Revisionist History
-
Yes, I think we should go this route. This will help soothe the Stiller Nation's terrible luck of having to miss Roid Monk for a game after the guy has single handily wiped out three of our players in successive years.
While we are it, we should probably just go back for history in general to 1966. Those minor skirmishes with the Nips and Nazis, the JFK Assassination, all those trifle things shouldn't count either.
Good idea Gip, we need to keep those sissy Stiller fans happy, they had it tough since getting Tebowed. Did you hear they actually had a couple injuries last year?
Yes, I think we should go this route. This will help soothe the Stiller Nation's terrible luck of having to miss Roid Monk for a game after the guy has single handily wiped out three of our players in successive years.
While we are it, we should probably just go back for history in general to 1966. Those minor skirmishes with the Nips and Nazis, the JFK Assassination, all those trifle things shouldn't count either.
Good idea Gip, we need to keep those sissy Stiller fans happy, they had it tough since getting Tebowed. Did you hear they actually had a couple injuries last year?
Or, perhaps we can just say this: this status is what things have been like during the living consciousness of most people on this board. For someone like me I can remember all of these. (actually, the first NFL title game that I have a memory of was the 1963 Bears/Giants game held in Wrigley Field, my first World Series from memory was the 1963 Dodgers/Yankees series, and for basketball it was one of the Celtic/Laker series. Can't recall which one exactly because they played like every year, and the Celtics won every year).
Of course, some people that comment on here probably only have memories going back to about 2000. Some perhaps have no memory of the Cleveland Browns before the 3 year hiatus. To them, going back to the mid 60s would like me trying to remember th 1910s.
-
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
-
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Endymion said:
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Your discussion is perhaps more apt in the other thread. Nevertheless, note this: Every sport has at some point had more than one league vying for supremacy that didn't have a playoff that left us with 2 champions.
That has occurred twice in football with the AFL/AAFC titles. The fact is, the NFL is merely an amalgam of the AAFC/AFL/NFL. There are more "original" AAFC teams playing in this league now than there are original NFL teams. And certainly the AFL has its presence.
Also, we had the NBA and the ABA. And the NHL and the WHA.
And, technically, the National League and the American League were two separate distinct entities until like the year 1999.
Yes, it is better to have that "ultimate answer"....and eventually all leagues got around to doing just that. But, no, I disagree that you can discount a championship earned just because there was another league in place. If that were the case then you would have to discount the validity of say, the Celtics NBA championships won the years that they ABA was playing. No, those titles count. Since there really in fact is no way to say that an NBA title is better than an ABA title, or an NHL title is better than a WHA title, or that an NFL title is better than an AFL or AAFC title, then we count them all.
The on field performances also proved the worth of these other leagues. Obviously the Browns were the best team of all when they joined the NFL. The Jets and Chiefs showed within a couple of years that the AFL was every bit as good as anyone in the NFL except for a team coach by Vince Lombardi. The WHA Edmonton Oilers came in and dominated the NHL.
-
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Endymion said:
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey.
i wonder why that is?
steelers = good = youre a fan
pens = good = your a fan
pirates = worst team in baseball = who are the pirates?
browns may be bad.....but we still love our team. front runners like yourself need not apply.
-
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Endymion said:
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Perhaps the early championships equated to no more than that, but the NFL championships the browns won still equate to super bowl victories. Why not? Because the dolphins weren't there yet? Please.
-
Endymion said:
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey.
i wonder why that is?
steelers = good = youre a fan
pens = good = your a fan
pirates = worst team in baseball = who are the pirates?
browns may be bad.....but we still love our team. front runners like yourself need not apply.
i wonder why that is?
steelers = good = youre a fan
pens = good = your a fan
pirates = worst team in baseball = who are the pirates?
I wish the Pirates were the worst team in baseball like you assume. Sadly they are vying for the central division crown. The Pirates are winning are akin to torture, because sports talk on Pittsburgh radios is consumed by the "Pirates" and that drives me insane. Baseball is about as exciting to me as watching the grass grow. Sooner or later the universe will correct the abberation that the Pirates are this moment, and I hope it's sooner, training camp will be starting soon.
