So....What Team has More Championships?

[Scottdau]

I know that it what I keep coming back too, but if the Steelers went 7/8 that is pretty hard to top.

[TripleCrown9]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

So what is the difference between the Super Bowl and the NFL Championship? Not that it matters to me but it is something that I've always wondered what the difference was. Another thing that had me confused a bit was when people started asking "Are the Packers A Dynasty?", which was strange to me because we've always been known as one of the Original Dynasties in the NFL and I was under the impression that once you won your 3rd Championship(which qualifies as a Dynasty under today's definition)then you automatically became known as one.

The way I used it is as a combination of pre- and post-merger championships. Before the merger, there was an NFL Championship and an AFL Championship. Therefore, the Packers had won multiple NFL championships back in the day. It was the championship game of the League, but for the first 2 or 3 Super Bowls (before the merger) the NFL Champion played the AFL champion. It roughly translates into the NFC Championship of today, but it meant more back then. Not sure if any of that makes sense, but that's the best explanation I could give.

And I think that multiple championships in a decade makes a dynasty.
Example: The Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70s, 49ers of the 80s, Cowboys of the 90s, and Patriots of the last decade. There are exceptions, such as the Browns of the 40s and 50s, that aren't a dynasty based upon failure since then.

Most of this is rambling but I promise there is a good point or two in there somewhere.

[TripleCrown9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Scottdau

I always wonder who is the best super bowl team. I mean the Steelers have been to 8, but won 6. That is not bad. The 49ers have been to 5 and won 5. Is that better or is going 6/8 better? Or if the Steelers would have won would 7/8 be better than 5/5?

Personally I think that the 49ers were more impressive. That's never losing a Super Bowl you've played in. And none of the scores were "heart-attack" close. They simply dominated. But of course I give credit to the Steelers for 6/8.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by JNes12

Only Super Bowls seem to matter. Eagles get a lot of crap about not winning one, yet they have multiple Championships in the pre-Super Bowl era

That's right brother. 1948, 49, and 1960.

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

It is the definition of a championship. But if you are going to use that as an argument that you have more or as many championships as another team, while "technically" you may be right, you may have a difficult time convincing people that you have more meaningful championships.

Aren't all championships "meaningful". I don't remember revisionist history as a subject in school.

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

Any NFL Championship won before the AFL/NFL merger technically counts, but doesn't have nearly as much merit as the ones after the merger did. You have to remember that there were only 14 teams in the entire NFL in 1965 (the last season before the merger) and it was only a 14 game season and there were no playoff games besides a single championship game to determine the winner. Winning a Super Bowl in the modern era (especially since the Wild Card was implemented) is astronomically harder and much more impressive of a feat then winning an NFL Championship was in the 1960s was.

I don't really want to debate on the merits of football then and now, but back then a large amount of the league played both sides of the ball. One of the Eagles all time greats, Chuck "Concrete Charlie" Bednarik, was an all-pro center and linebacker. Other than his outstanding career, he's most famous for ending another...Frank Gifford's...

Maybe winning a Superbowl nowadays is harder, but the game was much more violent back then and with less pads.

[jth1331]

The thing with me, is look up some records from these early years. Green Bay's first championship, 1929, there were 12 teams but they all played a different amount of games. Heck the Giants played 2 more games that year than the Packers.
Green Bay finished 12-0-1
Giants finished 13-1-1 with that 1 loss to Green Bay.

I know the history of the league is important, but some people also need to realize the NFL was sort of a "joke" in the early years as baseball was the dominant sport.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by jth1331

The thing with me, is look up some records from these early years. Green Bay's first championship, 1929, there were 12 teams but they all played a different amount of games. Heck the Giants played 2 more games that year than the Packers. Green Bay finished 12-0-1 Giants finished 13-1-1 with that 1 loss to Green Bay. I know the history of the league is important, but some people also need to realize the NFL was sort of a "joke" in the early years as baseball was the dominant sport.

And in the early years, baseball excluded a large number of potentially great players. Neither was a "joke" it was just the way of the times.

The most important thing is that if they just called the championship the Superbowl back then, we wouldn't even be having this discussion... different rules, equipment, games played and all. It makes no sense to separate championships. It was the NFL and it's still the NFL.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

And in the early years, baseball excluded a large number of potentially great players. Neither was a "joke" it was just the way of the times. The most important thing is that if they just called the championship the Superbowl back then, we wouldn't even be having this discussion... different rules, equipment, games played and all. It makes no sense to separate championships. It was the NFL and it's still the NFL.

Basically.

/thread

[raz77]

If all we look at is the name, it's the same league. Every other meaningful part of the sport is different though. Like with the UFC. Props for beating up joe the barfighter back when the org was glorified street fighting, but I can't value that as much as the wins when people started treating MMA like a real sport.