The first Super Bowl took place after the end of the 1966 season, on Jan 15 of 1967. A few years after the AFL and NFL merger. (They didn't call it "Super Bowl" then)
To check the ATS record of teams that had a prior SB appearance (win or lose) vs those that were in their first SB, I cut out the first 10 years of results,when most teams never were in it, due to timespan reasons.
Starting in 1967, by my records, there were 10 SBs where one team had been in a SB at any time in the past, vs a team making its initial appearance in same.
The ATS record is 7-3 in favor of the team that at some time in the past underwent the experience, against a team that never had.
More relevant may be if a team had been in a SB in the last, say, six years, vs a team that had not been there in over, say, 12 years. Let me check that out and report back
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The first Super Bowl took place after the end of the 1966 season, on Jan 15 of 1967. A few years after the AFL and NFL merger. (They didn't call it "Super Bowl" then)
To check the ATS record of teams that had a prior SB appearance (win or lose) vs those that were in their first SB, I cut out the first 10 years of results,when most teams never were in it, due to timespan reasons.
Starting in 1967, by my records, there were 10 SBs where one team had been in a SB at any time in the past, vs a team making its initial appearance in same.
The ATS record is 7-3 in favor of the team that at some time in the past underwent the experience, against a team that never had.
More relevant may be if a team had been in a SB in the last, say, six years, vs a team that had not been there in over, say, 12 years. Let me check that out and report back
Just to correct the above -- the 1980 LA Rams were the same at the 2000 St. Louis Rams, who beat Tennessess by 7 points. This game was -6.5 for a long time, and that's what I got it at at the time, tho I think it closed on game day at -7, or a push.
As a cover, it brings the ATS record to 8-3 with the criteria outlined above.
(I'm not saying this is THE ultimate determinant - just another smidgen of information to piece together the puzzle that each game presents)
0
Just to correct the above -- the 1980 LA Rams were the same at the 2000 St. Louis Rams, who beat Tennessess by 7 points. This game was -6.5 for a long time, and that's what I got it at at the time, tho I think it closed on game day at -7, or a push.
As a cover, it brings the ATS record to 8-3 with the criteria outlined above.
(I'm not saying this is THE ultimate determinant - just another smidgen of information to piece together the puzzle that each game presents)
Using the second criteria (in SB within 6 years vs a team that had not made an appearnce for at least 12 years) the ATS record is not as impressive: 6-4 ATS.
I am, btw, just doing this with paper and pencil. Anyone interested should re-check the figures
0
Using the second criteria (in SB within 6 years vs a team that had not made an appearnce for at least 12 years) the ATS record is not as impressive: 6-4 ATS.
I am, btw, just doing this with paper and pencil. Anyone interested should re-check the figures
Finally, a team that was in the SB (won or lost) within 6 years vs a team that was never in it, for the team that qualifies of first set of condtions: 7-4 ATS.
Two of those losses were in 04 and 05, when New England won (by 3 pts each) but did not cover, vs Carolina and Phila.
I'm again disregarding the first ten games, 1967 to 1976. And again, it's just a paper check, I invite anyone interested to re-check.
Just another piece of information, among the many pieces out there for this grossly over-hyped contest.
0
Finally, a team that was in the SB (won or lost) within 6 years vs a team that was never in it, for the team that qualifies of first set of condtions: 7-4 ATS.
Two of those losses were in 04 and 05, when New England won (by 3 pts each) but did not cover, vs Carolina and Phila.
I'm again disregarding the first ten games, 1967 to 1976. And again, it's just a paper check, I invite anyone interested to re-check.
Just another piece of information, among the many pieces out there for this grossly over-hyped contest.
I believe one would see a more impressive result than any of the above by using this criteria:
A team in the top 3 in Total Defense (regular season) versus a team rated, say, 12 or worse in same category.
I don't have the years-long stats (tho they may be somewhere on line, maybe even at the NFL site) to confirm this, but I believe it was the case in the '01 Super Bowl, when the Ravens (with a mediocre QB) smacked the Giants.
And ditto in '03 when Tampa crapped all over the Raiders.
This criteria holds true for this edition of the Super Bowl, and the reason I've made a moderate wager on the Steelers.
"Moderate" because I have noticed with this team that when they get more than a TD lead they seem to slack offf, and let the other team back in the game.
