Football (North America: NFL, CFL, Arena Football, minor leagues)

[thspfc]

So far, we got lots of teams who won a 1st league championship this year with the St. Louis Blues (NHL), Toronto Raptors (NBA) and Washington Nationals (MLB).  Will the lightning strike again for the upcoming SuperBowl?

Probably not lightning but possibly an arrowhead.

If the Texans weren't in the same conference as Tom Brady, I would say they have a chance.

[ilpt4u]

So far, we got lots of teams who won a 1st league championship this year with the St. Louis Blues (NHL), Toronto Raptors (NBA) and Washington Nationals (MLB).  Will the lightning strike again for the upcoming SuperBowl?

Probably not lightning but possibly an arrowhead.

Who would be the Contenders?

Vikings? Texans? Bills? Panthers? Maybe Chargers?

[webny99]

So far, we got lots of teams who won a 1st league championship this year with the St. Louis Blues (NHL), Toronto Raptors (NBA) and Washington Nationals (MLB).  Will the lightning strike again for the upcoming SuperBowl?

Probably not lightning but possibly an arrowhead.

If the Texans weren't in the same conference as Tom Brady, I would say they have a chance.

Who would be the Contenders?
Vikings? Texans? Bills? Panthers? Maybe Chargers?

Uh, I think you guys missed the joke: Not lightning (Chargers), but possibly an arrowhead (Chiefs). Only problem is, the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV.

I would actually say the Texans are the most likely. The Vikings are the better team, but can never seem to pull off wins as underdogs, which doesn't bode well for the playoffs, especially in the more competitive NFC.

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

[thspfc]

So far, we got lots of teams who won a 1st league championship this year with the St. Louis Blues (NHL), Toronto Raptors (NBA) and Washington Nationals (MLB).  Will the lightning strike again for the upcoming SuperBowl?

Probably not lightning but possibly an arrowhead.

If the Texans weren't in the same conference as Tom Brady, I would say they have a chance.

Who would be the Contenders?
Vikings? Texans? Bills? Panthers? Maybe Chargers?

Uh, I think you guys missed the joke: Not lightning (Chargers), but possibly an arrowhead (Chiefs). Only problem is, the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV.

I would actually say the Texans are the most likely. The Vikings are the better team, but can never seem to pull off wins as underdogs, which doesn't bode well for the playoffs, especially in the more competitive NFC.

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

The Bengals might be able to pull it off if they get through Miami in week 16.

[Buck87]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

[Max Rockatansky]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

Some like the Lions and Browns have also won NFL Championships. 

[jp the roadgeek]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

Some like the Lions and Browns have also won NFL Championships.

As have the Cardinals.  Bills, Chargers, and Titans (as the Oilers) won AFL Championships.

[Max Rockatansky]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

Some like the Lions and Browns have also won NFL Championships.

As have the Cardinals.  Bills, Chargers, and Titans (as the Oilers) won AFL Championships.

If memory serves correct the Cardinals have the longest championship drought dating back to 1947?   Shame so much of the pre-Super Bowl era either gets forgotten or dismissed. 

[webny99]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

They have not, however, won a Super Bowl, which is what we're talking about here.

I know the Bills appeared in 4 consecutive Super Bowls, but they were all losses, which is one of the most absurd things in sports history especially considering they haven't made it to the Super Bowl before or since.

This year's Pats could tie the Bills record for 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances, which is another reason I'm particularly anti-Pats this season. I'm hoping for the Chiefs to take them out, but at the end of the day I don't really care who does it as long as someone does it!

[thspfc]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

They have not, however, won a Super Bowl, which is what we're talking about here.

I know the Bills appeared in 4 consecutive Super Bowls, but they were all losses, which is one of the most absurd things in sports history especially considering they haven't made it to the Super Bowl before or since.

This year's Pats could tie the Bills record for 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances, which is another reason I'm particularly anti-Pats this season. I'm hoping for the Chiefs to take them out, but at the end of the day I don't really care who does it as long as someone does it!

Ravens are more likely to beat them than KC, but let's be real.

