Poll: Biggest Upset in Super Bowl History (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

There was an interesting discussion a few days ago about whether a Giants win this year would amount to the biggest upset in Super Bowl history. Any time you're comparing eras there's bound to be disagreement; so this isn't something that has a definite right or wrong answer. That said, I thought a lot of interesting arguments were made in the thread in question.

So here is a poll to see where the forum stands on the matter.

For the record, I DO believe this would amount to the biggest upset in SB history; and put my thoughts down in our blog today. Since the pre-merger era makes it difficult to compare, I could see an argument for the SBII and SBIII games, as well.

What do you think? Cast your votes....

 

[Texasmouth]

It has to be the biggest upset in history since no other team has gone undefeated and lost in the Super Bowl.

 

[Da Guru]

There was an interesting discussion a few days ago about whether a Giants win this year would amount to the biggest upset in Super Bowl history. Any time you're comparing eras there's bound to be disagreement; so this isn't something that has a definite right or wrong answer. That said, I thought a lot of interesting arguments were made in the thread in question.

So here is a poll to see where the forum stands on the matter.

For the record, I DO believe this would amount to the biggest upset in SB history; and put my thoughts down in our blog today. Since the pre-merger era makes it difficult to compare, I could see an argument for the SBII and SBIII games, as well.

What do you think? Cast your votes....

I don`t think it would be the biggest upset The Giants should/could have beat the Pats the last game of the season. Had the Pats blew them out 42-7..then maybe yes but the Giants had control of that game and let it get away late.The Pats were exactly who we though they were.

 

[dgreen]

Super Bowl II -- Packers over Raiders

 

[dgreen]

Jets over Colts.

The Colts were in another league, literally.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Since Super Bowl XXXVI -- Patriots over Rams wasn't available, I went with Super Bowl XVI -- Patriots over Rams.

Technically, by the numbers, the Jets over Colts is, but that was when nobody paid attention to the AFL and just assumed the NFL was the only game in town. Had anybody actually followed the league, we might have had a more reasonable line.

The Patriots were given absolutely no shot of winning that game. At least people are picking the Giants as an upset in this one.

 

[Jason Wood]

Super Bowl II -- Packers over Raiders

I wouldn't vote for them, but that's only because the perception was that the NFL was demonstrably better than the AFL at the time. This game (and Super Bowl 1) helped create the mythos that was shattered by Namath's guarantee the year before. Were I making the argument...it would be that the Packers (9-4-1) finished 3.5 games worse in the W/L column than the Raiders (13-1)...which is still an NFL record for a SB victor. Also, the Raiders absolutely dominated their opponents that year (16.8 PPG margin of victory) whereas the Packers won their games by 8.8 PPG on average [still plenty impressive]; giving them the 3rd largest margin of victory differential in league history.Again, not my choice...but I thought it fair to put them in the conversation mathematically (acknowledging that the pre-merger AFL/NFL Super Bowls were really their own pocket window of NFL history unto themselves).

 

[Jason Wood]

Since Super Bowl XXXVI -- Patriots over Rams wasn't available, I went with Super Bowl XVI -- Patriots over Rams.Technically, by the numbers, the Jets over Colts is, but that was when nobody paid attention to the AFL and just assumed the NFL was the only game in town. Had anybody actually followed the league, we might have had a more reasonable line.The Patriots were given absolutely no shot of winning that game. At least people are picking the Giants as an upset in this one.

Thanks for catching the typo!

 

[Phurfur]

How can anyone take this seriously when you list

SB II Packers over Raiders as a upset.

I will ingnore this post.

 

[Jason Wood]

How can anyone take this seriously when you listSB II Packers over Raiders as a upset.I will ingnore this post.

Statistically, it fits. I don't disagree that the realities of the AFL/NFL pre-merger make it an illogical choice. But rather than bashing it, you could simply choose not to vote for that option, just as no one else did [myself included].

