Is the (pre-Lombardi) NFL Championship have equal value as a "Superbowl" Championship

[Phoenix-Talon]

I think so, perhaps you don't. But here's my view ...

Some say less teams were represented duing the original NFL Championships; some say the players were less talented, smaller and didn't have the equipment to train with, nor the technology.

But I think that view is a slap in the face for all of the extra work and training that went into conditioning those future Hall of Famers (HOL) and Most Valuable Players (MVP) that are Now household names ...e.g., Vince Lombadi, etc. The pre-Lombardi NFL Championship should hold an equal, if Not high place in NFL history.

Think about it ...

Bob Brown
Mike Ditka
Harold Carmichael
Bob Lily
Mel Renfro
Roger Staubach
Randy White
Norm Van Brocklin

Now explain to any one of them how their talents and skills were any less contributing than a Lombardi Trophy Superbowl indutee. Any objective Football fan could tell you that the two terms ...SB versus NFL Championships
are talking about the same prestigious accomplishment.

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.

[JDSmith]

I think so, perhaps you don't. But here's my view ...

Some say less teams were represented duing the original NFL Championships; some say the players were less talented, smaller and didn't have the equipment to train with, nor the technology.

But I think that view is a slap in the face for all of the extra work and training that went into conditioning those future Hall of Famers (HOL) and Most Valuable Players (MVP) that are Now household names ...e.g., Vince Lombadi, etc. The pre-Lombardi NFL Championship should hold an equal, if Not high place in NFL history.

Think about it ...

Bob Brown
Mike Ditka
Harold Carmichael
Bob Lily
Mel Renfro
Roger Staubach
Randy White
Norm Van Brocklin

Now explain to any one of them how their talents and skills were any less contributing than a Lombardi Trophy Superbowl indutee. Any objective Football fan could tell you that the two terms ...SB versus NFL Championships
are talking about the same prestigious accomplishment.

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.

I don't think winning the NFL Championship of, for instance 1953, is the same as winning a Superbowl. How many teams were even playing back then? I don't care about the relative merits of the equipment for training or playing. I am thinking about the fact that you might have had 8 teams vying for the title. Now I don't know the specifics of what teams came into existence when, but I believe that being the champion when you have to face another 27 or 31 teams, and you have to play multiple playoff rounds, is much more difficult than say a team that won it when there was a 10 or 12 team league, and there may very well have been no playoffs at all, simply the two teams with the best records automatically facing each other for the title.

Any football historians can feel free to correct me and tell me the specifics of the playoff system from back in the pre Superbowl days. I don't pretend to know them. But if they were anything like I'm presuming they were, then winning a championship back then can't really be compared to winning a Superbowl.

[MichaelWinicki]

The biggest factor in my honest opinion is that the majority of fans don't view NFL Championships as being "egual" to Super Bowls, and for that reason--they aren't the equivalent of Super Bowls. This is one of those cases where perception is realty.

[DipChit]

I got no beef with it. Either as an individual or as a team all you can do is strive to be better than the competition you're faced with.

Whether it's 1940 or 2040.

But as a mere fan living at the moment in history I'm living in though, I'm just glad the team I picked as my "fav" (in 1971 as a 10 year old boy) has actually won "championships" during my lifetime. ;)

[BIGDen]

I'm in 2 fantasy football leagues: an 8 team league and a 14 team league. I don't need to tell you which one is more difficult to win. That's only a difference of 6 teams and it's MUCH more difficult to win in the larger league. Now compare 32 teams to the handful of teams that were around in the pre SB era. Winning, to me, in the SB era is much more impressive. Don't get me wrong, those NFL championships count for something. I just think I'd give them less weight compared to SB champioships. Don't worry bro', one of these days your beloved Eagles will touch a Lombardi and you won't have to worry about the value of those old leather helmet trophies. ;)

[jman]

I think so, perhaps you don't. But here's my view ...

Some say less teams were represented duing the original NFL Championships; some say the players were less talented, smaller and didn't have the equipment to train with, nor the technology.

But I think that view is a slap in the face for all of the extra work and training that went into conditioning those future Hall of Famers (HOL) and Most Valuable Players (MVP) that are Now household names ...e.g., Vince Lombadi, etc. The pre-Lombardi NFL Championship should hold an equal, if Not high place in NFL history.

Think about it ...

Bob Brown
Mike Ditka
Harold Carmichael
Bob Lily
Mel Renfro
Roger Staubach
Randy White
Norm Van Brocklin

Now explain to any one of them how their talents and skills were any less contributing than a Lombardi Trophy Superbowl indutee. Any objective Football fan could tell you that the two terms ...SB versus NFL Championships
are talking about the same prestigious accomplishment.

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.

At the very least they should be held as an equal or greater accomplishment than a Super Bowl.

Fewer teams mean fewer players, but a greater concentration of talent.

Rule changes have taken the true "toughness" out of the game. What's harder, defending a pass rush today or back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? I believe it was then, when a Deacon Jones could blow by you after giving you a perfectly legal head slap and daze you for a split second.

