 teams) since the merger in 1970 and using today's tie-breaker method:

66 teams (78.6%) were seeded either #1 or #2

45 teams (53.6%) were seeded #1 (23 NFC & 22 AFC).
21 teams (25.0%) were seeded #2 (10 NFC & 11 AFC)


Only 18 teams seeded #3 or lower have ever played in the Super Bowl.

6 teams (7.1%) were seeded #3 (4 NFC & 2 AFC)
8 teams (9.5%) were seeded #4 (3 NFC & 5 AFC)
2 teams (2.4%) were seeded #5 (1 NFC & 1 AFC)
2 teams (2.4%) were seeded #6 (2 NFC & 0 AFC)


Since 1970 only 8 of the 42 Super Bowls have been played without at least one #1 seeded team! In fact, NEVER in the history of the Super Bowl has at least one of the two teams playing NOT been seeded either #1 or #2!*

So, what does it mean to be either the #1 or a #2 seed heading into the playoffs? Well, if the above trend is to continue then at least one of the following four teams is guaranteed to be in the 2012 Super Bowl!

49ers
Broncos
Falcons
Patriots

So what seeds are playing what seeds? Since 1970:

#1 vs #1..........11 times
#1 vs #2..........12 times
#1 vs #3............4 times
#1 vs #4............4 times
#1 vs #5............2 times
#1 vs #6............1 time
#2 vs #2............1 time
#2 vs #3............2 times
#2 vs #4............4 times
#2 vs #5............0 times
#2 vs #6............1 time



And now, in a related factoid kind of way:

I know ESPN provides SOS measurements for all teams, however, their method of involves taking the final record of each team on the schedule and dividing total wins by the total games (256).

The measurement below uses a similar but more accurate method of taking the record of each team on the schedule, not at the end of the season but rather at the point during the season when the two teams played.

This method of measuring SOS allows for variances, such as players returning from injury, or from suspension, or, players leaving because of injuries or throw-away games. In short, this method more accurately captures the ebbs & flows of the teams throughout the season.

Some of these remain close to what ESPN publishes while others are vastly different.

NFC
Minnesota.........0.604
San Francisco....0.546
Washington.......0.508
Seattle.............0.508
Green Bay.........0.492
Atlanta.............0.433

AFC
Houston...........0.550
Baltimore..........0.525
New England.....0.517
Indianapolis......0.450
Cincinnati.........0.425
Denver.............0.383


Just for the sake of offering some contrast, here are the same #'s from last years playoff teams & their results:

NFC
Lions..........0.567 - Lost WC Round
Giants........0.558 - Won Super Bowl
49ers.........0.483 - Lost NFC-CC
Packers......0.475 - Lost Divisional Round
Falcons......0.467 - Lost WC Round
Saints........0.458 - Lost Divisional Round

AFC
Bengals......0.533 - Lost WC Round
Broncos......0.500 - Lost Divisional Round
Steelers......0.458 - Lost WC Round
Patriots......0.442 - Lost Super Bowl
Ravens.......0.433 - Lost AFC-CC
Texans.......0.425 - Lost Divisional Round


*The 49ers won 4 SB's as the #1 Seeded NFC team (SB's XVI, XIX, XXIV, XXIX) & 1 SB as the #2 Seed (SB XXIII).

Additional Note:

All four of Joe Montana's SB victories were over the #1 seeded AFC team in the playoffs that year. Joe Montana was one bad dude and he was without equal!

 

[imac_21]

Just curious, before we label a population a trend, how has it gone in the last decade or so? I think I read something earlier this week saying that in the last x (4 maybe?) Super Bowls, at least one team had played in the WC round.

I also feel like since the Ravens win (or there about) lower seeds have been more successful than they were for the first 30 or so Super Bowls.

Off to PFR to do some research. . .

 

[clyde_carbon]

Just curious, before we label a population a trend, how has it gone in the last decade or so? I think I read something earlier this week saying that in the last x (4 maybe?) Super Bowls, at least one team had played in the WC round.

I also feel like since the Ravens win (or there about) lower seeds have been more successful than they were for the first 30 or so Super Bowls.

Off to PFR to do some research. . .

You're right. Lately lower seeds have been more successful winning the SB than #1 seed.

