We are all familiar with calling in sick Monday morning with a mix of the “Brown Bottle Flu,” brought on as a result of an extensive Super Bowl celebration.
However, many are unaware that fans are not the only individuals suffering. A different “hangover” has been inflicted upon many of our favorite (and least favorite) teams as well.
The “Super Bowl hangover” is a term that has been given to describe the phenomenon of the last seven out of thirteen Super Bowl runner-ups who have not made it to the playoffs the following year.
These teams include the New York Giants (2001), St. Louis Rams (2002), Oakland Raiders (2003), Carolina Panthers (2004), Philadelphia Eagles (2005), and Chicago Bears (2007).
There is much speculation as to why this is the case.
One major issue that has impacted the success of these teams is the numerous injuries experienced by players. And not just any players—key players. In many cases, MVPs.
The Rams witnessed this happen to their MVP Quarterback Kurt Warner, whose broken finger cost him a good portion of the 2002 season—as well as Marshall Faulk’s mounting injuries and age, which resulted in less-than-impressive statistics.
Raiders Quarterback and MVP Rich Gannon experienced a shoulder injury in week seven of the 2003 season, which resulted in him being benched for the remainder of the season.
But the teams hit hardest with injuries were the Panthers and Eagles. Over the course of their hangover season, the Panthers placed 14 players on the injured list—including their top four running backs.
The Eagles lost a quarterback, running back, wide receiver, offensive tackle, center, cornerback, kicker, punter, and a defensive lineman over the course of their season.
Another contributing factor to the “Super Bowl hangover” is the strength of the following season’s schedule. For example, the Rams, as well as the Bears, came out of nowhere to advance to the Super Bowl. Was this because their schedule was easier than in previous years? Possibly, the following year provided a too tough of a competition for these teams.
The success of these teams not only increased the level of competition the following year, but also implemented the “bulls eye” effect—now that other teams knew the strength of these squads, they worked harder to prepare for their face off.
Kurt Warner is one example of a player who fell under the “bulls eye” attack. After advancing to the Super Bowl, teams were more concerned with scouting Warner, because previously there had been few reports on him. This could have contributed to a lacklustre in performance in the following years.
Perhaps some of the biggest factors to the “Super Bowl hangover” are the effects of trades and free agency. One of the most memorable examples is that of the Eagles' Terrell Owens. After coming off a suspension and not being able to come to an agreement with the Eagles over his contract, Owens signed with the Cowboys. The loss of Owens was obviously felt throughout the Eagles franchise, which was reflected by a major drop in their division.
So, will this year prove to be the end of the hangover? Will fans of the runner-up team be able to wake up the next morning to find themselves feeling 100 percent ready for the new season? Only time will tell.
9 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Anonymous about 1 year ago
very well written article. it certainly gives one something to think about. i think Kayte hit the nail on the head when she spoke of trades and free agency as a cause of a super bowl caliber team not getting there the following year. Good Job Kayte!
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Tyler about 1 year ago
Very insightful, Kayte. The league continues to encourage balance and assist weaker teams to rise up to playoff contention through scheduling as you pointed out. It is also difficult for strong organizations, the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts not withstanding, to build dynasties when their key players and coaches can jump ship to weaker clubs. Tennessee and Cleveland both benefitted from weaker scheduling to contend for playoff spots while Pittsburgh and Chicago found it difficult to return to the playoffs because of stiffer competition. The fans of these teams are now well in to "waiting till next year." Keep em comin, Kayte.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Tyler about 1 year ago
Well-written article! Go, Kayte! Sarah
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Wow that was an AWESOME article that had some really interesting points....good job!! Maggie
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Wow that was an AWESOME article that had some really interesting points....good job!! Maggie
Edit Comment Cancel
Zander Freund about 1 year ago
Awesome piece Kayte. You break down the issue at hand very effectively.
I think you're right that the scheduling has a lot to do with it...as Jim points out, the league has been encouraging parity for some time now—which means, amongst other things, that one or two injuries or moves in the off season can sink a previously championship bound team to a .500 or below record with ease.
I guess my question would be: why do the Super Bowl LOSERS always end up having the hangover the next year, while the winners seem to come out of the gates kicking ass?