Or when there was no such thing a "Forward Progress". Or when you could actually defend a pass without worring about a ticky tacky illegal contact penility. When a defensive player had to play both the run and the pass and still have to have the stamina to play the entire game and not just running or passing downs.

But hey, that's just me.

[JDSmith]

At the very least they should be held as an equal or greater accomplishment than a Super Bowl.

Fewer teams mean fewer players, but a greater concentration of talent.

Rule changes have taken the true "toughness" out of the game. What's harder, defending a pass rush today or back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? I believe it was then, when a Deacon Jones could blow by you after giving you a perfectly legal head slap and daze you for a split second.

Or when there was no such thing a "Forward Progress". Or when you could actually defend a pass without worring about a ticky tacky illegal contact penility. When a defensive player had to play both the run and the pass and still have to have the stamina to play the entire game and not just running or passing downs.

But hey, that's just me.

Actually I'd argue that there was a lower concentration of talent. Back then Baseball was so far and away the most popular sport, that any good athlete wanted to be a baseball player. It is still called America's Passtime today, even though it's popularity has waned. That's because it was so much bigger than any other sport as recently as 40 years ago. So while there were less slots available, and less teams playing, the very best athletes were most likely bound for the baseball diamond rather than the gridiron. I believe that when professional football started it took a LONG time to gain popularity, and was essentially looked at as something that guys who played college football did when they wanted to keep playing. I believe, and someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong, that college football was a much more important game than professional football, and baseball was head and shoulders above any form of football.

[Grizz]

I think so, perhaps you don't. But here's my view ...

Some say less teams were represented duing the original NFL Championships; some say the players were less talented, smaller and didn't have the equipment to train with, nor the technology.

But I think that view is a slap in the face for all of the extra work and training that went into conditioning those future Hall of Famers (HOL) and Most Valuable Players (MVP) that are Now household names ...e.g., Vince Lombadi, etc. The pre-Lombardi NFL Championship should hold an equal, if Not high place in NFL history.

Think about it ...

Bob Brown
Mike Ditka
Harold Carmichael
Bob Lily
Mel Renfro
Roger Staubach
Randy White
Norm Van Brocklin

Now explain to any one of them how their talents and skills were any less contributing than a Lombardi Trophy Superbowl indutee. Any objective Football fan could tell you that the two terms ...SB versus NFL Championships
are talking about the same prestigious accomplishment.

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.

Jeff Goldblum (Michael): I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Tom Berenger (Sam Weber): Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Jeff Goldblum (Michael): Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
From The Big Chill

[kmd24]

It is readily apparent that a Superbowl is more difficult to win than the old NFL Championship. To win an NFL Championship, a team merely had to win it's conference (essentially a division by today's standards) and then win the Championship game.

For many years, the league had only 10 teams. In 1960, the year of the Cowboys franchise inception, the league had 13 teams.

Today, a team must win at least two games against quality opponents in the playoffs just to get to the championship, where that team would again face a quality opponent.

I agree that the teams can only play under the constraints that were presented to them, and don't intend to diminish those accomplishments. But let's not diminish the accomplishment of winning a Superbowl, either. The two are not equal.

[Alexander]

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.

You would, since your team has not won a championship since the Super Bowl's inception.

[kingwhicker]

NFL Championship=NFC Championship

[kmd24]

At the very least they should be held as an equal or greater accomplishment than a Super Bowl.

Fewer teams mean fewer players, but a greater concentration of talent.

Rule changes have taken the true "toughness" out of the game. What's harder, defending a pass rush today or back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? I believe it was then, when a Deacon Jones could blow by you after giving you a perfectly legal head slap and daze you for a split second.

Or when there was no such thing a "Forward Progress". Or when you could actually defend a pass without worring about a ticky tacky illegal contact penility. When a defensive player had to play both the run and the pass and still have to have the stamina to play the entire game and not just running or passing downs.

But hey, that's just me.

The toughness of the game or players has little to do with the difficulty of winning it all. Everyone faced the same constraints.

The only argument I can see with respect to it being tougher is due to free agency and such, but most of the Superbowl era has been played under similar rules as far as player movement. And incidentally, that argument diminishes the accomplishment from a Bayesian point of view...

[Phoenix-Talon]

At the very least they should be held as an equal or greater accomplishment than a Super Bowl.

Fewer teams mean fewer players, but a greater concentration of talent.

Rule changes have taken the true "toughness" out of the game. What's harder, defending a pass rush today or back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? I believe it was then, when a Deacon Jones could blow by you after giving you a perfectly legal head slap and daze you for a split second.

Or when there was no such thing a "Forward Progress". Or when you could actually defend a pass without worring about a ticky tacky illegal contact penility. When a defensive player had to play both the run and the pass and still have to have the stamina to play the entire game and not just running or passing downs.

But hey, that's just me.


Dam, where did you come from?! I like how you think! I agree!:D

[Phoenix-Talon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
At the very least they should be held as an equal or greater accomplishment than a Super Bowl.

