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

[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]

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]

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.