Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it is not. They are both world championships. Look at the NFL record books. NFL and AFL titles prior to the first AFL-NFL World Championship are considered world championships. At the time, they were the highest level of championship.
Your recency bias makes no sense because you are trying to take away something from teams that earned it.
So are you saying if 50 years from now the Super Bowl isn't the highest level of football championship, because there has been evolution to a new format, it do they no longer count as championships won?
Sluggermatt15 is right. In addition to having the world championships of professional football all the personal statistics from the players who saw time in the AFL merge with the players from the NFL. Those people are listed in the all time stats. The AFL merged with the NFL and while the two didn't start play until 1970 the personal stats were notated in the NFL record books. Because the AFL-NFL MERGED!
I always think about those lofty numbers Jim Kelly had when he played for the USFL's Houston Gamblers and sadly none of those figures count. Why? Because the USFL folded after the 1985 season. Take a look at Pro Football Reference and type in Jim Kelly, his USFL numbers don't even appear there. Now one site that at least gives a number of Kelly's USFL stats would be Wikipedia but they put in those two years to account for what Kelly was doing. It's simply an overview of Kelly's career in general.
The following players put in 10-15 years in the AFL and NFL combined
quarterbacks--Joe Namath, Lenny Dawson, John Hadl, Bob Griese
running backs--Floyd Little, Matt Snell
wide receivers--Fred Biletnikoff, Don Maynard, Otis Taylor
defensive backs--Willie Brown, Emmitt Thomas
No it is not. They are both world championships. Look at the NFL record books. NFL and AFL titles prior to the first AFL-NFL World Championship are considered world championships. At the time, they were the highest level of championship.
Your recency bias makes no sense because you are trying to take away something from teams that earned it.
So are you saying if 50 years from now the Super Bowl isn't the highest level of football championship, because there has been evolution to a new format, it do they no longer count as championships won?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOUBLE H
Sluggermatt15 is right. In addition to having the world championships of professional football all the personal statistics from the players who saw time in the AFL merge with the players from the NFL. Those people are listed in the all time stats. The AFL merged with the NFL and while the two didn't start play until 1970 the personal stats were notated in the NFL record books. Because the AFL-NFL MERGED!
I always think about those lofty numbers Jim Kelly had when he played for the USFL's Houston Gamblers and sadly none of those figures count. Why? Because the USFL folded after the 1985 season. Take a look at Pro Football Reference and type in Jim Kelly, his USFL numbers don't even appear there. Now one site that at least gives a number of Kelly's USFL stats would be Wikipedia but they put in those two years to account for what Kelly was doing. It's simply an overview of Kelly's career in general.
The following players put in 10-15 years in the AFL and NFL combined
quarterbacks--Joe Namath, Lenny Dawson, John Hadl, Bob Griese
running backs--Floyd Little, Matt Snell
wide receivers--Fred Biletnikoff, Don Maynard, Otis Taylor
defensive backs--Willie Brown, Emmitt Thomas
There is usually the one championship per year for pro sports. The NFL/AFL were considered championships in their own right for the first four years when the Super Bowl was around. Are they equal to the Super Bowl?
"The greatest game every played" was an old NFL championship game. Yeah, those 'chips still count. George Halas, Vince Lombardi, Jim Brown.....all pre-Super Bowl era figures. Merging with the AFL years later doesn't diminish anything they did.
"The greatest game every played" was an old NFL championship game. Yeah, those 'chips still count. George Halas, Vince Lombardi, Jim Brown.....all pre-Super Bowl era figures. Merging with the AFL years later doesn't diminish anything they did.
I don’t see anyone in the basketball world cite ABA championships as equivalent to NBA chips, even before the merger.
I get what you're saying but it's an apples to oranges comparison. The ABA never challenged the NBA to a "world championship" game like the AFL did with the NFL. It was not the ABA champ vs. the NBA champ like the first four Super Bowls were until the merger in 1970.
Yes, teams from the ABA joined to merge to the NBA, but it's not the same as the AFL merging with the NFL when ALL AFL teams came with the existing NFL teams to form the current NFL.
The North Stars made the Finals twice: 1981 (lost to the Islanders in five) and 1991 (lost to the Penguins in six).
But as for Minnesota, they are currently not only winless in their last 118 Big Four seasons, they haven't even made it to the final round in any of the sports since then. The last Minnesota title came when the Twins won the 1991 World Series. Since then:
The Twins have not won 1992 thru 2022 (excluding 1994, when there was no Series) - 30 seasons
The Vikings have not won 1991 thru 2022 - 32 seasons
The Timberwolves have not won 1992 thru 2023 - 32 seasons
The North Stars did not win in 1992 or 1993, and the Wild have not won 2001 thru 2023 (excluding 2005 when there was no Finals) - 24 seasons
And as I said, not only have they gone winless in this span, they haven't even been to the World Series/Super Bowl/NBA Finals/Stanley Cup Finals in those 118 seasons.
This is the longest championship-appearance drought for any metropolitan area in the history of North American sports.
The sole sports championship (that matter) team (post Lakers) from Minnesota, the Twins; are currently working on the longest post season losing streak in the history of all North American sports...all time, 18 and counting...Twins currently leading their division by 7.5 with 18 left in the reg season and are heading towards a match-up with Seattle.
Oakland recently lost two of their major pro sports franchises, and there's a good chance they'll be losing the A's in the near future. I suppose they could always fall back on the SF teams, but that seems like taking pity charity from your rich neighbor.
Definitely Oakland.
And the rivalry is such that a lot of Oakland fans wouldn’t be caught dead rooting for SF.
The sole sports championship (that matter) team (post Lakers) from Minnesota, the Twins; are currently working on the longest post season losing streak in the history of all North American sports...all time, 18 and counting
Maybe in MLB...
Since 1958, the Detroit Lions have exactly one postseason win (in 1991). That's 31 years without a postseason win.
But right now, Oakland has lost its last major sports team. Even Brooklyn, who lost the Dodgers, finally got the Nets.
...
I was the one who started this thread - it occurs to me that one can differentiate between cities that have teams in all four (five?) major professional leagues, versus those cities that have less than four but at least one sports team. Special consideration perhaps for those cities that lost their last/only team.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