Since you didn't comment on Basketball, I feel it is broken sport. In my opinion, scoring should be difficult, and regardless of college/pros the offensive aspect of the game is just too unbalanced. One freak of a player can essentially dominate that league for 10+ years. You might as well assign championships to a specific player instead of the team. Further, I feel Roger Goodell is trying to break football in a similar manner to basketball (all scoring/no defense). When the NFL becomes arena league football, I'll stop watching.
As for hockey, while I do enjoy watching games from time to time, I'm not as big a fan of it as I am football. The best thing about football is that there's 16 games in a season. Every game in a football game is meaningful, while in other sports with 80+ games per season, it's hard to stay interested.
-
Endymion said:
First, I really don't care about other sports except hockey. Second, when you have two seperate leagues claiming to have the "champion" of a particular sport, you don't have that answer unless those to teams met to decide the "ultimate" victor.
In terms of the Browns championships of years past, they equate today to an "AFC Championship Victory" not a "Super Bowl Victory." As much as you may want your prehistoric victories to mean more, they don't. (NOTE: The lack of TV/film on that accomplishment further diminishes the importance of those victories, other than as a pleasing footnote to those specific teams' fans). You would've have to have played your rival league (and won) to even begin to equate your ancient victories to today's Super Bowl. That didn't happen, and you can't go back in time to play them.
Since you can't go back in time, you have to look at which league survived through history. In the case of football, ultimately it turned out to be the NFL. Sure, your league may have "merged" with the NFL, but in doing so it lost it's identity and ceased to exist. So in terms of which league had the proper champion for a said year, that would be the NFL franchise as opposed to the alternate league's champion.
Your discussion is perhaps more apt in the other thread. Nevertheless, note this: Every sport has at some point had more than one league vying for supremacy that didn't have a playoff that left us with 2 champions.
That has occurred twice in football with the AFL/AAFC titles. The fact is, the NFL is merely an amalgam of the AAFC/AFL/NFL. There are more "original" AAFC teams playing in this league now than there are original NFL teams. And certainly the AFL has its presence.
Also, we had the NBA and the ABA. And the NHL and the WHA.
And, technically, the National League and the American League were two separate distinct entities until like the year 1999.
Yes, it is better to have that "ultimate answer"....and eventually all leagues got around to doing just that. But, no, I disagree that you can discount a championship earned just because there was another league in place. If that were the case then you would have to discount the validity of say, the Celtics NBA championships won the years that they ABA was playing. No, those titles count. Since there really in fact is no way to say that an NBA title is better than an ABA title, or an NHL title is better than a WHA title, or that an NFL title is better than an AFL or AAFC title, then we count them all.
The on field performances also proved the worth of these other leagues. Obviously the Browns were the best team of all when they joined the NFL. The Jets and Chiefs showed within a couple of years that the AFL was every bit as good as anyone in the NFL except for a team coach by Vince Lombardi. The WHA Edmonton Oilers came in and dominated the NHL.
Yes, it is better to have that "ultimate answer"....and eventually all leagues got around to doing just that. But, no, I disagree that you can discount a championship earned just because there was another league in place.
The on field performances also proved the worth of these other leagues. Obviously the Browns were the best team of all when they joined the NFL. The Jets and Chiefs showed within a couple of years that the AFL was every bit as good as anyone in the NFL except for a team coach by Vince Lombardi. The WHA Edmonton Oilers came in and dominated the NHL.
In terms of hockey, it is played around the world with many different championships depending on the continent. In North America the definitive award is the Stanley Cup, which originated with the NHL, not the WHA. While there may be some fans in Edmonton that relish their WHA award, unless you have the Stanley Cup in hockey who really gives a crap?
There was the NFL Europe for a time and does anybody really care about who won that 6 or 8 team league? There's awards for every type of league, from T-Shirt to the pro's. The Browns victories of stone age are not really relevant, to modern football. Like NFL Europe they were acquired in 6 to 8 team leagues. The accomplishment is not as impressive as winning a Super Bowl in a 32 team league. However, a modern super bowl is comparable to all previous Lombardi winners when the league had less teams, ala the Stanley Cup. When the Browns won, there were competing leagues with complimentary champions. At best your award is similar to an AFC/NFC division championship. More realistically, outside of Cleveland your victory is more comparable to the NFL Europe's World Cup. Seriously, ask the fans of other teams (besides Pittsburgh, before you run them off) if they are impressed by the Browns early championships.
