Good laughs and smacking from Packer and Steeler fans.

[Woodley]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

It's ok for Alabama to to have 14 titles since 1925, but when the Green Bay Packers have 13 titles since 1929, we need to have sub categories and a new era?? So the era of College football stayed the same??? Yeah right!!!

.

Whether we "need" to have a new era is not the question.
"Eras Happen"..eras indicate change.

If this the Super Bowl era:

Had quotas on how many black players could play on a team.
Had players that had to hold real jobs during the week to make ends meet.
Had teams that had to combine because of a shortage of men during a war effort.
Had less specialization (two way players, sometimes only 2 or 3 assistant coaches)
Had the same number of teams as the pre Super Bowl era....

...then I would give NFL championships the same weight as Super Bowls.

Very important BYank... football was once a distant 2nd to baseball in popularity. The Super Bowl era is when football became "Americas Game", head and shoulders above baseball in popularity.
It's the era we live in.

[6andcounting]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Oops,

Here is #24.

By biased Sport's Illustrated no less.




What was that crack about expansion and the Stanley cup???

Can't wait for this spinning to begin.

Let me repreat myself since 1916 the Canadiens have been winning championships.
It is ok, for the Steelers to have a new era of football and thus a new category for championships, but for all other sports they have to play by a different rule. Yeah, right.

As the magazine cover shows, the Canadiens have 24 Stanley Cups.

The Steelers have 6 Lombardi trophies.

The Packers have 4.

Great point....

I smell some red herring coming from your response to this.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by 6andcounting

I smell some red herring

Sticking your head in your mom's pants again?

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by Woodley

Whether we "need" to have a new era is not the question.
Just like shiit, "Eras Happen", lol

Eras indicate change.

If this the Super Bowl era:

Had quotas on how many black players could play on a team.
Had players that had to hold real jobs during the week to make ends meet.
Had teams that had to combine because of a shortage of men during a war effort.
Had less specialization (two way players, only 2 or 3 assistant coaches)
Had the same number of teams as the pre Super Bowl era....

...then I would give NFL championships the same weight as Super Bowls.

Very important BYank... football was once a distant 2nd to baseball in popularity. The Super Bowl era is when football became "Americas Game", head and shoulders above baseball in popularity.
It's the era we live in.

So era's don't change in other sports? Only in the NFL does the era change? Very convient to say this.

Let's be real if there was no merger between the AFL and NFL than we would not be talking about new era. Whether it be any team sport in history or individual sports whether it be the Olympics or Boxing, Golf or Tennis. We don't distinguish sub categories or new era's. The superbowl was a renaming of the title game. The title was first remaned the NFL-AFL World Championship game and then the superbowl due to the media pushing for this name and the NFL and Pete Rozelle changing his tune since he was initally against this name also.

The Steelers have six titles, that is nothing to sneeze at. They have been the best team the last 40 years. But since 1920, the best team in the NFL has been the Packers[13]. The best team in Professional football since 1920 has also been the Packers[13], followed by the Bears[9] and Giants[8] and Browns[8]. Note I did not say the Browns have 8 NFL Championships, but they have 8 Profesional Football Championships, with their first NFL Championship the first year they played in the NFL. But that is another story and another fight. The issue here is the renaming of the title and the excuse of a new era, while conviently turning the head and eye when other sport leagues continue to use the same designation from 1905, 1916, etc.

[6andcounting]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

Sticking your head in your mom's pants again?

Why do you resort to the lowest level of smack? shame shame

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by 6andcounting

Why do you resort to the lowest level of smack? shame shame

I'll stop if you bring me.........a shrubbery!

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Oops,

Here is #24.

By biased Sport's Illustrated no less.




What was that crack about expansion and the Stanley cup???

Can't wait for this spinning to begin.

Let me repreat myself since 1916 the Canadiens have been winning championships.
It is ok, for the Steelers to have a new era of football and thus a new category for championships, but for all other sports they have to play by a different rule. Yeah, right.

I'm confused. Why would you think I'd dispute this? I've said over and over again that defining an era doesn't delegitimize the rest of a history. Of course they've won that many cups. Why do you and Luvnit keep having this phantom argument with me over things I haven't said?

