I'll just leave this here...

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

So, if the games against the Cowboys in 66 and 67 weren't the NFL Championship, what were they and why are they listed on the Packers' list of championships?

By the way, I never said they had 15 NFL titles, just that two of their Super Bowl wins were IN ADDITION to the NFL Championship, which is true.

http://www.packers.com/history/super...pionships.html

Nobody cares about a semi-final game!!!! The terminal game was against the Packers and the Raiders in 1966 and 1967!!!!

Again, that is your problem. You put emphasis on a semi-final game when the last game of the season is the game that counts.

Once, the NFL and AFL played a Championship game, their respected league championships meant nothing, nada.

Let me take it slower for you.

Every three years for many sports around the world a player or team is recognized the best in his/her country, however when the Olympics occur during the fourth year, nobody gves a hoot for for the national champion, it's gold medal against the best in the world that counts.

Nobody cares about the AFC or NFC championship, because there is a terminal game remaining.

Nobody cares about WBO, WBC, IBF championships, people want to see undisputed world champion matches WBO vs WBC or WBC vs IBF, etc.

People did not want split ncaa college football champions, so the BCS was born to have an undisputed champion.

So nobody cares about a NFL team, when that team had to face one more team in the terminal game.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by Beaker

As long as they include boobies Im ok with that.

Yeah, sadly I don't think he'll go there.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Nobody cares about a semi-final game!!!! The terminal game was against the Packers and the Raiders in 1966 and 1967!!!!

Again, that is your problem. You put emphasis on a semi-final game when the last game of the season is the game that counts.

Once, the NFL and AFL played a Championship game, their respected league championships meant nothing, nada.

Let me take it slower for you.

Every three years for many sports around the world a player or team is recognized the best in his/her country, however when the Olympics occur during the fourth year, nobody gves a hoot for for the national champion, it's gold medal against the best in the world that counts.

Nobody cares about the AFC or NFC championship, because there is a terminal game remaining.

Nobody cares about WBO, WBC, IBF championships, people want to see undisputed world champion matches WBO vs WBC or WBC vs IBF, etc.

People did not want split ncaa college football champions, so the BCS was born to have an undisputed champion.

So nobody cares about a NFL team, when that team had to face one more team in the terminal game.

So, in other words, Super Bowls inherently trump pre-merger championship games. Glad you finally agree!

Seriously, though, no one at the time saw the 1966 NFL Championship game as a semifinal game. The NFL was viewed as the superior league by far, and the initial Super Bowl was viewed as more of a curiosity than anything - an exhibition for bragging rights. It wasn't until the Jets pulled off their upset in SB III that people began taking the game seriously.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

I'm not ducking it because I'm not saying it.

I don't put the Packers' 65 and '66 NFL Championships in two categories.

But the Packers 66 Super Bowl IS in a separate category, because it was a separate game than either of them. In the 1966 season the Packers won the NFL against the Cowboys and the Super Bowl against the Chiefs. Do you deny this?

No you are delirious. The 1965 Packers were World Champions as well as the 1966 Packers.

Are you foolish to think the 1939 Oregon college basketball team which had 8 teams in the tournament is in the same category with Kentucky who had 68 teams in the tournament???

Are you foolish to think the 1923 Yankees and the 2009 Yankees are in the same category??? The Yankees have 27 titles, they don't have titles by era.

There was no difference between the 65 and 66 Packer teams even the players were the same. The only difference was 1 extra game.

In 1923, the Yankees had to just win the pennant and then play in the WS. In 2009, they had to go through divisional round games of best of 5 and then league championships best of 7.
Kentucky has 8 rounds to play compared to Oregon which had 3 rounds to play.

If you can't see the difference then you are blind and lost.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

No you are delirious. The 1965 Packers were World Champions as well as the 1966 Packers.

Are you foolish to think the 1939 Oregon college basketball team which had 8 teams in the tournament is in the same category with Kentucky who had 68 teams in the tournament???

Are you foolish to think the 1923 Yankees and the 2009 Yankees are in the same category??? The Yankees have 27 titles, they don't have titles by era.

There was no difference between the 65 and 66 Packer teams even the players were the same. The only difference was 1 extra game.

The Yankees had to just win the pennant and then play in the WS. In 2009, they had to go through divisional round games of best of 5 and then league championships best of 7.
Kentucky has 8 rounds to play compared to Oregon which had 3 rounds to play.

If you can't see the difference then you are blind and lost.

There you go again. I never said what you seem to think I said. I'm getting tired of playing that game with you.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

So, in other words, Super Bowls inherently trump pre-merger championship games. Glad you finally agree!

Seriously, though, no one at the time saw the 1966 NFL Championship game as a semifinal game. The NFL was viewed as the superior league by far, and the initial Super Bowl was viewed as more of a curiosity than anything - an exhibition for bragging rights. It wasn't until the Jets pulled off their upset in SB III that people began taking the game seriously.

Correct, thus the 1965 and 1966 Packers were of the same category. Glad you finally got around. Sheeez.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

There you go again. I never said what you seem to think I said. I'm getting tired of playing that game with you.

You keep changing your tune.

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan
I'm not ducking it because I'm not saying it.

I don't put the Packers' 65 and '66 NFL Championships in two categories.

But the Packers 66 Super Bowl IS in a separate category, because it was a separate game than either of them. In the 1966 season the Packers won the NFL against the Cowboys and the Super Bowl against the Chiefs.

[Woodley]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

I have always said the Packers won the SB 4 times, but find me a Packer outfit that distinguishes the titles by saying 9 times NFL Champion and 4 times SB champion. Good luck, because you won't find it.

LOL...sorry if I confused you BY, but none of that is really my concern. My point is merely that Super Bowls are looked upon more highly than NFL Championships.

