• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The Official 2017/2018 NFL Thread

It wasnt named for Lombardi until after he died a rather untimely death in 1970.

The trophy was unnamed for the first 3 Super Bowls.
 
Johndicezx9 said:
It wasnt named for Lombardi until after he died a rather untimely death in 1970.

The trophy was unnamed for the first 3 Super Bowls.
Click to expand...

:laughing Don't worry about, he is just trying to cherry pick random shit to get a rise out of me. :laughing

I wans't sure when they started putting his name on it, but I figured they wouldn't have until after he had at least won a few.
 
Lombardi and Rozelle were close friends as well and he was a huge help in the merger, so it hit the NFL kinda hard at the time. Gotta remember, he was only 57 when he died and still an active HC for the 'Skins.

... and sorry Eldo, I think lumping in those stone age NFL championships (when there was what, 8-10 teams all playing each other twice) with championship teams in the post Super Bowl/Merger era is kinda silly.

The NFL's inability to see exactly what they had as far as an entertainment product in the 50's was exactly why the AFL grew out of nothing like it did in the 60s. The signing of picks like Joe Namath was what Rozelle used to bring the NFL owners to the table with Al Davis, the Hunts, Ralph Wilson, Adams, eta al.
 
Johndicezx9 said:
Lombardi and Rozelle were close friends as well and he was a huge help in the merger, so it hit the NFL kinda hard at the time. Gotta remember, he was only 57 when he died and still an active HC for the 'Skins.

... and sorry Eldo, I think lumping in those stone age NFL championships (when there was what, 8-10 teams all playing each other twice) with championship teams in the post Super Bowl/Merger era is kinda silly.

The NFL's inability to see exactly what they had as far as an entertainment product in the 50's was exactly why the AFL grew out of nothing like it did in the 60s. The signing of picks like Joe Namath was what Rozelle used to bring the NFL owners to the table with Al Davis, the Hunts, Ralph Wilson, Adams, eta al.
Click to expand...

That is some common AFC rhetoric, but it is simply untrue. The reality is, at the time of the merger, the NFL had larger viewership than the AFL ever did, made more revenue from advertising than the AFL ever did, and was largely perceived as a better Football product, because they had more polish in their delivery of a television event. The rise of the AFL came from a true need for more football product, as the recognition of professional football as an actual thing by the American Media Consuming public was rapidly turning on its ear due to Television become a household item. In the 30’s and 40’s, College Football was a much bigger deal than Pro Ball and you have to remember, there was no TV, we listened to the radio for entertainment back then. The AFL never had a better product, they just were filling a gap left by a bunch of team owners in the NFL who didn’t want to make room at the table and monopolize an underserved market. Once the AFL proved a need for more product, the NFL brought them into the fold, because it made more sense than competing for the same player resources, which was hurting both sides of the competition.

It doesn’t really make sense to not count older championships though. Think about the logic of it. For starters, the NFL says we do. Now if you want to draw a line in the sand, anything else is really cherry picking. I mean, you don’t want to count it from the 30’s, when there were less teams, but so what? It isn’t like every team plays every other team in the NFL every year. They still only play against like a dozen teams to get to the post season. If that is a factor, does that mean we only count Championships after 2002, when we got to the 32 Team Roster now present? Do we only count Championships after the 1950 AAFC merger that brought an extra 3 teams (Browns, 49ers, Colts) in? I mean that was a pretty hefty increase in the number of teams in the league and the Browns powerhouse was a drastic impact on the way the game was played and managed. Based on number of teams, starting to only count after the Superbowl era doesn’t really make since, because of so many other previous changes, why does that one matter the most? I mean, the league didn’t even merge with the 3rd AFL until 1970, so do the first few Superbowls not count?
Similarly with the number of games played in the old days, I mean, they still played a whole season. Do Champions only count after the 1978 change to a 16 game season? We didn’t have a bye week to allow extra rest until 1990, does that mean we only count post Bye, 17 Week championships?

I mean, the only logical exception I can see is maybe to ignore the pre-1931 Games, because they didn’t actually have a Championship game. The two best guys didn’t slug it out, they just declared a champion based on best season record, but I reckon you have accepted so many changes at that point, you may as well just take the lot and stop nitpicking. The league has changed so much and so often over the last 100 years, that drawing some sort of, “Championships only count due to X,” is kind of silly and that is why the HoF and the League counts them all the way back.

Typically most the people who argue against it are AFC fans who want to validate the silly AFL and act as if it would have defeated the NFL in a business shoot out, which is just silly and statistically unlikely even if that NBC contract they got just before the merger was a nice boost.
 
all championships are legitimate, even before an official championship game. why? Because that's what the rules were at the time to determine the winner. AFL championships count too. They should all be recognized in the proper way.

Pre-NFL merger stats are important to only a few NFC team's fans. It is a quaint and somewhat important historic fact, and that's fine.

When we're using it as a comparative tool, then it's only right to compare apples to apples. It is not correct to say for example that the Eagles have more championships than the Panthers, simply because the Eagles have had more shots at it. More accurately, one should say the Eagles and the Panthers have the same amount of championships for the shared time frame of their existence. Alternatively, one could offer a % of times they won the championship per years they've had a shot at it. That may satisfy those who wish to honor the history of their teams, but in the construct of a proper comparison.
 
Last edited:
Bowling4Bikes said:
all championships are legitimate, even before an official championship game. why? Because that's what the rules were at the time to determine the winner. They should all be recognized in the proper way.

Pre-NFL merger stats are important to only a few NFC team's fans. It is a quaint and somewhat important historic fact, and that's fine.

When we're using it as a comparative tool, then it's only right to compare apples to apples. It is not correct to say for example that the Eagles have more championships than the Panthers, simply because the Eagles have had more shots at it. More accurately, one should say the Eagles and the Panthers have the same amount of championships for the shared time frame of their existence. Alternatively, one could offer a % of times they won the championship per years they've had a shot at it.
Click to expand...

... and we got the "quaintiest" posting around these parts. :laughing
 
You can really feel the pre-Pro Bowl tension in this thread.
 
Don't think Jags can swing it, they on the hook for 19M for Bortles next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top