- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How *should* pre-1970 NFL Championships compare to Super Bowl championships?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:27 pm
Are they on equal footing or are they lesser?
Who rightfully gets to claim the most championships in league history?
Green Bay with 13. (3 pre-Championship Game titles, 6 Championship Game era titles, and 4 Super Bowls.)
Or Pittsburgh and New England with 6 Super Bowls a piece?
(Edited to change “do” to “should”. Also, don’t even get me started on whether 1966-1969 NFL Championships should be considered de facto NFC titles.)
Who rightfully gets to claim the most championships in league history?
Green Bay with 13. (3 pre-Championship Game titles, 6 Championship Game era titles, and 4 Super Bowls.)
Or Pittsburgh and New England with 6 Super Bowls a piece?
(Edited to change “do” to “should”. Also, don’t even get me started on whether 1966-1969 NFL Championships should be considered de facto NFC titles.)
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 12:41 pm
8
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:52 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Also, don’t even get me started on whether 1966-1969 NFL Championships should be considered de facto NFC titles
Not following you. You realize the 1966-1969 NFL champion played in the Super Bowl? No one in the world recognizes the 1968 Colts or 1969 Vikings as "World Champion."
Those "NFL Titles" are the same as today's NFC champion.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:55 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Green Bay.
Imagine if they fully absorbed the AFL and just did 6 regional divisions with the title game still called the NFL Championship. So there's less of a visible difference.
The NFL titles in that scenario are just as valid as the ones in OTL.
Imagine if they fully absorbed the AFL and just did 6 regional divisions with the title game still called the NFL Championship. So there's less of a visible difference.
The NFL titles in that scenario are just as valid as the ones in OTL.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:59 pm to UndercoverBryologist
The earliest championships were decided by winning percentage I believe. There was no title game. Scheduling was dictated by the team, so they played an uneven number of games.
I think titles into the 50’s and 60’s should be counted just as SB wins. The title of the game changed and more teams were added, that’s it.
It’s no different than expansion in other sports.
I think titles into the 50’s and 60’s should be counted just as SB wins. The title of the game changed and more teams were added, that’s it.
It’s no different than expansion in other sports.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:02 pm to TexasTiger08
I'd say the patriots are the most impressive because they did it in the era of free agency.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:07 pm to I-59 Tiger
quote:
Not following you. You realize the 1966-1969 NFL champion played in the Super Bowl? No one in the world recognizes the 1968 Colts or 1969 Vikings as "World Champion." Those "NFL Titles" are the same as today's NFC champion.
That’s my point. Should they be retroactively considered as NFC titles? The 66 and 67 Packers won the Super Bowl but the 68 Colts and 69 Vikings didn’t.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:19 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Equal footing. But what about pre Super Bowl AFL title, or AAFC titles?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:20 pm to Master of Sinanju
quote:
Equal footing. But what about pre Super Bowl AFL title, or AAFC titles?
Good question. Would it clarify things if I said that the NFL considered AFL playoff statistics as official but not AAFC playoff statistics?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:29 pm to UndercoverBryologist
As champions, but I’d also elevate AFC Championships pre-1970.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:30 pm to UndercoverBryologist
This is how I would rank them:
Super Bowl/NFL Champions
1966-1969 league champions that lost the SB are worth less than a World Championship, but more than a conference title.
AFL Champions.
AAFC Champions.
Super Bowl/NFL Champions
1966-1969 league champions that lost the SB are worth less than a World Championship, but more than a conference title.
AFL Champions.
AAFC Champions.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:36 pm to Master of Sinanju
I would say a SB win and NFL title (excluding the years the AFL and NFL met in the Super Bowl, but before it was named as such) are the same going back to when the league controlled scheduling.
Then the AFL champs
Then AAFC
Then the AFL champs
Then AAFC
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:57 pm to TexasTiger08
The problem with the AAFC is it seems it was the Browns then everyone else . (They won all AAFC titles then won the NFL championship in their first year in the NFL.)
At least with the AFL, there was a solid mix of championship teams and 2 different AFL teams that upset the NFL.
At least with the AFL, there was a solid mix of championship teams and 2 different AFL teams that upset the NFL.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 3:52 pm to Diseasefreeforall
quote:
I'd say the patriots are the most impressive because they did it in the era of free agency.
Why would you say it is more impressive?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 3:54 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Should they be retroactively considered as NFC titles?
No
Posted on 1/28/22 at 3:55 pm to UndercoverBryologist
I look at pre-SB NFL titles as equal to winning the SB.
Pre-SB AFL titles? Eh...
AAFC titles? Nope.
Pre-SB AFL titles? Eh...
AAFC titles? Nope.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 3:56 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Why would you say it is more impressive?
Hard salary cap and free agency. I remember as a kid in the 90s how the Cowboys would supposedly be the last NFL dynasty because of it.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 4:48 pm to MetroAtlantaGatorFan
quote:
Hard salary cap and free agency. I remember as a kid in the 90s how the Cowboys would supposedly be the last NFL dynasty because of it.
On the flip side of it. You couldn't as easily go find free agents. You couldn't easily dump replace a aging veteran, under performing players. It balances out. I don't like comparing because you are judging teams against each other using different criteria.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 5:12 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:From the late 20s through the merger the NFL consistently averaged ~10-12 teams with none of the parity mechanics of today
Are they on equal footing or are they lesser?
They don’t deserve to be ignored but they can’t be held anywhere close to Super Bowls in prestige
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 5:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News