Why #1 Seeds No Longer Prove Super

A bit of background...

1980s: 7 #1 seeds won the Super Bowl (1981-1986; 1989)
1990s: 7 #1 seeds won the Super Bowl (1991, 1993-1996, 1998-1999)
2000s: 1 #1 seed has won the Super Bowl

Two #1 seeds last met in the Super Bowl in 1993 (DAL/BUF)

A #1 seed has appeared in every Super Bowl this decade: 1-7 aggregate

2000 NYG: L, defeated #2 in NFC Champ, defeated #4 in Divisional
2001 STL: L, defeated #3 in NFC Champ, defeated #4 in Divisional
2002 OAK: L, defeated #2 in AFC Champ, defeated #4 in Divisional
2003 NE: W, defeated #3 in AFC Champ, defeated #5 in Divisional
2004 PHI: L, defeated #2 in NFC Champ, defeated #6 in Divisional
2005 SEA: L, defeated #5 in NFC Champ, defeated #6 in Divisional
2006 CHI: L, defeated #2 in NFC Champ, defeated #4 in Divisional
2007 NE: L, defeated #3 in AFC Champ, defeated #5 in Divisional

I listed their road to the big game try to get some sense as to its difficulty. We used to explain the results due to AFC dominance (i.e., their #2-#6 better than NFC #1), but the defeats of Oakland and especially New England throw that into doubt. Both entered the Super Bowl unaccustomed to serious challenges (the Raiders, some may recall, put away their league early despite four losses) and both played their worst game of the season.

2000-2007, non-#1 seeds in their Road to the Super Bowl

2000 BAL: W, defeated #5, #1, and #2
2001 NE: W, defeated #3 and #1
2002 TB: W, defeated #3 and #1
2003 CAR: L, defeated #5, #2, and #1
2004 NE: W, defeated #3 and #1
2005 PIT: W, defeated #3, #1, and #2
2006 IND: W, defeated #6, #2, and #4 (note: only non-#1 to reach SB w/o beating #1)
2007 NYG: W, defeated #4, #1, and #2

So what is it then? That teams tested earlier have responded in a superior fashion since the new divisional alignment than #1 seeds that stroll through weaker competition? I would also note the two-week break, though it wasn't present for NE's upset of STL. The last three Super Bowl champions have played three games to get there. This most certainly did not occur in the earliest days of the modern playoff format:

1990: NYG #2, champion, played one road game
1991: WSH #1, champion, zero road games
1992: DAL #2, champion, one road game
1993: DAL #1, champion, zero road games
1994: SF #1, champion, ditto
1995: DAL #1, champion, ditto
1996: GB #1, champion, ditto
1997: DEN #4, champion, two road games (beat #1 and #2, missed #1 seed by KC FG at the gun)
1998: DEN #1, champion, zero road games
1999: STL #1, champion, ditto

2000s SB Champions playing on first playoff weekend: 4
1990s SB Champions playing on first playoff weekend: 1

So we find some evidence of parity in the NFL since 2000, but what about Super Sunday itself?

Scores of SB, 2000s:
2000: +27
2001: +3
2002: +27
2003: +3
2004: +3
2005: +11
2006: +12
2007: +3

Scores of SB, 1990s:
1990: +1 (v. #1)
1991: +13 (caveat: cheap BUF scores)
1992: +35 (v. #4)
1993: +17 (v. #1)
1994: +23 (v. #2)
1995: +10 (v. #2)
1996: +14 (v. #2)
1997: +7 (v. #2)
1998: +15 (v. #2)
1999: +7 (v. #4)

2000s Cumulative difference: +89/8, ~11 points per game, 32/5, ~6 points in last five years
1990s Cumulative difference: +142/10, ~14 points per game, 112/6, ~18 points in 1991-96 era

The 2000s Patriots clearly defy the Super Bowl norm, playing four games all decided by a field goal in seven years (2004, we should, is closer to 1995 than 2001 or 2003), and the one-point win by New York in 1990 throws off the mean for the decade.

Summation:

1) Whatever a #1 seed meant from 1990-1999 (or perhaps 1978-1999) its value is less today
2) A #1 seed has not dominated the Super Bowl since 1998, ten years ago
3) If a team as impressive as 2007 NE cannot dominate the SB as #1 seed, why would any again?
4) It's as likely if not more so that two 3-6 will meet in SB then two 1s, impossible ten years ago
5) #1 seeds don't have the talent differential as in past and therefore crack under pressure
6) The teams that draft best (NE, IND, JAGS, PIT, DAL, GB) rule the league--precariously
7) The teams that draft best have statistically no greater SB title glory than a fluke playoff team

Years ago, as some will remember, the Detroit Lions frequently made the playoffs and frequently failed to win a contest, which was the norm for teams that did not have home games (note: DET lost at home as well in 1993 to GB). Not anymore.

We should, as a matter of course, consider the six teams listed in #6 as the best odds to win the Super Bowl next season, yet, the other teams to eventually accompany them in the playoff bracket do not face the herculean task as in the days of yore.