So......About That Terrible Division Known as the NFC West
by SSreporters on Jan 18, 2012 7:14 AM PST
Email
Print
First written on my blog.
Ever since the NFL re-aligned the divisions to make way for the Houston Texans back in 2003, the NFC West has been the butt of jokes from fans and pundits alike over the years. Some of it is more than justified, as the division hasn’t taken two teams into the playoffs since 2004-05. Last year the NFC West was won by the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks, a team so bad that they lost every single regular season game by at least 15 points. You would think that having the division won by a team with less than ten wins a total of 4 times since the re-alignments would result in easy playoff eliminations, right? Yeahhhhhhh about that.
NFC West Playoff Record Since 2003
2002 (10-6): W vs. #5 New York Giants, L at #2 Tampa Bay Buccaneers in divisional round.
2011 (13-3): W vs. #3 New Orleans Saints, ?? vs. #4 New York Giants in NFC Championship Game
Record: 2-1
2003 (10-6): L at #4 Green Bay Packers in wild card round
2004 (9-7): L vs. #5 St. Louis Rams in wild card round
2005 (13-3): W vs. #6 Washington Redskins, W vs. #5 Carolina Panthers, L vs. #6 Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XL
2006 (9-7): W vs. #5 Dallas Cowboys, L at #1 Chicago Bears in divisional round.
2007 (10-6): W vs. #6 Washington Redskins, L at #2 Green Bay Packers in divisional round
2010 (7-9): W vs. #5 New Orleans Saints, L at #2 Chicago Bears in divisional round.
Record: 5-6
St. Louis Rams
2003 (12-4): L vs. #3 Carolina Panthers in divisional round
2004 (8-8): W at #4 Seattle Seahawks, L at #2 Atlanta Falcons in divisional round
Record: 1-2
2008 (9-7): W vs. #5 Atlanta Falcons, W at #2 Carolina Panthers, W vs. #6 Philadelphia Eagles, L vs. #2 Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII
2009 (10-6): W vs. #5 Green Bay Packers, L at #1 New Orleans Saints in divisional round.
Record: 4-2
TOTAL NFC WEST PLAYOFF RECORD: 12-11 (10-2 home, 2-7 road, 0-2 Super Bowl), 2 Super Bowl appearances, and 3 first-round byes.
vs. NFC East: 5-0
vs. NFC South: 5-4
vs. NFC North: 1-4
vs. NFC West: 1-1 (head-to-head obviously between Seahawks and Rams)
vs. AFC: 0-2
Playoff Record Compared to Rest of NFC
NFC East: 15-17 (2 Super Bowl teams, 1 SB winner 4 inter-divisional matchups)
NFC South: 13-13 (3 Super Bowl teams, 2 SB winners, 0 inter-divisional matchups)
NFC North: 11-13 (2 Super Bowl teams, 1 SB winner, 2 inter-divisional matchups)
So the NFC West has the best playoff record by win percentage, but lack Super Bowl wins.
I know there wasn’t a single NFC East game played at the home of the NFC East team, but how good is it that the media’s favorite division seems to have problems beating NFC West teams? And two of those games live forever in playoff lore: The 49ers miraculous comeback against the Giants in 2002-03 and the Tony Romo fumble against the Seahawks in 2006-07.
The NFC West has won a playoff game every year since the realignment bar the 2003 season, when the Seahawks and Rams both went out in overtime to their respective opponents. They’ve taken two teams to the Super Bowl and if the 49ers win this Sunday, they’ll be tied with the NFC South for most Super Bowl teams represented in the NFL in the last 10 seasons. Of course an actual Super Bowl title remains elusive, but luckily Pittsburgh isn’t here to ruin things again.
This division has managed playoff wins with two 9-7 champs, a 7-9 disaster, and an 8-8 wild-card. There’s no denying that in the regular season the NFC West has been one of the worst divisions in football, but when it comes down to playoff performance, they’re always good for at least one win, maybe something more.
So….go 49ers?
61 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"So...go 49ers?"
NEVER, YOU HERETIC. BLASPHEMER. TURNCOAT. RENEGADE. APOSTATE. DISSENTER.
…
TRAITOR.
…..
……..
You vile, vile, vile being.
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 17, 2012 2:26 PM PST reply actions 5 recs
grumble
go niners…
A fistful of brass. My sigs are always behind the times.
I'm a one man rec'n crew
by jubelthebear on Jan 18, 2012 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Two things
One, the Rams’ record is 1-2. Two, the Steelers weren’t the #1 seed when we played them, they were the #6.
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 17, 2012 2:48 PM PST reply actions
Heard some stupid ESPN radio host on yesterday
going on about the Packers and Giants and how the Packer’s record was inflated because they played in a weaker division than the Giants. I laughed.