-
i wonder why that is?
steelers = good = youre a fan
pens = good = your a fan
pirates = worst team in baseball = who are the pirates?
I wish the Pirates were the worst team in baseball like you assume. Sadly they are vying for the central division crown. The Pirates are winning are akin to torture, because sports talk on Pittsburgh radios is consumed by the "Pirates" and that drives me insane. Baseball is about as exciting to me as watching the grass grow. Sooner or later the universe will correct the abberation that the Pirates are this moment, and I hope it's sooner, training camp will be starting soon.
Since you didn't comment on Basketball, I feel it is broken sport. In my opinion, scoring should be difficult, and regardless of college/pros the offensive aspect of the game is just too unbalanced. One freak of a player can essentially dominate that league for 10+ years. You might as well assign championships to a specific player instead of the team. Further, I feel Roger Goodell is trying to break football in a similar manner to basketball (all scoring/no defense). When the NFL becomes arena league football, I'll stop watching.
As for hockey, while I do enjoy watching games from time to time, I'm not as big a fan of it as I am football. The best thing about football is that there's 16 games in a season. Every game in a football game is meaningful, while in other sports with 80+ games per season, it's hard to stay interested.
Endymion said:
I wish the Pirates were the worst team in baseball like you assume. Sadly they are vying for the central division crown. The Pirates are winning are akin to torture, because sports talk on Pittsburgh radios is consumed by the "Pirates" and that drives me insane. Baseball is about as exciting to me as watching the grass grow. Sooner or later the universe will correct the abberation that the Pirates are this moment, and I hope it's sooner, training camp will be starting soon.
I am a bigger baseball fan than you. Though is doesn't really break my heart to see Pittsburgh suffer with their baseball team, because the other teams in town have done so well, I do not like the fact that small market teams like the Pirates and Royals and others have to be relegated to second class citizenry simply because of the money disparity in baseball. I have no problem if the Pirates break out of their slump and contend.
Since you didn't comment on Basketball, I feel it is broken sport. In my opinion, scoring should be difficult, and regardless of college/pros the offensive aspect of the game is just too unbalanced. One freak of a player can essentially dominate that league for 10+ years. You might as well assign championships to a specific player instead of the team.
Amen, brother. That is exactly what the likes of ESPN tries to do, so then you have these assholes like LeBron who play for the name on the back of the jersey and not for the name on the front of the jersey. They don't care that "Cleveland" or "Miami" or whatever city has a title. They only care that "Michael" or "Kobe" or "LeBron" has a title. Fuck that. These teams are not rock bands. They aren't billed as "Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas", or "Little Anthony and the Imperials", or Diana Ross and the Supremes. They are just "The Supremes". The Bulls. The Lakers. The Cavaliers. (and quite frankly my dear, any team that calls itself by a singularity should be banned from earning a title....like The Heat, the Thunder, The Jazz etc. Fuck that too)
Further, I feel Roger Goodell is trying to break football in a similar manner to basketball (all scoring/no defense). When the NFL becomes arena league football, I'll stop watching.
I don't know if it is Goodell at all. It is perhaps the owners, coaches, sponsors, TV broadcasters. A fine mix between offense and defense is needed. It is absurd that these stupid EUFA soccer games end up 0-0 too often. But then you may not want them 13-9 either. In football, if a team played every game at a 10-7 score that would be bad, but then so would a team always playing a 45-35 game. Balance is needed.
As for hockey, while I do enjoy watching games from time to time, I'm not as big a fan of it as I am football. The best thing about football is that there's 16 games in a season. Every game in a football game is meaningful, while in other sports with 80+ games per season, it's hard to stay interested.
-
Yes, it is better to have that "ultimate answer"....and eventually all leagues got around to doing just that. But, no, I disagree that you can discount a championship earned just because there was another league in place.
