Well the thing I really learned from the run in 2009 is that, I learned how incredibly DIFFICULT it really is to get to a Super Bowl. Before, it was always just this extremely nebulous, far away dream that wasn't real, I didn't know how people did it or what it took. And I don't care who you are, LUCK plays a role in getting you there.

Every team that has ever been to a Super Bowl has had a few lucky bounces, easy breaks, or freak plays, along the route. The Meachem strip. The Darren Sharper pick 6 against Miami where he barely got in there with the ball in his hand. The fact that we got the Cardinals in the playoffs (due to a freak play in OT) rather than the (much better, I thought) Green Bay Packers. And loads more.

And like I said earlier in another thread -- in addition to the luck, I think the PATH to the Super Bowl for every team, is practically more important to getting them there than the team itself. Maybe you catch a break when a team in your conference or division that was previously strong, is suddenly weak. Maybe somebody else's QB goes down. Maybe you have the bulk of your hard games at home and the easy games on the road that year. Maybe you are the '06 Bears and you water down the home field in January so it turns to mush.

Then the seeds and matchups in the playoffs, that determine the PATH. Do you have to play in Green Bay. Do you have to beat a division team three times. How the other teams in your path match up with you, or who you DON'T have to play. Each team that gets there, has its own unique path that somehow plays to their strengths or diminishes their weaknesses.

Winning it when you're finally there is usually pretty straightforward, it's just a matter of winning one more game.

Someone help me understand this question...you can't win a super bowl without getting to a super bowl, and you can't win 2 super bowls until you have already won 1 super bowl, so how in the hell is repeating as super bowl champions not obviously the hardest task?

Someone help me understand this question...you can't win a super bowl without getting to a super bowl, and you can't win 2 super bowls until you have already won 1 super bowl, so how in the hell is repeating as super bowl champions not obviously the hardest task?

... If you care to test the subjectivity of the options ask the same question to the Detroit Lions and the New England patriots ...

, so that's how it is, eh? Couldn't substitute the Cleveland Browns (who've never been there either) for the Lions in that equation, couldya' Oak? . Carry on, brother, .

A myopic theory on a very subjective poll. All three are separate tasks in the poll for many reasons but most importantly because all three can not happen in one season.. "Obviously"

There are plenty of teams that are in weak divisions, with weak schedules, and have a lot of luck in a few playoff games... Proving that getting to the Super Bowl is not always a process of clawing your way to the top... With enough luck its quite easy.

Reversing your theory:

"Obviously" winning a second Super Bowl is more difficult than winning the first although when you get to your second Super Bowl you have been there, understand the formula, have a roadmap, and your players are not awe struck.

Then "obviously" winning a Superbowl is more difficult than getting there. However, in no way is 4 Quarters of football more difficult than 72+ quarters of football.

All three tasks have very different required elements, and some teams are suited for some more than others. If you care to test the subjectivity of the options ask the same question to the Detroit Lions and the New England patriots.

My reply is not to debate what you feel the most difficult task of the three is but to shed light on what you "obviously" cant see.

Read this and you will see that sometimes getting there is easier than winning.
RealClearSports - Top 10 Worst Super Bowl Teams - 10. 2002 Oakland Raiders


Luck takes no effort.

Let's rephrase the question, as you are, to say "Getting to Super Bowl" "Having gotten to a super bowl, win it" or "Having won a super bowl, winning again within 3 years"

The probability of winning one game is almost always going to be higher than the probability of winning the number of games necessary to get to that game, so generally, as you said, getting to a super bowl is harder than winning one, even when getting to that super bowl was relatively easy.

However my answer doesn't change

The last task still implicitly contains both getting to and winning a super bowl in a different season, and the combination of those tasks will always be more difficult than either one individually. Further, to say that in some instances the second super bowl run could be easier than the first, and therefore that task is easier to accomplish is a fallacy of converse accident. Even if you only posit that hypothetical to say that it makes the answer "not obvious" then you make the question trivial, because you can then say that about every element, and there is no credible way to defend any of them. Finally, if you want to go the route of facts, then:

28 teams have gotten to a Super Bowl
18 teams have won a Super Bowl
7 teams have repeated within 3 years

There is simply no angle that you can approach this question from and not come to the conclusion that repeating is clearly the hardest challenge.