I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what I mean by 'era' or 'subcategory', because what I'm actually talking about DOES occur in other sports.

When I searched hockey message boards for 'expansion era', I didn't find anyone who thought that term delegitimized the other Stanley Cups, nor did I expect to. That's not what I'm trying to do with the Super Bowl either. What I did find was people talking about the best players and statistical leaders of the expansion era. They do this because the league went through significant changes in that era and defining that helps them compare the teams and players WITHIN that era, because they have some things in common that other eras don't. They DON'T do it to say that the expansion era is somehow more important.

The same is true of the three-point era, the shot clock era, the DH era, and yes, the Super Bowl era.

Let me say it again: defining those eras does not delegitimize the other eras. It simply provides a frame of reference that allows people to compare the teams and players within that era, because those teams share something that other eras don't, whether it's a rule change or a structural evolution of the league.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Let's be real if there was no merger between the AFL and NFL than we would not be talking about new era.

Dude, that's the whole point! The merger DID happen, just like the NHL expansion happened and the monumental rule changes in basketball and baseball happened.

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Whether it be any team sport in history or individual sports whether it be the Olympics or Boxing, Golf or Tennis. We don't distinguish sub categories or new era's.

That's where you're dead wrong. Every sport evolves. That evolution doesn't make any era superior to the others, but it does make them different. People in EVERY sport have a tendency to compare teams and players within an era. Baseball fans talk about team offense statistics in the DH era. Basketball fans talk about scoring in the shot clock and three-point eras. Hockey fans talk about cups won in the expansion era.

All these things are talked about because the teams and players in those eras share something in common that the others don't. But none of those eras is somehow inherently superior to the ones before them. The same is true of the Super Bowl era.

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

The superbowl was a renaming of the title game. The title was first remaned the NFL-AFL World Championship game and then the superbowl due to the media pushing for this name and the NFL and Pete Rozelle changing his tune since he was initally against this name also.

Actually, the name has little to do with it. There would have been a distinction no matter what they called it. In my opinion there are two major factors that defined the Super Bowl era. The first is that the merger represented a watershed moment in NFL history that changed the face of the league, much like the expansion era in hockey.

The second factor is this: For its first four years, the Super Bowl was not the NFL's title game. The Packers were NFL Champs BEFORE they played in SB I and II. The Colts and Vikings remained NFL Champs AFTER LOSING SB III and IV. And that is essentially what all Super Bowl titles have in common that other NFL Champs do not. They won the same title as the four teams that won it when it was separate from the NFL championship. The 1969 Vikings, though they will forever be recognized as that season's NFL Champs, cannot claim this distinction, nor can the 1968 Colts or any other NFL Champ before 1966. This doesn't make them inferior. Well, it does in the case of the Colts and Vikings, because they actually LOST the Super Bowl. But in the case of the other pre-merger champs it just means they can't call their championship a Super Bowl, or whatever they would have called it if Rozelle got his way. This is the sort of thing that creates an era - something in common that helps you talk about teams in that era as a group.

Let me say this again, as you are having a mystifying amount of trouble with the concept: such eras do NOT need to be elevated or given more significance than the others. Eras are simply a way of comparing teams and players who share significant historical commonalities.

I showed you that the Packers, of all teams, recognize this (post 107). The paragraph I quoted there shows that the Packers themselves are able to divide their championships between those won in the pre-playoff era, the pre-merger era, and the Super Bowl era. And, lo and behold, this doesn't change the fact that they've still won 13 overall championships!! They are capable of defining categories within those 13 championships without delegitimizing any of them. Not only are they capable of it, but they are willing to do it. And yet somehow you know better than the team that has won the most championships in NFL history.

[duke0476]

I think the entire point of this thread is to see how much bandwidth Yankee can use in a single thread. This has to be the longest stupid debate I have ever seen on here.

If any newcomers want the jist of this thread just read the first 10 or so posts, after that it just repeats over and over and over and........

[Blitzberg06]

Originally Posted by duke0476

I think the entire point of this thread is to see how much bandwidth Yankee can use in a single thread. This has to be the longest stupid debate I have ever seen on here.

