Why are Pre SB championships not counted??

[DBOY3141]

I always question the media when they speak of NFL championships but don't count anything prior to the Super Bowl. Last night all the talk was the Steelers would win a 6th Lombardi and become the most successfull franchise. Yet the Packers have a totoal of 12 Championships (9 pre SB and 3 SB), the Bears have 9 (8 and 1) and the Giants have 7 (4 and 3). If the media doesn't consider these "real" championships then why do they consider players like Jim Brown the greatest RB to play, since his play was before the SB era, we shouldn't count his stats either. The game has been around alot longer than 1966 and when speaking of the greatest franchises those records should count.

 

[Established1971]

I always question the media when they speak of NFL championships but don't count anything prior to the Super Bowl. Last night all the talk was the Steelers would win a 6th Lombardi and become the most successfull franchise. Yet the Packers have a totoal of 12 Championships (9 pre SB and 3 SB), the Bears have 9 (8 and 1) and the Giants have 7 (4 and 3). If the media doesn't consider these "real" championships then why do they consider players like Jim Brown the greatest RB to play, since his play was before the SB era, we shouldn't count his stats either. The game has been around alot longer than 1966 and when speaking of the greatest franchises those records should count.

it doesnt make any sense, youre correct. However such talk actually makes the Cowboys look better so it doesnt bother me much

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I believe they are only counting the NFL Championships won after the Merger.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I always question the media when they speak of NFL championships but don't count anything prior to the Super Bowl. Last night all the talk was the Steelers would win a 6th Lombardi and become the most successfull franchise. Yet the Packers have a totoal of 12 Championships (9 pre SB and 3 SB), the Bears have 9 (8 and 1) and the Giants have 7 (4 and 3). If the media doesn't consider these "real" championships then why do they consider players like Jim Brown the greatest RB to play, since his play was before the SB era, we shouldn't count his stats either. The game has been around alot longer than 1966 and when speaking of the greatest franchises those records should count.

Good post. Championships are championships.

I have a similar gripe for stats. "It wasnt a stat back then" - well then go back and figure out those stats and count them.

Its all data.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I always question the media when they speak of NFL championships but don't count anything prior to the Super Bowl. Last night all the talk was the Steelers would win a 6th Lombardi and become the most successfull franchise. Yet the Packers have a totoal of 12 Championships (9 pre SB and 3 SB), the Bears have 9 (8 and 1) and the Giants have 7 (4 and 3). If the media doesn't consider these "real" championships then why do they consider players like Jim Brown the greatest RB to play, since his play was before the SB era, we shouldn't count his stats either. The game has been around alot longer than 1966 and when speaking of the greatest franchises those records should count.

They count. Just not as Super Bowls. Plus, if you were the AFL champion, you didn't beat the NFL champion and vise versa, so you weren't actually world champions. Anyway, the AFL had eight teams. Not so impressive to only have to be better than eight teams. If they ever change how the NCAA figures out it's winners and losers, everything before that time will begun to lose it's luster too. They can name a champion all they want, there is no true champion in the NCAA until only one team is left standing.

Just like MLB championships from 1960 and before. There were only 16 teams. While that is a hell of a lot better than eight, it's not as impressive as beating 30 teams today.

 

[CATCH17]

Because football was stupid Pre-Superbowl.

I don't even think College football should acknowledge a Championship Pre-1960 and 1960 may be pushing it.

The rules were just stupid and not football.

 

[Hostile]

I believe they are only counting the NFL Championships won after the Merger.

Partially correct. The NFL and AFL started playing for the Championship in 1967 with Super Bowl I. THe merger was 1970 and Super Bowl V was the first post merger Super Bowl.

On top of this, during one period of time there was no Championship game at all. The Champion was merely whoever had the best record.

For many years there was no championship tournament. Just 2 teams play, winner is the Champion.

Then when the AFL was created there was an NFL and an AFL champion. The Super Bowl was created to have one champion from both leagues.

Once the merger was completed it simply became the ultimate championship tournament. It completely overshadowed the old Championships.

They still matter, which is why Green Bay, Wisconsin is called Titletown, USA. Because in the years after the AFL genesis in 1960 and prior to Super Bowl I they were the NFL Champion 3 other times. They have a total of 9 NFL Championships and 3 Super Bowls.

Are they ever referred to as 12 time NFL Champions? Not really. 3 time Super Bowl Champions? Yes, you hear about that.

