this is in response to something in the high school forum, but I'll but it here where it belongs....

To all who consider Super Bowls to be much greater than Pre super Bowl era NFL Titles and the only measuring stick of NFL greatness:

You can't fault a team for winning the highest possible title in their time just because titles later on were more difficult. And the worst part is...the NFL is the only sport where titles don't count just because the process of winning got harder do to more teams, games and playoff games.

it's very annoying that NFL teams are "measured" by Super Bowl's (1966)..while MLB teams are measured by total World Series...going all the way back to 1903...a definite double standard. Example: "the New York Yankees have won 27 world series titles and the Cleveland Indians have won 2 vs The Green Bay Packers have won 3 super Bowls (it should be said "they have won 12 total NFL titles") and the Cleveland Browns have won 0 (it should be said "they have won 4 NFL titles")


since this argument often starts because of Browns fans talking about the Browns 4 NFL titles, 3 of which were in the 50s, lets compare the MLB playoffs in the 50s to the NFL playoffs in the 50s

MLB: winner of 8 team league plays winner of 8 team league for the title

NFL: winner of 6 team conference plays winner of 6 team conference for the title

not much different

and now compare how both leagues have changed since then:

MLB: have added many more teams to the league, extended the regular season, and expanded the playoff system

NFL: have added many more teams to the league, extended the regular season, and expanded the playoff system

yet, for some season the word series titles in the 50s count just as much as world series titles today while on the other hand, super bowl NFL titles are supposedly much greater than NFL titles won before the Super Bowl. The Browns and Yankees each won several titles in very similar systems during the 50s....yet for some dumb reason, only the Yankees titles are credible today? Why? let's look further...

the are only 2 difference between how the MLB and NFL evolved from then until now:

1. The MLB's changes were a bit more spread out over the years, and didn't involve a merger with another, smaller league

2. The MLB never changed the name of the world series and never started using roman numerals to count up from said name change

sadly, the bold reason is the most significant one in the psyche of the American sports media and fans.

The only real reason MLB teams get to claim their ancient titles while NFL teams do not: the name of their championship remand the same all those years.

If the championship game of pro football was still simply called "the NFL championship game"...we like would never even have these arguments today

You make some valid points. You obviously are a Browns fan,haha. My whole family and pretty much every friend I have use the same arguement you just did.

Don't feel tood bad, my favorite team(The Saints) have won two playoff games in their entire history and have never won or made the Superbowl. I am hoping this year it will finally happen.

You can't argue with facts and logic, but I'm sure someone will come in here and argue with you.

Did MLB merge with another league?

I give them no thought at all.

Jawbreaker wrote: Did MLB merge with another league?

no, and I addressed this in my post

I have no problems with pre-66 championships being = to a modern SB championship. Just ask those pre-66 guys that won those championships. In pro sports, it's the toughest thing to do..................earn a title. They mean the same to me and I am not a Browns fan.

newarkcatholicfan wrote: I give them no thought at all.

What do you give thought too?

NOL fan wrote:

Jawbreaker wrote: Did MLB merge with another league?

no, and I addressed this in my post

You did? Adding teams and merging with another league are two different things.

Jawbreaker wrote:

NOL fan wrote:

Jawbreaker wrote: Did MLB merge with another league?

no, and I addressed this in my post

You did? Adding teams and merging with another league are two different things.

I did mention it, under number 1 of the 2 differences between how the 2 leagues have changed

but anyway....it's the same result: more teams and more rounds in the playoffs. The only difference was baseball was more gradual in these changes.

Why should world series titles in the 50's still count today but not NFL titles? Both leagues had simple playoff systems that were pretty much identical and are a lot different than today

I am sorry but the landscape of the NFL changed with the AFL merger and if you can't tell the difference then you are just trying to justify something. In the end it doesn't really matter. The media and a majority of fans (outside of Cleveland) don't care much about the championships before the super bowl. There is a division in pro football history. It has nothing to do with the playoff system and how many teams were in the league.

Jawbreaker wrote: It has nothing to do with the playoff system and how many teams were in the league.

correct, it has to to with the fact that Lamar Hunt was inspired by his kid's bouncy ball and gave the championship game a new name, and that someone decided to start using roman numerals to number them.

ask yourself this question: If in 1970 the decision was made to simply call the NFL Championship game "the (insert year) NFL Championship game" would we be having this discussion?

Look, a championship is a championship. It stands for all time. Events that happen years afterward do not change that.

Jawbreaker wrote: I am sorry but the landscape of the NFL changed with the AFL merger and if you can't tell the difference then you are just trying to justify something. In the end it doesn't really matter. The media and a majority of fans (outside of Cleveland) don't care much about the championships before the super bowl. There is a division in pro football history. It has nothing to do with the playoff system and how many teams were in the league.

The merger was in 1970 so the first NFL championships called the superbowl was before the merger.

The big question is what is the Super bowl?

It is the NFL championship game.

All that happened was the name changed. The only difference between 1964 and 1965 compared to 1966 is a name change.

I'm sorry but the Browns AAFC (All-American Football Conference) championships in an 8-team league don't count for much in my book. I realize you're not attempting to claim these but I still want to say this. The AAFC was NOT the NFL (two entirely separate leagues) so when Browns fans try to claim 8 NFL Championships I feel the need to correct them. I'll concede the 4 NFL Championships they won but not those AAFC titles.