 

[Jason Wood]

Also...for those wondering, the Packers were 13.5 point favorites over the Raiders in SBII.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Patriots over the Rams is the obvious choice. The Giants over the Patriots wouldn't be as shocking.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time.

I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

 

[Jason Wood]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

I would love for you to explain how the Giants beating the Patriots would be a bigger upset than the Patriots/Rams game. Here is the way I see it: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was picking the Patriots to beat the Rams, and very few were actually expecting it to be a close game at all. Meanwhile, I have seen some pick the Giants to win this game, and many are predicting a fairly close game. Plus, the Giants are on fire coming into this game, while the Patriots are struggling (in the sense of winning close games, as opposed to how dominant they were earlier in the season). Meanwhile, back then, most thought the Pats were lucky to make the SB after beating the Raiders in the Tuck Game and then beating Pitt by getting some fluky special team scores, while the 16-2 Rams had just hammered the Packers and beaten a very good Eagles team. And, yes, I understand that NYG over NE would mean a wild card team upsetting an 18-0 team, which on paper looks like more of a bigger upset than the Pats beating the Rams back in '01, but when looking at it more closely, I do not think it is close.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I have a hard time believing that a Giants win, after beating the Cowboys and Packers back to back as a road team, that was leading the Patriots in week 17 by 12 in the 3rd quarter and only lost by a FG, would be considered such a huge upset.

Everyone is basing their expectations of the Patriots based on their blowout win against Dallas when they were on a roll. Fact is, they haven't blown out any good team they've played since then and are coming out as only 3-4 point winners most of the time. Public perception of their wins recently is ridiculous, which is evidenced by them being something like 1-7 against the spread the last 8 games. They haven't been head and shoulders better than any good team they've played since Dallas, merely good enough to win.

So a Giants win wouldn't come close to shocking me enough to consider it an all-time upset. It will be a memorable upset because they would spoil the Pats quest for undefeated though.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Also...for those wondering, the Packers were 13.5 point favorites over the Raiders in SBII.

And the Packers covered that easily. No matter what you think the statistics say, it was not an upset.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

1. Jets over Colts

2. Patriots over Rams

3. Giants over Patriots

4. Everything else

Jets over Colts was the equivalent of Boise State over the Rams, not the no-name Patriots over the Rams.

Before the Patriots Silenced The Rams, nobody acknowledged individual members on the Pats squad to the extent that Burress, Strahan, Youmenura (butchered spelling?), and (at least in a pedigree sense) Manning are acknowledged today. In that regard, the Giants over the Pats would not be nearly as shocking to "informed" footbally fans, but "as shocking" to the general population and to bookmakers.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

I would love for you to explain how the Giants beating the Patriots would be a bigger upset than the Patriots/Rams game. Here is the way I see it: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was picking the Patriots to beat the Rams, and very few were actually expecting it to be a close game at all. Meanwhile, I have seen some pick the Giants to win this game, and many are predicting a fairly close game. Plus, the Giants are on fire coming into this game, while the Patriots are struggling (in the sense of winning close games, as opposed to how dominant they were earlier in the season). Meanwhile, back then, most thought the Pats were lucky to make the SB after beating the Raiders in the Tuck Game and then beating Pitt by getting some fluky special team scores, while the 16-2 Rams had just hammered the Packers and beaten a very good Eagles team. And, yes, I understand that NYG over NE would mean a wild card team upsetting an 18-0 team, which on paper looks like more of a bigger upset than the Pats beating the Rams back in '01, but when looking at it more closely, I do not think it is close.

In general I agree with you, but I believe if you do the research you'll find that Joe Theismann and one or two other "oddballs" called the Patriots upset.

