Historically, as a general observation, teams that make the Superbowl, RARELY lose by double digits in any regular season game. (1 Viewer)

2003 Pat's lost 31-0 to the....Bills. Seriously...that actually happened lol


I’d always ignore anything like that with the Pats.
They are the only team in the last two decades that doesn’t seem to be in the same parity boat the rest of us are in. ?
 
I think you are misunderstanding. Checkout the numbers closely. And i CLARIFIED my thread title, to match my actual post.

There is some misunderstanding going on and I don't think it's by me or about 95% of the people posting on this thread.

I think you may be misunderstanding the term "rarely" when there are multiple instances of teams losing by double digits(or getting outright dominated) multiple times in a season (some 3 or 4 times) and still making it to the Super Bowl in just the last 10 seasons that Doug B went through, that's not "rare".
 
The 49'ers lost to the Eagles (AT HOME) 40-8 (by over 30 pts), then went on to dominate in Super Bowl XXIX over the Chargers 49-26.



:gosaints:

Was about to post the exact same thing. That team was scary good.
 
Super44, if your point was that Super Bowl teams generally don't make a habit of getting beat by 10+ points ... I would agree. That's why they're good teams. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing.
 
The last 20 teams that played in the Super Bowl had 78 combined regular season losses (2008-2017). 24 of those losses were by double digits or more.

So, 31% of regular season losses by Super Bowl teams were by double digits or more.

13 out of the 20 teams (65%) had at least one double digit regular season loss.

Not rare.
 
When you're thinking about posting a new thread on the SSF you have two choices. You can do your own research and fact check your theory or you can let the SSF do the research and fact checking for you.

I find that it's always best to do your own research because these savages around here are lurking and waiting, hoping and praying that someone says something that isn't true.
 
When you're thinking about posting a new thread on the SSF you have two choices. You can do your own research and fact check your theory or you can let the SSF do the research and fact checking for you.
Second way = much more fun.
 
I’d always ignore anything like that with the Pats.
They are the only team in the last two decades that doesn’t seem to be in the same parity boat the rest of us are in. ?
AFC east is more like a parity airplane ride outside the piggly wiggly where the fat kid has a fitful of quarters and has no intention of giving the other kids a chance - and those kids only have washers in their pockets anyway
 
Super44, if your point was that Super Bowl teams generally don't make a habit of getting beat by 10+ points ... I would agree. That's why they're good teams. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing.
which is a strange thing to say b/c they don't make a habit of getting beat period
 
AFC east is more like a parity airplane ride outside the piggly wiggly where the fat kid has a fitful of quarters and has no intention of giving the other kids a chance - and those kids only have washers in their pockets anyway

As I’ve seen this many times, and agree with it and kudos for original spin.....

I agree. The Pats also win in the playoffs and look up their record against all teams over the last whatever number of years it’s been since they’ve been the BB and TB show.

It’s incredible. And I am no Pats fan. Sick of em. What they have done during the free agency era is quite remarkable.
 
As I’ve seen this many times, and agree with it and kudos for original spin.....

I agree. The Pats also win in the playoffs and look up their record against all teams over the last whatever number of years it’s been since they’ve been the BB and TB show.

It’s incredible. And I am no Pats fan. Sick of em. What they have done during the free agency era is quite remarkable.
sure, 'afc east' doesn't explain everything
but it's certainly a factor
 
sure, 'afc east' doesn't explain everything
but it's certainly a factor

We agree on that.

Truly look their record up against all comers though. That’s all I’m saying. Someone actually posted it on here, even I was amazed. I am very ready for BB and TB to retire just so other AFC teams can have a shot.
 
Just as valid: 24 10-digit losses by 20 teams means that on average every SB team loses a game (1.2 games in fact) by double digits.

Maths sure is fun.

A mind closed to valid disagreement is sad.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom