Cincinnati Bengals

Go Back   Cincinnati Bengals Message Boards - Forums > Cincinnati Bengals Football Discussion > Smack Talk

Smack Talk Talk trash with fans from opposing teams. Have fun guys and gals, but keep it clean.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:27 AM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

The argument over the difference between pre-merger NFL Championships and Super Bowl Championships broke out in another thread, but it was somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd bring it up in a new thread.

First of all, though, I want to point out that I am NOT trying to make the case that one is inherently superior to the other. You can debate that here if you want, but ultimately, it's a matter of opinion.

What is undeniable, however, is that the two are similar, but separate categories. The reason for that can be traced back to the late 60s. This is the key: the Super Bowl began in 1966 as a World Championship game between the NFL and the AFL four years before the two leagues merged. During each of those four years, both an NFL Championship and a Super Bowl Championship were awarded. What that did was to create two separate championship lineages.

Here are some of the strange situations that created:

The Packers won three straight NFL Championships from 1965 to 1967. All three are on the same level, because they are successive championships of the same league. But only one of those wins counted as a World Championship. In the 1966 and 1967 seasons the Packers were already NFL champs BEFORE they became the World Champs by winning the Super Bowl.

The results of the next two Super Bowls created an even weirder situation. When the Jets and Chiefs won the Super Bowl following the 1968 and 1969 seasons, they were not in the NFL. So while each team can claim a Super Bowl (or World) Championship, neither has yet won an NFL Championship.

The NFL Championships for the 1968 and 1969 seasons belong to the Colts and Vikings. Both get to add those to their NFL Championship totals, but not to their World Championship totals.

I hope by now you are starting to understand why these are distinct categories.

Now here's where it gets confusing. Both the pre-merger NFL Championship and the Super Bowl have eras where they are considered the "World Championship". Prior to 1966' the NFL Championship was the World Championship, and since 1966 the Super Bowl has been.

Here's the thing: it is completely legitimate to combine the categories when compiling "World Championships". The Packers, then, lead in that category.

But it is also just as legitimate to compile a list of only Super Bowl Championships, of which the Steelers have won the most.

Is one better than the other? From 1966 to 1969, the Super Bowl clearly was. But in the bigger picture, comparing the years where they didn't overlap, that's a matter of opinion.

But, what I hope I've shown you is that the two are separate sub- categories that at different times both fit into the larger category of "World Championships".

That ends the history lesson. Let the debate begin!

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-17-2012 at 07:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:47 AM
Woodley Woodley is offline
VIP Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,941
Rep Points: 3894
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The argument over the difference between pre-merger NFL Championships and Super Bowl Championships broke out in another thread, but it was somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd bring it up in a new thread.

First of all, though, I want to point out that I am NOT trying to make the case that one is inherently superior to the other. You can debate that here if you want, but ultimately, it's a matter of opinion.

What is undeniable, however, is that the two are similar, but separate categories. The reason for that can be traced back to the late 60s. This is the key: the Super Bowl began in 1966 as a World Championship game between the NFL and the AFL four years before the two leagues merged. During each of those four years, both an NFL Championship and a Super Bowl Championship were awarded. What that did was to create two separate championship lineages.

Here are some of the strange situations that created:

The Packers won three straight NFL Championships from 1965 to 1967. All three are on the same level, because they are successive championships of the same league. But only one of those wins counted as a World Championship. In the 1966 and 1967 seasons the Packers were already NFL champs BEFORE they became the World Champs by winning the Super Bowl.

The results of the next two Super Bowls created an even weirder situation. When the Jets and Chiefs won the Super Bowl following the 1968 and 1969 seasons, they were not in the NFL. So while each team can claim a Super Bowl (or World) Championship, neither has yet won an NFL Championship.

The NFL Championships for the 1968 and 1969 seasons belong to the Colts and Vikings. Both get to add those to their NFL Championship totals, but not to their World Championship totals.

I hope by now you are starting to understand why these are distinct categories.

Now here's where it gets confusing. Both the pre-merger NFL Championship and the Super Bowl have eras where they are considered the "World Championship". Prior to 1966' the NFL Championship was the World Championship, and since 1966 the Super Bowl has been.

Here's the thing: it is completely legitimate to combine the categories when compiling "World Championships". The Packers, then, lead in that category.