I've shown you the Green Bay stuff...I've given you the Detroit Lions example, I've told you about how the media ignores NFL Championships yet you continue to deflect.



.

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

There you go again. I never said what you seem to think I said. I'm getting tired of playing that game with you.

Instead of ducking of why don't you elaborate about Oregon and Kentucky and why you think they should be in the same category. You keep talking about the 1 extra game the packers played in 66, but you don't talk about how many games it took Kentucky to win a title compared to Oregon. And the fact that no one distinguishes Oregon's title or the 1923 Yankees and the 2009 Yankees.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

You keep changing your tune.


[/i]

Nope. You keep misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth that I never said.

[duke0476]

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Nobody cares about a semi-final game!!!! The terminal game was against the Packers and the Raiders in 1966 and 1967!!!!

Again, that is your problem. You put emphasis on a semi-final game when the last game of the season is the game that counts.

Once, the NFL and AFL played a Championship game, their respected league championships meant nothing, nada.

Let me take it slower for you.

Every three years for many sports around the world a player or team is recognized the best in his/her country, however when the Olympics occur during the fourth year, nobody gves a hoot for for the national champion, it's gold medal against the best in the world that counts.

Nobody cares about the AFC or NFC championship, because there is a terminal game remaining.

Nobody cares about WBO, WBC, IBF championships, people want to see undisputed world champion matches WBO vs WBC or WBC vs IBF, etc.

People did not want split ncaa college football champions, so the BCS was born to have an undisputed champion.

So nobody cares about a NFL team, when that team had to face one more team in the terminal game.

I'm probably going to kick myself from opening this up again, but do you realize what you're saying here? By calling it a 'semifinal game', you're saying that the Packers 1966 and 1967 NFL Championships were in a substantially different category than their 1965 NFL Championship. In reality, they belong in the same category. That's not opinion. It's fact. The Super Bowl may have taken over the distinction of 'World Championship' away from tbe NFL's 'terminal game' in those years, but it was NOT the championship of the NFL, as evidenced from the fact that it involved participants who were not currently IN the NFL. Again, that's a fact.

Thus, the Super Bowls following the 1966-69 seasons were ADDITIONAL distinctions for each league's champions, but they could not be terminal games of EITHER league, because the leagues had not officially merged by that point - they were still legally separate entities. The NFL and AFL Championships won in those years have the exact same standing as those won before that period, EVEN THOUGH an additional postseason game was played between the two. Neither would be considered the 'World Championship' because of the Super Bowl, but they were still each league's 'terminal game'.

[Woodley]

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Nobody cares about a semi-final game!!!! The terminal game was against the Packers and the Raiders in 1966 and 1967!!!!

Do you mean the Packers/Chiefs in '66 and the Packers/Raiders in '67?

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Again, that is your problem. You put emphasis on a semi-final game when the last game of the season is the game that counts.

Once, the NFL and AFL played a Championship game, their respected league championships meant nothing, nada.

I'm not certain that is true BY.
After decades and a long tradition of NFL Championship games, Super Bowl I comes along and like turning off a switch NFL championships meant nothing?
The first Super Bowl (not called a SB then) between the Pack and Chiefs didn't even sell out. The "big game" had already been played between the Pack and the Cowboys. The first SB seemed like a novelty thing and not taken very seriously.

Although the SB II did sell out, it seemed that the NFL Championship in 1967 was at least as big as Super Bowl II ...'cmon the "Ice Bowl"???....that game is still talked about today!

It wasn't until Super Bowl III came along that you could forget about NFL Championships. Joe Willie and the Jets vs. the unbeatable Colts. The first time the game was officially called the "Super Bowl".

Just my opinion...What do you think BY?

Originally Posted by BengalYankee

Nobody cares about WBO, WBC, IBF championships, people want to see undisputed world champion matches WBO vs WBC or WBC vs IBF, etc.

Just an fyi ....Kurt Angle was the first ever wrestler to hold the WCW and WWF World Championships during the same calendar year, and has held WWF, Intercontinental, European and Hardcore championships also. Pro wrestlers are the greatest athletes on the planet.

And guess what... Kurt Angle is from Pittsburgh "The City of Champions!" where else?

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Woodley

Pro wrestlers are the greatest athletes on the planet.

no

[BengalYankee]

Originally Posted by Woodley

Just an fyi ....Kurt Angle was the first ever wrestler to hold the WCW and WWF World Championships during the same calendar year, and has held WWF, Intercontinental, European and Hardcore championships also. Pro wrestlers are the greatest athletes on the planet.

And guess what... Kurt Angle is from Pittsburgh "The City of Champions!" where else?

[Woodley]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

no

Oh so you think wrestling is fake huh?
reporter owned by wrestler - YouTube

[6andcounting]

Originally Posted by Woodley

Just an fyi ....Kurt Angle was the first ever wrestler to hold the WCW and WWF World Championships during the same calendar year, and has held WWF, Intercontinental, European and Hardcore championships also. Pro wrestlers are the greatest athletes on the planet.

And guess what... Kurt Angle is from Pittsburgh "The City of Champions!" where else?

I didn't know he was involved in the World Wildlife Foundation.

[6andcounting]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

Thus, the Super Bowls following the 1966-69 seasons were ADDITIONAL distinctions for each league's champions, but they could not be terminal games of EITHER league, because the leagues had not officially merged by that point - they were still legally separate entities. The NFL and AFL Championships won in those years have the exact same standing as those won before that period, EVEN THOUGH an additional postseason game was played between the two. Neither would be considered the 'World Championship' because of the Super Bowl, but they were still each league's 'terminal game'.

I like Bengal fan logic better. That way my Robert Morris Colonials D1 men's basketball team's Northeastern Conference regular season championship is in the same standing as whoever wins the NCAA March Madness Championship.