Talk:History of the NFL championship

Adding the History Section

I'll admit that I gave a title to the long, first section of this article because I wanted the contents table to be near the top. (Zzyzx11 07:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• I have changed my mind and will be changing that section now. Zzyzx11 02:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now becoming obsolete

It seems that the content of this page is becoming redundant to what is on the following articles:

• NFL playoffs
• List of NFL champions (named a Featured list)
• List of Super Bowl champions (named a Featured list)

Therefore, I am thinking this page should be converted to a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems that way. Is there any information here that can be saved by incorporating it into one of the other articles? You can call me Al 13:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously, everything from the "APFA-NFL standings champions" onward is redundant to List of NFL champions. Everything above it can be merged to the "History of the playoff format" section of NFL playoffs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, as I think about it, there is also the option of renaming this article something like History of the NFL playoff format, and moving all of that content from NFL playoffs to here... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Since nobody else has spoken up, I will make this article more about the history of the playoffs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, what sets this article apart is the prose talking about the NFL Championships. As for the tables, it seems those are not necessary here - as other articles specifically contain those tables - with better designs. KyuuA4 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see the table of most successful professional football franchises elsewhere, and that seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbachler (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the coming weeks...

I will be rewriting this article to make it more update and meaningful to the group of NFL articles. I will be giving more information soon. Thanks --Happyman22 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello to the owner and maintainer of this site. You have done a WONDERFUL job and keep up the good work! I'm sorry for posting this here but I didn't know how else to get my voice heard. The Indianapolis Colts do not have a Championship to their name. The BALTIMORE COLTS won those 4 championships and, even though Indy might technically lay claim to stolen history, saying that Indy won 4 championships is a crime. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riprulz8 (talk • contribs).

• It's the same franchise. It's a continuum. I understand you're a bitter Colts fan, but the Brooklyn Dodgers' 1955 championship counts for the Dodgers even though they are in Los Angeles. However, you might have a point if you could cite what the NFL has to say about it. Wahkeenah 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the NFL changes its stand on the Baltimore Colts/Indianapolis Colts issue then so will this page, but since the Colts are technically the Colts no matter what city they play in the four championships count toward their franchise. Sorry --Happyman22 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AFL vs. NFL/Super Bowl Distinction

There's really no need to list AFL-NFL Championships separately from Super Bowl championships. The AFL vs. NFL World Championship was substantively the same as the subsequent games that officially took on the "Super Bowl" name. The champions even won the same trophy. The fact that the NFL officially stylized the three "World Championship" games as Super Bowls I, II, and III, shows that the distinction in the table is silly and should be eliminated. The champions of those three games are considered by all, including the NFL, to be official Super Bowl Champions. There's no reason for the segreation.-PassionoftheDamon 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell that to the some of the Wikipedians who are rabid AFL fans, including this particular one. Super Bowls I-IV were held prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger before the two leagues officially became one. Between 1966 to 1969, the two leagues still operated separately. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary difference is that there was no inter-league or inter-conference play until the 1970 season. Once the leagues agreed to merge, holding a common draft, etc., the official "separation" was cosmetic. However, also don't discount the NFL fans, such as Vikings fans who are quick to point out that the "championless" Vikings won the NFL Championship in 1969, although they lost the Super Bowl game. Wahkeenah 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there should not be a distinction. The authortity on this, the NFL, even includes the first four Super Bowls as Super Bowls. It is redudant to list these seperately. The Green Bay Packers are listed as winning 3 Super Bowls on their website. seantpainter

The first two games were called by the generic "AFL-NFL Championship". The third one was renamed "Super Bowl III" and the first two were renamed as "Super Bowl I & II" after the fact. Although the leagues operated on the field as separate entities, the merger was announced before the first AFL-NFL game. Wahkeenah 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for the distinction. It's about as silly as distinguishing pre-interleague play World Series Champions because the American and National Leagues operated seperately and didn't play each other during the regular season. At the end of the day, the prize of the first three Super Bowls was the same as that of the latter 38. The NFL considers the 66-67 Packers and 68 Jets Super Bowl Champions, and they should be recognized as such, not subject to a petty distinction that nobody else recognizes--not even the main Super Bowl article.-PassionoftheDamon 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The baseball analogy is a good one. The World Series is still the World Series, even though the major baseball leagues are, in practical terms, a single league now. Wahkeenah 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The baseball analogy is flawed; when 'interleague play' (IMO technically an oxymoron) began, Major League Baseball continued to refer to the National and American "Leagues", not "Conferences". But I don't get to tell MLB that they need to change their naming conventions to reflect this distinction, and neither does Wikipedia as a whole. During the first four years of the Super Bowl, there was a combined draft between the two leagues, and but the AFL had its own commissioner, and continued to use its distinctive rules. They were two separate legal entities until after Super Bowl IV. The '68 Colts and '69 Vikings did win the NFL Championship. The '70 Cowboys did not.The Monster 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is awesome except for how it counts those 4 teams as having won "championships" when they lost the Superbowl. It seems silly to say that the Colts or Vikings were "champions" when they each lost an extremely famous championship game. So the page could stay exactly the same, but change the tallying alongside the Chiefs, Raiders, Colts and Vikings to match the information people are probably actually looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.79.159 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

section "Undefeated regular seasons...."