If any newcomers want the jist of this thread just read the first 10 or so posts, after that it just repeats over and over and over and........

Like the Energizer bunny?!

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

That's where you're dead wrong. Every sport evolves. That evolution doesn't make any era superior to the others, but it does make them different. People in EVERY sport have a tendency to compare teams and players within an era. Baseball fans talk about team offense statistics in the DH era. Basketball fans talk about scoring in the shot clock and three-point eras. Hockey fans talk about cups won in the expansion era.

You are very slow or just want to ignore what I wrote time after time. The issue is not about total championships. You and I are both agreement that the Packers have 13 Championships and lead the league in that department. Fine.

The issue is when you and others bring in the Superbowl as another sub category as and try to legitmize it by stating as another era. I gave you a perfect example of Alabama having more titles than the Packers and from even earlier, yet you don't want to argue that point or UCLA or the Yankees, etc. You keep on bringing your talking points about the Vikings and Colts.

Talk about why it is important to throw out new era's in the NFL but in no other sport. People comparing athletes from this era to the era of yesterday is not the issue. People comparing the 2010-2011 Packers to the Packers of 1929 is not the issue. People talking about 3 point shot is not the issue. The issue is why you think it is important to have a cut off date which coincidently happens to favor your team for a new category of titles, while it is not done in any other sport individually, or by team on the face of the planet!!!!

This does not refer to you, repeat this does not refer to you, but when members say Lombardi's is all that counts, just amplify what I am talking about.
Now back to you.

I know you won't do it, you will bring up the Colts, Vikings or Jets again, but be honest. Tell me why for example why there is no new era for college football, but there is for the NFL??? You think the era for college football is the same from 1925 to today?? Maybe because the NFL just made up and renamed their trophy and started from scratch again and people like you say new era, new sub category, we can start from scratch with Lombardi's instead of Ed Thorp Memorial trophy's!!!


Alabama received this trophy last year but not in 1925. In fact, sans the BCS logo this trophy has been given out since 1950. Does the advent of new trophy's mean a new era?

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by duke0476

I think the entire point of this thread is to see how much bandwidth Yankee can use in a single thread. This has to be the longest stupid debate I have ever seen on here.

If any newcomers want the jist of this thread just read the first 10 or so posts, after that it just repeats over and over and over and........

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

You are very slow or just want to ignore what I wrote time after time. The issue is not about total championships. You and I are both agreement that the Packers have 13 Championships and lead the league in that department. Fine.

The issue is when you and others bring in the Superbowl as another sub category as and try to legitmize it by stating as another era. I gave you a perfect example of Alabama having more titles than the Packers and from even earlier, yet you don't want to argue that point or UCLA or the Yankees, etc. You keep on bringing your talking points about the Vikings and Colts.

Talk about why it is important to about new era's in the NFL but in no other sport. People comparing athletes from this era to the era of yesterday is not the issue. People comparing the 2010-2011 Packers to the Packers of 1929 is not the issue. People talking about 3 point shot is not the issue. The issue is why you think it is important to have a cut off date which coincidently happens to favor your team for a new category of titles, while it is not done in any other sport individually, or by team on the face of the planet!!!!

This does not refer to you, repeat this does not refer to you, but when members say Lombardi's is all that counts, just amplify what I am talking about.
Now back to you.

I know you won't do it, you will bring up the Colts, Vikings or Jets again, but be honest. Tell me why for example why there is no new era for college football, but there is for the NFL??? You think the era for college football is the same from 1925 to today?? Maybe because the NFL just made up and renamed their trophy and started from scratch again and people like you say new era, new sub category, we can start from scratch with Lombardi's instead of Ed Thorp Memorial trophy's!!!


Alabama received this trophy last year but not in 1925. In fact, sans the BCS logo this trophy has been given out since 1950. Does the advent of new trophy's mean a new era?

You are defining era differently than I am, I think. I don't think football handles 'eras' any differently than any other sport.

I see 'eras' as subjective classifications based on historical developments that are defined for the purpose of discussion. As such, there ARE eras in every sport.