But it is also just as legitimate to compile a list of only Super Bowl Championships, of which the Steelers have won the most.

Is one better than the other? From 1966 to 1969, the Super Bowl clearly was. But in the bigger picture, comparing the years where they didn't overlap, that's a matter of opinion.

But, what I hope I've shown you is that the two are separate sub- categories that at different times both fit into the larger category of "World Championships".

That ends the history lesson. Let the debate begin!
Super Bowls are clearly better.
Would I trade my teams 6 Super Bowl titles for 6 "Championships"? ,,,hell no.

Would Stain fans trade their teams 6 " Championships" for 6 SB titles...You bet they would.

Btw...the only problem with your thread is that it may be a bit too complicated for bengal fans to absorb.
__________________

Last edited by Woodley; 01-17-2012 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:53 AM
duke0476's Avatar
duke0476 duke0476 is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,489
Rep Points: 12955
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The argument over the difference between pre-merger NFL Championships and Super Bowl Championships broke out in another thread, but it was somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd bring it up in a new thread.

First of all, though, I want to point out that I am NOT trying to make the case that one is inherently superior to the other. You can debate that here if you want, but ultimately, it's a matter of opinion.

What is undeniable, however, is that the two are similar, but separate categories. The reason for that can be traced back to the late 60s. This is the key: the Super Bowl began in 1966 as a World Championship game between the NFL and the AFL four years before the two leagues merged. During each of those four years, both an NFL Championship and a Super Bowl Championship were awarded. What that did was to create two separate championship lineages.

Here are some of the strange situations that created:

The Packers won three straight NFL Championships from 1965 to 1967. All three are on the same level, because they are successive championships of the same league. But only one of those wins counted as a World Championship. In the 1966 and 1967 seasons the Packers were already NFL champs BEFORE they became the World Champs by winning the Super Bowl.

The results of the next two Super Bowls created an even weirder situation. When the Jets and Chiefs won the Super Bowl following the 1968 and 1969 seasons, they were not in the NFL. So while each team can claim a Super Bowl (or World) Championship, neither has yet won an NFL Championship.

The NFL Championships for the 1968 and 1969 seasons belong to the Colts and Vikings. Both get to add those to their NFL Championship totals, but not to their World Championship totals.

I hope by now you are starting to understand why these are distinct categories.

Now here's where it gets confusing. Both the pre-merger NFL Championship and the Super Bowl have eras where they are considered the "World Championship". Prior to 1966' the NFL Championship was the World Championship, and since 1966 the Super Bowl has been.

Here's the thing: it is completely legitimate to combine the categories when compiling "World Championships". The Packers, then, lead in that category.

But it is also just as legitimate to compile a list of only Super Bowl Championships, of which the Steelers have won the most.

Is one better than the other? From 1966 to 1969, the Super Bowl clearly was. But in the bigger picture, comparing the years where they didn't overlap, that's a matter of opinion.

But, what I hope I've shown you is that the two are separate sub- categories that at different times both fit into the larger category of "World Championships".

That ends the history lesson. Let the debate begin!
They were each great in their respective time periods and can be used in conversations or debates as to the success of a franchise as a whole.

In general terms, regardless of whether they are called championships or Super Bowls I don't think you can compare professional football teams or players for more than about a decade at a time.

I can't say that a running back of today hitting 1,000 yards a in 16 games is as much of an accomplishment as a running back of the past hitting the same mark in much fewer games.

There is much more parity now than there was even 10 years ago, let alone before there was a draft.
__________________
"I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play." Jack Lambert.

"The Steelers drafted guys who were bigger, stronger and faster than I, but they never found one who could take my job away from me." Jack Lambert

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:06 AM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodley View Post
Super Bowls are clearly better.
Would I trade my teams 6 Super Bowl titles for 6 "Championships"? ,,,hell no.

Would Stain fans trade their teams 6 " Championships" for 6 SB titles...You bet they would.

Btw...the only problem with your thread is that it may be a bit too complicated for bengal fans to absorb.
It might be for some, but that goes for Steeler fans too. I've never been as big a fan of sweeping-generalization-smack as you are, meanJoe.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:39 AM
Luvnit2's Avatar
Luvnit2 Luvnit2 is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,263
Rep Points: 15817
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The argument over the difference between pre-merger NFL Championships and Super Bowl Championships broke out in another thread, but it was somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd bring it up in a new thread.

First of all, though, I want to point out that I am NOT trying to make the case that one is inherently superior to the other. You can debate that here if you want, but ultimately, it's a matter of opinion.

What is undeniable, however, is that the two are similar, but separate categories. The reason for that can be traced back to the late 60s. This is the key: the Super Bowl began in 1966 as a World Championship game between the NFL and the AFL four years before the two leagues merged. During each of those four years, both an NFL Championship and a Super Bowl Championship were awarded. What that did was to create two separate championship lineages.

Here are some of the strange situations that created:

The Packers won three straight NFL Championships from 1965 to 1967. All three are on the same level, because they are successive championships of the same league. But only one of those wins counted as a World Championship. In the 1966 and 1967 seasons the Packers were already NFL champs BEFORE they became the World Champs by winning the Super Bowl.

The results of the next two Super Bowls created an even weirder situation. When the Jets and Chiefs won the Super Bowl following the 1968 and 1969 seasons, they were not in the NFL. So while each team can claim a Super Bowl (or World) Championship, neither has yet won an NFL Championship.

The NFL Championships for the 1968 and 1969 seasons belong to the Colts and Vikings. Both get to add those to their NFL Championship totals, but not to their World Championship totals.

I hope by now you are starting to understand why these are distinct categories.

Now here's where it gets confusing. Both the pre-merger NFL Championship and the Super Bowl have eras where they are considered the "World Championship". Prior to 1966' the NFL Championship was the World Championship, and since 1966 the Super Bowl has been.

Here's the thing: it is completely legitimate to combine the categories when compiling "World Championships". The Packers, then, lead in that category.

But it is also just as legitimate to compile a list of only Super Bowl Championships, of which the Steelers have won the most.

Is one better than the other? From 1966 to 1969, the Super Bowl clearly was. But in the bigger picture, comparing the years where they didn't overlap, that's a matter of opinion.

But, what I hope I've shown you is that the two are separate sub- categories that at different times both fit into the larger category of "World Championships".

That ends the history lesson. Let the debate begin!
Thanks for the insight and objective post. My argument is a simple one. A championship is a championship regardless of era. Why? Simple, because the NFL teams in those era play by the same rules. It does not matter whether there were 16 teams or 32. In the end, one team was the best. It appears over time the NFL will be expanded again? Are we supposed to start all over again counting championships.

Green Bay does lead in championships and it is not even close. I guess I don't even understand the debate still after your long post. Plus, I guarantee Steelers fans would be counting championships won had they won any prior to the "Super Bowl" era, yet they don't want to give Green Bay their due.

They all count. As far as players and awards go, yes you can look at different eras to determine the best of their era due to rule changes and a number of factors. A 16 game schedule provides for a lot more opportunity than a 12 or 14 games schedule alone.

Last edited by Luvnit2; 01-17-2012 at 01:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2012, 12:49 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2 View Post
Thanks for the insight and objective post. My argument is a simple one. A championship is a championship regardless of era. Why? Simple, because the NFL teams in those era play by the same rules. It does not matter whether there were 16 teams or 32. In the end, one team was the best. It appears over time the NFL will be expanded again? re we supposed to start all over again counting championships.

Green Bay does lead in championships and it is not even close. I guess I don't even understand the debate still after your long post. Plus, I guarantee Steelers fans would be counting championships won had they won any prior to the "Super Bowl" era, yet they don't want to give Green Bay their due.

They all count. As far as players and awrds go, yes you can look at different eras to determine the best of their era due to rule changes and a number of factors. A 16 game schedule provides for a lot more opportunity than a 12 or 14 games schedule alone.
The point of my post is that while the Super Bowl and all but four pre-merger NFL Championships are considered the main championships of the NFL in their respective eras, you can distinguish between the two.

The reason for that is that the two championships co-existed for four years. Not every Super Bowl Champ was the champ of the NFL. Not every pre-merger NFL champ was a "world champ".

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the one category of "world championship" is better or equal to the other, so thanks for sharing yours. But there is no denying that it is legitimate to separate them for the purpose of comparison, because for a time in history, there were completely separate from each other.