The on field performances also proved the worth of these other leagues. Obviously the Browns were the best team of all when they joined the NFL. The Jets and Chiefs showed within a couple of years that the AFL was every bit as good as anyone in the NFL except for a team coach by Vince Lombardi. The WHA Edmonton Oilers came in and dominated the NHL.
In terms of hockey, it is played around the world with many different championships depending on the continent. In North America the definitive award is the Stanley Cup, which originated with the NHL, not the WHA. While there may be some fans in Edmonton that relish their WHA award, unless you have the Stanley Cup in hockey who really gives a crap?
There was the NFL Europe for a time and does anybody really care about who won that 6 or 8 team league? There's awards for every type of league, from T-Shirt to the pro's. The Browns victories of stone age are not really relevant, to modern football. Like NFL Europe they were acquired in 6 to 8 team leagues. The accomplishment is not as impressive as winning a Super Bowl in a 32 team league. However, a modern super bowl is comparable to all previous Lombardi winners when the league had less teams, ala the Stanley Cup. When the Browns won, there were competing leagues with complimentary champions. At best your award is similar to an AFC/NFC division championship. More realistically, outside of Cleveland your victory is more comparable to the NFL Europe's World Cup. Seriously, ask the fans of other teams (besides Pittsburgh, before you run them off) if they are impressed by the Browns early championships.
Endymion said:
In terms of hockey, it is played around the world with many different championships depending on the continent. In North America the definitive award is the Stanley Cup, which originated with the NHL, not the WHA. While there may be some fans in Edmonton that relish their WHA award, unless you have the Stanley Cup in hockey who really gives a crap?
If you read that article that was linked to, the Stanley Cup actually began as an award for the best amateur team. It was awarded for about 40 years before it became an exclusive NHL award. And sure, the Stanley Cup was just that>>>an exclusive NHL property. So no, it wasn't going to be awarded to the WHA winner. But the WHA was viable enough to force a merger with the NHL, so by my reckoning....and I am only following a path set by others, the WHA titles still get counted.
There was the NFL Europe for a time and does anybody really care about who won that 6 or 8 team league?
NFL Europe was a minor league feeder league for the NFL, so that is not an apt analogy. he International League and the American Association don't compete with the AL and NL, they feed into them.
There's awards for every type of league, from T-Shirt to the pro's. The Browns victories of stone age are not really relevant, to modern football. Like NFL Europe they were acquired in 6 to 8 team leagues.
The Browns victories were every bit as relevent as those acquired in the NFL at the time. And the AAFC had as many or more teams than the NFL at the time. And they had better teams, more attendance, and many better players.
The accomplishment is not as impressive as winning a Super Bowl in a 32 team league.
Again, you would then have to discount every title won in every league in history if you do that. The Yankees won World Series in a much smaller"league". The NHL only had 6 teams for years. Do those titles disappear? The NFL was only an 8-10 team league. Do those titles disappear? The NBA only had like 10 teams when the Celtics were winning everything. Do those disappear?
NO, clearly not. Remember also...that it may have in fact been harder to win in a smaller league with only 2 playoff participants than in a bigger league with 12 playoff participants.
If playoff participation had not been expanded certain teams would never even have had a chance to compete for the title, like the 2005 Steelers, the 2010 Packers, the 2000 Ravens,a nd some others. You can't win if you don't play. In a couple of years back then, you had teams go 12-2 and never got to see the playoffs because another team in their division went 13-1.
However, a modern super bowl is comparable to all previous Lombardi winners when the league had less teams, ala the Stanley Cup. When the Browns won, there were competing leagues with complimentary champions. At best your award is similar to an AFC/NFC division championship. More realistically, outside of Cleveland your victory is more comparable to the NFL Europe's World Cup. Seriously, ask the fans of other teams (besides Pittsburgh, before you run them off) if they are impressed by the Browns early championships.
Again, I don't think you have to do any comparing of ages. It is against their contemporaries that teams should be compared.
By your reckoning, the entire 1970s Steelers dynasty can be discounted, because there is no way in hell they could ever compete in today's NFL. FYI, the entire setup of the NFL, from the number of teams, to the playoff system, to the divisional setup is completely different from the 1970s....as different as the 70s were from the 40s. The only thing is we still call the championship The Super Bowl.
