All-Time Franchise Rankings (1 Viewer)

[buster c]

This link caught my eye. I've never seen this web site:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...e_rankings.html

My Skins come in at #7, which isn't too shabby. Love seeing the Eagles so low; hate to see the Cowboys & Giants in the top 5.

Given this Misery-to-Joy system, I can accept the rankings, although simply ranking them by # of titles keeps Dallas, Washington & SF tied at 5 each.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

8th.

 

[awesomeness]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion? Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

 

[Sea Bass]

8th.

.507 win percentage ranks them at 17th overall.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

This link caught my eye. I've never seen this web site:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...e_rankings.html

My Skins come in at #7, which isn't too shabby. Love seeing the Eagles so low; hate to see the Cowboys & Giants in the top 5.

Given this Misery-to-Joy system, I can accept the rankings, although simply ranking them by # of titles keeps Dallas, Washington & SF tied at 5 each.

 

[Cajun Heat]

Very interesting. Growing up a Saints fan I do have one issue with the list. No list of greatest Saints players can be complete without including Morten Anderson. Which, of course, speaks volumes as to why they're number 31 on the list.

 

[Andy Herron]

Very interesting. Growing up a Saints fan I do have one issue with the list. No list of greatest Saints players can be complete without including Morten Anderson. Which, of course, speaks volumes as to why they're number 31 on the list.

Or even Bobby Hebert!Maybe not so much great, but just a great name (when pronounced correctly) and cajun accent.Loved his interviews.

 

[Andy Herron]

But seriously though, I'll take the Cowboys playing/taking second fiddle to the Packers.

 

[trader jake]

Sometimes you forget how cool it is being a fan. (Especially of the Packers )

I don't agree with some of the rankings but it is a very entertaining read.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

8th.

.507 win percentage ranks them at 17th overall.

Super Bowl era: #1 in wins. Tied for 1st in championships.

 

[Chase Stuart]

8th.

.507 win percentage ranks them at 17th overall.

Super Bowl era: #1 in wins. Tied for 1st in championships.

Wow, the Packers, Giants and Bears are going to be pretty surprised when they hear this.

 

[awesomeness]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion? Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

8th.

.507 win percentage ranks them at 17th overall.

Super Bowl era: #1 in wins. Tied for 1st in championships.

Wow, the Packers, Giants and Bears are going to be pretty surprised when they hear this.

Not really, if they understand that the writers are Patriot fans. Or they know what "Super Bowl era" means.

 

[zanti8]

i would calculate it by adding 2 things :

1-franchise winning %

2-nfl championships per year avg . so if a franchise was around 30 years and won 3 titles they would have a wopping 10% .

if a team won 1 title in 50 years a pathetic 2% .

i dont know how you could add the 2 to calculate the 2 together . it will always be arguable how much of the ranking should be championships, and how much should be win % . i suppose you could rank all teams 1-32 in each category and total them.

 

[Christo]

8th.

Make your argument. On the numbers alone, every team ranked ahead of them on the list is more than comparable.

 

[BigRed]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Nor do a fair amount of the other comments. This one amazed me though: "The Bengals began with such promise, founded by pro football legend Brown in a football-mad state as an effort to spite owner Art Modell who fired him from Cleveland" :whoosh: I knew Modell was an ashole and stupid, but not THAT stupid.

 

[Slider]

That's a nice read and pretty solid. :whoosh:

 

[Sea Bass]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Nor do a fair amount of the other comments. This one amazed me though: "The Bengals began with such promise, founded by pro football legend Brown in a football-mad state as an effort to spite owner Art Modell who fired him from Cleveland" :whoosh: I knew Modell was an ashole and stupid, but not THAT stupid.

It happens to be true.

 

[chris1969]

8th.

I agree! No way they should be ranked that high!

 

[Raider Nation]

At least we can hang our heads high anytime an "all-time" list is mentioned.

