Super Bowls vs Pre 1966 NFL Championships

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Super Bowls vs Pre 1966 NFL Championships
Non's avatar

Non

Senior Member

9,517 posts
Dec 4, 2009 2:52 PM
I will say though that the NFL should do more to remember the players and teams from the early years. In MLB, the 1920s-1960s are pretty well known I think by mainstream sports fans. But not so much in the NFL. Other than the Packers and the 1958 NFL Championship.
Dec 4, 2009 2:52pm
N

NOL fan

Senior Member

376 posts
Dec 4, 2009 2:57 PM
[/b]
Non wrote:
Not all World Series are the same as the eras have changed
yet the media treats all world series the same when referencing how many a team has won.
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.
exactly
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
Too bad the media pretty much ignores this. To them all super bowls are equal.
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.
the same can be said for all sports titles, yet the media treats certain ones differently
Dec 4, 2009 2:57pm
N

NOL fan

Senior Member

376 posts
Dec 4, 2009 3:12 PM
killer_ewok wrote: Only fans of teams without Super Bowl appearances/victories make this argument from what I've seen
well, there is a city that calls itself "Titletown USA" and I doubt they're only counting their 3 super bowls when they make this claim
Dec 4, 2009 3:12pm
Non's avatar

Non

Senior Member

9,517 posts
Dec 4, 2009 3:25 PM
The media pretty much plays up the best angle to fit the situation.

If the Browns win a Super Bowl, there would be some mention of it being their first Super Bowl but I think the more dominant theme would be that they've returned to the top with their first NFL Championship since 1964.
Dec 4, 2009 3:25pm
Non's avatar

Non

Senior Member

9,517 posts
Dec 4, 2009 3:29 PM
And that the world is about to end! ha
Dec 4, 2009 3:29pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Dec 4, 2009 3:35 PM
If the Browns had bee good in the past 1/2 century, they'd have a super bowl.

IMO it's not how good you were in the 50's, or even in the 90's, it's how good or even relevant you've been in the past 10 years. The Cowboys are falling off my radar.
Dec 4, 2009 3:35pm
killer_ewok's avatar

killer_ewok

iRep

11,379 posts
Dec 4, 2009 3:37 PM
NOL fan wrote:
killer_ewok wrote: Only fans of teams without Super Bowl appearances/victories make this argument from what I've seen
well, there is a city that calls itself "Titletown USA" and I doubt they're only counting their 3 super bowls when they make this claim
Notice that I said "from what I've seen." I've never heard Packer fans making this argument. That's not to say that some don't.....but I've never seen it. I have, however, heard them talk about their 3 Super Bowl wins.
Dec 4, 2009 3:37pm