Fewer teams mean fewer players, but a greater concentration of talent.

Rule changes have taken the true "toughness" out of the game. What's harder, defending a pass rush today or back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? I believe it was then, when a Deacon Jones could blow by you after giving you a perfectly legal head slap and daze you for a split second.

Or when there was no such thing a "Forward Progress". Or when you could actually defend a pass without worring about a ticky tacky illegal contact penility. When a defensive player had to play both the run and the pass and still have to have the stamina to play the entire game and not just running or passing downs.

But hey, that's just me.

JDSmith]Actually I'd argue that there was a lower concentration of talent. Back then Baseball was so far and away the most popular sport, that any good athlete wanted to be a baseball player.

Don't mix apples with oranges ...let's just focus on football right now and leave Other sports alone -- although I get your drift.

[THUMPER]

You would, since your team has not won a championship since the Super Bowl's inception.

I was thinking the same thing. You would never hear a 49ERs fan bringing up this subject but only fans of teams like the Eagles & Lions who were good once but haven't won a title in 45 years.

[JDSmith]

Quote:

Don't mix apples with oranges ...let's just focus on football right now and leave Other sports alone -- although I get your drift.

Well I'm only bringing up baseball as it relates to the talent pool of the NFL. In the 1940's I'd guess that kids growing up wanting to play in the NFL were outnumbered 20 to 1 by kids growing up wanting to play MLB. That has importance when discussing the talent pool argument.

[DipChit]

Well obviously theres a distinction to be made between the significance of winning a championship and the relative difficulty of winning one.

The significance of it for the franchise and it's fans is the same every year and always will be. The difficulty in doing so, as has been pointed out, is what changes.

If, hypothetically speaking, 25 years from now theres 50 NFL teams, playing 20 game regular seasons and 6 week playoffs are we going to readily admit that what we accomplished in the 1990's was ancient history from an era where things were easier than whats going on in the 2030's? I imagine so.

If someone isnt exactly "allowed" to hang thier hat on something that happened 40 years ago today, doesnt seem likely that anyone will be able to hang their hat on what happens today (or even 10-12 years ago), 40 years from now.

But for the sake of demarcation and fan interaction, it's just handy for us that the title game changed it's name when it did. I mean because had we won a couple in the mid 60's it's not like anyones sig around here would bother mentioning it. It'd still just be about having the 5 Lombardi's and thats it, no? ;)

[percyhoward]

But for the sake of demarcation and fan interaction, it's just handy for us that the title game changed it's name when it did.
I get your point, but when the Cowbiys lost back-to-back NFLtitle games in '66 and '67, that was considered the same as losing a Super Bowl today. The Super Bowls that followed those two games (SB I & II) didn't even sell out.

[Yeagermeister]

I think the fact a team is not referred to as an nfl champ says it all. The only championship that is recognized is a SB.

[notherbob]

I think so, perhaps you don't. But here's my view ...

Some say less teams were represented duing the original NFL Championships; some say the players were less talented, smaller and didn't have the equipment to train with, nor the technology.

But I think that view is a slap in the face for all of the extra work and training that went into conditioning those future Hall of Famers (HOL) and Most Valuable Players (MVP) that are Now household names ...e.g., Vince Lombadi, etc. The pre-Lombardi NFL Championship should hold an equal, if Not high place in NFL history.

Think about it ...

Bob Brown
Mike Ditka
Harold Carmichael
Bob Lily
Mel Renfro
Roger Staubach
Randy White
Norm Van Brocklin

Now explain to any one of them how their talents and skills were any less contributing than a Lombardi Trophy Superbowl indutee. Any objective Football fan could tell you that the two terms ...SB versus NFL Championships
are talking about the same prestigious accomplishment.

That's How I see it, and I'm sticking to my story.
Well, first of all neither Staubach nor White belong on the list because they were post-merger players.

Other than that, I agree with you, It was a more concentrated pool of the then-available talent, size differences and all. It was; however, all there was, at least up until when the AFL was founded and they had their championships and their supporters would like to see their championships rated as equal to the Super Bowl, too. I don't think the talent level was there until the late 60s and it got better after the merger when Pittsburg, Miami, Baltimore and Cleveland switched to the new AFC.

The SuperBowl and the NFL Championship are the same thing, so the old NFL Championships have to be taken into consideration, but not all the AFL winners because there is no clear objective way to gauge whether there was true equivalency or when it arrived. Alas, Philly's only championship remains shrouded in ambiguity and the only way out is to finally win a Lombardi and settle the issue for once. Once out of how many times in the past few years the opportunity has been there, I forget?? Of course, being an old fart, I'm allowed to forget occasionally, if I remember correctly.

[LeonDixson]

NFL Championship=NFC Championship

This kind of sums up the whole argument. PT, has it been easier for your team to win an NFC Championship or a Superbowl?

[Wolverine]

Trying to put one of those Championships as equal to a Super Bowl is to funny. Not even close. The Super Bowl is the only one. Peeps that are trying to make a Championship = to a Super Bowl are fans of teams who have never won the Super Bowl. They just wanna try an make everyone think they are better then they really are.

