To verify - what I hear you saying OS is that there are 32 teams, therefore a team should win 1 SB every 32 years, on average.see I disagree there. I think the # of teams in the league is crucial. It’s also an entirely reasonable barometer of success. There’s 32 teams and 2 Conferences. I think Caleb is actually leaning correct on this one. He said they are “due” for a Super Bowl. I’d say they are long overdue just based on the number of teams in our Conference. Same applies for our Division. I wouldn’t call winning our Division every 15 years successful at all. There’s only 4 teams since they went to a 32 team expansion.
The Packers SB wins are about normal. Our SB Visits are just over normal (4 visits since 1996) off league expectation. Our NFC visits are super high and our Division Wins are at super high also.
The Bears are in Long Overdue status imo. I could care less about how we “feel” about it, it’s fact they suck (oops! I let that slip!)
Now with parity, this is a little closer to being possible, but just barely. A SB winner doesn't just depend on drawing a name out of a hat with 32 names. Selection of a CEO, GM, HC, DC, OC and every other person connected to the operation have an influence on winning versus losing. Injuries, weather, and on and on and on all have an affect. The variables are endless.
And then there are the very rare instances of dynasties. I'd say the Bellichik/Brady Pats were a dynasty. Green Bay was a dynasty, taking into account the pre-SB era. The Chiefs may be a dynasty already. That completely ****s with the "1 out of 32" argument.
Anyway, I don't think it's as simple as saying a team would win the SB, on average, every 32 years. That would be true if names were drawn out of a hat, but that's not how winners and losers are determined.
I agree with you that the number of teams makes a difference. That is one of the variables, but certainly not the only one.