The Super Bowl simply matters more. It is a true earned Championship.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think the championships are remembered by some but the SB was the beginning of 1 true champion prior to that you had an AFL champion and an NFL champion

 

[CATCH17]

Partially correct. The NFL and AFL started playing for the Championship in 1967 with Super Bowl I. THe merger was 1970 and Super Bowl V was the first post merger Super Bowl.

On top of this, during one period of time there was no Championship game at all. The Champion was merely whoever had the best record.



The Super Bowl simply matters more. It is a true earned Championship.

That seems so stupid but yet College football still holds onto 90% of that concept.

 

[lkelly]

Because football was stupid Pre-Superbowl.

I don't even think College football should acknowledge a Championship Pre-1960 and 1960 may be pushing it.

The rules were just stupid and not football.

College football doesn't acknowledge a champion at the 1-A level. A group of conferences and TV reps award a trophy. A group of voting writers pick a champion. Computers pick a champion. The NCAA doesn't recognize one.

 

[Doomsday101]

College football doesn't acknowledge a champion at the 1-A level. A group of conferences and TV reps award a trophy. A group of voting writers pick a champion. Computers pick a champion. The NCAA doesn't recognize one.

Very true, sad to say but college 1-A the championship is only in name not always earned on the field. There have been rare occasions where the #1 and #2 were the only 2 undefeated teams standing and faced off but not often. Most years there are 3 to 4 teams who have legit arguments about being the champs

 

[kingwhicker]

Not so impressive to only have to be better than eight teams.

Just like MLB championships from 1960 and before. There were only 16 teams. While that is a hell of a lot better than eight, it's not as impressive as beating 30 teams today.

I totally disagree. Having less teams means the players are better. When you have 32 the league is watered down. The 28 team NFL was a much better product than the 32 team one in terms of roster talent and depth.

 

[CATCH17]

I totally disagree. Having less teams means the players are better. When you have 32 the league is watered down. The 28 team NFL was a much better product than the 32 team one in terms of roster talent and depth.

I think Salary Cap has a lot to do with that as well.

If you don't draft well in the "New NFL" than you are screwed.

Luckily we draft as well as anyone.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I totally disagree. Having less teams means the players are better. When you have 32 the league is watered down. The 28 team NFL was a much better product than the 32 team one in terms of roster talent and depth.

While that seems logical, it's not always true. Less teams means a lot of extremely talented players never get a chance to mature or even make a team in the first place. They even said it during the Superbowl last night. James Harrison was cut like four times or something like that. He was a practice squad player for the Steelers and James Farrior said during that time he sucked so bad he would just give up on plays. Then released, then signed with the Ravens and sent to NFL Europe only to be cut again. He then resigned with the Steelers and only made the team because of injury to Clark Haggans. He said if Haggans wouldn't have gotten injured allowing him to make the team, he was going to retire at age 26! Now, he is the DPoY and a Super Bowl Champion. Thats with 32 teams in the league.

 

[notherbob]

College football doesn't acknowledge a champion at the 1-A level. A group of conferences and TV reps award a trophy. A group of voting writers pick a champion. Computers pick a champion. The NCAA doesn't recognize one.

That's pretty much the biggest reason I quit watching college football and will not watch it again until there is a real playoff. They have put the vested financial interests of a handful of rich men over the interests of the whole country and all of college football. The NCAA is a disgrace and I doubt there is anyone in the NCAA with a three digit IQ - they're a bunch of crooked dummies.

 

[Cowboys2008]

So yay! Prior to the Super Bowls, we can then count 2 championships each year. Yea, that's a "championship".

So when the Packers won their 9, whom were the other 9 "championship" winners in those years then?

We might as well scrap the Super Bowl contest all together. For Conference Championships obviously mean the same apparently. Can't have 2 Champions without 2 Championships, after all.

Or is this just a technicality when looking backwards? No 2 Championships for today, just back then?

Why don't we make 1 day into 2 days while we're at it? Technically most days for most people don't end until AFTER 12pm at night, taking them into the 2nd day of 1 day. 700+ days a year for those who stay up past midnight, yay! 2 Champions for 1 year, yay!

Isn't that amazing about the Cardinals winning the NFL Championship this year? Way to go Steelers doing the same thing! 2008 was the year of both of you being Champions, just like 50 million years ago when the Packers and somebody else did it countless times also in the same calendar year.

Hey Steelers, did you know the Cardinals are the NFL Champions this year? I bet you didn't know that. They are though. Apparently. Gotta be fair, so they say.