The only difference here is that the Browns were winning championships. The Steelers weren't.
Again, by your reckoning it isn't the Browns who would be most discounted.....it would be the Packers who you now would claim have no right to assert that they have won 13 championships. Trust me, Packer fans will try to kick your teeth in if you tell them all their titles are null and void. And Bears fans. You would grant them a single title instead of the 9 they earned. And the Titans/Oilers, Bills, Chargers, Eagles, Lions, etc. You would tell them that their teams never won a single title. Again, I think you might need a mouth protector if you go around saying that.
Let's put it this way: ALL of the authoritative entities on this subject disagree with your attempt to nullify history. PFR, the HOF, Sporting News, Elias, etc. etc. etc. all still maintain the lists as I have reported them. Hell, that is where I got my list. Ask them to change their records to agree with you, and I won't have a source to pull this data from.
-
In terms of hockey, it is played around the world with many different championships depending on the continent. In North America the definitive award is the Stanley Cup, which originated with the NHL, not the WHA. While there may be some fans in Edmonton that relish their WHA award, unless you have the Stanley Cup in hockey who really gives a crap?
A couple of notes here: almost all of the best hockey players from around the world come to play in the NHL. While there are other leagues, the NHL is the undisputed "major" league in the world of Hockey. It is like the NBA, while there may be some decent Euro Leagues, you ain't shit unless you play in the NBA.
Also, the Oilers didn't win in the WHA, but they built up the components of their dynasty while in the WHA. The Quebec Nordiques, nka Colorado Avalanche and the Winnipeg Jets first franchise, nka Phoenix Coyotes won titles in that league. As did the New England/Hartford Whalers...nka Carolina Hurricane.
And that is the other component. These are now "Big 4 League teams". I count any title ever won by a current Big 4 team. The Cleveland Browns are an NFL team, right? Their 8 titles 4 and 4, get counted. The San Diego Chargers are an NFL team, right? Their AFL title get counted. The same with the New York Nets, the Indiana Pacers of the ABA.
And, yes, I count titles won in these league by defunct teams. This includes Canton Bulldogs, Providence Steamroller, Frankford Yellow Jacket, Akron Pro titles. It includes Pittsburgh Piper, Kentucky Colonel, Oakland Oaks and Utah Stars titles, and Houston Aeros.
Some may ask: why include these defunct franchises? Why not? In reality, what is the difference between one of these franchises and a team that long ago changed names and cities?
I mean, the Washington Senators won the 1924 World Series. Yet that "franchise" long ago moved and became the Minnesota Twins. Is there really any more relevance to including a Washington Senators title while excluding a Pittsburgh Piper team?
-
Say the NFL decided when the current CBA is up that enough is enough. They are getting sued by every former player for concussions and the NFLPA is demanding way too much. So in 2020 the NFL just ends. The public will still want football, and eventually a new league will form, we'll call it WFL (World Football League). The WFL will have less teams than the NFL and will struggle for some time attracting an audience. Assume that eventually catches on, and reclaims the popularity the NFL once had about 10-15 years down the road. They have a championship game called the "Madden Bowl" and a trophy called the EA Sports Golden Pigskin (GP).
At first everyone will be like, this GP means nothing the Lombardi Trophy (LT) was the "real" item of value. Eventually, as the WFL becomes more and more popular, the historical LT will diminish in value and glory (that it holds now) and the GP will replace it. Like the LT, the GP will be the penultimate goal/prize in professional football. Super Bowls of yore will fad to distant memory. They will become an interesting footnote for a few franchises. As long as the Madden Bowl is played, the GP will increase in value and importance. It's what's of value now, even though there was only one definitive winner in the predecessor league.
The Browns victories of yore were a foundation for the leagues of the present, but those victories are not of the same value as a Super Bowl victory. The Browns also played and won at a time of competing leagues, further diminishing the achievement. Further, the leagues the Brown's played in were absorbed the current league, aka the NFL. While you may not like the perception, the perception is the surviving league was more important than the league that died, even if the league that died had "better" teams or played "better" football.