 

[Bemular]

Just curious, before we label a population a trend, how has it gone in the last decade or so? I think I read something earlier this week saying that in the last x (4 maybe?) Super Bowls, at least one team had played in the WC round.

I also feel like since the Ravens win (or there about) lower seeds have been more successful than they were for the first 30 or so Super Bowls.

Off to PFR to do some research. . .

I have every SB back to '66, but since 2000, the seeds have been as follows:

2000 - #4 seed Ravens........beat #1 seed Giants
2001 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Rams
2002 - #1 seed Buccaneers..beat #1 seed Raiders
2003 - #1 seed Patriots.......beat #3 seed Panthers
2004 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Eagles
2005 - #6 seed Steelers.......beat #1 seed Seahawks
2006 - #3 seed Colts...........beat #1 seed Bears
2007 - #5 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots
2008 - #2 seed Steelers.......beat #4 seed Cardinals
2009 - #1 seed Saints..........beat #1 seed Colts
2010 - #6 seed Packers........beat #2 seed Steelers
2011 - #4 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots

So it looks like 4 of the past 5 and 8 of the past 12 SB's have included at least one WC team.

I'm not sure what you meant about the Ravens comment?

 

[imac_21]

So I've gone back to Y2K (Ravens Super Bowl win). I also condensed this considerably from the original draft

2000 Ravens (5) def NYG (1)
2001 NE (2) def StL (1)

2002 TB (2) def Oak (1)

2003 NE (1) def Carolina (3)

2004 NE (2) def Philly (1)

2005 Pitt (3) def Seattle (1)

2006 Indy (3) def Chicago (1) Chicago was the only NFC team with more than 10 wins

2007 NYG (5) def NE (1)

2008 Pitt (2) def Az (4)

2009 NO (1) def Indy (1)

2010 GB (6) def Pitt (2)

2011 NYG (4) def NE (1)

One thing that I was reminded of while doing this is that the seed is not neccessarily reflective of the team from the 3 through 6 seeds. For example, last year the Giants were the 4th seed, but had the worst record of NFC teams to qualify. The year before the Seahawks were the the 4 seed, but the worst team to ever qualify (at 7-9).

There are a few examples of a wild card that ends up being the 5 seed that had the second or 3rd best record in the conference. For example, in 2010 Baltimore was a 5 seed, Pitt a 2 seed. Both were 12-4, but Pitt won the divisional tie-breaker, relegating Baltimore to a WC and 5 seed. I think this is an important thing to consider when evaluating the success of WC teams. Often times the WC teams are better teams than division winners playing in the first round (at least record wise, as seen with Seattle/Washington and Indy/Baltimore this year).

 

[imac_21]

I have every SB back to '66, but since 2000, the seeds have been as follows:

2000 - #4 seed Ravens........beat #1 seed Giants
2001 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Rams
2002 - #1 seed Buccaneers..beat #1 seed Raiders
2003 - #1 seed Patriots.......beat #3 seed Panthers
2004 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Eagles
2005 - #6 seed Steelers.......beat #1 seed Seahawks
2006 - #3 seed Colts...........beat #1 seed Bears
2007 - #5 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots
2008 - #2 seed Steelers.......beat #4 seed Cardinals
2009 - #1 seed Saints..........beat #1 seed Colts
2010 - #6 seed Packers........beat #2 seed Steelers
2011 - #4 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots

So it looks like 4 of the past 5 and 8 of the past 12 SB's have included at least one WC team.

I'm not sure what you meant about the Ravens comment?

Ravens were a 5 seed. Pitt was the 1, NE the 2, Oak the 3 as div winners, Miami was the 4 with a better record than Baltimore in the WC.

Using PFR Pitt was the 3 seed when they beat Seattle, not the 6.

The Ravens comment was just saying it was around that time that I started to notice talk about the success of the lower seeds. It's also when the internet started to revolutionize the way people watch sports, so it's possible I was simply exposed to more media regarding football.

