What is a better Super Bowl record, 2-1 or 2-2?

Despite what some of these morons are saying, you actually do get a ring for winning the conference. Here's the Titans conference ring:

http://www.rockchampions.us/images/v/201308/b/1377...

2-2 is better. While having a winning percentage is impressive, if the number of wins are the same, then it means the team with the second loss was able to get to the big game more than the 2-1 team. It means that they were better than the 2-1 team one more season than vice-versa (provided the two didn't play each other in the big game at any point).

2-2 is better. The only thing that matters is how many rings you come away with. If you both have 2, then you both have 2. Super Bowls aren't easy to win. Making it there more times is an accomplishment already. That would be like saying 2-1 is better than 4-4 in this scenario. Yes the 2-1 winning percentage is higher, but it just matters about the number of rings you come away with.

2-2

@CraziePanda

2-1 is the better record, but that`s not the question. When you add SB to it you have to take in account the amount of times you get to the SB (considering how hard it is to ge there). Its 4 to 3 with the same amount of wins. 2-2 is better IMO.

The GREAT Buffalo Bills always come to mind when I see questions like these. 0-4 in four 4 straight SBs is a GREAT feat in itself.

2-1 record is better.

It doesnt matter how many times you reach the Super Bowl, because the team could be in the weaker conference that year. It only matters if you win the big final game, because that proves you're the best and you've beaten the great teams in your own conference and theirs.

This is a retarded question LMFAO obviously 2-1

2-2 shows that you at least did best in your conference