-
Say the NFL decided when the current CBA is up that enough is enough. They are getting sued by every former player for concussions and the NFLPA is demanding way too much. So in 2020 the NFL just ends. The public will still want football, and eventually a new league will form, we'll call it WFL (World Football League). The WFL will have less teams than the NFL and will struggle for some time attracting an audience. Assume that eventually catches on, and reclaims the popularity the NFL once had about 10-15 years down the road. They have a championship game called the "Madden Bowl" and a trophy called the EA Sports Golden Pigskin (GP).
At first everyone will be like, this GP means nothing the Lombardi Trophy (LT) was the "real" item of value. Eventually, as the WFL becomes more and more popular, the historical LT will diminish in value and glory (that it holds now) and the GP will replace it. Like the LT, the GP will be the penultimate goal/prize in professional football. Super Bowls of yore will fad to distant memory. They will become an interesting footnote for a few franchises. As long as the Madden Bowl is played, the GP will increase in value and importance. It's what's of value now, even though there was only one definitive winner in the predecessor league.
The Browns victories of yore were a foundation for the leagues of the present, but those victories are not of the same value as a Super Bowl victory. The Browns also played and won at a time of competing leagues, further diminishing the achievement. Further, the leagues the Brown's played in were absorbed the current league, aka the NFL. While you may not like the perception, the perception is the surviving league was more important than the league that died, even if the league that died had "better" teams or played "better" football.
Endymion said:
Say the NFL decided when the current CBA is up that enough is enough. They are getting sued by every former player for concussions and the NFLPA is demanding way too much. So in 2020 the NFL just ends. The public will still want football, and eventually a new league will form, we'll call it WFL (World Football League). The WFL will have less teams than the NFL and will struggle for some time attracting an audience. Assume that eventually catches on, and reclaims the popularity the NFL once had about 10-15 years down the road. They have a championship game called the "Madden Bowl" and a trophy called the EA Sports Golden Pigskin (GP).
At first everyone will be like, this GP means nothing the Lombardi Trophy (LT) was the "real" item of value. Eventually, as the WFL becomes more and more popular, the historical LT will diminish in value and glory (that it holds now) and the GP will replace it. Like the LT, the GP will be the penultimate goal/prize in professional football. Super Bowls of yore will fad to distant memory. They will become an interesting footnote for a few franchises. As long as the Madden Bowl is played, the GP will increase in value and importance. It's what's of value now, even though there was only one definitive winner in the predecessor league.
The Browns victories of yore were a foundation for the leagues of the present, but those victories are not of the same value as a Super Bowl victory. The Browns also played and won at a time of competing leagues, further diminishing the achievement. Further, the leagues the Brown's played in were absorbed the current league, aka the NFL. While you may not like the perception, the perception is the surviving league was more important than the league that died, even if the league that died had "better" teams or played "better" football.
Well, lets put it this way: You apparently are a football creationist. You believe the league was created out of the ether at a certain recent point in time that myth maker claim to be the origin. Your Adam was apparently Vince Lombardi, your Eve Chuck Noll.
I am a football evolutionist. I believe that football developed over a much longer period of time. There was life before Adam/Lombardi even if you fundamentalists want to ignore all the scientific evidence. Or, perhaps I am 4th dimensional, like the Shrike in the books you are named after. I am the future come to the past, and I am the past come to the future.
Whatever I am, be afraid, be very afraid :ph34r:
-
Say the NFL decided when the current CBA is up that enough is enough. They are getting sued by every former player for concussions and the NFLPA is demanding way too much. So in 2020 the NFL just ends. The public will still want football, and eventually a new league will form, we'll call it WFL (World Football League). The WFL will have less teams than the NFL and will struggle for some time attracting an audience. Assume that eventually catches on, and reclaims the popularity the NFL once had about 10-15 years down the road. They have a championship game called the "Madden Bowl" and a trophy called the EA Sports Golden Pigskin (GP).
