Should They Count?

[thewarden86]

I'm in a debate with a few fellow Steelers fans about whether or not the pre-super bowl championships should count as much as SB's. Personally, I think they should.

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194523' date='May 22 2009, 09:57 PM']I'm in a debate with a few fellow Steelers fans about whether or not the pre-super bowl championships should count as much as SB's. Personally, I think they should.[/quote]

I don't see why you care. You weren't even alive in the pre-superbowl era.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='MKdave' post='194530' date='May 22 2009, 05:21 PM']I don't see why you care. You weren't even alive in the pre-superbowl era.[/quote]
He might not have been alive during his team's first Superbowl wins, but probably still matter to him.

A better question would be: why should fans of a 13 year old team care?

Personally, I'm all for counting all of the championships. I believe that would mean that the Green Bay Packers have the most wins and not the Steelers.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='194530' date='May 22 2009, 05:21 PM']I don't see why you care. You weren't even alive in the pre-superbowl era.[/quote]

Leave it to Dave to answer a question with a question.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194534' date='May 22 2009, 05:45 PM']He might not have been alive during his team's first Superbowl wins, but probably still matter to him.

A better question would be: [b]why should fans of a 13 year old team care?[/b]

Personally, I'm all for counting all of the championships. I believe that would mean that the Green Bay Packers have the most wins and not the Steelers.[/quote]


Like the Steelers fans, the Ravens fans have nothing vested in whether or not they count. I figured I'd get more honest answers (and one silly question ) here.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194536' date='May 22 2009, 05:48 PM']Like the Steelers fans, the Ravens fans have nothing vested in whether or not they count. I figured I'd get more honest answers (and one silly question ) here.[/quote]
Well my answer was honest.

Are you going to ask the fans of the Titans, Texans, Falcons, etc as well?

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194539' date='May 22 2009, 05:57 PM']Well my answer was honest.

Are you going to ask the fans of the Titans, Texans, Falcons, etc as well?[/quote]

Thank you.
Probably not. I don't belong to their forums, but I am going to ask Seahawk fans.

[pick-ups]

If thats the case then the Eagles have three of them although a little dusty...

`47,`48,`[b]60[/b](Lombardi's only post season loss EVER!)

[theFRANCHISE]

Though I think NFL Championships should certainly be acknowledged, they shouldn't be combined and put on the same level as a Super Bowl Championship.

My reasoning is, the NFL Championship wasn't as valuable back in the pre-merger days because football was less of a spectacle and more of a "foolish distraction" in the general public. Football wasn't on the same level as baseball back in the day; you could call yourself a pro baseball player and be met with awe, but calling yourself a pro football player meant nothing.

The reason we place the Super Bowl Championship on such a pedestal is because it's so difficult to get into the NFL. The selective nature of the league indicates that only the best of the best will have the privilege of playing for the trophy.

On the other hand, the pre-merger NFL was a time when open tryouts were still in practice and you could've literally been signed off the street to play in the NFL Championship game, the day before the game. Although such open tryouts were still in place well into the Super Bowl era, teams became more discerning in their scouting because the expanded competition required an elevated level of talent.

That's not to demean or diminish the accomplishments of the pre-merger teams, but there were just too many average joes playing the game to really say that the NFL Championship can have the same weight as the Super Bowl Championship.

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194535' date='May 22 2009, 10:47 PM']Leave it to Dave to answer a question with a question. [/quote]

Show me where I asked a question. I said I don't know why you care. I wasn't asking you why you care, because I know I'll get a ridiculous answer.

[Marc2k6]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194523' date='May 22 2009, 04:57 PM']I'm in a debate with a few fellow Steelers fans about whether or not the pre-super bowl championships should count as much as SB's. Personally, I think they should.[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Super Bowl was created after the merge of the AFL and NFL, right? If this is so then to be the Champion in either would just be the same as being the AFC or NFC Champion. How many people speak of winning just the NFC or AFC?

[darklight1216]

[quote name='Marc2k6' post='194657' date='May 23 2009, 03:32 PM']Correct me if I'm wrong but the Super Bowl was created after the merge of the AFL and NFL, right? If this is so then to be the Champion in either would just be the same as being the AFC or NFC Champion. [b]How many people speak of winning just the NFC or AFC?[/b] [/quote]
Cardinals fans.

[ROH522155]

[quote name='Marc2k6' post='194657' date='May 23 2009, 02:32 PM']Correct me if I'm wrong but the Super Bowl was created after the merge of the AFL and NFL, right? If this is so then to be the Champion in either would just be the same as being the AFC or NFC Champion. How many people speak of winning just the NFC or AFC? [/quote]


good call

[Nevermore52]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='194558' date='May 22 2009, 07:03 PM']Though I think NFL Championships should certainly be acknowledged, they shouldn't be combined and put on the same level as a Super Bowl Championship.

My reasoning is, the NFL Championship wasn't as valuable back in the pre-merger days because football was less of a spectacle and more of a "foolish distraction" in the general public. Football wasn't on the same level as baseball back in the day; you could call yourself a pro baseball player and be met with awe, but calling yourself a pro football player meant nothing.

The reason we place the Super Bowl Championship on such a pedestal is because it's so difficult to get into the NFL. The selective nature of the league indicates that only the best of the best will have the privilege of playing for the trophy.