 

[Jason Wood]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

I would love for you to explain how the Giants beating the Patriots would be a bigger upset than the Patriots/Rams game. Here is the way I see it: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was picking the Patriots to beat the Rams, and very few were actually expecting it to be a close game at all. Meanwhile, I have seen some pick the Giants to win this game, and many are predicting a fairly close game. Plus, the Giants are on fire coming into this game, while the Patriots are struggling (in the sense of winning close games, as opposed to how dominant they were earlier in the season). Meanwhile, back then, most thought the Pats were lucky to make the SB after beating the Raiders in the Tuck Game and then beating Pitt by getting some fluky special team scores. And, yes, I understand that NYG over NE would mean a wild card team upsetting an 18-0 team, which on paper looks like more of a bigger upset than the Pats beating the Rams back in '01, but when looking at it more closely, I do not think it is close.

I did explain my case (whether you agree or not) in the blog post linked...Giants are one of the least dominating teams in SB history; they beat their opponents by a whopping 1.4 PPG this year. Meanwhile the Patriots were THE most dominant team in league history. Not only did they go 16-0, but they won their games by an AVERAGE of almost 20 PPG. It's rare, although not unprecedented, for a team with a smaller margin of victory to win the Super Bowl; but this would be more than 2x the prior record in that regard. For those who point out that the Pats weren't as dominant in the 2nd half...true enough, yet their margin of victory over the 2nd half (13.9 PPG) is still historically dominant.I keep hearing people point out that the Pats "weren't the same team" in the 2nd half of the season...yet no one points out the same for the Giants *** Patriots (1st 8 Games) -- 331 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (25.5 PPG margin)*** Patriots (2nd 8 Games) -- 234 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (13.4 PPG margin)*** Giants (1st 8 Games) -- 200 Points Scored, 159 Points Allowed (5.2 PPG margin)*** Giants (2nd 8 Games) -- 173 Points Scored, 192 Points Allowed (NEGATIVE 2.4 PPG margin)Again, sure...the Patriots went from "otherworldly dominant like no other team in league history" in the 1st half to just "dominant", but the Giants went from "pretty good" to actually getting OUTSCORED by their opponents over the last 8 games. Let's also not forget the Giants went 4-4 in the 2nd half.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The Patriots were given absolutely no shot of winning that game. At least people are picking the Giants as an upset in this one.

They were given a shot by Bernie Kukar.

 

[Tau837]

1. Jets over Colts2. Patriots over Rams3. Giants over Patriots4. Everything elseJets over Colts was the equivalent of Boise State over the Rams, not the no-name Patriots over the Rams.Before the Patriots Silenced The Rams, nobody acknowledged individual members on the Pats squad to the extent that Burress, Strahan, Youmenura (butchered spelling?), and (at least in a pedigree sense) Manning are acknowledged today. In that regard, the Giants over the Pats would not be nearly as shocking to "informed" footbally fans, but "as shocking" to the general population and to bookmakers.

I agree with this ranking. I really cannot understand anyone not picking Jets over Colts.

 

[Tau837]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

I would love for you to explain how the Giants beating the Patriots would be a bigger upset than the Patriots/Rams game. Here is the way I see it: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was picking the Patriots to beat the Rams, and very few were actually expecting it to be a close game at all. Meanwhile, I have seen some pick the Giants to win this game, and many are predicting a fairly close game. Plus, the Giants are on fire coming into this game, while the Patriots are struggling (in the sense of winning close games, as opposed to how dominant they were earlier in the season). Meanwhile, back then, most thought the Pats were lucky to make the SB after beating the Raiders in the Tuck Game and then beating Pitt by getting some fluky special team scores. And, yes, I understand that NYG over NE would mean a wild card team upsetting an 18-0 team, which on paper looks like more of a bigger upset than the Pats beating the Rams back in '01, but when looking at it more closely, I do not think it is close.

