<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Checkdowns: Pro Bowlers on Super Bowl Champions	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footballperspective.com/checkdowns-pro-bowlers-on-super-bowl-champions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/checkdowns-pro-bowlers-on-super-bowl-champions/</link>
	<description>NFL History and Stats</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:26:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Richie		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/checkdowns-pro-bowlers-on-super-bowl-champions/#comment-15160</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:26:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=8382#comment-15160</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This isn&#039;t something I had ever thought about before, but when you posed the original question, I figured the teams of yesteryear had more Pro Bowlers than modern teams.

I assumed that the per-free agency teams probably built their teams up with more stars, and those guys stayed on the teams (and were able to retain their voting popularity).  I also figured that the pre-2002ish teams, when the top seeds were most likely making the Super Bowl meant the teams with the most good players was winning.

Also, fewer teams in 1971, so the odds are just higher that they would have more Pro Bowl players.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This isn&#8217;t something I had ever thought about before, but when you posed the original question, I figured the teams of yesteryear had more Pro Bowlers than modern teams.</p>
<p>I assumed that the per-free agency teams probably built their teams up with more stars, and those guys stayed on the teams (and were able to retain their voting popularity).  I also figured that the pre-2002ish teams, when the top seeds were most likely making the Super Bowl meant the teams with the most good players was winning.</p>
<p>Also, fewer teams in 1971, so the odds are just higher that they would have more Pro Bowl players.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: willgfass		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/checkdowns-pro-bowlers-on-super-bowl-champions/#comment-15053</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[willgfass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=8382#comment-15053</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s a perverse pride in seeing the Giants win the superbowl with the lowest and 2nd lowest amount of pro bowlers (Although Plaxico should have been there in 2007)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a perverse pride in seeing the Giants win the superbowl with the lowest and 2nd lowest amount of pro bowlers (Although Plaxico should have been there in 2007)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
