Rankings for all past 80 Super Bowl Participants

[jditty47]

Ranked 69th out of 80 in 1988, and 62nd out of 80 in 1982.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story.../rankings/80-61

opinions? i see a bunch of teams that we should have been ranked ahead of....

[jjakq27]

The 81 Bengals were by far the best team in the league that year.

How can both Super Bowls be considered two of the all-time great games yet the Bengals are ranked so low? SF-lovers I guess.

[Stripes]

I wouldn't expect either team to be ranked highly. Neither had a great defense, especially not the '81 team.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Having us behind the 92 Bills and especially the 89 Broncos is an absolute joke. In 88, we lose to the Niners by 4. In 89, the Broncos lose by something like 150. You can't convince me that the 89 Niners was that much better than the 88 team. Of course, since this is a Bengal board, no one is likely to try.

It seems these rankings base a lot off the regular season, when the question is Super Bowl rankings. Well, some teams play differently in the playoffs than the regular season, especially if they were coached by Dan Reeves or Marty Schottenheimer.

[jditty47]

ya they are ranked on their whole season not just that particular game they are in...thats most likely why they are that low.

[HairOnFire]

Bill Walsh was quoted saying the '81 Bengals were better than his 49'ers and felt his team would have lost if the game if the Bengals had been better emotionally prepared to play at the start. He admitted that all the 49'ers were doing in the entire 2nd half was trying to hang on to their early lead.

[Dimster28]

how the hell can they not rank the only undefeated team 72 dolphins as no. 1

[Stripes]

how the hell can they not rank the only undefeated team 72 dolphins as no. 1

I wouldn't put them in the top five.

[JoePong]

The 1988 Bengals team didn't even score a freakin' offensive TD in the Superbowl. They have to be ranked one of the lowest ever just for that.