This section makes no sense whatsoever. The information it has is just a repeat of the "Super Bowl Championship (1970 – present)" section. And second, as we saw from the 2007 New England Patriots, a perfect/undefeated regular season has no direct bearing on a championship. I will look through my notes and repair this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1966-1969 AFL and NFL Championship Games

I have noticed that the table of 1966-1969 AFL and NFL Championship Games has been altered again. Because of the historic editing disputes involving the league championships during this period, I'd like to see some references cited, especially in light of Wikipedia's "verifiability, not truth" policy. A citation is definitely needed for the statement "the Super Bowl is now considered the only legit league championship game during these four years".

The problem is that we have a reliable source, CBS Sports, that seems to contradict this, listing the 1966 Chiefs,[1] the 1967 Raiders,[2] the 1968 Colts,[3] and the 1969 Vikings[4] as winning "League championships", despite losing the Super Bowl those seasons. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any reliable source that also essentially marks these teams as "n/a". The Pro Football Hall of Fame does not specifically group anything as "League Champions"[5][6][7][8][9][10], and official web sites like greenbaypackers.com primarily use the term "World Championships" instead.[11]

And although the Official NFL Record and Fact Book lists the AFL and NFL Championship Games together with the post-merger conference games, it is explicitly silent on whether the 1966-69 Super Bowls are "now considered the only legit league championship game during these four years". Just because the NFL decided to group those records together does not necessarily make it the case. If someone is trying to make that assumption or interpretation without an explicit citation from a reliable source, that would then appear to be "original research".

Again, I need citations from reliable sources to back up these changes to that section, or else we might revert the table back to the previous version and just cite the CBS Sports pages. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and no original research. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with CBS is that they don't then listen Green Bay with 15 titles http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/history/GB/green-bay-packers. CBS list Colts with 5 but offical colts page says four http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=football_dynamic&id=174 and pro football references says four as well http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/ and official NFL record and Factbook is not helpful to this situation and pro-football Hall site not helping it ether. Because of this I trying to clarify the text with that in mind. Pro-football refrence don't list those game in overall years records http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/ CBS does nether http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/history/yearly-full, then CBS is inconsitant on team pages. DoctorHver (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the alterations you made are better. I think the main thing now is to be consistent throughout the article and be absolutely clear on which system you are using to count the championships. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But the fact remains--those teams did win NFL and AFL championships in those years. Period. As your links properly point out, even the Hall of Fame fully acknowledges them. They should be credited as such. I agree that, in terms of "total" championships, a team that won both its league championship and a Super Bowl in that year should only be credited with one championship in the tally. But in those early years, the league championships were, in most fans eyes, "the" championship--the games between the NFL and AFL champions were more of an exhibition than anything else. Frankly, if you don't consider the Hall of Fame's information on the number of championships to meet the "verifiability, not truth" threshold, I can't imagine what you would consider acceptable. Fix the page to reflect the facts--and the facts are truly verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No the table is correct as only thing to be counted are NFL-AFL-AAFC championsips up to 1965 and Super Bowls from 1966 so counting NFL-AFL titles from 1966-1969 makes the list incorrect and inconsistance, thus if you want count Packers with 13 you have to count the Colts with 4 titles (includeds NFL champs in 1958, 1959 and SB V and XLI) as Colts do on there own page, they are not trying to fit the 1968 championship in that number which is correctly 4 not 5. The problem with the Hall is not the lack of vality of the information rather lack of information how championships should be counted during 1966-1969 period. So has been decidedly that NFL titles from 1920 to 1965 are to be counted, AAFC (becouse of the Browns), and AFL titles from 1960 to 1965 and Super Bowl 1966-present. Thus AFL-NFL championships from 1966-1969 are best ignored to avoid confusion in the tables. But they are not totally ignored though as they were offically the championship games of both leagues but because of the merger dell the leagues had informally downgraded them already to be an extra round in the playoffs as the article points out thus they are not counted. DoctorHver (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Philadelphia Eagles' three NFL championships all were won in years (1948-49, 1960) where there was a rival pro league with its own champion. Of course, most observers regarded the NFL as far superior to the competition (except for the Cleveland Browns, who did beat the Eagles the first time they met on the field -- Super Bowl Zero as it were, in 1950). It would be an interesting footnote to the "3" that none of these were "undisputed" titles, and that the team is still seeking its first one of those. WHPratt (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Tables

Instead of maintaining the championship tables here, they are best done on subsequent articles. Instead, this page is best as a summary of the championship history of the league. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

Errr...should the title of this be "History of the National Football League Championship"? Without the article it doesn't read right to me. —Al E.^(talk) 14:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the National Football League championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325115257/http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=football_dynamic&id=174 to http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=football_dynamic&id=174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why weren't the playoffs in this format?

From 1990 to 2002 there were 3 divisions and 3 wild card teams in the playoffs. Why didn't they just have the top 2 teams from each division go to the playoffs? The only time this happened was the 2000-2001 playoffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.0.38.216 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)