Please explain your understanding of the NFL's specific handling of the concept that is so objectionable to you.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

You are defining era differently than I am, I think. I don't think football handles 'eras' any differently than any other sport.

I see 'eras' as subjective classifications based on historucal developments that are defined for the basis of discussion. As such, there ARE eras in every sport.

Please explain your understanding of the NFL's handling of the concept that is so objectionable to you.

I have no issue that is objectionable to me other than members saying that the era of football is changed so that we can use the reset button in recognizing champions, for instance the Superbowl. But these same two faced hypocrites, will not mention different era's of other sports and won't dare give an arbitrary date of awarding titles in MLB, NBA, college football, college basketball, the olympics, heck virtually every other sport in the world. The saving grace you members have is the NFL renaming their title. That is your excuse to talk about new era in football. Meanwhile, every other sport on the planet has "evolved" as you mentioned, but there is no new category of championships. UCLA Bruins still have 11 titles, Alabama has still won 14 titles, Montreal has 24 titles and the team that has the most the Yankees have 27 titles.

No way in hell, will MLB use a farce of a new era and have a new category for Championships. Green Bay, smallest market in the NFL, the powers to be, said who cares about them.

[Luvnit2]

I am just taking this all in as we are close to another new era in pro football when the sport goes global and my only hope is they change the name of the final game. Then, by Steelers fan logic, the Steelers championships would be placed in anothe era and would not be as significant as those won in this new era. How would they count those 6 rings then? I guess they will have to start over like the Packers are supposed to in their minds.

That will be a fun time when London joins the mix.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by Luvnit2

I am just taking this all in as we are close to another new era in pro football when the sport goes global and my only hope is they change the name of the final game. Then, by Steelers fan logic, the Steelers championships would be placed in anothe era and would not be as significant as those won in this new era. How would they count those 6 rings then? I guess they will have to start over like the Packers are supposed to in their minds.

That will be a fun time when London joins the mix.

When have I ever said any of this? You are having an argument with things that no one has said here.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

I have no issue that is objectionable to me other than members saying that the era of football is changed so that we can use the reset button in recognizing champions, for instance the Superbowl. But these same two faced hypocrites, will not mention different era's of other sports and won't dare give an arbitrary date of awarding titles in MLB, NBA, college football, college basketball, the olympics, heck virtually every other sport in the world. The saving grace you members have is the NFL renaming their title. That is your excuse to talk about new era in football. Meanwhile, every other sport on the planet has "evolved" as you mentioned, but there is no new category of championships. UCLA Bruins still have 11 titles, Alabama has still won 14 titles, Montreal has 24 titles and the team that has the most the Yankees have 27 titles.

No way in hell, will MLB use a farce of a new era and have a new category for Championships. Green Bay, smallest market in the NFL, the powers to be, said who cares about them.

Here's the thing - not one single person in this thread has argued that there is a reset button. Like Luvnit, you've been having an argument with imaginary opponents on this one.

[Luvnit2]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

Here's the thing - not one single person in this thread has argued that there is a reset button. Like Luvnit, you've been having an argument with imaginary opponents on this one.

You have spoken out of both sides of your mouth the entire thread. The only two people consistent have been Bengal Yankee and myself. Look back at thread and you will see others discounting championships based on the era it was played. Sorry, but all sports have different eras, but don't discount a team's championships. It is you be hard harded on this and failing to embrace every championship reagrdless of era, regardless of name. It is and was the pro football and changing a name of a title game makes it irrelevent to the final outcome of crowning the champ.

As far as the Super Bowl era, it is the most current era. Most people discussing this were not alive in 1950 so they have no idea how easy or hard it was to win anything, not that it is relevent because that is also subjective.

[GreggyDigital]

I personally don't care about anything before 2005 when I became a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers (minutes after they won the Superbowl.)

I call it, "The Digital Era."