Did you know at one time to win a Championship the teams with the 2 best records did not even play. The Championship was just given to the team with the best record. that is it.

Did you also know the last time the Eagles ever won anything my dad was not even born yet. JDSmith brought up some real good points about how all the top athletes went to play baseball back then. Not football.

Kinda funny what JD brings up. Cuz in football a Super Bowl means alot more then those championships. But for baseball I think the World Series meant alot more back then then it does now since all the best athletes go to football NBA and NHL.

[burmafrd]

Big guys played football- little guys play baseball. THAT has always been true. Now some of the mid size very athletic types MIGHT have been going more baseball way- but the big guys always went for football. ALso- some of the talent went into basketball in the last 30 years that might have looked at other sports. In the 50's to 60's, it was clearly baseball then football- no other sport really mattered on a national level- basketball had not yet made it. Football= PRO FOOTBALL is considered to have really arrived with the sudden death 1958 NFL Championship game - on TV- it has been considered the moment the NFL arrived.
Now as regards difficulty: I am amazed how really wrong so many are in this thread- it should be obvious: CONCENTRATION OF TALENT. When you only had 12 teams- there were only about 400 or so slots for pro players. NOW there are more then 1500- nearer 1600 counting practice squads. Even saying there is more emphasis now for kids starting out- is it FOUR TIMES AS MUCH? Are the kids of today FOUR TIMES BETTER? Only if they are does it even out as regards total talent. NO FA. NO SALARY CAP. VERY FEW TRADES. The top teams won and kept on winning. The Giants, Browns, Colts, Packers, Eagles, Bears, Lions. The best coaches put together GREAT teams. Look at the 1962 Green Bay Packers- more HOF players on that team then any other single team in history. The Steelers- with several players very over rated- were not even in the same ZIP CODE. The AFL had very little effect untill later on in the 60's- most of the really good players still went to the NFL. The expansion due to the AFL really capitalized on the interest that was already growing- and the more prolific coverage on TV. BUT as regards difficulty in winning the championship- every single team that won it from the early 50's on had MULTIPLE HOF players on them; and virtually all of them had HOF coaches. You look at the teams of the last 5 years- NE and company- and I will say straight out you wil not come close to the number of HOF players on them in comparison. From the early 50's to the late 60's there was a concentration of playing and coaching talent into a half dozen teams that made winning it all VERY DIFFICULT. The NY Giant teams from 1957 to 1963 were great teams- the Buffalo Bills of their time- and they came so close so many times to winning it all. The Sudden Death game; the Bears D pulling it off in 1963; losing to the great Packer teams; - it took GREAT teams to beat THAT TEAM.

[percyhoward]

Now as regards difficulty: I am amazed how really wrong so many are in this thread- it should be obvious: CONCENTRATION OF TALENT.
Because of expansion and the salary cap, even the biggest games of today are watered-down when you compare them to Championship games of the 50's & 60's, and even to the Super Bowls of 30 years ago.

When there was a Super Bowl played in the 1970's, it wasn't unusual for there to be a dozen future Hall of Famers on the field.

[Reality]

All that matters in sports is being the best among all of your competitors in your league .. in this case the National Football League. In regards to current NFL teams, any championships outside this league are irrelevant. Second place is not as good as first place and any attempt to argue this point shows a lack of intelligence and common sense.

I would trade 100 second place finishes for one first place finish.

[kmd24]

The top teams won and kept on winning.

So for the top teams it was easy and for the worst teams it was hard. This actually supports the argument that modern day championships are more difficult to achieve.

I would never argue that the teams were not great teams. That is a different matter altogether.

[ravidubey]

Before the Superbowl and during the co-existence of the All-America Football Conference in the late 1940's and later the AFL in the 1960's, an NFL champion wasn't guaranteed to be the best team in professional football.

For example, the Eagles, twice defending NFL Champions (1948 and 1949), were decimated by the Cleveland Browns in their first game the very year the Browns joined the NFL from the AAFC where they had been champions four years in a row. Had the Colts, 49ers, and Browns (and effectively the Yanks) joined the NFL three years earlier the Eagles might not have won a single championship in that decade.

Philly also beat Green Bay in the 1960 Championship, but at that point the AFL had already formed and played its first season.

Each time when Philly won, you could argue whether they were the best in pro football-- expecially in the late 40's.

[Wolverine]

Before the Superbowl and during the co-existence of the All-America Football Conference in the late 1940's and later the AFL in the 1960's, an NFL champion wasn't guaranteed to be the best team in professional football.

For example, the Eagles, twice defending NFL Champions (1948 and 1949), were decimated by the Cleveland Browns in their first game the very year the Browns joined the NFL from the AAFC where they had been champions four years in a row. Had the Colts, 49ers, and Browns (and effectively the Yanks) joined the NFL three years earlier the Eagles might not have won a single championship in that decade.