The north had two playoff teams and might have had three if Cutler and Forte didn’t get hurt. But the NFC Least is a “tough” division.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It would be fair to say that the NFC West was the worst division for a long time but has gotten better this season.
As far as getting wins in the playoffs, 1 home game makes a huge difference. Homefield advantage is huge in football.
follow @casetines
Home teams are 60-38 in the postseason (Super Bowl obviously excluded)
So yep.
Granted what has changed recently is the NFC #1 seed can’t win for shit these days. I think this is the 4th time in 5 years that the #1 seed has been eliminated after one game.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
The weirdest stat is that the last Super Bowl champ to make the conference championship was New England in 2004.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 17, 2012 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, all of the defending champs since then have either missed or lost their first playoff game
Another stat: The NFC West is the only division to break the “Super Bowl Loser’s Curse” per se. Every other team for the last 10 or so years has either missed or lost their first playoff game after losing the SB, except the Seahawks and Cardinals!
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Unresearched theory here
Do we send fewer Wild Card teams than most other divisions? Do Wild Card teams tend to lose more often in the playoffs? Is that why the NFCW has a good division record in the playoffs?
Easy Math
Every playoff berth ends in a loss OR a Super Bowl championship OR is awaiting the result of this year’s remaining games.
Ergo, the number of playoff berths for a particular division will be:
Playoff losses + Super Bowl wins + 2011 pending
And the number of wild card berths will be that number minus the number of division championships (ten for every division from 2002-2011):
Losses + SB wins + 2011 pending – 10 = wc berths
East
17 + 1 + 1 – 10 = 9
North
12 + 1 – 10 = 3
South
13 + 2 – 10 = 5
West
11 + 1 – 10 = 2
Curiously, that adds up to 19 wild card berths in ten years, which means something is off by one (either the stats or my computation). At any rate, the NFC West is at the bottom, but not by much compared to North & South. It’s really case of WC dominance by the NFC East.
Found the error
“Curiously, that adds up to 19 wild card berths in ten years, which means something is off by one (either the stats or my computation).”
Ha ha! As if my computations could ever be in doubt…
2002
E Giants
S Falcons
2003
E Cowboys
W Seahawks
2004
N Vikings
W Rams
2005
E Redskins
S Panthers
2006
E Cowboys
E Giants
2007
E Giants
E Redskins
2008
E Eagles
S Falcons
2009
E Eagles
N Packers
2010
N Packers
S Saints
2011
N Lions
S Falcons
There are four WC berths for the NFC North (2004 Vikings, 2009 Packers, 2010 Packers, 2011 Lions). Add that to 10 division champions and you get fourteen total playoff berths, resulting in one Super Bowl win (Green Bay 2010) and thirteen losses, not twelve. So the article contains a minor error. SSReporters?
Fuck the NFC West!
They’re our opponents and I hope the 49ers get blown out on Sunday.
by DetectiveM on Jan 18, 2012 1:28 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Hope 49ers win!!
For two reasons, the further they go this year the more it validates us losing to them, and #2 If they make it to the Super Bowl but lose, Superbowl hangover baby could be important for next year :)
by Christian Bussey on Jan 18, 2012 9:33 AM PST up reply actions
Glad somebody agrees. This rooting for the division boggles my mind.
by StealthHawk on Jan 18, 2012 10:54 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Actually, I think it's mostly the 49ers
Around here at least. I don’t actually have any sort of large reserves of hate for the Cardinals and the Rams. Maybe that’s just me though.
Long suffering, committed Seahawks/Packers fan
I had some hate for the Rams
back in like 2002-04 when it always seemed they stood in our way. Then 2005 happened and the Rams fell off a cliff and a lot of that hate turned to pity. Until they get good again, of course.
I don't pity the Rams
There’s the Engram drop and Shaun MacDonald that runs through my veins.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
Yep
2004 cemented my Rams hate, and makes every ass-kicking that we give them even better.
by splintrdmind on Jan 18, 2012 5:44 PM PST up reply actions
The current coach of the 49ers has really bumped up the 'hate' factor for me.
And I REALLY do not want to have a Harbaugh vs Harbaugh Superbowl.
by TMann_2 on Jan 18, 2012 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I do
I don’t care how hysterical sports media will get. A defense on defense Superbowl would be refreshing.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 8:52 PM PST up reply actions
Really?