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by Luvnit2

You have spoken out of both sides of your mouth the entire thread. The only two people consistent have been Bengal Yankee and myself. Look back at thread and you will see others discounting championships based on the era it was played. Sorry, but all sports have different eras, but don't discount a team's championships. It is you be hard harded on this and failing to embrace every championship reagrdless of era, regardless of name. It is and was the pro football and changing a name of a title game makes it irrelevent to the final outcome of crowning the champ.

As far as the Super Bowl era, it is the most current era. Most people discussing this were not alive in 1950 so they have no idea how easy or hard it was to win anything, not that it is relevent because that is also subjective.

Some people have placed greater value on Super Bowls, and they have a right to that opinion (which is all it is), but none have said the others don't count. Your inability to understand nuance does not constitute my speaking out of both sides of my mouth.

Seriously, man, Go through the thread tell me which post said that pre-merger championships don't count. They're numbered, so you don't even have to provide a link. I think that you'll find that you and BY are the only two talking about it. Both of you have anticipated points that you THOUGHT we'd make, and when we didn't, you were so geared up for an argument that you just imagined that we did, because we're fans of the big bad Steelers, so we must think that way.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

Here's the thing - not one single person in this thread has argued that there is a reset button. Like Luvnit, you've been having an argument with imaginary opponents on this one.

Again, you are slow. I did not say anyone one this thread. I said "some members", GET IT!!! Stop changing my argument to what you want to talk about.

Some members and ahem, some banned old members.

Originally Posted by ballsofsteel
HaHa, thats funny, counting titles back to the 1920's LOL. Thats almost as bad as the moron over on the browns board counting titles from back then that akron and canton had as part of clevelands. Whatever makes you feel good

Originally Posted by STEELFAIRANDBALANCED
I went into Absolute detail why you CANT compare the NFL titles of old with what became the SB. Must i post it again? It's quite compelling.

The talking heads along with the Pro's NEVER compare and for good reason.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Again, you are slow. I did not say anyone one this thread. I said "some members", GET IT!!! Stop changing my argument to what you want to talk about.

Some members and ahem, some banned old members.

You're having an argument with people who aren't even posting on this thread, and you're calling ME slow? Dude, you've made direct rebuttals to me several times. We're those directed at banned members too?

Would it have killed you to say in those direct rebuttals "I agree with you on _______" as a matter of clarification?

Let me show you how that's done: I agree with you that the two posts you quoted are idiotic. Why didn't you bring them up earlier when you made direct rebuttals that seemed to disagree with MY posts.

Here's the one thing I agree with them on, though. It is difficult to compare eras to each other. That's why we have eras: to compare teams that played under similar conditions. But where I disagree is the notion that one era 'counts' more than the other.

That's the whole purpose of eras. Comparing a 1920s championship to those won in the twenty first century is a somewhat fruitless endeavor. What criteria would you use to compare them when the game is so different these days? It makes much more sense to categorize for the sake of such comparisons. And that's all I'm saying. Luvnut probably won't understand that I'm not saying that the recent ones are better, just different, but I expect that you will.

Now if, once again, you'd rather argue with banned posters than admit you agree with ME on at least some points, go ahead. But if you do, I think I'm done with this discussion for now.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

You're having an argument with people who aren't even posting on this thread, and you're calling ME slow? Dude, you've made direct rebuttals to me several times. We're those directed at banned members too?

Would it have killed you to say in those direct rebuttals "I agree with you on _______" as a matter of clarification?

Do you understand what the word "some" means? I am not having an argument with banned members although they have possibly new names. I said "some" as in "some". Several times I wrote "some". You think I am talking to you when in fact, many times I am ignoring you and taking my case towards "some".

Originally Posted by BengalYankee
Luvnit, here is the issue that some members here either refuse to get or just don't get it.

The NFL renamed their championship to accomodate the AFL. But to say that their is another era or another category in the NFL is just stupid.


Case 1.

No one here disputes the amount of Championships the Canadiens have in the NHL. They have 24 Stanley Cups. They have 1 before the NHL even started!!!! They have titles when the league had only 4 teams. Today the NHL has 30 teams and 16 teams make the playoffs, to say that today is not a new era for the NHL, but it is for the NFL is plain stupid.

Case 2.