Philly also beat Green Bay in the 1960 Championship, but at that point the AFL had already formed and played its first season.

Each time when Philly won, you could argue whether they were the best in pro football-- expecially in the late 40's.


OUCH!! Truth hurts.

[Rack Bauer]

Is the (pre-Lombardi) NFL Championship have equal value as a "Superbowl" Championship


No, it sure doesn't.


So the Eagles still have no championships. Get used to it.

[JDSmith]

Now as regards difficulty: I am amazed how really wrong so many are in this thread- it should be obvious: CONCENTRATION OF TALENT. When you only had 12 teams- there were only about 400 or so slots for pro players. NOW there are more then 1500- nearer 1600 counting practice squads. Even saying there is more emphasis now for kids starting out- is it FOUR TIMES AS MUCH? Are the kids of today FOUR TIMES BETTER? Only if they are does it even out as regards total talent

Actually, the concentration of talent - if you removed all other sports from the equation - was about twice in 1950 than it is today. In 1950 there were roughly 13 million males between the ages of 20 and 29, there were 13 teams of 36 players each and so the people to player ratio was about 2700:1. Today you have 21 million males of that age group, 1696 positions and the player ratio is about 12,000:1. And that's not including the fact that back then the best athletes were generally drawn towards baseball.

Regarding the 'big guys played football and small guys baseball' I would think that's incorrect. Outside of linemen there is probably not much difference between the size of a typical baseball player and a guy in the NFL. WRs, DBs, RBs are all guys who don't need size to do their jobs, they need athletecism. You can find plenty of baseball players with comparable or even greater size than your typical DB.

And again, you simply didn't need to win as much to win a championship back then. You might have had 10 regular season games and then 1 championship game. Apparently at one time you didn't even need the last game, they just based it off of the record throughout the season. I'd say that's a lot easier than playing a 16 game schedule and then as many as 3 playoff rounds.

[JDSmith]

One other point about the talent pool. Pop Warner football was created in 1929, but didn't become popular until some time in the 50's. Many people were against the idea of kids playing tackle football, and as recently as 1953 the National Education Association voted against organized kids football (the vote was 43 - 1 against with the founder of Pop Warner being the only positive vote). So the talent pool was not being created in the same way it is today. Many guys simply didn't have access to organized youth football, and as a result obviously didn't dream about growing up to play in the NFL.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Some of you clearly are unable to grasp the fact that the NFL Championship title and the Lombardi Superbowl Championship are One in the same Recognition (only the name has changed to honor Vince Lombardi).

Some of you knew that the official title is:

The NFL Superbowl Championship

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
...Vince Lombardi

[Rack Bauer]

Some of you clearly are unable to grasp the fact that the NFL Championship title and the Lombardi Superbowl Championship are One in the same Recognition (only the name has changed to honor Vince Lombardi).

Some of you knew that the official title is:

The NFL Superbowl Championship

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
...Vince Lombardi






Says the fan of the team that has never won a superbowl. Ever.

[Wolverine]

Some of you clearly are unable to grasp the fact that the NFL Championship title and the Lombardi Superbowl Championship are One in the same Recognition (only the name has changed to honor Vince Lombardi).

Some of you knew that the official title is:

The NFL Superbowl Championship

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
...Vince Lombardi









If what you say is true then how come when they changed the name to Super Bowl they did not go and rename all the past championships Super Bowl. They didnt cuz those Championships are not as good as Super Bowl.


A Championship is not as good as a Super Bowl. Those just the facts.

[burmafrd]

The percentage of pro players that played in Pop Warner even after the 50's was VERY SMALL. Does not apply. The population figure- that is bogus. LOOK at the number of college players and then look at the number of pro players in the different eras- because that is where the pro players came from. The players that thought they had a chance went to the big time teams- USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. That is where most to the pros came from. The cream came from the cream. Into a small number of teams. The talent was concentrated back then- and as Ipointed out- even though someone tried to confuse the FACTS- 400 slots vs 1600 slots. As regards the bogus best athletes bs- SIZE - most baseball players were UNDER 200lbs. MOST football players were OVER 200 lbs. The small quick guys did go into baseball more- but the Linemen size guys and the LB and such size guys ALWAYS go into football. Linemen were 230-250 lbs from the mid 50's on. LB's were 200-230. DO you really want to try and claim that a lot of 200+ lb guys chose baseball over football? REMEMBER- COLLEGE FOOTBALL was more popular then pro football untill the 60's. SO THE TALENT WENT INTO COLLEGE- THEN INTO THE PROS. Baseball players DID NOT GO TO COLLEGE= they went into the minor leagues. SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THAT BETTER ATHLETES went into baseball vs football.

[burmafrd]

Show me a non starter in College that started in the pros- or even made the team in the pros. VERY RARE. So the top talent in college went into the pros. THEY would have always - or very nearly always- been football players all the way. VERY few players were as good football as baseball players. You went the way your best talent took you- and the athletic talent needed in football is usually very different then what you need for baseball.

