TheOak

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.