I did explain my case (whether you agree or not) in the blog post linked...Giants are one of the least dominating teams in SB history; they beat their opponents by a whopping 1.4 PPG this year. Meanwhile the Patriots were THE most dominant team in league history. Not only did they go 16-0, but they won their games by an AVERAGE of almost 20 PPG. It's rare, although not unprecedented, for a team with a smaller margin of victory to win the Super Bowl; but this would be more than 2x the prior record in that regard. For those who point out that the Pats weren't as dominant in the 2nd half...true enough, yet their margin of victory over the 2nd half (13.9 PPG) is still historically dominant.I keep hearing people point out that the Pats "weren't the same team" in the 2nd half of the season...yet no one points out the same for the Giants *** Patriots (1st 8 Games) -- 331 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (25.5 PPG margin)*** Patriots (2nd 8 Games) -- 234 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (13.4 PPG margin)*** Giants (1st 8 Games) -- 200 Points Scored, 159 Points Allowed (5.2 PPG margin)*** Giants (2nd 8 Games) -- 173 Points Scored, 192 Points Allowed (NEGATIVE 2.4 PPG margin)Again, sure...the Patriots went from "otherworldly dominant like no other team in league history" in the 1st half to just "dominant", but the Giants went from "pretty good" to actually getting OUTSCORED by their opponents over the last 8 games. Let's also not forget the Giants went 4-4 in the 2nd half.

First off, it appears (without my checking) that your 1st 8/2nd 8 game splits are regular season splits. If so, you are ignoring the most recent games - the playoff games. Why would you do that if you are actually trying to legitimately answer the question? More importantly, while I am a huge fan of statistics and numbers, I think this is a good example of misusing them. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the teams did over the course of most of the season. The fact is that they played in week 17... just 4 weeks ago. What we saw and learned from that game is much more important than season averages. It is perfectly clear from that game that the Giants are more than capable of beating the Pats... some would argue that they should have beaten them in that game.To me, by definition, this means that this game cannot be the biggest upset.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

For those people who keep talking about how well the Giants played the Patriots as a reason that this would not be as big an upset as the pats-Rams, the Patriots also played the rams very close in the regular season when they beat them in the super bowl. I think they lost by a touchdown and the Pats fumbled the ball near the Rams goaline during that game.

 

[pillowpants]

Jets / Colts

I am in shock that people consider themselves football "experts" and have not done the proper research to answer this question correctly.

Boston homers aside, you're kidding yourselves if you think the Pats/Rams was a bigger upset. The Giants beating the Pats will be a shock, but not as big as Pats over Rams and certainly nowhere near Jets over Colts.

 

[Tau837]

For those people who keep talking about how well the Giants played the Patriots as a reason that this would not be as big an upset as the pats-Rams, the Patriots also played the rams very close in the regular season when they beat them in the super bowl. I think they lost by a touchdown and the Pats fumbled the ball near the Rams goaline during that game.

More excellent evidence that the correct answer is Jets-Colts.

 

[Sea Bass]

Super Bowl XL

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Jets /Colts. What made Namath's prediction interesting is that it was so absurd. A "win" for the Jets should have been not to get blown out and prove they could compete with the Colts for awhile.

But to actually win? The AFL? I think that was the game that got the NFL really thinking merger. That's how big it was.

 

[Please See Mine]

In hindsight, the Jets' victory over the Colts was really not that much of an upset. The 2 teams were much more evenly matched than people thought. It was more of a "shock" than a true upset, if you can differentiate the two.

 

[Tau837]

In hindsight, the Jets' victory over the Colts was really not that much of an upset. The 2 teams were much more evenly matched than people thought. It was more of a "shock" than a true upset, if you can differentiate the two.

In hindsight, what team that won an upset wasn't more evenly matched with its opponent than originally thought?

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Jets /Colts. What made Namath's prediction interesting is that it was so absurd. A "win" for the Jets should have been not to get blown out and prove they could compete with the Colts for awhile. But to actually win? The AFL? I think that was the game that got the NFL really thinking merger. That's how big it was.

The merger between the nfl and afl was already agreed to before super bowl 1. The jets were the last afl team to play in the super bowl.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

In hindsight, the Jets' victory over the Colts was really not that much of an upset. The 2 teams were much more evenly matched than people thought. It was more of a "shock" than a true upset, if you can differentiate the two.