[DipChit]

If what you say is true then how come when they changed the name to Super Bowl they did not go and rename all the past championships Super Bowl. They didnt cuz those Championships are not as good as Super Bowl.


A Championship is not as good as a Super Bowl. Those just the facts.

That reasoning is cute. So in other words, good thing somebody thought up that name in the late 60's as opposed to the late 70's or we'd only have 3 Super Bowl victories instead of 5. ;)

[JDSmith]

The percentage of pro players that played in Pop Warner even after the 50's was VERY SMALL. Does not apply. The population figure- that is bogus. LOOK at the number of college players and then look at the number of pro players in the different eras- because that is where the pro players came from. The players that thought they had a chance went to the big time teams- USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. That is where most to the pros came from. The cream came from the cream. Into a small number of teams. The talent was concentrated back then- and as Ipointed out- even though someone tried to confuse the FACTS- 400 slots vs 1600 slots. As regards the bogus best athletes bs- SIZE - most baseball players were UNDER 200lbs. MOST football players were OVER 200 lbs. The small quick guys did go into baseball more- but the Linemen size guys and the LB and such size guys ALWAYS go into football. Linemen were 230-250 lbs from the mid 50's on. LB's were 200-230. DO you really want to try and claim that a lot of 200+ lb guys chose baseball over football? REMEMBER- COLLEGE FOOTBALL was more popular then pro football untill the 60's. SO THE TALENT WENT INTO COLLEGE- THEN INTO THE PROS. Baseball players DID NOT GO TO COLLEGE= they went into the minor leagues. SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THAT BETTER ATHLETES went into baseball vs football.


The population figure is not bogus, it is genuine. If it doesn't tell you what you want to hear that's a different matter. The guys making the pros in any sport were in that 20 - 29 male bracket. Saying the pros came from the colleges does not change the fact that they were also in the age and sex bracket they were in. And there were only 13 million people in that bracket in 1950, 21 million in it in 2005.

I pointed out the skill positions, WR, RB, DB - you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that many 200+ lbs guys chose it THEN, I was pointing out the relative size of baseball and football players today and how they relate. The relationship between them shouldn't have changed much relative to one another. So unless someone shows me otherwise I have to believe that there wasn't a lot of size difference between the positions I mentioned in football and baseball players. Yes, if you were very small you could still theoretically play baseball and not football, but an outfielder or other power hitter is likely as big as a WR, RB or DB in football. And I would guess the same held true back then. For instance, Willy Mays played his first game in 1951 - he was 5' 11" and weighed 180 lbs. Sammy Baugh, who played QB at the same time was 6' 2" and 182 lbs. Ken Carpenter, a pro bowl RB/WR that year was 6' and 195 lbs. Dante Lavelli, RB on that same probowl team was 6' 190 lbs. The size difference between those probowl football players and Willy Mays simply isn't that great. Sorry I didn't look up other players, those were the ones I could immediately find heights and weights for.

[Jarv]

I think they are both championships....period.

Superbowl has a cooler name.

NFL championships had way less commercials.

Draw.

[Wolverine]

The population figure is not bogus, it is genuine. If it doesn't tell you what you want to hear that's a different matter. The guys making the pros in any sport were in that 20 - 29 male bracket. Saying the pros came from the colleges does not change the fact that they were also in the age and sex bracket they were in. And there were only 13 million people in that bracket in 1950, 21 million in it in 2005.

I pointed out the skill positions, WR, RB, DB - you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that many 200+ lbs guys chose it THEN, I was pointing out the relative size of baseball and football players today and how they relate. The relationship between them shouldn't have changed much relative to one another. So unless someone shows me otherwise I have to believe that there wasn't a lot of size difference between the positions I mentioned in football and baseball players. Yes, if you were very small you could still theoretically play baseball and not football, but an outfielder or other power hitter is likely as big as a WR, RB or DB in football. And I would guess the same held true back then. For instance, Willy Mays played his first game in 1951 - he was 5' 11" and weighed 180 lbs. Sammy Baugh, who played QB at the same time was 6' 2" and 182 lbs. Ken Carpenter, a pro bowl RB/WR that year was 6' and 195 lbs. Dante Lavelli, RB on that same probowl team was 6' 190 lbs. The size difference between those probowl football players and Willy Mays simply isn't that great. Sorry I didn't look up other players, those were the ones I could immediately find heights and weights for.




Wow. Mad props JDSmith. Chances are if you argue with JD you are gonna lose.

[JDSmith]

I would also like to point out that this discussion about baseball players, talent pools and the relative merits of athletes are irrelevent to this discussion. It was simply easier to win a championship in the days when there were only 12 teams in the league and no playoff system. Nobody can argue that. The Eagles could have won the last 4 NFL Championships if all they had to do was win the NFC - but they didn't and they didn't. The NFL Championship from the 50's and earlier simply can't be compared to winning a Superbowl - there were too few teams and too few games, there was no playoff system and if you won your 'division' you were in the championship game.