It’s hard to become a good team if you’re going to back your way into the playoffs on top of a weak division year in year. Being in a strong division is good for the team.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Being in a weak division
skews where you draft too. If you can almost always win two or three games in your division instead of getting creamed when you’re terrible like the Lions were you never get to pick where you should be based on your talent.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Jan 18, 2012 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Hard to say
The superbowl 49ers of old had a somewhat weak division, but those wins often set them up for home filed advantage. But also the superbowl Cowboys of old always seemed to play in a tough division, and it didn’t seem to phase them. I’m not sure if it matters significantly, having a damn good team and staying healthy for the post season probably matters the most.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 18, 2012 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Well, look at this year:
Ravens – Tough division
Patriots – Kind of tough division
49ers – Decent division, not great
Giants – Shitty division.
Damn it, learned nothing.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 18, 2012 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I don't think it matters significantly
But all other things being equal, being the champion of a strong division is preferable to being an 8-8 champ like the Broncos.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
I spent an hour yesterday trying to figure this out...
I spent an hour yesterday trying to figure this out…
My conclusions are inconclusive, largely because I don’t have a good way to get the data I want short of wading through standings and playoff results one by one.
However I did reach a somewhat tentative conclusion: Having a strong division rival doesn’t make you more likely to reach the Super Bowl, but it does make you more likely to win the Super Bowl.
In the past nine years, 39 division winners had no wild card underneath them. Eleven of these reached the Super Bowl.
div champ sole reprentative . . . 11/28 = 28.2%
same with a bye . . . . . . . . . 8/16 = 50.0%
same without a bye. . . . . . . . 3/23 = 13.0%
In the past nine years, 33 division winners and 36 wild card teams (69 total) came from divisions with multiple playoff contenders. Seven of these reached the Super Bowl.
multi-playoff team divs . . . 7/69 = 10.1%
division champs . . . . . . . 4/33 = 12.1%
division champ no bye . . . . 0/13 = 0.0%
division champ with bye . . . 4/20 = 20.0%
wild card no bye. . . . . . . 3/36 = 8.3%
Here are SB results for those years (2002-2010):
SB teams with another playoff team from their own division: 6-1
SB teams without another playoff team from their own division: 3-8
Broken down even further:
SB contestants who are their division’s sole representitive:
Div Champ no bye: 1-2
Div Champ with a bye: 2-6
SB contestants from divisions with multiple playoff teams:
Wild Card berth: 3-0
Div Champ no bye: 0-0
Div Champ with a bye: 3-1
One interpretation is that adversity makes you stronger.
Another interpretation is that teams from tough divisions are better than their record (in this case, playoff seeding) would indicate; or, perhaps more importantly, teams from weak divisions are worse than their playoff seed indicates, and the eight such teams that made it to the Super Bowl with a bye (going 2-6) kinda squeaked in on opponent’s mistakes/weaknesses, home-field advantage, and the bye.
FYI, ignoring the presence of other teams from one’s division, the chances of reaching the Super Bowl:
Division Champion with bye: 12/36 = 33.3%
Division Champion no bye: 3/36 = 8.3%
Wild Card: 3/36 = 8.3%
And Super Bowl performance of same:
Div Champion with bye: 5-7
Division Champion no bye: 1-2
Wild Card: 3-0
If I get bored(er), I’ll see if I can break it down by the total #wins of other teams in the division, maybe do my own fan post. Or just beg Brian Burke to do it for me. :-)
by Jason_D on Jan 19, 2012 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
^ div champ sole reprentative . . . 11/39 = 28.2%
Bad numerator on that first fraction, but the percentage is correct
Looks like it may be the Raven's year?
49er’s, Giants, Patriots were all sole division winners. Ravens had two other playoff teams in their division. They are certainly the most battle tested.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 19, 2012 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
Sole division winners?
wow, that’s some shitty wording. Division winners with no one else in the division making the playoffs, I mean.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 19, 2012 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
If we believe this is a pattern...
Then the Ravens should win if they play in the Super Bowl.
(For the sake of brevity, I will use the terms “weak division” and “strong division” to indicate whether or not that division had multiple teams in the playoffs.)
The three teams who won the Super Bowl coming from “weak divisions” each faced an opponent who was likewise from a “weak division”:
(Saints over Colts, 2009
Colts over Bears, 2006
Patriots over Panthers, 2003)
The one team from a “strong division” to actually lose the Super Bowl faced an opponent from a “strong division”:
(Packers over Steelers, 2010)
Put another way, when a team from a strong division plays the Super Bowl against a team from a weak division, they are 5-0.
However, the Conference Championship is a different story. Eleven of the past eighteen have featured a team from a strong division against a team from a weak division. The teams from the weak division won 8 of 11. There’re a lot of caveats in that, though, because the “strong division” teams had fewer byes and were more likely to be on the road. If we look at the specific case of New England versus Baltimore as “strong division at weak division, both with a bye” then there are only three matching scenarios in the past nine years:
Raiders (weak) over Titans (strong), AFC 2002, at Oakland
Patriots (strong) over Steelers (weak), AFC 2004, at Pittsburgh
Saints (weak) over Vikings (strong), NFC 2009, at New Orleans
The home weak-division home team won two of three, but that is very nearly the definition of statistically insignificant.