In hindsight, what team that won an upset wasn't more evenly matched with its opponent than originally thought?

Exactly. In hindsight, maybe those Belichick/Brady Pats beating Mike Martz's Rams wasn't such an upset either.

 

[MarshallRob]

Jets /Colts. What made Namath's prediction interesting is that it was so absurd. A "win" for the Jets should have been not to get blown out and prove they could compete with the Colts for awhile. But to actually win? The AFL? I think that was the game that got the NFL really thinking merger. That's how big it was.

The merger between the nfl and afl was already agreed to before super bowl 1. The jets were the last afl team to play in the super bowl.

Second-to-last but your overall point is correct. The merger was announced on June 8, 1966, and the first Super Bowl was planned for the end of that season.

 

[smitty63]

Since there is a strong debate about this year's Pats being the GTOAT it only stands to reason if the Giants can beat them that it would be the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

 

[pollardsvision]

it's amazing looking at this poll, it's hard to come up with 5 decent upsets in 41 super bowls.

it makes sense that championship upsets are rare in the NBA (7 games).

it makes sense that upsets are more frequent in MLB than in the NBA (pitching rotations).

given the football is the only sport (that matters) with a 1-game championship, you'd think we'd get some decent upsets more often.

frankly, it's uncanny how the dynasties of the nfl really never lose when they make it to the super bowl.

i guess that reason might make a giants win the biggest upset ever (imagine if the 70's steelers or the 49ers had been undefeated in the 4th super bowl trip, and lost?)

 

[MarshallRob]

1. Jets over Colts

2. Patriots over Rams

3. Giants over Patriots

4. Everything else

Jets over Colts was the equivalent of Boise State over the Rams, not the no-name Patriots over the Rams.

Before the Patriots Silenced The Rams, nobody acknowledged individual members on the Pats squad to the extent that Burress, Strahan, Youmenura (butchered spelling?), and (at least in a pedigree sense) Manning are acknowledged today. In that regard, the Giants over the Pats would not be nearly as shocking to "informed" footbally fans, but "as shocking" to the general population and to bookmakers.

I agree with this ranking. I really cannot understand anyone not picking Jets over Colts.

It's hard to imagine how anybody could be as shocked today by an upset as the fans of the time were shocked by the Jets' win. A few points:

1) There was no interleague play other than the Super Bowl. People widely considered the AFL to be a much inferior league and those impressions were massively reinforced by the results of Super Bowls I and II.

2) The Jets were only the third-best team in the AFL in 1968. The Chiefs and Raiders tied for that league's best record. Those teams were the AFL's first two Super Bowl representatives and they had gotten crushed. Why would the inexperienced Jets be expected to fare better than the AFL's two powerhouses?

3) To get to the Super Bowl, the Jets edged out the favored Raiders in an all-time classic game. The Raiders were driving for the winning score but they botched a lateral and then stood around thinking it was an incomplete pass allowing New York to recover it and move on. That win was the Jets' first postseason game EVER. Super Bowl III would be their second.

4) The Colts were a great team. They didn't just dominate in 1968, they had been a perennial contender for a decade. Only one NFL championship game between 1958-1968 did not feature either the Baltimore Colts or the Green Bay Packers. They were the two greatest NFL teams of the era. Many experts thought the 1968 Colts might be the best team ever to play.

5) I'm not sure the historic win made people see the Jets and the AFL in a different light, at least not immediately. It's kind of amazing if you read the play-by-play of Super Bowl III. In the first half the Colts had drives to the Jets' 4 and 9 yard lines ended by bad interceptions, missed two FG's, and of course Earl Morrall famously missed a wide-open WR in the end zone on the half's final play. The Colts could have had a huge lead. The pressure created by the expectations might well have got to them. Their loss was probably seen as more of a fluke, at least until the Chiefs upset the Viking the next year.