[Asklesko]

I don't really trust the numbers because they are not refined enough. I mean, look at the culture. Baseball was the most popular of the sports of that era, and more guys wanted to go into baseball then. Now, today, football is the most popular sport, and more guys would rather be an nfl player than play in the mlb. This debate will never be resolved.

[JDSmith]

The bottom line is that when the guys who played for your championship team are mostly dead of old age, it's time to let it go. The Eagles fan doesn't want to think about that, but the teams he's talking about were winning in the late 40's, and most of the guys who played for them would be in their mid 80's, if they are even alive.

So here is the question for the Eagles fan, has the team won a championship in your lifetime?

[percyhoward]

Before the Superbowl and during the co-existence of the All-America Football Conference in the late 1940's and later the AFL in the 1960's, an NFL champion wasn't guaranteed to be the best team in professional football.

For example, the Eagles, twice defending NFL Champions (1948 and 1949), were decimated by the Cleveland Browns in their first game the very year the Browns joined the NFL from the AAFC where they had been champions four years in a row. Had the Colts, 49ers, and Browns (and effectively the Yanks) joined the NFL three years earlier the Eagles might not have won a single championship in that decade.

Philly also beat Green Bay in the 1960 Championship, but at that point the AFL had already formed and played its first season.

Each time when Philly won, you could argue whether they were the best in pro football-- expecially in the late 40's.
Very good post. I think it's safe to give them the '60 chamionship though.

No reason to be stingy.;)

[Hostile]

If the Cowboys had won NFL Championships prior to the Super Bowl I might care. We didn't, so I don't.

The Super Bowl elevated the Championship of football to another level. I can name every Super Bowl winner and who the MVP was. I can sit and talk about those games with fans of any team.

I can't do that for the NBA or the World Series for the same time span. The Super Bowl simply matters more. It matters so much that when my team isn't in it I still care enough to know the results.

For me, no the NFL Championships do not mean anything other than a blip in NFL History. If a team won Championships that is great. I don't care. It wasn't a Super Bowl.

[jman]

Here is a thought...

Super Bowls I and II were not "Super Bowls"...They were NFL Championship Games. The term "Super Bowl" wasn't used until Super Bowl III. They "back dated" the two previous NFL Championship games to name them Super Bowls because that is when the NFL and AFL started playing against each other.

Super Bowl in a name only...They are all just good ol' NFL Championship Games at heart...The Super Bowl is an event, the NFL Championship is the game.

They are one in the same...not any different...period.

Thank you.

[jman]

And further more, this year should actually be only Super Bowl XXXVIII...Not XL.

It was a marketing campain...that all. And it has worked wonderfully. Today it is the biggest single day sporting Event in this country.

And...it was named after a child toy, the Super Ball, by Lamar Hunt, owner of the Kansas City Chiefs.

So argue all you want, they are still plain and simply NFL Championship Games.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Super Bowl in a name only...They are all just good ol' NFL Championship Games at heart...The Super Bowl is an event, the NFL Championship is the game. They are one in the same...not any different...period. Thank you.


Agree!

[burmafrd]

Unless you have the weight and height of the MLB teams from the 50's to the 60's you have no evidence to back up your OPINIONS. SHow them vs the NFL rosters of the same time period and then we shall see. Guess what- they are a lot more sports now that kids go into vs the way it was 50 years ago. So the pie is split many more ways NOW then it was then.

[Wolverine]

Unless you have the weight and height of the MLB teams from the 50's to the 60's you have no evidence to back up your OPINIONS. SHow them vs the NFL rosters of the same time period and then we shall see. Guess what- they are a lot more sports now that kids go into vs the way it was 50 years ago. So the pie is split many more ways NOW then it was then.


Mickey Mantle was 5'11" or 6'0" and was over 200 lbs of muscle. I saw the thing on DISH called MANTLE. He was built like a Full Back.

Ted Williams was 6'3" 205 lbs.

Joe DiMaggio was 6'2" 208 lbs

Roger Maris was 6'0" 205 lbs

Don Drysdale 6'6" 220 lbs

Sandy Koufax 6'2" 210 lbs

Bob Feller 6'2" 205 lbs

Willie McCovey 6'4" 215

Carl Yastremski 5'11" 190 lbs

Rogers Hornsby 5'11" 195 lbs(before the 50s)

Gaylord Perry 6'4" 217

Hank Greenberg 6'3" 215

This is just a small list of the big baseball players who woulda EASILY had the size to play football back on those days. Actually they would be big nuff to play in todays football as well.

Name some other players and I will get their heights and weights. They are not hard to find.

[burmafrd]

ccording to this article- extrapolated from Who's Who in Baseball- the average size of a MLB was just over 6 ft tall and 185 lbs in the 60's.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/041403D.html

ANd THIS one has it for the whole century.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/main/article/cdial2004-03-290

QUITE a bit smaller I would say then you have claimed. Football players have been quite a bit bigger then that for a LONG time.

[burmafrd]

Bottom line: if you were over 200 lbs, you were pushed into football. If you were under, maybe you got pushed into baseball. Depends on how well you hit- that has always been the thing for non pitchers- hand eye coordination and hitting the ol horsehide.