Let's look at the last 10 Super Bowl winners and their records the year after, compared with the losers:
WINNERS
32: Denver Broncos (14-2 in 98')
33: Denver Broncos (6-10 in 99')
34: St. Louis Rams (10-6 in 00')
35: Baltimore Ravens (10-6 in 01')
36: New England Patriots (9-7 in 02')
37: Tampa Bay Bucs (7-9 in 03')
38: New England Patriots (14-2 in 04')
39: New England Patriots (10-6 in 05')
40: Pittsburgh Steelers (8-8 in 06')
41: Indianapolis Colts (13-3 in 07')
LOSERS
32: Green Bay Packers (11-5 in 98')
33: Atlanta Falcons (5-11 in 99')
34: Tennessee Titans (13-3 in 00')
35: New York Giants (7-9 in 01')
36: St. Louis Rams (7-9 in 02')
37: Oakland Raiders (4-12 in 03')
38: Carolina Panthers (7-9 in 04')
39: Philadelphia Eagles (6-10 in 05')
40: Seattle Seahawks (9-7 in 06')
41: Chicago Bears (7-9 in 07')
The winners, combined have two losing follow up seasons—the losers have six.
The winners got to the playoffs the season after their SB victory on six occasions. The losers? Thrice.
Finally, the winners have a fairly impressive 101-59 record the year after the Super Bowl, while the losers are 76-84.
So why the huge gap?
Obviously, the winners of the Super Bowl tend to be the better teams to begin with. That said, in this era of parity in the league, a lot of the games have been quite close.
How many times in the last ten years have you sized up the two squads shortly before the big game and said: team A is going to kick the living crap out of team B?
This used to be a common occurrence back in the early and mid 90's (see the Chargers, Bills, and Broncos vs. the 49ers and Cowboys for instance) but these days teams tend to be more equally matched. This season, in fact, is probably the first time in quite a while where there is a consensus amongst the football fans of America that one team is destined to win it all.
So what other explanations can be offered? Why do the winners fare so much better than the losers?
It may sound simplistic, but I think the mental aspect of this is often overlooked. Simply put, LOSING the Super Bowl devastates your team's morale, often to an irreparable extent.
The thought that you worked your butt off the whole year—and did everything right, but managed to screw it all up in the final game—makes players and teams lose their confidence going forward. There are always extenuating circumstances which contribute to post Super Bowl meltdowns, but it all starts with the attitude of the players.
When you've won a Super Bowl, you're thinking about the future. "If we can only win one more, we will be remembered forever. If we can win two, we'll be legendary."
When you've lost a Super Bowl, you tend to get stuck dwelling on the past, and your thoughts fill up with fear: "How the hell did we lose that game? What if we get all the way there and lose again? Do we want to become the next Buffalo Bills?"
I've always held that losing the Super Bowl is far worse than getting knocked out in the championship game, simply because of all the media attention that is focused on you during the big game, and your etched place in history as a Super Bowl runner up. Knowing that everyone in the world is watching you—and that they will forever think of you as a loser, even though your team was good enough to make it to the final showdown—can tear the psyche of impressionable players apart.
The fact that Super Bowls tend to be more evenly matched than before contributes to this as well. When you know you lost because the team you played was that much better (as was often the case in the days where the NFC dominated), it was easier to swallow a loss. It didn't break your heart as much because at least you were supposed to lose.
But when you lose to the Patriots on a single Adam Vinateri field goal, it's hard to go out there the next year and put that memory behind you. It sticks with the players because the "what if?" question lingers fresh in their mind. Losing always hurts—but losing a close game can in fact hurt more than losing in a blowout to a team that is far more talented than yours.
All that being said: who wants to lose the Super Bowl this year? How bout you, Brett Favre? Tony Romo, you game?
I didn't think so.
If I played in the NFC this year, I might consider kneeling on the ball during the potential game winning drive of the championship game...
Edit Comment Cancel
Tori Willis about 1 year ago
"but losing a close game can in fact hurt more than losing in a blowout to a team that is far more talented than yours."
Touche, Zander. This is true in any sport.
I wish you could go to the Super Bowl! You have fantastic insight on the sport.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Great article. Job well done. Gives us all something to think about.
G-Bob & Jo
Edit Comment Cancel
David Williams about 1 year ago
Well done Kayte. It happens every year. It's bad enough to lose in the Super Bowl but these teams get hit hard in so many ways the next year. It's almost like its the "curse of the Super Bowl runner-up". Just like players who appear on the Madden cover and end up injured/regressing (see: S. Alexander, Mike Vick, Eddie George, Daunte, etc.)
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.