Nobody, nobody, wins in Foxborough in the playoffs.

[nexus73]

After that, in order of likelihood: Panthers, Chargers, Bills, Jaguars, Lions, Cardinals, Browns, Titans, Falcons, Bengals.

6 of those should not be on this list because they have already won their first league title

They have not, however, won a Super Bowl, which is what we're talking about here.

I know the Bills appeared in 4 consecutive Super Bowls, but they were all losses, which is one of the most absurd things in sports history especially considering they haven't made it to the Super Bowl before or since.

This year's Pats could tie the Bills record for 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances, which is another reason I'm particularly anti-Pats this season. I'm hoping for the Chiefs to take them out, but at the end of the day I don't really care who does it as long as someone does it!

Had the Super Bowl started a year earlier, Buffalo would have played in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_American_Football_League_Championship_Game

Guess who they would have faced?  Yup, the guy who the trophy is now named after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_NFL_Championship_Game

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.  When reading about the teams these two teams beat in their respective league championships, they wound up in the same bad barrel.  San Diego went 0-2 in Super Bowls while Cleveland never made it that far.  Not until the franchise had relocated to Baltimore, which had known winning championship football, did the team get the title.  On top of that, Baltimore was the location for the team which won the CFL title:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Stallions

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

Rick

[webny99]

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.
...

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

I'm not sure I follow... are those two statements supposed to be related to one another? 

(Of course, I don't necessarily believe the Bills will never win a Super Bowl, but that's another topic...)

[nexus73]

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.
...

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

I'm not sure I follow... are those two statements supposed to be related to one another? 

(Of course, I don't necessarily believe the Bills will never win a Super Bowl, but that's another topic...)

Uh, sorry you cannot connect the dots.  Let me put it this way.  Some cities pile up winners and other cities pile up losers.  Got it?  Good.

Rick

[Alps]

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.
...

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

I'm not sure I follow... are those two statements supposed to be related to one another? 

(Of course, I don't necessarily believe the Bills will never win a Super Bowl, but that's another topic...)

Uh, sorry you cannot connect the dots.  Let me put it this way.  Some cities pile up winners and other cities pile up losers.  Got it?  Good.

Rick

Yeah, after the Cubs won, I don't think that makes sense. Got it? Good.

[MNHighwayMan]

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.
...

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

I'm not sure I follow... are those two statements supposed to be related to one another? 

(Of course, I don't necessarily believe the Bills will never win a Super Bowl, but that's another topic...)

Uh, sorry you cannot connect the dots.  Let me put it this way.  Some cities pile up winners and other cities pile up losers.  Got it?  Good.

It has nothing to do with location and everything to do with coaching, management, and ownership.

For example: the Browns don't suck because they're in Cleveland. They suck because the Haslams seem unable to hire competent coaches and managers, who are thus unable to find competent players.

[jakeroot]

^^^^
I think there's something to be said about location. Miami does not play well in Foxborough during the late fall or winter when it's cold (and because they're not a good team), but New England historically struggles in Miami too. Because of the heat? Certainly possible.

[jp the roadgeek]

Cleveland never made it that far.  Not until the franchise had relocated to Baltimore, which had known winning championship football, did the team get the title.

Technically, for official sake, the Browns haven't made it since 1964.  All of the team records from pre-1995 remain in Cleveland.  The Ravens are officially deemed as an "expansion"  franchise, while the Browns were officially considered dormant for 3 years before being revived with the unofficial expansion franchise for the 99 season as part of the deal struck with Art Modell when he uprooted to Baltimore.  By the time the Ravens won the Super Bowl, most Cleveland players were gone.

[nexus73]

Looks like there will never be a path to get the title for poor Buffalo.
...

As they say in the realtor game, "Location, location, location"....LOL! 

I'm not sure I follow... are those two statements supposed to be related to one another? 

(Of course, I don't necessarily believe the Bills will never win a Super Bowl, but that's another topic...)

Uh, sorry you cannot connect the dots.  Let me put it this way.  Some cities pile up winners and other cities pile up losers.  Got it?  Good.