The NCAA College Basketbal tournament in 1939 had only eight teams in the tournament, with Oregon winning the first Championship. Today you have 68 teams make the tournament. There is no sub category for today's Championship.Oregon is credited with the same title that Kentucky has from this year.

Case 3.

We have the BCS system now for college football. We will finally have a playoff format soon. Will this be a new subcategory for college football. Did the BCS bring in a new era for titles? Will the new playoff format bring in a new era for college football?



For some and they know who they are. It is ok to believe that Superbowls are distinguished differently from previous NFL Championships. They beleive that titles should count in 1966, 1970 and of course 1974.

It is okay in football, to have a new era, but it is not okay to have new era's in other sports.

It's ok for Montreal to have 24 titles starting in a 4 team league. It's okay for the Yankees to have 27 titles, when MLB was completely different with no designated rulers or no blacks alllowed to play in MLB as well as the NBA and collage basketball.

Just because the NFL renames their championship, people are so stupid they fall hook line and sinker.

I guess when the NFL says that Dallas is in the NFC East and when they had the Atlanta Falcons play in the NFC West, we should except that as Gospel. Obviously this was before they changed the division formats. However, Dallas is still in the NFC East.

In 1969, the Baltimore Colts were in the NFL, but shazamm in 1970 they were an AFC team and it was a NFC[Dallas Cowboys] vs AFC[Baltimore Colts] for the title.

Ha, just because the NFL said the Colts were an AFC team I should fall in line and except that??? I remember everyone considering the Colts as an NFC, NFL team. It was bull-dodo then to consider the Colts as an AFC team. In fact many NFL/NFC fans considered the Steelers as an NFC team in the 70's.


Summary

I say this because words mean nothing in the NFL. Renaming their championship meant nothing just as saying Dallas belongs in the NFC East and the Atlanta in the NFC West. Just like counting the 1970 Baltimore Colts championship as a win for the AFC over the NFC and couting that win as 3 AFC/AFL wins to 2 NFC/NFL wins. Anyone who falls for these two examples just because the NFL said it was so is stupid.

http://www.nhl.com/history/fstand10s.html

Originally Posted by BengalYankee
I never said "YOU" did say it invalidates any part of an overall history!!!!!

My thread was to Luvnit2 describing "SOME" members.

Are you so high and mighty that you think that I was referring to you??

The last time I quoted on your thread it was late at night and I later said that the remark was not directed at you. This time, I am wide awake and I did not quote you.

However, if you must respond than fine.

Every single league from every sport does not have subcategories or new era's. Montreal for example was in a 4 team league[NHL], the NHL has 30 teams now the NFL has 32 teams. If ever there was a league to have a new era or subcategories it would be this league.

And don't look for Alabama of college football to be with ok with a new era championship or Kentucky of college basketball having there early championships put in different categories because there was only eight teams per tournament and now there is 68.

Again, if the NFL said Dallas is in the East and Atlanta was in the West, you fall for that logic huh???

Originally Posted by BengalYankee
It's ok for Alabama to to have 14 titles since 1925, but when the Green Bay Packers have 13 titles since 1929, we need to have sub categories and a new era?? So the era of College football stayed the same??? Yeah right!!!


This is some BS hypocritical two faced crap, that some of you members are trying to pull over everyone. Here we have basically the same sport with almost the same time, if fact Alabama's titles run even before the Packers and amount of championships is to Alabama by one. Again, just because the NFL renamed their title doesn't mean we go back to square one with a special category.
When college football has their new playoff format, Alabama is still going to have their titles and if they win the first year of the new playoffs than Alabama will be credited with 15 titles.

[Luvnit2]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

I personally don't care about anything before 2005 when I became a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers (minutes after they won the Superbowl.)

I call it, "The Digital Era."

Finally a voice of reason and honest too..

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Do you understand what the word "some" means? I am not having an argument with banned members although they have possibly new names. I said "some" as in "some". Several times I wrote "some". You think I am talking to you when in fact, many times I am ignoring you and taking my case towards "some".








[/i]

Posts 76 , 123, and 124 are at least three in which you appear to directly accuse me of ignoring certain championships because of "eras". They do not contain the word "some".