 

[Bemular]

So I've gone back to Y2K (Ravens Super Bowl win). I also condensed this considerably from the original draft

2000 Ravens (5) def NYG (1)
2001 NE (2) def StL (1)

2002 TB (2) def Oak (1)

2003 NE (1) def Carolina (3)

2004 NE (2) def Philly (1)

2005 Pitt (3) def Seattle (1)

2006 Indy (3) def Chicago (1) Chicago was the only NFC team with more than 10 wins

2007 NYG (5) def NE (1)

2008 Pitt (2) def Az (4)

2009 NO (1) def Indy (1)

2010 GB (6) def Pitt (2)

2011 NYG (4) def NE (1)

One thing that I was reminded of while doing this is that the seed is not neccessarily reflective of the team from the 3 through 6 seeds. For example, last year the Giants were the 4th seed, but had the worst record of NFC teams to qualify. The year before the Seahawks were the the 4 seed, but the worst team to ever qualify (at 7-9).

There are a few examples of a wild card that ends up being the 5 seed that had the second or 3rd best record in the conference. For example, in 2010 Baltimore was a 5 seed, Pitt a 2 seed. Both were 12-4, but Pitt won the divisional tie-breaker, relegating Baltimore to a WC and 5 seed. I think this is an important thing to consider when evaluating the success of WC teams. Often times the WC teams are better teams than division winners playing in the first round (at least record wise, as seen with Seattle/Washington and Indy/Baltimore this year).

Could not agree more. I think where the disparity comes into play with so many 1's & 2's making it to the dance is the bye & the HFA that comes from the seeding as opposed to the records.

Back in the day (70's?) HFA, if you can believe this, was on a rotation basis regardless of records and seeding.

 

[Bemular]

Ravens were a 5 seed. Pitt was the 1, NE the 2, Oak the 3 as div winners, Miami was the 4 with a better record than Baltimore in the WC.

Using PFR Pitt was the 3 seed when they beat Seattle, not the 6.

The Ravens comment was just saying it was around that time that I started to notice talk about the success of the lower seeds. It's also when the internet started to revolutionize the way people watch sports, so it's possible I was simply exposed to more media regarding football.

Yeah, my Ravens was a typo - that's mine. The '05 Steelers however, were the 6th seed. The Bengals won the tie-breaker at the divisional level (5-1 vs 4-2) pushing the Steelers behind the Jags - If PFR has it otherwise I'll have them correct it.

 

[MHSL82]

First-round bye, home-field advantage have not been all that advantageous recently in NFL playoffs - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com

 

[imac_21]

Yeah, my Ravens was a typo - that's mine. The '05 Steelers however, were the 6th seed. The Bengals won the tie-breaker at the divisional level (5-1 vs 4-2) pushing the Steelers behind the Jags - If PFR has it otherwise I'll have them correct it.

PFR does suggest otherwise. They have the Steelers at the top of the division, but nothing other than that to indicate who won (no asterisk or anything for division winners).

 

[Bemular]

PFR does suggest otherwise. They have the Steelers at the top of the division, but nothing other than that to indicate who won (no asterisk or anything for division winners).

Thanks, I'll look into it. It should show the Bengals atop the division.

 

[Bemular]

PFR does suggest otherwise. They have the Steelers at the top of the division, but nothing other than that to indicate who won (no asterisk or anything for division winners).

Hey, I just checked the Panthers/Buccaneers, same year and they have that wrong as well - Bucs won the South on the divisional tie-breaker (5-1 vs 4-2) yet they show the Panthers atop the Division. So, word to wise I guess, proceed with caution.

 

[Bemular]

PFR does suggest otherwise. They have the Steelers at the top of the division, but nothing other than that to indicate who won (no asterisk or anything for division winners).

Final hey on this - They also have the Browns/Ravens wrong as well (same year). Clearly tie-breakers are a weakness of theirs.

 

[Bemular]

Ravens were a 5 seed. Pitt was the 1, NE the 2, Oak the 3 as div winners, Miami was the 4 with a better record than Baltimore in the WC.

Using PFR Pitt was the 3 seed when they beat Seattle, not the 6.

The Ravens comment was just saying it was around that time that I started to notice talk about the success of the lower seeds. It's also when the internet started to revolutionize the way people watch sports, so it's possible I was simply exposed to more media regarding football.

Imac, I did have the 2000 Ravens correct as the 4th seed.

#1 Titans....13-3 - Div Winner
#2 Raiders...12-4 - Div Winner
#3 Dolphins..11-5 - Div Winner
#4 Ravens...12-4
#5 Broncos..11-5
#6 Colts......10-6

The Patriots in 2000 were 5-11, so I'm thinking we may be talking two different years.