At first everyone will be like, this GP means nothing the Lombardi Trophy (LT) was the "real" item of value. Eventually, as the WFL becomes more and more popular, the historical LT will diminish in value and glory (that it holds now) and the GP will replace it. Like the LT, the GP will be the penultimate goal/prize in professional football. Super Bowls of yore will fad to distant memory. They will become an interesting footnote for a few franchises. As long as the Madden Bowl is played, the GP will increase in value and importance. It's what's of value now, even though there was only one definitive winner in the predecessor league.
The Browns victories of yore were a foundation for the leagues of the present, but those victories are not of the same value as a Super Bowl victory. The Browns also played and won at a time of competing leagues, further diminishing the achievement. Further, the leagues the Brown's played in were absorbed the current league, aka the NFL. While you may not like the perception, the perception is the surviving league was more important than the league that died, even if the league that died had "better" teams or played "better" football.
Endymion said:
Say the NFL decided when the current CBA is up that enough is enough. They are getting sued by every former player for concussions and the NFLPA is demanding way too much. So in 2020 the NFL just ends. The public will still want football, and eventually a new league will form, we'll call it WFL (World Football League). The WFL will have less teams than the NFL and will struggle for some time attracting an audience. Assume that eventually catches on, and reclaims the popularity the NFL once had about 10-15 years down the road. They have a championship game called the "Madden Bowl" and a trophy called the EA Sports Golden Pigskin (GP).
At first everyone will be like, this GP means nothing the Lombardi Trophy (LT) was the "real" item of value. Eventually, as the WFL becomes more and more popular, the historical LT will diminish in value and glory (that it holds now) and the GP will replace it. Like the LT, the GP will be the penultimate goal/prize in professional football. Super Bowls of yore will fad to distant memory. They will become an interesting footnote for a few franchises. As long as the Madden Bowl is played, the GP will increase in value and importance. It's what's of value now, even though there was only one definitive winner in the predecessor league.
The Browns victories of yore were a foundation for the leagues of the present, but those victories are not of the same value as a Super Bowl victory. The Browns also played and won at a time of competing leagues, further diminishing the achievement. Further, the leagues the Brown's played in were absorbed the current league, aka the NFL. While you may not like the perception, the perception is the surviving league was more important than the league that died, even if the league that died had "better" teams or played "better" football.
Wouldn't fewer teams created out of the same available player pool naturally create teams with a higher overall skill level at any time?
Soccer, Futball, Fusball, Futsal, Foosball, Europe ... Mods are all gay. -
I wouldn't say they have no meaning, but one has to be 55 years old to have any real recall of our last championship, so yeah, it's time to start winning.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
In 1976, calling Steeler fans was fiar game. In 2012? After 6 super bowl wins in THIRTY SIX YYEARS?
Thirty Six Years of competitive, SB winning, AFC winning, Afc North Winning, Kicking the shit out of the Browns?
Sorry, but you can hate the Steelers all you want, but they aren't bandwagon fans. They now have a very long, and rich heritage of winning. The overtook our head-to-head advantage, embarassingly with sweep after sweep after sweep.
As far as the Browns ancient championships go? They don't count and they don't mean shit. They have no modern day monetary, marketing or fan-appeal purpose. Only die hard fans know or care about this shit.
It is a sorry fucking shithole world if something only has value if it has current marketing appeal. Who in fucking hell ever said that something has to have current marketing appeal.
Besides that....I think you are completly wrong. I saw on a recent TV show where a program from the 1932 Championship game was valued at about $10,000.00. More than anything comparable from any Super Bowl.
So much for that theory of yours.
You can't compare the old teams wins with the events of JFK or MLK and the like. Those events are clear as a bell,and have impact to many people, of all ages. Most pleople can tell you how JFK and MLK was and what happened to them.
Ask people about Paul Brown, Lavelli, Motley, and 95% of America will look at you like you are incoherent.
I don't think so. The comparable political thing, since you brought it up is to ask them about Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.
And just because young dumbasses don't know something about history doesn't mean history isn't important.
How many people in America have never heard of Louisbourg or The Plains of Abraham? Probably 95%.....yet this same 95% all speak English, right? Yet, without those historical events, it is quite probable that we here in the State of Ohio...and in Tennessee and in the entire Great Lakes and Western US would be speaking French right now.