 

[Tau837]

Since there is a strong debate about this year's Pats being the GTOAT it only stands to reason if the Giants can beat them that it would be the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

No, your conclusion does not follow. The biggest upset is the result of the largest delta between the two teams, not based on how great the favorite team is. And given that the Giants almost beat the Patriots 4 weeks ago, it does not stand to reason that the delta between the two teams can be the largest in the history of the Super Bowl.

 

[Raider Nation]

1. Jets over Colts

2. Patriots over Rams

3. Giants over Patriots

4. Everything else

Jets over Colts was the equivalent of Boise State over the Rams, not the no-name Patriots over the Rams.

Before the Patriots Silenced The Rams, nobody acknowledged individual members on the Pats squad to the extent that Burress, Strahan, Youmenura (butchered spelling?), and (at least in a pedigree sense) Manning are acknowledged today. In that regard, the Giants over the Pats would not be nearly as shocking to "informed" footbally fans, but "as shocking" to the general population and to bookmakers.

I agree with this ranking. I really cannot understand anyone not picking Jets over Colts.

It's hard to imagine how anybody could be as shocked today by an upset as the fans of the time were shocked by the Jets' win. A few points:

1) There was no interleague play other than the Super Bowl. People widely considered the AFL to be a much inferior league and those impressions were massively reinforced by the results of Super Bowls I and II.

2) The Jets were only the third-best team in the AFL in 1968. The Chiefs and Raiders tied for that league's best record. Those teams were the AFL's first two Super Bowl representatives and they had gotten crushed. Why would the inexperienced Jets be expected to fare better than the AFL's two powerhouses?

3) To get to the Super Bowl, the Jets edged out the favored Raiders in an all-time classic game. The Raiders were driving for the winning score but they botched a lateral and then stood around thinking it was an incomplete pass allowing New York to recover it and move on. That win was the Jets' first postseason game EVER. Super Bowl III would be their second.

4) The Colts were a great team. They didn't just dominate in 1968, they had been a perennial contender for a decade. Only one NFL championship game between 1958-1968 did not feature either the Baltimore Colts or the Green Bay Packers. They were the two greatest NFL teams of the era. Many experts thought the 1968 Colts might be the best team ever to play.

5) I'm not sure the historic win made people see the Jets and the AFL in a different light, at least not immediately. It's kind of amazing if you read the play-by-play of Super Bowl III. In the first half the Colts had drives to the Jets' 4 and 9 yard lines ended by bad interceptions, missed two FG's, and of course Earl Morrall famously missed a wide-open WR in the end zone on the half's final play. The Colts could have had a huge lead. The pressure created by the expectations might well have got to them. Their loss was probably seen as more of a fluke, at least until the Chiefs upset the Viking the next year.

There's no other answer. This was a monumental upset.

 

[JohnnyU]

Jets /Colts. What made Namath's prediction interesting is that it was so absurd. A "win" for the Jets should have been not to get blown out and prove they could compete with the Colts for awhile.

But to actually win? The AFL? I think that was the game that got the NFL really thinking merger. That's how big it was.

The merger between the nfl and afl was already agreed to before super bowl 1. The jets were the last afl team to play in the super bowl.

Second-to-last but your overall point is correct. The merger was announced on June 8, 1966, and the first Super Bowl was planned for the end of that season.

Technically that is true, but......."During the first few years of the new National Football League, the two conferences maintained separate identities and schedules. Initially then, the Super Bowl became a contest where the upstart AFL would try to prove its meddle against more established teams. As might be expected, in the first two Super Bowls (Super Bowls I and II), the NFL Green Bay Packers easily defeated their AFL opponents. Most believed it would take years before an AFL team would actually win a Super Bowl. Then in Super Bowl III, the AFL champion New York Jets were matched against the powerful Baltimore Colts. Jets quarterback "Broadway Joe" Namath, on the eve of the contest in which the Colts were heavily favored, "guaranteed" a Jets victory. On January 12, 1969, the Jets stunned the sports world by defeating the Colts 16-7. The Jets victory finally gave the AFL its due and helped bring the two leagues together when the merger officially began the next year."Whether the merger was in the works or not is irrelevent, the NFL considered the AFL bush league. It took the Jets win over the Colts to change that. One thing I was wrong about was thinking the Jets win forced the merger. I knew at the time it was being talked about, but I didn't think it was official.