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-17-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2012, 01:07 PM
Luvnit2's Avatar
Luvnit2 Luvnit2 is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,263
Rep Points: 15817
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The point of my post is that while the Super Bowl and all but four pre-merger NFL Championships are considered the main championships of the NFL in their respective eras, you can distinguish between the two.

The reason for that is that the two championships co-existed for four years. Not every Super Bowl Champ was the champ of the NFL. Not every pre-merger NFL champ was a "world champ".

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the one category of "world championship" is better or equal to the other, so thanks for sharing yours. But there is no denying that it is legitimate to separate them for the purpose of comparison, because for a time in history, there were completely separate from each other.
So seperate those four years only (but, I am still confused as there was always only one NFL).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2012, 01:18 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2 View Post
So seperate those four years only (but, I am still confused as there was always only one NFL).
The NFL as we know it was a product of a merger between two leagues in 1970: the NFL and the AFL. For four years prior to the official merger they shared a common draft and had a joint championship game between their respective champions (the Super Bowl). This was in preparation for the merger, but nonetheless before it. The two leagues were still separate entities. So, the first four Super Bowls were not technically the NFL championship game. That was held separately. The Packers were already the NFL Champs before winning the first two Super Bowls. And the winners of the next two after that were the champs of the AFL, and to that point had never played a game in the NFL. For those two years the NFL champs and Super Bowl Champs were two different teams.

Once they merged, the NFL and the AFL essentially became the NFC and AFC (with the Browns, Steelers, and Colts switching to the AFC to balance the number of teams).

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-17-2012 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2012, 04:18 PM
Luvnit2's Avatar
Luvnit2 Luvnit2 is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,263
Rep Points: 15817
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The NFL as we know it was a product of a merger between two leagues in 1970: the NFL and the AFL. For four years prior to the official merger they shared a common draft and had a joint championship game between their respective champions (the Super Bowl). This was in preparation for the merger, but nonetheless before it. The two leagues were still separate entities. So, the first four Super Bowls were not technically the NFL championship game. That was held separately. The Packers were already the NFL Champs before winning the first two Super Bowls. And the winners of the next two after that were the champs of the AFL, and to that point had never played a game in the NFL. For those two years the NFL champs and Super Bowl Champs were two different teams.

Once they merged, the NFL and the AFL essentially became the NFC and AFC (with the Browns, Steelers, and Colts switching to the AFC to balance the number of teams).
I know, I saw it unfold live, but there was always only one NFL. The AFL was like a farm system of teh NFL. Put that aside, there are only four years in question. When did the NFL come into existence? Whenever that was, once it was formed, count all championships minus the four years you discussed. Why are the other 30 years being eliminated?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2012, 04:24 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2 View Post
I know, I saw it unfold live, but there was always only one NFL. The AFL was like a farm system of teh NFL. Put that aside, there are only four years in question. When did the NFL come into existence? Whenever that was, once it was formed, count all championships minus the four years you discussed. Why are the other 30 years being eliminated?
Where did you get that idea? I'm not suggesting that they be eliminated.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-17-2012, 04:47 PM
GreggyDigital's Avatar
GreggyDigital GreggyDigital is online now
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Muryland
Posts: 14,702
Rep Points: 33050
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodley View Post
Btw...the only problem with your thread is that it may be a bit too complicated for bengal fans to absorb.
Wait for it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2
So seperate those four years only (but, I am still confused as there was always only one NFL).
__________________
I'm sorry, you're "cut off."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2
QB pressures are better than sacks.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-17-2012, 06:47 PM
BengalYankee's Avatar
BengalYankee BengalYankee is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,104
Rep Points: 18055
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

From 1939-1950 only 8 teams were involved in the NCAA college BB tournament. That would be 3 rounds of playoffs.

In 1950 only 4 teams were involved in the NFL playoffs. That would be 2 rounds of playoffs.


Today, we have 68 teams in the NCAA college BB tournament. That would be more then 8 rounds of playoffs as we now have March Madness.

Those teams that won NCAA tournaments from 1939-1950 still are recognized as champs. Keep in mind in those days, blacks were not on the college teams.

Today's round of NFL playoffs are 3-4 long. So in most cases the champion has to go one more round of playoffs then in 1950.

Step back and think, one more round of playoffs and you are a champion today.

Is it that harder to become a champion now in the NFL? No.

Compare it to the NCAA BB tournament when you have to go over 8 rounds deep.

