[FreakNasty]

I have done a little research of the Super Bowl Champs since 1995 and their opponents winning percentage, lets see what I found.

1995 Dallas Cowboys

Opp. W-L Record-127-129 49.6%

Best Regular Season Win-Kansas City Chiefs (13-3)

1996 Green Bay Packers

Opp. W-L Record-129-127 50.4%

Best Regular Season Win-Denver Broncos (13-3)

1997 Denver Broncos

Opp. W-L Record-124-139-1 48.4%

Best RG Win-Kansas City Chiefs (13-3)

1998 Denver Broncos

Opp. W-L Record-116-132 45.3%

Best RG Win-Jacksonville Jaguars (11-5)

1999 St. Louis Rams

Opp. W-L Record-93-163 36.3%

Best RG Win-Several 8-8 Squads

2000 Baltimore Ravens

Opp. W-L Record-109-147 42.6%

Best RG Win-Tennessee Titans (13-3)

2001 New England Patriots

Opp. W-L Record-115-139 44.9%

Best RG Win-Miami Dolphins (11-5)

2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Opp. W-L Record-122-131-3 47.6%

Best RG Win-Green Bay Packers (12-4)

2003 New England Patriots

Opp. W-L Record-124-132 48.4%

Best RG Win-Indy Colts and Tennessee Titans (12-4)

2004 New England Patriots

Opp. W-L Record-126-130 49.2 %

Best RG Win-Indy Colts (12-4)

1995-2004 SB Champs total Opp. Win Percentage

W-L 1185-1369-4 46.32%

Analysis

Only one team in the 10 years has had an opp. winning percentage over 50 percent (1996 Packers), barely.

Between 1999-2001, the average win percentage was well under 45 percent. (This can be due to several factors, including the expansion Cleveland Browns, which every SB team during that span faced.)

Possible playoff Teams this year that look as if they will have a Opp. win percentage under .500

Steelers
Bengals
Colts
Jaguars
Panthers
Bucs
Falcons
Bears
Cowboys
Giants
Seahawks

[Tomcat68]

1. With that research you are also counting the usual scrub team or two at the bottom of the division that they played twice (such as the Dolphins last year who were 4-12 thus starting the opponent record with a 8-24 start right off the bat because of playing a single weak opponent twice). That itself would bring the 2004 NE opponent win % to 122-118 or 50.83%.

2. You are also penalizing the opponent winning % of the SB winning team by counting the games they were involved in, thus penalizing them for having a winning record themselves. Let's remove those 16 games from the original number for 2004 NE. That leaves them with a opponent winning % of 124-116 or 51.67%.

If you combine both of these technicalities, that leaves you with a 120-104 opponent record and a winning % of 53.57% which is very respectable with the parody the leagues presents today. I'm sure this could be done with all teams and you would see a good % jump in their opponent winning %. When you count one extremely weak opponent twice, and penalize the opponents records because you beat them, it skews towards a much worse % than actually played. The same, but in reverse can be said for the worse teams in the league. Their opponent winning % would be quite higher than those of winning teams while .500 teams would be somewhere inbetween.

[Tomcat68]

Example:

2004 Miami Dolphins (tied for 2nd worst record in the league) had an opponent winning % of 56%.

[FreakNasty]

1. With that research you are also counting the usual scrub team or two at the bottom of the division that they played twice (such as the Dolphins last year who were 4-12 thus starting the opponent record with a 8-24 start right off the bat because of playing a single weak opponent twice). That itself would bring the 2004 NE opponent win % to 122-118 or 50.83%.

2. You are also penalizing the opponent winning % of the SB winning team by counting the games they were involved in, thus penalizing them for having a winning record themselves. Let's remove those 16 games from the original number for 2004 NE. That leaves them with a opponent winning % of 124-116 or 51.67%.

If you combine both of these technicalities, that leaves you with a 120-104 opponent record and a winning % of 53.57% which is very respectable with the parody the leagues presents today. I'm sure this could be done with all teams and you would see a good % jump in their opponent winning %. When you count one extremely weak opponent twice, and penalize the opponents records because you beat them, it skews towards a much worse % than actually played. The same, but in reverse can be said for the worse teams in the league. Their opponent winning % would be quite higher than those of winning teams while .500 teams would be somewhere inbetween.

Exactly. The point is, you cannot play a difficult schedule in the NFL and be a legit contender at the end of the year. You have to beat the cupcakes, and the championship teams do.

[KentuckyHillBilly5321]

I think that this speaks to parity more than anything else. If you look at the league in general--the super bowl winner's schedule (opponents) should theorhetically have a winning percentage that is extremely close to 50%.

As long as there is a salary cap--you should expect to see something similar.

Good job to the Freak on research. (For the record--Freak--you are much better at your research/analysis--than being the pimp daddy that you normally have to be--keep this stuff up--good work).

[FreakNasty]

[QUOTE="KentuckyHillBilly5321"]I think that this speaks to parity more than anything else. If you look at the league in general--the super bowl winner's schedule (opponents) should theorhetically have a winning percentage that is extremely close to 50%.

As long as there is a salary cap--you should expect to see something similar.

Good job to the Freak on research. (For the record--Freak--you are much better at your research/analysis--than being the pimp daddy that you normally have to be--keep this stuff up--good work).[/QUOTE]

That's some good stuff. :lmao: