Non
Posts: 9,517
Dec 4, 2009 2:52pm
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.
N
NOL fan
Posts: 376
Dec 4, 2009 2:57pm
[/b]
yet the media treats all world series the same when referencing how many a team has won.Non wrote:
Not all World Series are the same as the eras have changed
exactly1970 is about the best point to draw the line of distinction but it's still not the true measure because there isn't one.
Too bad the media pretty much ignores this. To them all super bowls are equal.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
the same can be said for all sports titles, yet the media treats certain ones differentlyAs 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.
N
NOL fan
Posts: 376
Dec 4, 2009 3:12pm
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 claimkiller_ewok wrote: Only fans of teams without Super Bowl appearances/victories make this argument from what I've seen
Non
Posts: 9,517
Dec 4, 2009 3:25pm
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.
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.
Non
Posts: 9,517
Dec 4, 2009 3:29pm
And that the world is about to end! ha
j_crazy
Posts: 8,372
Dec 4, 2009 3:35pm
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.
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.
killer_ewok
Posts: 11,379
Dec 4, 2009 3:37pm
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.NOL fan wrote: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 claimkiller_ewok wrote: Only fans of teams without Super Bowl appearances/victories make this argument from what I've seen