Yet, the teams that only had 3 rounds are champions.

The NFL have increased the rounds of playoffs to mostly one round. One freaking round more.

Every single team sport NBA, NHL, MLB have increased their rounds of playoffs to champions, from the 1950's. Yet some Steeler fans are hung up because the NFL renamed their titled Super Bowl champion and go one more round of playoffs all other championships are not counted.

If some of you are ignorant to feel that way or because of leather helmets and the lack of the forward pass, then you should feel the same in regards to the 3 point shot, or designated hitters or dunking not allowed or blacks not allowed to participate. Yes "some" of you hypocrites see things with your yellow colored glasses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:11 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by BengalYankee View Post
From 1939-1950 only 8 teams were involved in the NCAA college BB tournament. That would be 3 rounds of playoffs.

In 1950 only 4 teams were involved in the NFL playoffs. That would be 2 rounds of playoffs.


Today, we have 68 teams in the NCAA college BB tournament. That would be more then 8 rounds of playoffs as we now have March Madness.

Those teams that won NCAA tournaments from 1939-1950 still are recognized as champs. Keep in mind in those days, blacks were not on the college teams.

Today's round of NFL playoffs are 3-4 long. So in most cases the champion has to go one more round of playoffs then in 1950.

Step back and think, one more round of playoffs and you are a champion today.

Is it that harder to become a champion now in the NFL? No.

Compare it to the NCAA BB tournament when you have to go over 8 rounds deep.

Yet, the teams that only had 3 rounds are champions.

The NFL have increased the rounds of playoffs to mostly one round. One freaking round more.

Every single team sport NBA, NHL, MLB have increased their rounds of playoffs to champions, from the 1950's. Yet some Steeler fans are hung up because the NFL renamed their titled Super Bowl champion and go one more round of playoffs all other championships are not counted.

If some of you are ignorant to feel that way or because of leather helmets and the lack of the forward pass, then you should feel the same in regards to the 3 point shot, or designated hitters or dunking not allowed or blacks not allowed to participate. Yes "some" of you hypocrites see things with your yellow colored glasses.
Are you even reading my posts?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:20 PM
GreenHornet GreenHornet is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,090
Rep Points: 239
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodley View Post
Super Bowls are clearly better.
Would I trade my teams 6 Super Bowl titles for 6 "Championships"? ,,,hell no.

Would Stain fans trade their teams 6 " Championships" for 6 SB titles...You bet they would.

Btw...the only problem with your thread is that it may be a bit too complicated for bengal fans to absorb.
NFL championship games equal to Super bowls. At the end of the season they had a playoff and the two best teams played--end of story.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:54 PM
BengalYankee's Avatar
BengalYankee BengalYankee is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,104
Rep Points: 18055
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
Are you even reading my posts?

Did I quote you?

I clearly wrote with " " some Steeler fans!!!!

In other words, I was NOT talking about you or to you.
__________________

Last edited by BengalYankee; 01-17-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-17-2012, 08:14 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by BengalYankee View Post
Did I quote you?

I clearly wrote with " " some Steeler fans!!!!

In other words, I was NOT talking about you or to you.
Then quote whoever you were talking to. Because when someone doesn't use quotes, you can usually conclude that they're either talking to the person whose post they are following or the OP.

For what it's worth, though, some NFL Championships were decided by being on top of the standings at the end of the season. Others were decided by one game between the top two teams. It's not as small a difference as you made it out to be with your "one freaking round" rant.

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-17-2012 at 10:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-17-2012, 08:33 PM
BengalYankee's Avatar
BengalYankee BengalYankee is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,104
Rep Points: 18055
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
Then quote whoever you were talking to. Because when someone doesn't use quotes, you can usually conclude that they're either talking to the person whose post they are following or the OP.

For what it's worth, though, some NFL Championships were decided by being on top of the standings at the end of the season. Others were decided by one game between the top two teams. It's not as small a difference as you made it out to be with your "one freaking round" rant.

Have I ever called any of your comments rants???

You ask for a discussion or a debate and now when a person does you call his comments a rant. Nice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:48 PM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by BengalYankee View Post
Have I ever called any of your comments rants???

You ask for a discussion or a debate and now when a person does you call his comments a rant. Nice.
Look at it again.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-18-2012, 06:17 AM
STEELFAIRANDBALANCED STEELFAIRANDBALANCED is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 1,679
Rep Points: 230
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2 View Post
Thanks for the insight and objective post. My argument is a simple one. A championship is a championship regardless of era. Why? Simple, because the NFL teams in those era play by the same rules. It does not matter whether there were 16 teams or 32. In the end, one team was the best. It appears over time the NFL will be expanded again? Are we supposed to start all over again counting championships.

Green Bay does lead in championships and it is not even close. I guess I don't even understand the debate still after your long post. Plus, I guarantee Steelers fans would be counting championships won had they won any prior to the "Super Bowl" era, yet they don't want to give Green Bay their due.

They all count. As far as players and awards go, yes you can look at different eras to determine the best of their era due to rule changes and a number of factors. A 16 game schedule provides for a lot more opportunity than a 12 or 14 games schedule alone.
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BEFORE & AFTER MERGER.

Ah Yes I remember it well. Back in the days when linemen were all of 180 lbs soak & wet. WR's ran the 40 in 4.4 Thats 4 minutes, 4 seconds. Workouts consisted of Lifting Old Milwaukee beer barrels 3 days a week till they topped 300 lbs in dead beer weight. Lets not forget the Quality High Protein food they were feeding these guys, Mostly 5 pounds of 80/20 Ground meat washed down with a quart of Jethro Bodine milk.

Now seriously, must i spell it out as to why there is NO comparison before, then after the Merger. Things changed, and they changed Drastically from 1970 on. I was there to witnness it, while you had yet to pay your Mom for a Womb with a view

The Level of Difficulty of what it took to win a World Championship after the Merger should be soooo OBVIOUS, even to you, that its laughable at best.

Prior to the merger, there were 13 Teams. After, 28 then 32. The PO system in the Old League was win 1, then on to the Championship game. After the Merger, its win at least 2, sometimes 3 games, then on to the SB. There was No such thing as Free Agency then, therefore the distribution of talent was basically Nil.

As i stated, players are much BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER, than there Predecessors. Again, NO COMPARISON, making the Steelers feat all that much more impressive!

As i stated, its accurate to say the differnce was like comparing a 1915 Model T, with a 2011 Souped up Vet.

Ok, some of this is Tongue N Cheek, but most of you should get the Idea
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-18-2012, 06:48 AM
Luvnit2's Avatar
Luvnit2 Luvnit2 is offline
VIP Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,263
Rep Points: 15817
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by STEELFAIRANDBALANCED View Post
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BEFORE & AFTER MERGER.

Ah Yes I remember it well. Back in the days when linemen were all of 180 lbs soak & wet. WR's ran the 40 in 4.4 Thats 4 minutes, 4 seconds. Workouts consisted of Lifting Old Milwaukee beer barrels 3 days a week till they topped 300 lbs in dead beer weight. Lets not forget the Quality High Protein food they were feeding these guys, Mostly 5 pounds of 80/20 Ground meat washed down with a quart of Jethro Bodine milk.

Now seriously, must i spell it out as to why there is NO comparison before, then after the Merger. Things changed, and they changed Drastically from 1970 on. I was there to witnness it, while you had yet to pay your Mom for a Womb with a view

The Level of Difficulty of what it took to win a World Championship after the Merger should be soooo OBVIOUS, even to you, that its laughable at best.

Prior to the merger, there were 13 Teams. After, 28 then 32. The PO system in the Old League was win 1, then on to the Championship game. After the Merger, its win at least 2, sometimes 3 games, then on to the SB. There was No such thing as Free Agency then, therefore the distribution of talent was basically Nil.

As i stated, players are much BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER, than there Predecessors. Again, NO COMPARISON, making the Steelers feat all that much more impressive!

As i stated, its accurate to say the differnce was like comparing a 1915 Model T, with a 2011 Souped up Vet.

Ok, some of this is Tongue N Cheek, but most of you should get the Idea
Leave it to you to come up with the dumbest argument yet. It has nothing to do with comparing athletes from the 50's with athletes of this era. Guess what, they did not play each other. The argument is not who is the better athelete and never was.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-18-2012, 07:40 AM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvnit2 View Post
I know, I saw it unfold live, but there was always only one NFL. The AFL was like a farm system of teh NFL. Put that aside, there are only four years in question. When did the NFL come into existence? Whenever that was, once it was formed, count all championships minus the four years you discussed. Why are the other 30 years being eliminated?
I pretty much dismissed this post earlier because you totally misunderstood what I was getting at. But, I guess I can give it another shot. So ... to respond to your points and questions:

Yes, the AFL was considered inferior at first, but they quickly showed they could compete, often outbidding NFL teams for top draft picks, and eventually winning Super Bowls III and IV.

I never said that you shouldn't count pre-merger championships. All I said was that the question of whether one was greater than the other is a matter of opinion. But clearly, they all "count".

But there is a distinction to be made when talking about Super Bowls. Had the Super Bowl started AFTER the merger, it could probably then be considered as a newly-named extension of the pre-merger championships. But it didn't go down that way. The overlap created a categorical distinction. The NFL championship continued to exist four years into the Super Bowl era. During those four years, it ceased to be the "World Championship" of football. But its champions were still crowned. The NFL titles that the 1968 Colts and 1969 Vikings won are still legit. They were every bit as much NFL champions as any other team crowned before them. But, the Super Bowl winners of those years were a different category and received the recognition of "world champion" instead of the NFL champions.

After those four years, the merger essentially transformed the "NFL Championship" into the "NFC Championship", which is recognized by the fact that today the NFL itself lists old NFL and AFL champions under its list of Conference championship results. The point is that the old NFL Championship didn't just undergo a name change, as Bengal Yankee suggests. It was retired, in favor of a NEW strain of championships. Both are considered the "World Championship" of their respective eras, but they nonetheless represent two separate strains.

Now pay attention here - by no means am I suggesting that we completely dismiss old championships, or that teams like the Packers can't legitimately combine their Super Bowls and Championships to talk about total "World Championships". They can and they do, though I'd point out that when they do that on their own website, they distinguish between "Super Bowls and Championships". I am simply saying that it is ALSO legitimate for the sake of discussion to separate and list the Super Bowl winners in history because it is a separate sub-category of "World Championships", as created by the unusual circumstances of the merger. I'm not participating in the debate of whether one is superior. I'm simply saying they're distinct.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-18-2012 at 08:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-18-2012, 07:45 AM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by STEELFAIRANDBALANCED View Post
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BEFORE & AFTER MERGER.

Ah Yes I remember it well. Back in the days when linemen were all of 180 lbs soak & wet. WR's ran the 40 in 4.4 Thats 4 minutes, 4 seconds. Workouts consisted of Lifting Old Milwaukee beer barrels 3 days a week till they topped 300 lbs in dead beer weight. Lets not forget the Quality High Protein food they were feeding these guys, Mostly 5 pounds of 80/20 Ground meat washed down with a quart of Jethro Bodine milk.

Now seriously, must i spell it out as to why there is NO comparison before, then after the Merger. Things changed, and they changed Drastically from 1970 on. I was there to witnness it, while you had yet to pay your Mom for a Womb with a view

The Level of Difficulty of what it took to win a World Championship after the Merger should be soooo OBVIOUS, even to you, that its laughable at best.

Prior to the merger, there were 13 Teams. After, 28 then 32. The PO system in the Old League was win 1, then on to the Championship game. After the Merger, its win at least 2, sometimes 3 games, then on to the SB. There was No such thing as Free Agency then, therefore the distribution of talent was basically Nil.

As i stated, players are much BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER, than there Predecessors. Again, NO COMPARISON, making the Steelers feat all that much more impressive!

As i stated, its accurate to say the differnce was like comparing a 1915 Model T, with a 2011 Souped up Vet.

Ok, some of this is Tongue N Cheek, but most of you should get the Idea
Your posts are the only things I'm aware of that constitute a good argument in favor of SOPA.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-18-2012, 08:47 AM
silenetwolf silenetwolf is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,703
Rep Points: 1762
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
The argument over the difference between pre-merger NFL Championships and Super Bowl Championships broke out in another thread, but it was somewhat off topic, so I thought I'd bring it up in a new thread.

First of all, though, I want to point out that I am NOT trying to make the case that one is inherently superior to the other. You can debate that here if you want, but ultimately, it's a matter of opinion.

What is undeniable, however, is that the two are similar, but separate categories. The reason for that can be traced back to the late 60s. This is the key: the Super Bowl began in 1966 as a World Championship game between the NFL and the AFL four years before the two leagues merged. During each of those four years, both an NFL Championship and a Super Bowl Championship were awarded. What that did was to create two separate championship lineages.

Here are some of the strange situations that created:

The Packers won three straight NFL Championships from 1965 to 1967. All three are on the same level, because they are successive championships of the same league. But only one of those wins counted as a World Championship. In the 1966 and 1967 seasons the Packers were already NFL champs BEFORE they became the World Champs by winning the Super Bowl.

The results of the next two Super Bowls created an even weirder situation. When the Jets and Chiefs won the Super Bowl following the 1968 and 1969 seasons, they were not in the NFL. So while each team can claim a Super Bowl (or World) Championship, neither has yet won an NFL Championship.

The NFL Championships for the 1968 and 1969 seasons belong to the Colts and Vikings. Both get to add those to their NFL Championship totals, but not to their World Championship totals.

I hope by now you are starting to understand why these are distinct categories.

Now here's where it gets confusing. Both the pre-merger NFL Championship and the Super Bowl have eras where they are considered the "World Championship". Prior to 1966' the NFL Championship was the World Championship, and since 1966 the Super Bowl has been.

Here's the thing: it is completely legitimate to combine the categories when compiling "World Championships". The Packers, then, lead in that category.

But it is also just as legitimate to compile a list of only Super Bowl Championships, of which the Steelers have won the most.

Is one better than the other? From 1966 to 1969, the Super Bowl clearly was. But in the bigger picture, comparing the years where they didn't overlap, that's a matter of opinion.

But, what I hope I've shown you is that the two are separate sub- categories that at different times both fit into the larger category of "World Championships".

That ends the history lesson. Let the debate begin!
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that they had actual playoff games prior to the super bowl. There was only one game played for the playoffs and the winner of that game was declared the champion.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:09 AM
JS-Steelerfan's Avatar
JS-Steelerfan JS-Steelerfan is offline
VIP Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,252
Rep Points: 16727
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by silenetwolf View Post
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that they had actual playoff games prior to the super bowl. There was only one game played for the playoffs and the winner of that game was declared the champion.
I think there may have been a tie breaker divisional game here and there, but you are essentially correct. If you go way back, there was also a time when there was no playoffs at all and the champion was merely the team that was at the top of the standings when they stopped playing. That doesn't mean that those championships don't count, but it is a matter of opinion as to how you compare them.

I guess I could weigh in on that opinion thing, since I haven't really done so, at least not in detail. As I've already stated, I think all the old championships "count". But I think it's okay to make distinctions. I've already pointed out that I think the distinction between pre-merger and Super Bowl Championships is a historical fact. But, as for distinguishing them because of the system used to determine them, I guess that's a bit murkier. Here's the thing, though: there are all sorts of ways in which the different eras were treated differently. The popularity of the game, the place it had in American culture, and the compensation of the players were just some of the many things about the league that underwent DRASTIC changes over the years. The league was simply a different animal, even as recently as the 60s, to say nothing of the 20s. Very few people know that the first NFL Champions were the Canton Bulldogs, who won it two years in a row. Is it legitimate to say that they have more "world championships" than several teams today? Sure. But it's also appropriate to point out that comparing that team and it's accompishments to the winner of Super Bowl XLVI is very much an apples to oranges proposition.

I guess what I'm saying is that the early championships count, but it's not inappropriate to talk about what makes them different from today's championships.

Last edited by JS-Steelerfan; 01-18-2012 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-19-2012, 04:33 PM
STEELFAIRANDBALANCED STEELFAIRANDBALANCED is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 1,679
Rep Points: 230
Default Re: Super Bowls Vs. NFL Championships

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan View Post
Your posts are the only things I'm aware of that constitute a good argument in favor of SOPA.
I see you seem to be the Only one who criticized my posts. Hmmmmm, first of all, there was nothing wrong with what was stated.

2. Could it be you feel threatened about the FACT you were tossed off the Steeler Board a few years back? Gee Wally, that sounds like it could be it. BTW--should i bring those that know from our board?

Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you didn't have that botched back street lobotomy that left you that crisscrossed shoelace scar on your forehead little man

No wonder you spend your ENTIRE life here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2012 Cincinnati Bengals. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate in any form without permission of the Cincinnati Bengals.