Are the 4 NFL Championships "Super Bowls"? No, they're not and they never will be. I realize that it's all because of a name change and maybe it's not right but it is what it is. Only fans of teams without Super Bowl appearances/victories make this argument from what I've seen. And I do consider Super Bowl era Championships "greater" for the simple fact that there were more teams in the Super Bowl era, more rounds in the playoffs and therefore the it was tougher to go through that many more teams and playoff games.

The thing to remember is this.....if we're counting those old NFL Championships and putting them on the same level as a Super Bowl win....then the Detroit Lions are a franchise that should be held in high esteem too with their 4 NFL Championships. How about those Chicago Cardinals back in 1947? They're up there now.

Somewhere there are Lions fans saying,"Yeah, bitch....that's what's up. We want one for the thumb now."

actually the 1966 and 1967 games were called the "NFL-AFL World Championship game" they were given the titles Super Bowl I and II retroactively

NOL fan wrote: actually the 1966 and 1967 games were called the "NFL-AFL World Championship game" they were given the titles Super Bowl I and II retroactively

Great....so that doesn't help your point at all.

Like I said, you can try and justify this all you want but it won't change the fact that most people care only about super bowls.

I agree to a point that the first few Super Bowls were actually NFL Championships before the 1970 merger and the beginning of the modern playoff system.

However, after that I have a hard time considering those championships equal to the old ones because of the requirement to win more games in the tournament, two to three to four. The pressure and the growing media hype has made it more difficult for a team to go in as one of the favorites and then win three playoff games compared to the old days where you just played the NFL Championship after the regular season. Dallas and Pittsburgh and some of the great teams since 1970 have made it to the playoffs a bunch of times and conference championship games but the difficulty of trying to go through the tournament and remain healthy and survive the breaks and those things have created a totally different scenario.

Don't have a problem with teams like the Browns claiming their pre-Super Bowl NFL championships, and I'm a Bengals fan. I'm not sure if they are "the same" as Super Bowl titles, but that is irrelevant since the SB didn't exist. I also think that AFL teams should claim their pre-Super Bowl AFL titles as legit titles as well, since the merger considered the leagues' teams equal (all teams from both leagues merged, not like the NBA absorbing the few best ABA teams, or the NFL absorbing the AAFC Browns).

Non wrote: However, after that I have a hard time considering those championships equal to the old ones because of the requirement to win more games in the tournament, two to three to four. The pressure and the growing media hype has made it more difficult for a team to go in as one of the favorites and then win three playoff games compared to the old days where you just played the NFL Championship after the regular season. Dallas and Pittsburgh and some of the great teams since 1970 have made it to the playoffs a bunch of times and conference championship games but the difficulty of trying to go through the tournament and remain healthy and survive the breaks and those things have created a totally different scenario.

do you consider all word series equal? or is it 1995-present > 1969-1993 > 1903-1968

I guess my perception of the Super Bowl is the winning team from the tournament that at least includes the Divisional Playoff Game, Conference Championship and Super Bowl. I don't think it's just a fancy name for the "NFL Championship" in that context.

The first few Super Bowls that were played before the merger don't fall under this category and are more controversial since the NFL was going through a transitional period.

Non wrote: I guess my perception of the Super Bowl is the winning team from the tournament that at least includes the Divisional Playoff Game, Conference Championship and Super Bowl. I don't think it's just a fancy name for the "NFL Championship" in that context.

then why do baseball teams still get to claim their world series' from a playoff system that was identical to the NFL's pre super bowl era?

Baseball has been messed up since it began.

Non wrote: Baseball has been messed up since it began.

nice deflection

anyway, going back to your other argument about playoff structure, I guess you would have to admit that all super bowls are not equal. 1990-present SBs > 1978-1989 SBs > 1970-1977 SBs > 1966-1969 SBs....correct?

The Jets (68 season) and Chiefs (69 season) have each won a Super Bowl without ever winning an NFL championship.

I think the name change that occurred with calling it a SuperBowl has changed people's perceptions over time. For example, were the 1965 Packers that much different than the 1966 or 1967 Packers? No. However, many people from that time say the Pakcers won two Super Bowls in the 60's instead of saying that they won 5 NFL Championships.

No deflection. Baseball shouldn't be the standard for football to follow.

Not all World Series are the same as the eras have changed, but the Yankees have dominated either way so when used to compare the greatest teams it's going to be the same conclusion.

It's different in the NFL because you have teams like the Packers, Bears and Browns from one era and then the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Patriots from another era.

You can call them all NFL Championships but is that what you're using to compare the best teams from one era to the best of another? How many playoff appearances and conference championship games and Super Bowl losses equal an old NFL Championship? It's really tough to determine. I personally think it's tougher to take the field and play more games. Regardless of whether or not less teams means more quality teams or not, each game requires a certain level of preparation and execution and luck to get through. A team you beat in the regular season but then must face again in the playoffs has that revenge factor.

You're right, not all Super Bowls are equal. That's obvious with the addition of playoff rounds and the free agency era. I think it's become increasingly more difficult. As I stated above, particularly the media and the pressure that comes with the playoffs and Super Bowl. And going through the 16-game season, staying healthy and surviving the playoff gauntlet. And let's face it, the officials are also playing to the audience more and have a tendency to influence games. When you have to win three in a row, it's tougher for even the best team in the regular season to avoid the pitfalls.

1970 is about the best point to draw the line of distinction but it's still not the true measure because there isn't one.

As merely a title, yes they're all NFL Championships but in terms of value and comparisons, I think you have to understand the timing of them.