NFL Franchise Rankings

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

An interesting system of ranking NFL franchises.

 

Link

 

The 9th annual NFL Franchise Rankings are ready for your viewing pleasure. We have tabulated the latest figures after the 2009 Playoffs and Super Bowl 44. This year, the biggest gain was the gigantic leap of the New Orleans Saints, which jumped from #31 to #23 all-time with 1 big year. Also, the Colts jumped into the Top 10, by passing the Vikings, Rams, and Giants in '09.

 

The Top 9 teams remain unchanged, as the Cowboys increased their small lead over the Steelers to 6 points, 108-102. Then, there is a giant gap before #3 San Francisco at 85 points, Oakland at 77, and then another large gap to #5 New England.

 

Thought it might be worth discussion or argument in this slow time of year.

[Guest]

An interesting system of ranking NFL franchises.

 

Link

 

The 9th annual NFL Franchise Rankings are ready for your viewing pleasure. We have tabulated the latest figures after the 2009 Playoffs and Super Bowl 44. This year, the biggest gain was the gigantic leap of the New Orleans Saints, which jumped from #31 to #23 all-time with 1 big year. Also, the Colts jumped into the Top 10, by passing the Vikings, Rams, and Giants in '09.

 

The Top 9 teams remain unchanged, as the Cowboys increased their small lead over the Steelers to 6 points, 108-102. Then, there is a giant gap before #3 San Francisco at 85 points, Oakland at 77, and then another large gap to #5 New England.

 

Thought it might be worth discussion or argument in this slow time of year.

His system is rigged to favor the Cowbows. The guy is from Lewisville.

 

Expanding upon that thought a bit...

 

If you want to reward the teams that have been around, why start with the superbowl years? Why not reward the teams that have been there since the beginning by awarding points back to the beginning of the league?

 

Oh yeah, because the cowboys wouldn't be #1.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

An interesting system of ranking NFL franchises.

 

Link

 

The 9th annual NFL Franchise Rankings are ready for your viewing pleasure. We have tabulated the latest figures after the 2009 Playoffs and Super Bowl 44. This year, the biggest gain was the gigantic leap of the New Orleans Saints, which jumped from #31 to #23 all-time with 1 big year. Also, the Colts jumped into the Top 10, by passing the Vikings, Rams, and Giants in '09.

 

The Top 9 teams remain unchanged, as the Cowboys increased their small lead over the Steelers to 6 points, 108-102. Then, there is a giant gap before #3 San Francisco at 85 points, Oakland at 77, and then another large gap to #5 New England.

 

Thought it might be worth discussion or argument in this slow time of year.

His system is rigged to favor the Cowbows. The guy is from Lewisville.

 

Yes, Bob is from Lewisville and a host on 1310Ticket radio, but he's actually a life-long Packers fan and grew up in Wisconsin.

[TruffleShuffle]

i didn't really read the ranking standards, but it seems to me that the lions (9 playoff appearances, 1 playoff win in 40 years) should be below a team like jacksonville (6 playoff appearances, 2 playoff wins in 15 years).

[Guest]

An interesting system of ranking NFL franchises.

 

Link

 

The 9th annual NFL Franchise Rankings are ready for your viewing pleasure. We have tabulated the latest figures after the 2009 Playoffs and Super Bowl 44. This year, the biggest gain was the gigantic leap of the New Orleans Saints, which jumped from #31 to #23 all-time with 1 big year. Also, the Colts jumped into the Top 10, by passing the Vikings, Rams, and Giants in '09.

 

The Top 9 teams remain unchanged, as the Cowboys increased their small lead over the Steelers to 6 points, 108-102. Then, there is a giant gap before #3 San Francisco at 85 points, Oakland at 77, and then another large gap to #5 New England.

 

Thought it might be worth discussion or argument in this slow time of year.

His system is rigged to favor the Cowbows. The guy is from Lewisville.

 

Yes, Bob is from Lewisville and a host on 1310Ticket radio, but he's actually a life-long Packers fan and grew up in Wisconsin.

Then it's just a stupid way to do it.

 

 

If you want to reward the teams that have been around, why start with the superbowl years? Why not reward the teams that have been there since the beginning by awarding points back to the beginning of the league?

[Guest]

i didn't really read the ranking standards, but it seems to me that the lions (9 playoff appearances, 1 playoff win in 40 years) should be below a team like jacksonville (6 playoff appearances, 2 playoff wins in 15 years).

He weights each year equally since the beginning of the super bowl years. He explicitly states that he wants to reward the teams that have been around over the expansion franchises since they have more history.

 

But he also ignores all history prior to the AFL - NFL merger.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

An interesting system of ranking NFL franchises.

 

Link

 

The 9th annual NFL Franchise Rankings are ready for your viewing pleasure. We have tabulated the latest figures after the 2009 Playoffs and Super Bowl 44. This year, the biggest gain was the gigantic leap of the New Orleans Saints, which jumped from #31 to #23 all-time with 1 big year. Also, the Colts jumped into the Top 10, by passing the Vikings, Rams, and Giants in '09.