 

[Andy Herron]

Super Bowl III

Jets over Colts

 

[MarshallRob]

Jets /Colts. What made Namath's prediction interesting is that it was so absurd. A "win" for the Jets should have been not to get blown out and prove they could compete with the Colts for awhile.

But to actually win? The AFL? I think that was the game that got the NFL really thinking merger. That's how big it was.

The merger between the nfl and afl was already agreed to before super bowl 1. The jets were the last afl team to play in the super bowl.

Second-to-last but your overall point is correct. The merger was announced on June 8, 1966, and the first Super Bowl was planned for the end of that season.

Technically that is true, but......."During the first few years of the new National Football League, the two conferences maintained separate identities and schedules. Initially then, the Super Bowl became a contest where the upstart AFL would try to prove its meddle against more established teams. As might be expected, in the first two Super Bowls (Super Bowls I and II), the NFL Green Bay Packers easily defeated their AFL opponents. Most believed it would take years before an AFL team would actually win a Super Bowl. Then in Super Bowl III, the AFL champion New York Jets were matched against the powerful Baltimore Colts. Jets quarterback "Broadway Joe" Namath, on the eve of the contest in which the Colts were heavily favored, "guaranteed" a Jets victory. On January 12, 1969, the Jets stunned the sports world by defeating the Colts 16-7. The Jets victory finally gave the AFL its due and helped bring the two leagues together when the merger officially began the next year."Whether the merger was in the works or not is irrelevent, the NFL considered the AFL bush league. It took the Jets win over the Colts to change that. One thing I was wrong about was thinking the Jets win forced the merger. I knew at the time it was being talked about, but I didn't think it was official.

Ok, here's the whole story from Total Football II. The two leagues agreed in 1966 to have their champions play in the Super Bowl, they instituted a common draft in 1967, and a complete merger with interleague play was planned for 1970. After the AFL won Super Bowls III and IV they started to have second thoughts. Thinking they were now the equal of the NFL, the AFL considered remaining an autonomous league that would play the NFL in the Super Bowl only. However, Paul Brown couldn't have hated that idea more. In 1968 Brown formed the AFL's Cincinnati Bengals expansion team. He really wanted to hold out for an NFL club but he took the AFL one with the understanding the leagues planned to merge in 1970. He threatened to sue if the merger didn't go through as planned. Pete Rozelle locked all 26 NFL and AFL owners in a room until they all figured out a plan. Al Davis came up with the winning compromise. The NFL would move three teams to the AFL to create two 13-team conferences of three divisions each and the three teams that ended up moving (Colts, Steelers, and Browns as it turned out) would get three million bucks apiece. Davis then vetoed his own plan, demanding he get veto power over the realignment first. But Oakland's majority owner overruled him and voted with the other owners to ratify the new deal. They wound up having Rozelle's secretary draw slips of paper with various combinations of teams out of a hat to determine the lineups of the six divisions. So the Jets win actually helped endanger the already existing merger agreement.

 

[CalBear]

Joe Namath completed 50.1% of his passes in his career, with 173 TDs and 220 INTs. He had a total of two seasons in his career where he threw more TDs than INTs; he never had a season with more than 53% completions. His career passer rating is 65.5. He played a total of 3 postseason games in his career, completing 50 of 117 passes (42.7%) with 3 TD and 4 INT. He never went to the playoffs after the merger. He has, by far, the worst resume of any modern-era HOF QB.

There is one reason Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame; he guaranteed a victory in Super Bowl III, and the Jets won. That's how big an upset it was.