With some bizarre stuff, like a huge number of penalties, taking too many sacks, or dumb interceptions. Or, like vs Baltimore last week, a punt of - what was it? - 25 yards, which allowed Ravens to get a TD. And note how they let the Chargers back in the game, when it should have been put away.
I got Pburgh at -6. If the pattern of Defense Rules holds true, they should blow out the Cards. And I'm hoping so. But I've seem them play - all too often that "killer instinct" is lacking
0
I believe one would see a more impressive result than any of the above by using this criteria:
A team in the top 3 in Total Defense (regular season) versus a team rated, say, 12 or worse in same category.
I don't have the years-long stats (tho they may be somewhere on line, maybe even at the NFL site) to confirm this, but I believe it was the case in the '01 Super Bowl, when the Ravens (with a mediocre QB) smacked the Giants.
And ditto in '03 when Tampa crapped all over the Raiders.
This criteria holds true for this edition of the Super Bowl, and the reason I've made a moderate wager on the Steelers.
"Moderate" because I have noticed with this team that when they get more than a TD lead they seem to slack offf, and let the other team back in the game.
With some bizarre stuff, like a huge number of penalties, taking too many sacks, or dumb interceptions. Or, like vs Baltimore last week, a punt of - what was it? - 25 yards, which allowed Ravens to get a TD. And note how they let the Chargers back in the game, when it should have been put away.
I got Pburgh at -6. If the pattern of Defense Rules holds true, they should blow out the Cards. And I'm hoping so. But I've seem them play - all too often that "killer instinct" is lacking
Using the second criteria (in SB within 6 years vs a team that had not made an appearnce for at least 12 years) the ATS record is not as impressive: 6-4 ATS.
I am, btw, just doing this with paper and pencil. Anyone interested should re-check the figures
It is not as impressive as of late because the Salary Cap (1993) has leveled the playing field somewhat and has made for more of a competitive balance between team. So, you are not going to see anymore of the crazy super teams playing in back-to-back-to-back Super Bowls with complete domination...
0
Quote Originally Posted by luckbythetruck:
Using the second criteria (in SB within 6 years vs a team that had not made an appearnce for at least 12 years) the ATS record is not as impressive: 6-4 ATS.
I am, btw, just doing this with paper and pencil. Anyone interested should re-check the figures
It is not as impressive as of late because the Salary Cap (1993) has leveled the playing field somewhat and has made for more of a competitive balance between team. So, you are not going to see anymore of the crazy super teams playing in back-to-back-to-back Super Bowls with complete domination...
And all the public money will be coming in this week, right up until game time...
Public hardly ever bets two weeks before the Super Bowl...
Altho the pub comes in mostly on the fave, I doubt that Pittsburgh will surge above 7. Books will move the juice insteads - too many middlers and arb guys just waiting to pounce
There a chance the number will drop to 6.5
0
Quote Originally Posted by talent888:
And all the public money will be coming in this week, right up until game time...
Public hardly ever bets two weeks before the Super Bowl...
Altho the pub comes in mostly on the fave, I doubt that Pittsburgh will surge above 7. Books will move the juice insteads - too many middlers and arb guys just waiting to pounce
It is not as impressive as of late because the Salary Cap (1993) has leveled the playing field somewhat and has made for more of a competitive balance between team. So, you are not going to see anymore of the crazy super teams playing in back-to-back-to-back Super Bowls with complete domination...
Agreed.
In recent years (ie, this century) there have been more bad to good teams (and sometimes "worst to first") than at any other ten year period in modern (since the merger) NFL history. For the reason you site.
Unlike the "old" days,it is no longer of paramount importance who the QB is, or the RB or the OT.
What is key is - who is the General Manager,the Head Scout, the Capologist . . . That group will determine the future of the franchise.
Exhibit # 1: the Detroit Lions
0
Quote Originally Posted by talent888:
It is not as impressive as of late because the Salary Cap (1993) has leveled the playing field somewhat and has made for more of a competitive balance between team. So, you are not going to see anymore of the crazy super teams playing in back-to-back-to-back Super Bowls with complete domination...
Agreed.
In recent years (ie, this century) there have been more bad to good teams (and sometimes "worst to first") than at any other ten year period in modern (since the merger) NFL history. For the reason you site.
Unlike the "old" days,it is no longer of paramount importance who the QB is, or the RB or the OT.
What is key is - who is the General Manager,the Head Scout, the Capologist . . . That group will determine the future of the franchise.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