 

[Raider Nation]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Nor do a fair amount of the other comments. This one amazed me though: "The Bengals began with such promise, founded by pro football legend Brown in a football-mad state as an effort to spite owner Art Modell who fired him from Cleveland" I knew Modell was an ashole and stupid, but not THAT stupid.

It happens to be true.

Used Cleveland's colors in Cincy's uniforms to further stick it up Art's ###.

 

[Sea Bass]

8th.

.507 win percentage ranks them at 17th overall.

Super Bowl era: #1 in wins. Tied for 1st in championships.

Wow, the Packers, Giants and Bears are going to be pretty surprised when they hear this.

Not really, if they understand that the writers are Patriot fans. Or they know what "Super Bowl era" means.

I see, it is another one of those New England conspiracies..........Those cheaters!

 

[Phurfur]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Miami in at 10...I'll take it.

 

[Englishteacher]

Biggest surprise:

13. ST. LOUIS RAMS

 

[MCguidance]

23, I expected worse

 

[awesomeness]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

Well when one uses a "Misery-to-Joy system" to determine the franchise rankings, the amount of joy felt by the city of Chicago was exponentially greater when they won the superbowl in 1985 than when they won a championship title in 1941 for example. What % of the people of Chicago followed the Bears in 1921 as opposed to 1985 is the point im trying to get at. When using a "Misery-to-Joy system," the above point matters.

 

[The Man With No Name]

The franchise that has an NFL record 25 straight games without a defeat isn't listed. And they won some titles in their brief history.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally.

But they weren't equal by any measure.

 

[strykerpks]

Face of the Bills franchise: O.J. Simpson

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I still miss Tom Landry, looking at that picture just brings back some great memories for me as a kid. His calm demeanor always led me to believe that the Cowboys were never really in trouble and were capable of coming back even in the most dire situations.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

2 posts in a row that I think are correct....keep up the good work.

 

[encaitar]

All I know is Thank God for Bud Grant and Randy Moss, or the Vikings would be holding the Cardinals' hand at the bottom.

 

[mcintyre1]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

I disagree. Sure, the early teams were important in creating the success of the NFL, but in my view the only fair way to compare franchises nowadays is the Super Bowl Era. The game has changed greatly since the 30's and 40's, etc. In those early days team success came down mainly to the wealth of the owners and whether they could keep the team afloat with a solid roster. Not exactly a level playing field.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

I disagree. Sure, the early teams were important in creating the success of the NFL, but in my view the only fair way to compare franchises nowadays is the Super Bowl Era. The game has changed greatly since the 30's and 40's, etc. In those early days team success came down mainly to the wealth of the owners and whether they could keep the team afloat with a solid roster. Not exactly a level playing field.

There's a big difference between the '40s and the Super Bowl Era.

 

[dgreen]

Biggest surprise:

13. ST. LOUIS RAMS

The Rams had some really good teams over a few different eras.

 

[Phurfur]

Is there any criteria for these rankings or just a guys straight up opinion?

Lots of the rankings make no sense.

Did you read the article?

read the first couple lines and came to the quick conclusion that i wasn't gonna read it all since it was redundant so i just looked at the rankings. The bears have only had 13 winning seasons in the past 40 years and 1 championship. The Steelers almost double that at 25 winning seasons in the past 40 years and have 5 times the amount of championships. There's too much emphasis on the later years when American football wasn't even very popular.

No, I think all the years are treated equally. Just because we don't remember them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Maybe you should look into the history of the NFL to see what hurtles these pioneers had to jump to get the NFL where it is today. When would you like to start keeping records? The Super Bowl Era, The AFL / NFL merger, the Salary Cap Era.......... I think "at the beginning" is the correct response.

I disagree. Sure, the early teams were important in creating the success of the NFL, but in my view the only fair way to compare franchises nowadays is the Super Bowl Era. The game has changed greatly since the 30's and 40's, etc. In those early days team success came down mainly to the wealth of the owners and whether they could keep the team afloat with a solid roster. Not exactly a level playing field.