Let's think about it; if Eli Manning guarantees a victory, and the Giants win, and then Manning is mediocre for the rest of his career and doesn't ever win another playoff game, do you think Manning will be in the Hall of Fame? Not even close.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sorry, but 18-0 in the salary cap era >>> then anything else. This would be the biggest upset. For those of you pointing to week 17...the Patsies were already game planning of the playoffs. I take any wager posted that the Pats win by more than 3 points v. the NYG in the Super Bowl.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Super Bowl XL

 

[money.never.sleeps]

Jets over Colts.The Colts were in another league, literally.

Baltimore was by far the "superior" team and to top it off were in another league compared to the lesser Joe Namath led Jets.I struggled to decide between the Chiefs over the Vikings along with Patriots over Rams.

 

[Ack88]

If you go strictly by the spread, than yes; Super Bowl III produced the biggest upset. I really cannot speak about that game or the context surrounding it because I wasn't even born yet. I'm not saying it wasn't the biggest upset because I truly don't know.

If I choose the biggest upset based upon what I have seen, than the Patriots over the Rams ranks #1 for me. The Rams of that season were the best offensive team I had ever witnessed until the 07 Pats.

 

[pigskin pimp]

If you go strictly by the spread, than yes; Super Bowl III produced the biggest upset. I really cannot speak about that game or the context surrounding it because I wasn't even born yet. I'm not saying it wasn't the biggest upset because I truly don't know.If I choose the biggest upset based upon what I have seen, than the Patriots over the Rams ranks #1 for me. The Rams of that season were the best offensive team I had ever witnessed until the 07 Pats.

98 Vikings down?

 

[KellysHeroes]

Jets over Colts.The Colts were in another league, literally.

Baltimore was by far the "superior" team and to top it off were in another league compared to the lesser Joe Namath led Jets.I struggled to decide between the Chiefs over the Vikings along with Patriots over Rams.

There is no doubt that this was the "Biggest"; however... I am way too young to ever see it or even pretend I know anything about that Game.I voted for the Pats over the Rams... that was just a terrible yr and that SB made you forget about your troubles.However; I would say that the Giants over the Bills in the 90's was Biggest Upset I ever seen. The back up QB leading his team to the win; the missed FG at the end... just a great game.

 

[Tanner9919]

There was an interesting discussion a few days ago about whether a Giants win this year would amount to the biggest upset in Super Bowl history. Any time you're comparing eras there's bound to be disagreement; so this isn't something that has a definite right or wrong answer. That said, I thought a lot of interesting arguments were made in the thread in question.

So here is a poll to see where the forum stands on the matter.

For the record, I DO believe this would amount to the biggest upset in SB history; and put my thoughts down in our blog today. Since the pre-merger era makes it difficult to compare, I could see an argument for the SBII and SBIII games, as well.

What do you think? Cast your votes....

Jason, not a chance this SB, if the Giants win, would surpass the Jets/Colts game.that was such an instrumental game in the history of the NFL, for what it did to create the League as we know it today, that it simply cannot be overlooked. the merger was agreed upon in 1966 and was due to be implemented in 1970. The Jets victory over the Colts gave INSTANT credibility to this 'new' league about to be formed..

without that victory,who knows what pro football would look like today.

Yes, the Pats are a very special team, I'd rank it as the #2 upset in SB history, but NOT the biggest. The Jets proved the AFL is worthy of joining forces with the NFL to make one great league..you'll remember that many people thought the AFL was like triple-A baseball when compared to MLB..

 

[gump]

There is one reason Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame; he guaranteed a victory in Super Bowl III, and the Jets won. That's how big an upset it was.Let's think about it; if Eli Manning guarantees a victory, and the Giants win, and then Manning is mediocre for the rest of his career and doesn't ever win another playoff game, do you think Manning will be in the Hall of Fame? Not even close.

I agree with your first statement for the most part...but wasn't Namath also the first QB to pass for 4,000 yards? I doubt Eli breaks any passing records.