1970s- did the playoff format lead to predictable outcomes?

[lastcat3]

Though it probably isn't good for the league as a whole I miss the days when there were truly dominant teams and franchises. That's probably a big reason now why I'm not as big of a pro football fan as I used to be and prefer the college game because we still get those dominant teams and dynasties and turning a losing program around is still a real accomplishment there. The NFL today is more of a GM's game than anything. Signing free agents has become more important than drafting and building players up.

But again I realize it isn't good for the NFL as a whole which is why they seek out so much parity. College football can get away with it because overall the fan bases are a lot more rabid in college than they are for pro football. 90,000 fans will still show up to watch their team go .500 in college.

[CSKreager]

Though it probably isn't good for the league as a whole I miss the days when there were truly dominant teams and franchises. That's probably a big reason now why I'm not as big of a pro football fan as I used to be and prefer the college game because we still get those dominant teams and dynasties and turning a losing program around is still a real accomplishment there. The NFL today is more of a GM's game than anything. Signing free agents has become more important than drafting and building players up.

But again I realize it isn't good for the NFL as a whole which is why they seek out so much parity. College football can get away with it because overall the fan bases are a lot more rabid in college than they are for pro football. 90,000 fans will still show up to watch their team go .500 in college.

I don't miss the days when basically only 5-6 teams mattered. If you were not a fan of OAK/PIT/MIA it felt like you were spinning your wheels.

Was it really good when basically only 3 AFC teams mattered?

[Brian wolf]

I still believe the 76 Patriots are the only wild card in the AFC from the 70s prior to 1978, that could have gone all the way had they beat Oakland. I feel the Oilers in 79 could have beaten the Rams had they got by the Steelers.

[SeahawkFever]

Back then you could pretty much pencil in most of the playoff teams, and the only questions were whether Dallas or Washington would win the NFC East and the other one would be the Wild Card, and who would be the AFC Wild Card, and would there be some sort of dark horse team like Baltimore or Denver.

Growing up in Pittsburgh in the 70's, it was a fun ride, but I can imagine if I had grown up in Detroit or New Orleans or Atlanta in the 70's, there would have been a lot of lean years. It was a case of the haves and have nots, and as much as Pete Rozelle was a supporter of parity, the 70's were anything but that. Back then before the season you could write off 60 percent of the league as having no realistic shot of even making the postseason, while today that percentage is about 15-20 percent.

Exactly. I grew up in the DC area and the Redskins were in the hunt for a playoff spot most years. I never felt we had chance to advance to the Super Bowl however. I recall when Denver got good in '77, ten year old me was like "who are these guys?"

I'm sure another fact that would have made you ask "who are these guys?" would have been the fact that the Broncos had never made the playoffs before, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a rule that if your game didn't sell out that it wouldn't be on television?

The Broncos are probably the AFL team that I hear people talk about the AFL years of the least in general, and prior to 1976, I only see three seasons of seven wins out of their first 16 seasons.

[SeahawkFever]

Though it probably isn't good for the league as a whole I miss the days when there were truly dominant teams and franchises. That's probably a big reason now why I'm not as big of a pro football fan as I used to be and prefer the college game because we still get those dominant teams and dynasties and turning a losing program around is still a real accomplishment there. The NFL today is more of a GM's game than anything. Signing free agents has become more important than drafting and building players up.

But again I realize it isn't good for the NFL as a whole which is why they seek out so much parity. College football can get away with it because overall the fan bases are a lot more rabid in college than they are for pro football. 90,000 fans will still show up to watch their team go .500 in college.

I don't miss the days when basically only 5-6 teams mattered. If you were not a fan of OAK/PIT/MIA it felt like you were spinning your wheels.

Was it really good when basically only 3 AFC teams mattered?

Out of curiosity, who was better: The NFC of 1970-1977 as a group outside of Dallas, Minnesota and Los Angeles, or the AFC of 1970-1977 as a group outside of Miami, Oakland and Pittsburgh?