So either the Ravens win the SB
or the "SB teams without another playoff team from their own division: 3-8’ is going to 4-8
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Damn, dude, nice work
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 19, 2012 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
I like how we beat the Ravens, beat the Giants, and were in both games with the 49ers
And I’m pretty damn sure if we played the Patriots we’d have KILLED them. (ok, maybe not, but whatever..)
Also, fuck the 49ers to hell and back twice (and a half (so that they end in hell))
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 18, 2012 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Someone... somewhere
has got to have the defense to stop, or at least slow down Brady/Welker/Gronk/Hernandez. And I honestly think it’s the NIners. Although I can never fully count out the Giants d-line, especially with Umenyiora in the lineup.
A fistful of brass. My sigs are always behind the times.
I'm a one man rec'n crew
by jubelthebear on Jan 18, 2012 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, our size in the secondary...
…makes us one of the few that might be able to ‘neutralize’ their TEs (which I believe are the key to their offensive do-what-they-wantiness).
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Our defense is pretty bad against TEs
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 24, 2012 5:16 AM PST up reply actions
"Go" niners. I guess.
I’ve always disliked the Giants. A lot. They treated the world to one of the worst superbowls ever against the also-hated Ravens and I dread a repeat of that matchup. Of the four remaining teams I hate the 49ers the least. I guess the NL West rivalries still aren’t that huge to me as compared to the old AL West rivalries. The advantage of maybe getting some respect for the division tips the balance for me. I hate east coast bias with a passion.
Wait, the Seahawks played Baseball?!
"All I saw was purple. No jerseys, no numbers, just purple." - Todd Marinovich
by bmxnw on Jan 18, 2012 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I only want to 49ers to go to the Super Bowl to lose it.
I’m so sick of them bragging about their 5-0 super bowl record. It’s very impressive, and I’d be very proud of it too, but I’ve had 49er fans say that being 5-0 is better than the steelers being 6-1, because having a perfect record is better than having more super bowl wins.Hell, I’d rather have the Cowboys 5-3 super bowl record, since I’d rather be in it and lose than not go at all. So I’d like to see the 49ers lose the super bowl and have some of their fans stupid delusional bubbles popped.
by Mind of no mind on Jan 18, 2012 11:24 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Steelers are 6-2
Wins in XLIII, XL*, XIV, XIII, X, IX
Losses in XLV (31-25 vs Green Bay, 2011) and XXX (27-17 vs Dallas, 1996)
How could you forget the legendary Neil O’Donnell era?
Hehe, sorry.
I couldn’t remember the exact number, and I think the website I checked had not added their most recent loss. But I guess to go with my point, if I was a steelers fan I’d rather be 6-2 than 6-1 and not have watched my team play in the Super Bowl last year.
by Mind of no mind on Jan 18, 2012 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
5-0 is a pretty cool record
If you think anything is going to get them to shut up, you’re wrong though. 10 years of complete irrelevance didn’t get them to shut up, and whether they win or lose the NFCC and Superbowl, they now have some recent relevance to add on top of their non-sequitur ramblings.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
No, it's not going to shut them up.
But there is zero logic to saying that 5-0 in the SB is better than 6-2. And I’d prefer it if I never had to hear that dumb argument again.
I don’t think there is a fanbase in the nation outside of SF that would even consider taking 5-0 over 6-2 for their own team. Maybe you can argue that 5-0 is better than 5-3, but even that seems pretty stupid to me. Would any Seahawk fan ever give up our win in the NFC Championship game so that we too could someday maybe be undefeated in Super Bowl games?
by Mind of no mind on Jan 18, 2012 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I remember when Manning lost his Superbowl
And people went “now he’ll never be the best ever, because he doesn’t have a perfect SB record”.
People are stupid that way.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 18, 2012 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
I'd rather have a chainsaw enema than root for the 49ers
Let’s wait until next year to see if they can win 13 games on a first place schedule, instead of a third place schedule. Hopefully they pull a Panthers, and after having a successful playoff run, they suck the next year.
If you want me to root for them to do a face plant, then I’m all for that.
Good article, though. Anything to shoot down east coast bias.
by neurocell on Jan 18, 2012 1:03 PM PST reply actions 5 recs
Oh yeah that's another thing I'm working on
Strength of schedule +/- from pre-2011 reg. season and post-2011 reg. season.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
SoS effects 2 games
and considering the NFC East is the division we face for the SoS games its not gonna matter a lot….they get Giants we get cowboys. Arizona gets Philly, and the rams get Fisher.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
