Why Winning the Super Bowl Is Overrated

Rob FetterContributor IMarch 30, 2009

TAMPA, FL - FEBRUARY 01:  A marching band performs during the pre-game show prior to the start of Super Bowl XLIII between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers on February 1, 2009 at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida.  (Photo by Doug Benc/Getty Images)

Ever since the Super Bowl ended this year I cannot stop thinking about how overrated winning the Super Bowl is. I know that in sports the emphasis is always placed on winning championships, but I think in the NFL there is far too much emphasis placed on the Super Bowl. Placing all the importance on the postseason tournament isn’t going to give you the best team when there is a one-and-done format like the NFL's.

Because of the playoff system winning the Super Bowl doesn’t mean you’re the best team, it just means you got hot, or lucky, at the right time. Teams can put on tremendous performances all season, loose one game, and all of a sudden they're not the best team in the NFL.

Obvious case in point here would be the 2007 Patriots; it’s hard for me to believe that many people really felt that the Giants winning the Super Bowl meant New York had the best team that season. The Giants were the Super Bowl champs that year, but there was no question that the Patriots were the NFL’s best team.

I don’t think that this was the only case of the best team not winning the Super Bowl. In ’98, when the Vikings were red hot, the game we needed in the Super Bowl was Vikings vs. Broncos, but that game was killed by a lucky Falcons win. The Patriots first Super Bowl win over the Rams is another example.

I’m not sure if Kurt Warner should go into the Hall of Fame, but the talk going into the game all week was that if he wins, he’s a lock. I could understand the argument, two Super Bowl championships, a Super Bowl MVP or two, and third Super Bowl appearance with some sick regular season numbers.

Sounds like a HOF resume to me, but my problem with it is that he did his part, he led the team downfield, and got the Cards the lead. That should have put the stamp on his Hall of Fame career, right? But then Roethlisberger leads the Steelers down field, makes some amazing plays, and now Kurt’s out of the Hall of Fame for something that happened while he was on the sidelines? That doesn’t seem right.

Thinking about the Cardinals possibly winning the Super Bowl from the flip side of things, would that have meant the Cardinals were actually the best team in the NFL last season?

Now, don’t get me wrong, winning a championship should count for something, but I’m just not sure that it should count for everything, as it seems to in the minds of many. Call me crazy, but I think what teams do in the regular season and consistency is more important than winning the tournament at the end and that it should be recognized more.