Why not count all NFL titles?

Obviously we've been in the "Super Bowl" era for 52 years. This topic has been eating at me for years, mainly b/c the Steelers (petty I know) act like they've been the cats meow in the NFL for ever because they have 6 super bowls. My question is what about the 50 years before their first title when they were a laughing stock? Why doesn't the NFL recognize the NFL championships before the "Super Bowl" era when saying how many championship each team has won?

A decent argument is "well what about AFL championships?". To that I say It's not an NFL title, they absorbed your league not the other way around. I mean The Eagles have 3 NFL titles and all people say is they're going for their first championship. The Bears got their reputation by winning 8 NFL titles, not due to winning one SB and losing another one. Obviously I have not made trips to any NFL stadium other than PB. Do other teams have banners for pre SB era titles?

I like the way you think. Short memories is the answer. There is always a bias towards that which is most recent.

BTW, AFL stats count in players NFL records.

I'd think that it has a lot do with branding.

If they recognized old NFL championships, it might give Vikings fans a false sense of hope that the Norsemen will ever win a Super Bowl, which they won’t. So why hit people over the head with it?

I like the way you think. Short memories is the answer. There is always a bias towards that which is most recent.

 

BTW, AFL stats count in players NFL records.

Every other sport seems to recognize all non recent titles. I think the issue, as someone mentioned, is kind of related to branding. Ever since the NFL Championship game was renamed the Super Bowl, all the previous championships seem to be unimportant. As an Eagles fan, I wish their 3 previous titles carried a little more weight, so I could at least have a better comeback when Cowboy fans constantly remind me how my team has never won anything.

I’ve been preaching this for years. Bart Starr quarterbacked 5 NFL champions. For the moment he is tied with Tom Brady.

Every other sport seems to recognize all non recent titles. I think the issue, as someone mentioned, is kind of related to branding. Ever since the NFL Championship game was renamed the Super Bowl, all the previous championships seem to be unimportant. As an Eagles fan, I wish their 3 previous titles carried a little more weight, so I could at least have a better comeback when Cowboy fans constantly remind me how my team has never won anything.

If a Cowboys' fan isn't impressed by Steve Van Buren, Chuck Bednarik and a coach name Greasy, then they don't know football!

Don't they usually qualify the titles with "in the Super Bowl Era"?

I tried to see if there was any stipulations in the merger agreement between the NFL and AFL regarding championship recognition but this is all I saw:

1. The leagues would maintain separate regular season schedules through 1969. The leagues also agreed to play an annual AFL-NFL World Championship Game, matching the championship teams of each league, beginning in January 1967; the game that would eventually become known as the Super Bowl.

2. The two leagues would officially merge in 1970 to form one league with two conferences. The merged league would be known as the National Football League. The history and records of the AFL would be incorporated into the older league, but the AFL name and logo would be retired.

Other than perhaps "retroactively" making the pre-merger "leagues" "conferences" I can't see anything that would discredit or remove championship consideration for teams before 1967.

As someone earlier said, it has to simply come back to branding.

Don't they usually qualify the titles with "in the Super Bowl Era"?

They usually just say the number of Superbowls and don't qualify anything. Those previous titles count as much as pre-playoff college titles do.

Can you imagine some day down the road the CFP is as big as the superbowl and they said Alabama or Ohio State has won 8 CFP Titles and ignored the others won before the playoffs...fans would go nuts.

NFL fans absolutely should count their pre-Superbowl titles as well.

It's absolutely ridiculous. If the Yankees get to count their World Series championships from the 1910-20s on, then the Browns should be able to count their World Championships.

I think it's just the way it is. I try to explain to the younger fans...[i'll be 58 in march,so guess I'm getting old..lol!!] that you can't forget where you come from,so try to learn a little history.Some get it,some don't. But cutting my teeth on late "60's" ,early "70's" n.f.l.,i heard stories of Norm Ban Brocklin,Don Hudson, Otto Graham ,Chuck Bednarik,Frank Gifford, marion motley,and of course,jim brown.I was told how great these guy's were,and how many championships they were all involved in. To me,you have to include the whole history,so i haven't forgot about the old time teams. But the longer a league is around,the more history is added on to it. It's our job to at least try to pass it on.Even if the only reason a lot of younger fans follow football is for fantasy. Keep fighting the good fight fellas!!! But,i agree.All the championships should be counted

It's absolutely ridiculous. If the Yankees get to count their World Series championships from the 1910-20s on, then the Browns should be able to count their World Championships.

Yanks didn't win their first WS until 1921.

Yanks didn't win their first WS until 1921.

Yeah, just a generalization. Still they get to count their 10 championships before 1947 (Jackie Robinson & Larry Doby). Seems silly the NFL doesn't count NFL Championships before the Super Bowl.

Yanks didn't win their first WS until 1921.

1923. 1921 and 1922 they lost to the Giants. (Great uncle who I'm named after was a huge Giants fan).