 

[Jikkle]

My opinion on why the #1 seed struggles lately is because they typically don't have a particularly strong schedule which enables them to get that record to get the #1 seed.

It's better to be battle tested and lose a few along away then win all the time and not get exposed.

A loss in the NFL means you either aren't a talented team or you're a talented team that go their weaknesses exposed. So eating some losses along the way enable you look at what went wrong and go about fixing it and making adjustments. Compared to winning most of the season when you start to have the mentality of the formula is working so no need to mess with it and when you do finally get to the playoffs you're caught off guard when a team has exposed you.

Like us losing big to the Seahawks a couple weeks ago for example. If we do wind up playing them again in the playoffs you better believe Harbaugh and staff is going to be pouring over the tape to find out where they got exposed and how they can make sure it doesn't happened again.

On the flip side playing the Packers can hurt us because they are going to look and see what was successful, how we attacked them, and make adjustments counter it.

 

[CalamityX11]

I have every SB back to '66, but since 2000, the seeds have been as follows:

2000 - #4 seed Ravens........beat #1 seed Giants
2001 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Rams
2002 - #1 seed Buccaneers..beat #1 seed Raiders
2003 - #1 seed Patriots.......beat #3 seed Panthers
2004 - #2 seed Patriots.......beat #1 seed Eagles
2005 - #6 seed Steelers.......beat #1 seed Seahawks
2006 - #3 seed Colts...........beat #1 seed Bears
2007 - #5 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots
2008 - #2 seed Steelers.......beat #4 seed Cardinals
2009 - #1 seed Saints..........beat #1 seed Colts
2010 - #6 seed Packers........beat #2 seed Steelers
2011 - #4 seed Giants..........beat #1 seed Patriots

So it looks like 4 of the past 5 and 8 of the past 12 SB's have included at least one WC team.

I'm not sure what you meant about the Ravens comment?

OH wow, in the last 12 Super Bowls, there's been at least a #1 playing 10x... well that's good.

but 9 of them were a on the other end of defeat.(where 3 have won it.)

 

[MHSL82]

My opinion on why the #1 seed struggles lately is because they typically don't have a particularly strong schedule which enables them to get that record to get the #1 seed.

It's better to be battle tested and lose a few along away then win all the time and not get exposed.

A loss in the NFL means you either aren't a talented team or you're a talented team that go their weaknesses exposed. So eating some losses along the way enable you look at what went wrong and go about fixing it and making adjustments. Compared to winning most of the season when you start to have the mentality of the formula is working so no need to mess with it and when you do finally get to the playoffs you're caught off guard when a team has exposed you.

Like us losing big to the Seahawks a couple weeks ago for example. If we do wind up playing them again in the playoffs you better believe Harbaugh and staff is going to be pouring over the tape to find out where they got exposed and how they can make sure it doesn't happened again.

On the flip side playing the Packers can hurt us because they are going to look and see what was successful, how we attacked them, and make adjustments counter it.

Not that ever thought "we should have lost last year in the regular season to the Giants," but I thought having played them, perhaps even more by beating them, they were prepared to play us. Of course, all that preparation would be for naught, if KW had not kneed the punt ball or maybe if he hadn't fumbled the OT punt or the Bradshaw fumble. Other perhaps than kicking to KW in the first place, the Giants did gameplan those from seeing us before, that was more likely because of guessing on our inexperience being a weakness there.

 

[CalamityX11]

Not that ever thought "we should have lost last year in the regular season to the Giants," but I thought having played them, perhaps even more by beating them, they were prepared to play us. Of course, all that preparation would be for naught, if KW had not kneed the punt ball or maybe if he hadn't fumbled the OT punt or the Bradshaw fumble. Other perhaps than kicking to KW in the first place, the Giants did gameplan those from seeing us before, that was more likely because of guessing on our inexperience being a weakness there.

point on!!!!

then theres Goldson missing out on two potential INTs.... but the bolded remains #1 WTF for me...

gosh, we're almost a year removed and I'm still a hater.

 

[MHSL82]

I meant "Other than perhaps than kicking to KW in the first place, the Giants did not gameplan those mistakes or bad calls from seeing us before, that was more likely because of guessing on our inexperience being a weakness there." Man, I can't type today, as I even had to edit this fix of my previous post.