On the other hand, the pre-merger NFL was a time when open tryouts were still in practice and you could've literally been signed off the street to play in the NFL Championship game, the day before the game. Although such open tryouts were still in place well into the Super Bowl era, teams became more discerning in their scouting because the expanded competition required an elevated level of talent.

That's not to demean or diminish the accomplishments of the pre-merger teams, but there were just too many average joes playing the game to really say that the NFL Championship can have the same weight as the Super Bowl Championship.[/quote]

Good point. Also the league went from 14 to 24 teams, practically doubling in size overnight. Saying that winning a 14 team league championship is the same as winning a 24 team league championship just isn't possible. NFL titles pre and post merger have to be considered apples and oranges.

[neepo13]

I have never understood why so many fans dont take them into consideration. A championship is a championship, just because it was won in a different era and under a different name doesnt make it any less special. I'd even argue that they are more special just because of their place in history.

[neepo13]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194534' date='May 22 2009, 05:45 PM']He might not have been alive during his team's first Superbowl wins, but probably still matter to him.

A better question would be: why should fans of a 13 year old team care?

Personally, I'm all for counting all of the championships. I believe that would mean that the Green Bay Packers have the most wins and not the Steelers.[/quote]

Even the Browns would have more wins then the Steelers. That seems to be one of the reasons that some Steeler fans are so quick to discredit NFL championships.

[Marc2k6]

A Championship is a Championship. Back in the day if your team won the AFL it was not a big deal compared to winning it all in the NFL. So when the two were merged and the 1st AFL team to win the Super Bowl was the New York Jet's in 1969 Super Bowl III. At the time the AFL was not as prestigious as the NFL and it meant a lot for the Jet's to win the Super Bowl over the Baltimore Colt's. Far more than just winning the AFL or the NFL. This was the best of the best between both leagues.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_3"]Link[/url]

[Chi_Town_Raven]

Personally, I don't care about who has the most. If we win the Super Bowl this year, and some Cheeseheads say they still have way more Championships/SBs than us, I won't care one bit. We won [i]this[/i] year. IT's the only thing that really matters.

[plesiosaur]

[quote name='Marc2k6' post='194701' date='May 23 2009, 08:01 PM']A Championship is a Championship. Back in the day if your team won the AFL it was not a big deal compared to winning it all in the NFL. So when the two were merged and the 1st AFL team to win the Super Bowl was the New York Jet's in 1969 Super Bowl III. At the time the AFL was not as prestigious as the NFL and it meant a lot for the Jet's to win the Super Bowl over the Baltimore Colt's. Far more than just winning the AFL or the NFL. This was the best of the best between both leagues.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_3"]Link[/url][/quote]

Absolutely. The AFL and the NFL had a bit to grind back then. So the NFL and AFL championships really meant something then. Now they are simply convenient divisions within the NFL. They should mean something more to the teams who won the championships prior to the formal merging of the leagues (1969).

[b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League#Beginnings"]NFL[/url][/b]

[b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_League"]AFL[/url][/b]

Sorry it's all Wikipeia, but hey! It's off-season!

[Ravenglenn]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194523' date='May 22 2009, 03:57 PM']I'm in a debate with a few fellow Steelers fans about whether or not the pre-super bowl championships should count as much as SB's. Personally, I think they should.[/quote]


I agree with you Warden.

As for old AFL championships, they're important to individual teams, but basically they're now along the lines of ABA, WHA, and USFL championships, although the old AFL teams are actually still around.

Funny thing, Colts, Steelers, old Browns-now Ravens, were all original NFL-moved to AFC upon merger.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='194639' date='May 23 2009, 11:37 AM']I wasn't asking you why you care, because I know I'll get a ridiculous answer.[/quote]

By "ridiculous" I know you mean "witty response that I'll likely not understand." ...and you would be correct Sir!

C'mon Dave, it's all in good fun. I enjoy our bickering.

[macbrak]

If they don't count should we not count pre-live ball era SBs as well? The rule changes are probably a bigger deal then whether there was another game.

[Wacko4Zacko]

SO even the Bills have 2 championship!?

[Ravnet]

I guarantee you're in that argument with a Browns fan.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='Ravnet' post='194996' date='May 25 2009, 04:20 PM']I guarantee you're in that argument with a Browns fan.[/quote]

There is one I think, but A Giants fan started it. But I DO agree that they should count. Even for the Brownies.

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='194930' date='May 25 2009, 02:44 PM']C'mon Dave, it's all in good fun. I enjoy our bickering.[/quote]

I love it aswell. Although there is something shameful about picking on someone that is a year or two away from an old people's home...

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='195002' date='May 25 2009, 04:31 PM']I love it aswell. Although there is something shameful about picking on someone that is a year or two away from an old people's home...[/quote]

And as you are willing to over look that, I too can over look that you are only a year or two removed from wearing diapers.

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='195200' date='May 26 2009, 09:54 PM']And as you are willing to over look that, I too can over look that you are only a year or two removed from wearing diapers. [/quote]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make light of my little problem, Wardy.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='195202' date='May 26 2009, 05:06 PM']I'd appreciate it if you didn't make light of my little problem, Wardy.[/quote]

My bad Dave. My bad.

[neepo13]

BTW Warden, you wouldnt happen to be having this debate with a Lamarr Woodley fan, would you?