The problem with the betting lines in Super Bowls III and IV is that nobody knew the relative difference between the leagues because the two leagues never played one another. I think it was clear that the Jets and Chiefs (and Raiders) were just as strong as the Rams and Browns and Cowboys in the late 60's. By the time the AFL was absorbed into the NFL, I think the AFL was relatively about equal to the NFL. However, in 1968 and 69 the Colts and Vikings were head and shoulders above the rest of the NFL, but I think the unfamiliarity with the Jets and Chiefs, and taking them lightly perhaps, was the reason they lost the Super Bowls. The AFL had a lot of former NFL guys in the league who were familiar with the NFL offenses, but there weren't many AFL guys who jumped to the NFL who could provide them with information about how the AFL offenses and defenses differed from the NFL.Chase Stuart wrote:The 1969 Vikings were awesome. They led the NFL in points scored and led the NFL in points allowed. They outscored teams by an average of 17.6 points per game in the regular season, which rises to 19.5 once you exclude the meaningless regular season finale that Minnesota didn't try to win. To this day, they are only of just 5 teams to outscored opponents by 250+ points through 13 games: MIN 1969 (+253), BAL 1968 (+254), GB 1962 (+264), NE 2007 (+282), CHI 1942 (+292 in 11 games).
So the line there made a lot of sense. Now KC was a great team, but that wasn't quite understood at the time. They dominated the AFL, but so did the Raiders in '67 and they lost by 19 in the Super Bowl to a worse NFL team.
As for 1972, that one is a little harder to justify, but Miami did get blown out in the prior year's game. Sure, Miami's schedule was easy, but so was Washington's. In week 3, Washington lost to New England, who Miami beat by 68 points in two games. Washington went 4-1 against teams with winning records during the regular season (with one of those wins coming with Jurgensen), Miami went 2-0. Miami outscored teams by 15 points per game, Washington 8. Now, in the playoffs, Washington looked better, but it does seem clear that Miami was the better team.
If you go back and rewatch Super Bowl III, you can see that the Jets had outplayed the Colts in the first half, but you can also see that with the right breaks, the Colts could have had 17 or 21 points on the board by halftime, which would have forced Namath to scrap the running game and go to the vertical passing game would have turned the second half into a shootout. I also think that the Colts should have brought in Unitas to start the second half, if not sooner, when it was clear they were in trouble and Morrall wasn't getting the job done.
In Super Bowl IV I think it was the Vikings were not prepared for Stram's complex formations, and the Chiefs were up for the game and took Minnesota apart.
As far as Super Bowl VII and the point spread is concerned (most accounts I have seen have Washington as a one-point favorite over Miami) could be due to the fact that Miami struggled to beat Pittsburgh and Cleveland in the postseason, while Washington destroyed the defending Super Bowl Champs in the NFC Championship game.