If this is your criteria you should start at the salary cap era? If you do start at the Super Bowl Era what makes the 1966 season that much different than the 1965 season.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Going from 14 teams to 24-26-28 teams by 1970 - is massive in of itself.

 

[Phurfur]

Going from 14 teams in '65 to an expanded league with 24 teams, which would be increased to 26 teams by 1969, and to 28 teams by 1970 or soon thereafter - is massive in of itself.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I believe the NFL added one team in 1966 and another in 1967. The AFL was in existence from 1960 - 1969 then they merged with the NFL.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Going from 14 teams in '65 to an expanded league with 24 teams, which would be increased to 26 teams by 1969, and to 28 teams by 1970 or soon thereafter - is massive in of itself.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I believe the NFL added one team in 1966 and another in 1967. The AFL was in existence from 1960 - 1969 then it merged with the NFL.

In this terrific article, 1960 is argued as the most important year in NFL history:

But if I were to pinpoint one year that was most important in getting the NFL where it is today, it would be 1960. Nine of the current league members trace their roots to that year, when no other year can claim more than two. The emergence of the AFL created competition that drove the NFL to explore new markets. By 1976, a league that had been primarily based in the upper Midwest and Northeast less than twenty years earlier was spread from Seattle to Miami, and from San Diego to New England, and several points in between. Would the National Football League have 32 teams in 2008, and be the overwhelmingly most popular sport in the country, if some young wealthy owners hadn’t decide to challenge the established league in 1960? I doubt it. The AFL was the shock to the system that forced the NFL to adapt and improve. The NFL more than doubled in size from 1959 to 1970, and that would not have happened if the NFL and AFL had not gone toe to toe beginning in 1960.

 

[Phurfur]

Going from 14 teams in '65 to an expanded league with 24 teams, which would be increased to 26 teams by 1969, and to 28 teams by 1970 or soon thereafter - is massive in of itself.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I believe the NFL added one team in 1966 and another in 1967. The AFL was in existence from 1960 - 1969 then it merged with the NFL.

In this terrific article, 1960 is argued as the most important year in NFL history:

But if I were to pinpoint one year that was most important in getting the NFL where it is today, it would be 1960. Nine of the current league members trace their roots to that year, when no other year can claim more than two. The emergence of the AFL created competition that drove the NFL to explore new markets. By 1976, a league that had been primarily based in the upper Midwest and Northeast less than twenty years earlier was spread from Seattle to Miami, and from San Diego to New England, and several points in between. Would the National Football League have 32 teams in 2008, and be the overwhelmingly most popular sport in the country, if some young wealthy owners hadn’t decide to challenge the established league in 1960? I doubt it. The AFL was the shock to the system that forced the NFL to adapt and improve. The NFL more than doubled in size from 1959 to 1970, and that would not have happened if the NFL and AFL had not gone toe to toe beginning in 1960.

I agree, 1960 was the start of the NFL as we know it today. That is a very good article.

 

[Man who'd fire the Yorks]

I'm happy with my 49ers at #5. Of course when we win our 6th superbowl we should move up in the rankings. Having said that, and being realistic given the current state of the team, it might be a while until we get that 6th ring . So, I'll have to patiently wait for that day.

 

[The Jerk]

buster c,

Great find on the article!

People will always disagree on how to determine these types of lists. There is no clear-cut right way, and frankly that's part of what makes them fun. In the thread, I see merit in most of the suggestions. Clearly the early years of the NFL should not be omitted. However, there is a certain logic to assigning more weight to the past few decades. Until the late 1950s/early 1960s, college football was arguably more prestigious and certainly received more press coverage. Clearly, the NFL was not the dominant sports league in the U.S. as it is today. More importantly, there were considerably fewer teams involved in defining a champion until the 1960s.

Perhaps a unified approach that would both acknowledge the emergence of the modern NFL starting in the 1960s and also take into account the number of teams would be to weight the championships by the number of teams competing for them each season. For example, the 1955 Cleveland Browns would receive 12 championship points (12 teams in the league in 1955), the 1970 Colts would receive 26 championship points, the 1985 Bears would receive 28 championship points, etc.

