Why fading the Super Bowl champ early in the season is not as profitable as it used to be.

[BigLou+]

Guys,

Fading the defending Super Bowl champs their first four games the following season used to be very profitable as they have gone 20-34-2 ATS over the past 14 seasons. But things are changing and I have a theory as to why.

In the past, you had to win the Super Bowl the old fashioned way, which was playing multiple playoff games a couple of years in a row before advancing to the Super Bowl. Playing 4-5 extra games against quality opponents takes it toll on a team, both physically and mentally, making it tougher and tougher to bounce back the season after winning a Super Bowl.

Over the past 14 seasons, Super Bowl champs in their first four games the following season, provided they played four playoff games or more the previous two seasons leading up to their championship, have gone 6-17-1 ATS.

Now you have teams with hardly any playoff experience coming out of nowhere and winning it all. They haven't been subjected to the extra games previous Super Bowl winners have had to endure. So teams that have won the Super Bowl and played two playoff games or less the previous two seasons leading up to their championship season are 14-17-1 ATS their first four games the following year since 1988. But things have changed even more the past few seasons.

Since 1997 the teams that won the Super Bowl and did not play 4 playoff games or more leading up to their championship year have gone 9-6-1 ATS in their first four games. Here are the teams over that span, including how many playoff games they played the two years prior to winning it all and what their ATS record was the first four games the following year:

1997 Broncos (1 playoff game previous two seasons) 3-1 ATS
1999 Rams (0 playoff games previous two seasons) 1-2-1 ATS
2000 Ravens (0 playoff games previous two seasons) 3-1 ATS
2001 Patriots (0 playoff games previous two seasons) 2-2 ATS

Taking it one step further, those four teams went a combined 3-4-1 ATS when favored by 7 points or more and 6-2 ATS as a 6.5 point favorite to a dog.

Heading into this season, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers lost in the Wild Card round two years in a row leading up to their Super Bowl season. Let's see what category they fall into.

Big Lou

[This message was edited by Big Lou on September 06, 2003 at 10:57 AM.]

 

[captain#5]

Not in the Eagles house.That crap is old news.We need to bet against Tampa Bay this week and year, not some non-sense stat that is old.

Mcdonalds back in 1995 used to sell 30 million big macs.

Today Mcdonalds sells 15 million.So we should not go to Mcdonalds because they don't sell enough bigmacs.

Stats mean nothing unless you are using the present not the past.

 

[ChadC]

Thanks for the article Lou. Don't let Captain Bonehead and his 18 posts bother you. Godd luck this season.

 

[BigLou+]

I think you're a little confused. The "old" stats say to bet against the defending champs while the "newer" data supports betting on the champs.

Big Lou

 

[texaschico]

Unless t.b. plays alstot the whole game : Philly is a lock. simoneau(s.p.) adds great speed to the eagles.(Eagles used to be dinosaurs against speed teams.) Andy reid is a genius. Philly wins big

 

[BigLou+]

bump for Johnnie 2x

 

[monkey82]

Big Lou,

Is your argument that the Broncos, Rams, Ravens, and Patriots performed well to begin the seasons following their Super Bowl victories because they weren't tired? If so, give me a freaking break.

The most obvious reason for these teams's ATS success in the early portion of the following seasons is because they were undervalued. The '97 Broncos were dogs in the Super Bowl, and the '00 Ravens got very little respect all season long. Ditto for the '01 Patriots.

Notice that the '99 Rams went 1-2-1 ATS the following season. That team was seriously hyped and most likely overvalued the following season. ATS success in the NFL is all about finding value, not figuring out which team is tired because they played a lot of playoff games two frickin' seasons ago.

 

[Oorang]

Big Lou,

“Heading into this season, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers lost in the Wild Card round two years in a row leading up to their Super Bowl season. Let's see what category they fall into.”

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers fall into the “we have a chance to repeat” category. In recent times of free agency this has been very difficult to do. The reason was too much player movement and lack of depth throughout the league. But this year is different. There has been more carry-over in the stability of teams than in awhile. There is better depth at Quarterback and not as many coaching changes. Tampa Bay picked up where they left off. But so did a lot of other teams like Philadelphia, Tennessee, Oakland, Pittsburgh, etc…

Dan Rooney said in an article that he believes the league will return to having dominant teams again. Now that owners and GMs are figuring out the salary cap, the organizations who excel will have a better chance of repeating their success. Notice the even longer contracts spread out over years.

In terms of fading the Super Bowl champion the next year, I would still look at it on a case-by-case basis. Tampa Bay would probably have beaten anyone they played because they could potentially be a “historic” team and Gruden’s offense has been on a rise. But if a team comes in and “steals” the Bowl again, it’s anyone’s guess what they will do the year after.

Good luck this weekend.