It is not our mandate to cowtow to those at the the lowest intellectual or educational level.
I am not going to do it even if, apparently, you choose to.
In the modern Era of football, the era WE LIVE IN..............The Browns franchise has been used to wipe shit out of the asses of Steeler fans, players and management. That's just how it is.
Yes, and at one time Brittania ruled the waves. That didn't mean they would forever.
-
I wouldn't say they have no meaning, but one has to be 55 years old to have any real recall of our last championship, so yeah, it's time to start winning.
I wouldn't say they have no meaning, but one has to be 55 years old to have any real recall of our last championship, so yeah, it's time to start winning.
That is why I called this thread "Revisionist History".....which is really a misnomer. It should actually be "Truncated History" as I simply went back to that point in time where many of about that age do remember.
And Ghoolie brings up the fact that the assassinations of JFK and MLK are things deepseated in our memory. Sure, to us.
But not to 75% of the patrons on this board. Those are as much ancient history to them as the murders of McKinley and Garfield are to us.
Wanna bet how many could get the answer if I asked the trivia question: who killed McKinley and Garfield. 1 in 10 maybe?
Just because we don't remember the assassinations of Garfield and McKinley doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because the 75% don't remember the assassinations of JFK and MLK don't mean they didn't happen.
Every once in a while someone has to educate the younger folk of what happened in the past. That is simply what I do.
I am not sure why there is such a Brouhaha over the fact that I relate a little bit of factual history on here. I mean, in the words of Jack Nicholson is there some reason that some "can't handle the truth"?
-
The only Championships that mean anything to me are the ones that I, as a fan, would be able to experience and enjoy.
I don't get a ring or anything else when/if a Cleveland team wins a Championship. The only enjoyment of a Championship, for a team I follow, would be watching the team achieve it.
I was born in 1965. I have never been able to celebrate a Cleveland Championship. I guess I can taunt other teams fans with what happened prior to me being born, but overall, I would rather have watched the Browns win last years Super Bowl, than brag about all the Championships that happened in the 50's and 60's.
-
The only Championships that mean anything to me are the ones that I, as a fan, would be able to experience and enjoy.
I don't get a ring or anything else when/if a Cleveland team wins a Championship. The only enjoyment of a Championship, for a team I follow, would be watching the team achieve it.
I was born in 1965. I have never been able to celebrate a Cleveland Championship. I guess I can taunt other teams fans with what happened prior to me being born, but overall, I would rather have watched the Browns win last years Super Bowl, than brag about all the Championships that happened in the 50's and 60's.
The Soldier said:
The only Championships that mean anything to me are the ones that I, as a fan, would be able to experience and enjoy.
I don't get a ring or anything else when/if a Cleveland team wins a Championship. The only enjoyment of a Championship, for a team I follow, would be watching the team achieve it.
I was born in 1965. I have never been able to celebrate a Cleveland Championship. I guess I can taunt other teams fans with what happened prior to me being born, but overall, I would rather have watched the Browns win last years Super Bowl, than brag about all the Championships that happened in the 50's and 60's.
Quite frankly my dear, who gives a damn what you are able to experience and enjoy. Just because something didn't happen during your meager existance doesn't mean it didn't happen...and it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't "mean anything". See my next post. We all would like to have seen more victories here....but we haven't.
Besides, if you note, in my thread I list the statistics of all 48 major league markets, and all 124 major league franchises. Yet no one seems to get all stupid about the hundreds of old titles won by other towns or teams. Only about the ones Cleveland won. Why would some of y'all get your panties in a bunch and try to discount say the Canton Bulldogs titles won in the 20s when the New York Yankees were winning baseball titles those same years, and no one wants to discount them.
-
Some of you don't know how close you were to giving the greetings "Bon Matin" or Ca va" today instead of saying "Good Morning" or "How's it going".......this illustrates how close you were to doing just that:
Everything west of the Appalachians including Cleveland/Pittsburgh/Detroit/Cincinatti/Chicago etc. etc. could have been talking French and playing curling instead of football if the English had not won the Seven Years War aka French and Indian War.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login