Rick

Yeah, after the Cubs won, I don't think that makes sense. Got it? Good.

Bulls.  Bears.   Blackhawks.  All champions at one point.  Got it?  GREEEEAAAATTTTT!!!!

Some of you folks have a hard time with dots

Rick

[hotdogPi]

I ran correlations. Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_by_number_of_professional_sports_championships.

1 is a perfect correlation; 0 is no correlation; -1 is perfectly anticorrelated. For each comparison, cities with only one of the two relevant teams are ignored.

MLB and NBA: 0.202
NBA and NFL: 0.257
NFL and NHL: 0.553
NHL and MLS: -0.164
MLB and NFL: 0.452
NBA and NHL: 0.324
NFL and MLS: -0.161
MLB and NHL: 0.537
NBA and MLS: 0.132
MLB and MLS: -0.191

MLB, NFL, and NHL seem to be strongly correlated, while NBA is weakly correlated with the first three, and MLS, if any, is negative. Note that some of the correlation can be explained by larger cities having more opportunities for championships (multiple teams and/or teams for longer periods of time).

[thspfc]

I ran correlations. Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_by_number_of_professional_sports_championships.

1 is a perfect correlation; 0 is no correlation; -1 is perfectly anticorrelated. For each comparison, cities with only one of the two relevant teams are ignored.

MLB and NBA: 0.202
NBA and NFL: 0.257
NFL and NHL: 0.553
NHL and MLS: -0.164
MLB and NFL: 0.452
NBA and NHL: 0.324
NFL and MLS: -0.161
MLB and NHL: 0.537
NBA and MLS: 0.132
MLB and MLS: -0.191

MLB, NFL, and NHL seem to be strongly correlated, while NBA is weakly correlated with the first three, and MLS, if any, is negative. Note that some of the correlation can be explained by larger cities having more opportunities for championships (multiple teams and/or teams for longer periods of time).

In conclusion, there is little correlation between sports teams' amount of success compared to others in that city.

[webny99]

^^^^
I think there's something to be said about location. Miami does not play well in Foxborough during the late fall or winter when it's cold (and because they're not a good team), but New England historically struggles in Miami too. Because of the heat? Certainly possible.

While true, that's not exactly relevant because we're talking about good or bad overall, not specific to a location, an opponent, or the weather conditions.

[jakeroot]

^^^^
I think there's something to be said about location. Miami does not play well in Foxborough during the late fall or winter when it's cold (and because they're not a good team), but New England historically struggles in Miami too. Because of the heat? Certainly possible.

While true, that's not exactly relevant because we're talking about good or bad overall, not specific to a location, an opponent, or the weather conditions.

I understood that after I posted my comment. But I liked what I said so I kept it up.

[Alps]

I ran correlations. Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_by_number_of_professional_sports_championships.

1 is a perfect correlation; 0 is no correlation; -1 is perfectly anticorrelated. For each comparison, cities with only one of the two relevant teams are ignored.

MLB and NBA: 0.202
NBA and NFL: 0.257
NFL and NHL: 0.553
NHL and MLS: -0.164
MLB and NFL: 0.452
NBA and NHL: 0.324
NFL and MLS: -0.161
MLB and NHL: 0.537
NBA and MLS: 0.132
MLB and MLS: -0.191

MLB, NFL, and NHL seem to be strongly correlated, while NBA is weakly correlated with the first three, and MLS, if any, is negative. Note that some of the correlation can be explained by larger cities having more opportunities for championships (multiple teams and/or teams for longer periods of time).

My next step is to just call him a Boomer and walk away.

[US 89]

I ran correlations. Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_by_number_of_professional_sports_championships.

Somebody clearly has way too much time on their hands. 

[Buck87]

They have not, however, won a Super Bowl, which is what we're talking about here.

No it is not. The term used in the post that started this was "League championship."

But anyway, If the word "Super Bowl" had never been invented and they just kept using the term "NFL Championship" from 1970 on we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would be just like the other 3 leagues whose old time titles get to count just as much as modern ones regardless of how many expansions, mergers or playoff format changes have occurred over the years, all because the name of the championship round has remained the same.