[burmafrd]

the Cowboys team of 1971 averaged 222 lbs for the whole roster. The SMALLEST players they had were still the same weight as the AVERAGE MLB player. 37 lbs per man average BIGGER then MLB. That is quite a bit of difference.

[AMERICAS_FAN]

No!

Move Along!

Nothing To See Here (no Real Trophies For You...nothing!)

Af

[Wolverine]

Bottom line: if you were over 200 lbs, you were pushed into football. If you were under, maybe you got pushed into baseball. Depends on how well you hit- that has always been the thing for non pitchers- hand eye coordination and hitting the ol horsehide.


You have no idea what you are even talking about.


First of all the baseball average of 6'0" 185 would have been more then big nuff to play many positions in football. Like

WR
CB
FS
SS
QB
P
K


Some facts are that alota the big HR hitters were 6'0" or taller and if they were not over 200 lbs there were very close to it.

Frank Howard was 6'7" 255 lbs. Gee I wonder why he wasnt pushed to football. Dave Kingman was 6'6" 230 lbs. Willie Stargell 6'2" 220. There is a very long list of of some of the best players who would have had the height and weight to play pro football EASY!

Long before the 50s there were big players over 200 lbs. Babe Ruth was 6'2" 215. Cy Young was 6'2" 210. Why were they not pushed into football. They would have been huge for football back then.


Fact is you did not need to be 200 lbs to play in the NFL. Just look at the positions I listed and you will see that 6'0" 185 coulda played alota positions in football.

[SuspectCorner]

I got no beef with it. Either as an individual or as a team all you can do is strive to be better than the competition you're faced with.

Whether it's 1940 or 2040.

But as a mere fan living at the moment in history I'm living in though, I'm just glad the team I picked as my "fav" (in 1971 as a 10 year old boy) has actually won "championships" during my lifetime. ;)
dead on, Dipper.

sure, they "count". but - what's the point if you haven't actually experienced the thrill of seeing your team win a championship? and i don't mean viewing archival footage with no context in your lifetime.

[Bizwah]

Eagle fans have been using this arguement for years. They won 3 NFL Championships eons ago.

Are those equal to SBs? Yes........You can't fault them for not winning the SB if there wasn't a SB back then.

Sorry, but it's true......

But there's another way to look at this.........

Since we came into the league, the Eagles have won NOTHING, NADA, ZIP. You can see why there's so much venom from their fans for us. We've won 8 NFC Championship games, which......in a way.....is kind of like an NFL Championship. We've won 5 SBs.....while they've struggled to keep up with the rest of the NFC East.

[Wolverine]

Just something that should be obvious.

Notice the NFL named the final game between the best of the NFC and AFC the NFC Championship and the AFC Championship. They saved the name Super Bowl for the best of the best.

They have the Championship below Super Bowl to. So the Eagles Championship=either a AFC or NFC Championship....not a Super Bowl. Nuff said.

[JDSmith]

Maybe you should pose this question on the Canton Bulldogs board. I hear they really kicked *** in the 20's, so their fans might be more in tune with your point of view.

[DipChit]

Just something that should be obvious.

Notice the NFL named the final game between the best of the NFC and AFC the NFC Championship and the AFC Championship. They saved the name Super Bowl for the best of the best.

They have the Championship below Super Bowl to. So the Eagles Championship=either a AFC or NFC Championship....not a Super Bowl. Nuff said.

I dont understand why you keep putting so much emphasis on a mere term. Super Bowl is just an arbitrary name given to a particular football game. It's missing the point.

If someone wants to debate why the teams that were crowned champions in the 40's and 50's arent as worthy as those that were in the 70's and beyond, fine. But it has nothing to do with what the name of the "last" game of the year was/is called.

I mean if one thinks it does, I imagine they pray that the term Super Bowl wont ever be replaced with anything else because then I guess it would suddenly mean that their teams Super Bowl victories "dont have equal value" either compared to victories after a name change to whatever the new term might be. Especially if it doesnt happen for a couple more decades when theres more teams, more games and the players are bigger, stronger, faster anyway.

And you never know.. at some point in the future they may change the name of it.. afterall isnt kind of tacky to have your ultimate game be named the same thing as the name of a few Porta-Potty companies around the country? ;)

[big dog cowboy]

Is the (pre-Lombardi) NFL Championship have equal value as a "Superbowl" Championship
Would you really be asking this question if you had won even one SB?

[Wolverine]

Would you really be asking this question if you had won even one SB?


:hammer:


Best response in the thread.

[big dog cowboy]

:hammer:


Best response in the thread.
Thanks Wolv. Shocked nobody else asked it yet.

[burmafrd]

Bottom line is an NFL championship is an NFL Championship. YOU play who you have to play and beat who you have to beat to get the Trophy. All you can do is win the games you play. All else is not in your control. That has been the way it has been since the early 30's. The only difference is when it happened.

[Phoenix-Talon]

Same game different name.