 

The Top 9 teams remain unchanged, as the Cowboys increased their small lead over the Steelers to 6 points, 108-102. Then, there is a giant gap before #3 San Francisco at 85 points, Oakland at 77, and then another large gap to #5 New England.

 

Thought it might be worth discussion or argument in this slow time of year.

His system is rigged to favor the Cowbows. The guy is from Lewisville.

 

Yes, Bob is from Lewisville and a host on 1310Ticket radio, but he's actually a life-long Packers fan and grew up in Wisconsin.

Then it's just a stupid way to do it.

 

 

If you want to reward the teams that have been around, why start with the superbowl years? Why not reward the teams that have been there since the beginning by awarding points back to the beginning of the league?

 

He also has added average points per season if you want to redo the rankings based on points for each season a team has been around.

 

It would elevate a team like Baltimore quite a bit, but looking at the average points, it doesn't change things too terribly much.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

i didn't really read the ranking standards, but it seems to me that the lions (9 playoff appearances, 1 playoff win in 40 years) should be below a team like jacksonville (6 playoff appearances, 2 playoff wins in 15 years).

 

Here is how it works. Each Franchise gets 1 point for each season it makes the playoffs. Then, if it reaches the Conference Championship Game it gets a total of 3 points. If it makes the Super Bowl it gets 5, and if it wins the Super Bowl it wins the maximum total of points in a given year of 11. It used to be 10 for the Super Bowl, but I have adjusted it this year because I didn’t like the idea that 2 Super Bowl losses equaled a Super Bowl win. So, Now 11 points for a win and 5 for a loss in the Super Bowl.

[Guest]

He also has added average points per season if you want to redo the rankings based on points for each season a team has been around.

 

It would elevate a team like Baltimore quite a bit, but looking at the average points, it doesn't change things too terribly much.

You're ignoring my key point. His basic premise is to reward the teams with longer history, which I agree with. Jacksonville is simply not one of the most storied franchises in the league. But he then ignores the history from before the merger, which is asinine.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

He also has added average points per season if you want to redo the rankings based on points for each season a team has been around.

 

It would elevate a team like Baltimore quite a bit, but looking at the average points, it doesn't change things too terribly much.

You're ignoring my key point. His basic premise is to reward the teams with longer history, which I agree with. Jacksonville is simply not one of the most storied franchises in the league. But he then ignores the history from before the merger, which is asinine.

 

Actually, he ignores pre-SuperBowl history. He starts with 1966 (Super Bowl 1). The merger is in 1970.

 

I can see why you might want to go back farther than that. Maybe there's some value in it. But, I think it becomes difficult to weight the value of those championships.

[Guest]

He also has added average points per season if you want to redo the rankings based on points for each season a team has been around.

 

It would elevate a team like Baltimore quite a bit, but looking at the average points, it doesn't change things too terribly much.

You're ignoring my key point. His basic premise is to reward the teams with longer history, which I agree with. Jacksonville is simply not one of the most storied franchises in the league. But he then ignores the history from before the merger, which is asinine.

 

Actually, he ignores pre-SuperBowl history. He starts with 1966 (Super Bowl 1). The merger is in 1970.

 

I can see why you might want to go back farther than that. Maybe there's some value in it. But, I think it becomes difficult to weight the value of those championships.

Sorry, I stated it correctly previously.

 

I think you've either got to consider those years (perhaps with a different point weighting) or just go with the average points per season. Picking an arbitrary starting point in the middle of NFL history is stupid. You either want to reward the teams that have longer history or you don't.

 

Again, I can see doing something like having each championship worth 10 points, then you multiply that by the number of teams that were in the league at the time. That rewards the teams that have to overcome greater odds to win. You could even set up a time decay to go along with that since most football fans don't really remember the Red Grange era for the Bears all that well.

 

But to just say, 1966 is the start of the history that matters is dumb.

[NCCubFan]

He botched it with the Browns/Ravens. He treated it as though the old and new Browns are a single continuous franchise and the Ravens were the expansion team. That's backwards. It's the same as in baseball, where the old Senators/current Twins are a single franchise and the later Senators (now Rangers) are a different franchise.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

He botched it with the Browns/Ravens. He treated it as though the old and new Browns are a single continuous franchise and the Ravens were the expansion team. That's backwards. It's the same as in baseball, where the old Senators/current Twins are a single franchise and the later Senators (now Rangers) are a different franchise.

 

I think he did it that way with the Ravens/Browns because that is how the NFL views it. It may be wrong, but in the agreement signed with the NFL all the old Browns records, franchise awards, etc remained with Cleveland to be picked up by the "expansion" Browns and the Ravens were treated as a new franchise.

 

Now, I know that may sound crazy, but that's how it is viewed with the NFL, so he just continued that line of thinking.

[NCCubFan]

Revisionist history, NFL style. Gotta love it. :D

[Mike Aller]

Yeah, in absolutely no way, shape, or form do Cleveland fans view the Ravens as the "old browns." Obviously, that's exactly what they are, but that just isn't the way they are viewed. I'm not sure if anyone else views them that way either.