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

[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!)

**

 

[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?