Psychology vs. Super Bowl XLIII

There has been plenty of speculation in the media that Super Bowl XLIII, won by Pittsburgh 27-23 over Arizona, is the greatest Super Bowl ever. The day after the game, Sports Illustrated's Don Banks wrote "Snap judgments require making quick, rapid-fire assessments, but I think even upon further review, with lots of time to mull things over, I'd still come to the same remarkable conclusion: We just witnessed the best Super Bowl in history."

I hesitate to immediately bestow it that honor, however, while recognizing that the game was certainly an exciting one.

My main concern? The recency effect. The psychology term is used to explain the fact that people remember items at the ends of lists more clearly than those in the middle. There is also a primacy effect, which explains why items at the beginnings of lists are also remembered more readily.

A quick experiment, with answers at the bottom of this post:

Name the first three presidents. Name the last three presidents. Name the 13th through 15th presidents. Name the first three Super Bowl winners. Name the last three Super Bowl winners. Name the 13th through 15th Super Bowl winners. I can guess what set was most difficult to recall.

Essentially, it's easier to remember either sides of these lists because when remembering information, we have to start somewhere. Our brains need some sort of touchstone, and it is easy to understand why the most recent Super Bowl would be the simplest to remember. We can then work backwards from there fairly easily. (I can get through the last 15 or so, because the first Super Bowl I remember caring about was between Denver and Green Bay, in 1997).

If I gave you some more information -- like, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president -- you will use that as a touchstone, and perhaps work backwards from there. It's much easier than starting at No. 1 and working your way up, or starting at No. 44 and working your way back.

All this to say, that I think the media is suffering from the recency effect when so quickly labeling the Steelers-Cardinals game as the best Super Bowl ever. As ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons wrote the day after the game:

(Note to anyone playing the "greatest ever" card -- we quickly overrate the Super Bowl every time it's good. Settle down. The fourth quarter wasn't any more exciting than the Panthers-Pats game. Fitzgerald's long TD wasn't any more or less exciting than Isaac Bruce's long TD that won the Rams-Titans game. The ending wasn't any more dramatic than Bills-Giants or Niners-Bengals II. Let the record show that this game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play.)

I disagree with Simmons on the point that the game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play, and may elaborate in a later post. Simmons' broader point, however, is a good one. (He does accidentally, however, suggest that while individual pieces of this year's Super Bowl can be compared to those in past games, that the collective whole may be incomparable.)

If we could substitute any worthy candidate of "The Best Super Bowl Ever" designation with Sunday's Super Bowl, our opinions would likely change. A strong example? Imagine if we had just witnessed the Rams defeat the Titans 23-16 with Tennessee wide receiver Kevin Dyson futily reaching toward the end zone as time expired. Would that certainly not be considered the best Super Bowl ever, with the Steelers-Cardinals fourth-quarter shootout 10 years in the past?

I do need to point out that the most recent Super Bowl could indeed be the most exciting ever. Simply because it is the most recent doesn't change the nature of the game itself. I am just offering the idea that we need to approach the subject with a little more caution. I will follow my own advice, and offer up my personal opinion at a time further removed from the actual event.

Recency effect answers:
First three presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
Last three presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton
13th through 15th presidents: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan

First three Super Bowl winners: Green Bay Packers, Packers, New York Jets
Last three Super Bowl winners: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Indianapolis Colts
13th through 15th Super Bowl winners: Steelers, Steelers, Oakland Raiders

Super Bowl XLIII Prediction

Update: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23. MVP: Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes (nine catches, 131 yards, game-winning touchdown). I thought I had a chance for quite the prediction when the Steelers were winning 20-16 with four minutes remaining, and James Harrison's game-changing 100-yard interception return likely enough to secure him the MVP.

I have been abdicating my blogging duties this week, and for that I apologize. Hopefully, I won't have to apologize in three hours for my Super Bowl pick.

It is certainly cliche to say, but I can see this game going either way. But in this sense -- I think it's equally as probable that the Cardinals win or that the Steelers win by 21, if they start forcing turnovers and Kurt Warner starts getting desperate.

I am a big Warner fan, and I don't think he's ever really had a bad game in the playoffs. He's played in two Super Bowls and holds first and second place for most passing yards in the Super Bowl, winning one MVP in the process.

Let's not overlook the Steelers, though. I read that they would have been favored in the Super Bowl against any team, and I think they're certainly better than the Falcons and the Eagles, and comparable to the Panthers (the three teams Arizona has defeated in the playoffs).

My pick? Pittsburgh 19, Arizona 17, with Steelers linebacker James Harrison the MVP.

Sorry, Cardinals -- first Super Bowls dismal

Update: The Cardinals came close, but couldn't end a six-game streak of franchises losing their first Super Bowl appearances. Pittsburgh prevailed 27-23, winning in the franchise's eighth Super Bowl trip.

It has been well documented that the Arizona Cardinals are making the franchise's first Super Bowl appearance, leaving only five teams (Detroit, Cleveland, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Houston) to never win their conference championship.

Yet how did the other 26 teams do in their first-ever Super Bowl appearance? Surprisingly, to me at least, not well. I will preface this by saying it seems like the results should be about 50-50 simply because the historical background of a franchise shouldn't impact the very specific events of any given season.

I might have to reconsider that idea, though, after running the numbers.

First-time Super Bowl participants are 8-18 in the big game, a miserable .307 winning percentage that grows even worse once eliminating meetings between two teams making their first Super Bowl appearances (by necessity, one of those had to win and one had to lose, so the data is not very valuable). There have been four such meetings, so the more reliable data shows a record of 4-14, a .222 winnning percentage.

The four first-time Super Bowl teams to beat a more "experienced" franchise? The 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Minnesota Vikings (third appearance), the 1986 New York Giants beat the Denver Broncos (second appearance), the 2000 Baltimore Ravens beat the New York Giants (third appearance) and the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Oakland Raiders (fifth appearance).

Although the sample size is admittedly too small for any real statistical conclusions (I am tempted to analyze the data from the other three major professional sports to fix this), history doesn't bode well for the Cardinals, who face a Steelers team making a record-tying eighth Super Bowl appearance.