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!

 

[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.