Read a comment on a facebook board that the NFC has the better conference in the first time in years. Not sure if I agree but it's an interesting discussion I think. In this decade who has been the better conference. AFC has had Pats Steelers Broncos Ravens and now the Chiefs NFC has had Seahawks Falcons Panthers Saints Packers Vikings Eagles and now the Rams Seems to me the AFC has been more top heavy with three or four teams and the NFC has had better depth overall
The AFC has had more consistency at the top. It could be the calibre of certain players/coaches on the team or their competition, or a mixture of both. For the AFC it was top heavy for those reasons. The main 3 being The Pats, The Steelers and Peyton Manning. Those teams are/were pretty much always there. You can toss in the Ravens as well if you like. Going back to the 2000 season the Super Bowl has featured one of those 4 elements from the AFC except when the Raiders lost to Tampa Bay. If you go back to 2003 it's been the first 3 elements every time except when the Ravens beat the 49ers. IT was never really a contest. You knew one of those 3 teams was likely in the SB and the Ravens often had a shot. Look at the NFC. Completely different. Why? It honestly could be the QB. The NFC usually had a hot QB in the SB with some exceptions. Then other years they cooled or some other team, had a hot QB ball out. I'd also say the NFC has had more teams get to the SB or deep in the playoffs because of some other element like defense that has gotten hot. For that reason, and the consistency of the QBs, there were more NFC teams battling in different years.
Also look at the AFC CG losers. Mostly one of those 4 teams. It's top heavy. But is a conference better for being top heavy or for having more teams play for the top? They are 4-4 this decade.