As it's not all about championships, cumulative winning percentage could still retain equal weighting for each season.

There is no perfect system, as each proposed system will shift advantages and disadvantages in the direction of certain franchises. However, this approach would address the two aforementioned aspects of the emergence of the modern NFL and the large increase in the number of franchises.

As always, just my opinion...

 

[chris1969]

buster c,Great find on the article!People will always disagree on how to determine these types of lists. There is no clear-cut right way, and frankly that's part of what makes them fun. In the thread, I see merit in most of the suggestions. Clearly the early years of the NFL should not be omitted. However, there is a certain logic to assigning more weight to the past few decades. Until the late 1950s/early 1960s, college football was arguably more prestigious and certainly received more press coverage. Clearly, the NFL was not the dominant sports league in the U.S. as it is today. More importantly, there were considerably fewer teams involved in defining a champion until the 1960s.Perhaps a unified approach that would both acknowledge the emergence of the modern NFL starting in the 1960s and also take into account the number of teams would be to weight the championships by the number of teams competing for them each season. For example, the 1955 Cleveland Browns would receive 12 championship points (12 teams in the league in 1955), the 1970 Colts would receive 26 championship points, the 1985 Bears would receive 28 championship points, etc.As it's not all about championships, cumulative winning percentage could still retain equal weighting for each season. There is no perfect system, as each proposed system will shift advantages and disadvantages in the direction of certain franchises. However, this approach would address the two aforementioned aspects of the emergence of the modern NFL and the large increase in the number of franchises.As always, just my opinion...

Excuuuuuuuuse me Mr Jerk sir, but that was an extremely good post. I'm not sure I'd weight the championships by the # of teams in the league in any given year though. While I certainly think the # of teams make the game more difficult in the era of Free Agency, I think that it made the game simpler before Free Agency. The teams that were lucky enough to draft the right guys faced other teams with a diluted pool of players to try and catch up with. I also think if I'm gonna judge the greatest franchises ever, that other than Championships, you have to look at the overall contribution to the game. Having Vince Lombardi or Paul Brown for a coach should count for something. Inventing the Counter-Trey or the West Coast Offense should count for something. The number of HOFers and GOAT players should count for something. Don't ask me how to score it, but a good start would be to lock 1000 sports writers in a room and make sure each market has equal representation. You'd also need a good moderator and I think a guy like Tim Russert would have been perfect.May he rest in peace.

 

[The Jerk]

Excuuuuuuuuse me Mr Jerk sir, but that was an extremely good post. I'm not sure I'd weight the championships by the # of teams in the league in any given year though. While I certainly think the # of teams make the game more difficult in the era of Free Agency, I think that it made the game simpler before Free Agency. The teams that were lucky enough to draft the right guys faced other teams with a diluted pool of players to try and catch up with. I also think if I'm gonna judge the greatest franchises ever, that other than Championships, you have to look at the overall contribution to the game. Having Vince Lombardi or Paul Brown for a coach should count for something. Inventing the Counter-Trey or the West Coast Offense should count for something. The number of HOFers and GOAT players should count for something. Don't ask me how to score it, but a good start would be to lock 1000 sports writers in a room and make sure each market has equal representation. You'd also need a good moderator and I think a guy like Tim Russert would have been perfect.May he rest in peace.

Thanks, Chris.I like your suggestion to recognize "contributions to the game" but I fear it will be truly difficult to 1) assign comparable value relative to the hard numbers of game results, championships, etc. 2) decide what makes a useful contribution vs. an interesting sidebar (like the Terrible Towel or for equal time, the Dawg Pound).Perhaps contributions to the game becomes a separate entire ranking from pure performance, and then there could be three rankings: performance, contributions, and a combined ranking.As for your thoughts on my concept of awarding championship points based on the number of teams per season, perhaps that could be changed to a formula that ensures early championships would be worth no less than half of the current championships. I'm not worried about the details, just the concept, but I appreciate the feedback.