[SeahawkFever]

Back then you could pretty much pencil in most of the playoff teams, and the only questions were whether Dallas or Washington would win the NFC East and the other one would be the Wild Card, and who would be the AFC Wild Card, and would there be some sort of dark horse team like Baltimore or Denver.

Growing up in Pittsburgh in the 70's, it was a fun ride, but I can imagine if I had grown up in Detroit or New Orleans or Atlanta in the 70's, there would have been a lot of lean years. It was a case of the haves and have nots, and as much as Pete Rozelle was a supporter of parity, the 70's were anything but that. Back then before the season you could write off 60 percent of the league as having no realistic shot of even making the postseason, while today that percentage is about 15-20 percent.

In the 70's the gap between the best and worst teams was much greater than today. This can easily be analyzed if you look at the percentage of games in which one team beats the other team by more than five TD's; it was a lot higher back then. In the 30's and 40's it used to happen a lot, in the 60's and 70's it happened quite often, now it happens very rarely. That percentage you could call competitive balance (or parity) and it has steadily approached an equilibrium throughout pro football history. You'll never have a league of 32 8-8 teams, but with good management and a little luck it is much easier to rise from the bottom to the top these days than it used to be.

As far as records of the teams go, arguably one of the best showcases of a season illustrating a gap between the best and worst teams was the 1975 season:

There were ten teams that were 10-4 or better (and thus had a winning percentage of .714 or higher):
At 12-2 the Rams, Vikings, and Steelers, at 11-3, the Bengals, Raiders, and Cardinals, and at 10-4, the Cowboys, Colts, Oilers and Dolphins

And on the other end of the spectrum, there were nine teams that had a record of 4-10 or worse (and thus had a win percentage of .286 or lower):
At 4-10, the Eagles, Bears, Packers, and Falcons, at 3-11, the Jets Browns, and Patriots, and the Chargers and Saints were 2-12 as well.

All told, only seven teams out of the 26 in the league in 1975 had a record between 4-10 and 10-4: Bills, Redskins, Lions, Broncos, Chiefs, Giants, and 49ers.

On a side note, when I calculated my score percentage metric for each team, I saw great variances between the best and worst teams in the 70's in particular.

Out of curiosity, could a lack of free agency, and perhaps less refined scouting and drafting be a factor in this discrepancy between the haves and the have nots in the 1970's?

[SeahawkFever]

From 1971 to 1977, other than the 1972 Redskins and 1977 Broncos, it was essentially the same six NFL teams who were playing for conference titles and the Super Bowl- Miami/Pittsburgh/Oakland in the AFC, Dallas/Minnesota/LA Rams on the other.

In that stretch, the NFL playoff format was 4 teams per conference- division winners, 1 Wild Card.

Considering there were many a quality team that didn't make the playoffs (1975 Dolphins and Oilers, 1976 Cardinals and Bengals, 1977 Dolphins), had there been an extra Wild Card ala the late 70s and 80s, do you think that could have swung the outcome of some playoff years? Could they have maybe gone on a Wild Card run to the Super Bowl ala the '75 Cowboys or '80 Raiders? Or just getting to a conference championship game and winning a playoff game or two could have had a Luv Ya Blue Oilers type affect.

Would have been fun to see a Wild Card game between, say, 11-3 Cincinnati and 10-4 Houston in 1975 instead of Cincy being just another team that lost en route to the annual Oakland-Pittsburgh steel cage match.

There were a lot of good teams that won the division but never got to host a playoff game because of this format (Colts, Cardinals, Bengals).

Not gonna lie, it must have been tough being fans of those teams, having to see the same old same old every postseason if you weren't fans of the Oaklands and Minnesotas of the world.

One last thing: Could a similar thing also be said about the NFC of 1992-1997? Only one team that was not the 49ers, Cowboys or Packers made an NFC Championship Game: The 1996 Panthers.

AFC in that stretch appears to have been better for parity.

[Brian wolf]

Though the NFC East was strong from 1970-77, the AFC was slightly better as a conference. The AFC East and Central were strong, but the NFC Central and West were weaker.