Jump to content

Csonka, Shula & Champagne...


wdm1219inpenna

Recommended Posts

Just wondered about something which I don't know will ever happen.

Assuming that the Colts and Patriots both lose at least once this season, and assuming that no other team goes 19-0 (16-0 in reg season + 3-0 in post-season), were the Miami Dolphins to go 19-0, would Shula, Csonka, et al, stop doing the champagne celebration thing since they weren't the only team to go completely undefeated anymore, or would they still do the toast since it would be the Dolphins doing it once again? I realize the chances of this happening are about as slim as my dead cat being struck by lightning on Jupiter, but it's just something that occured to me and I was curious to see what you all thought.

I'm inclined to think they'd no longer do the champagne celebration since it was their specific team, the 72 Dolphins that did it. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a time where the Dolphins were the last undefeated team in any given season, and then fell. If that did happen, I'm guessing Shula & company might have felt a bit awkward in toasting their own team, the Dolphins, getting beat. Just curious about what you all think about this, in lieu of today's Patriots vs Colts matchup, being hailed as Super Bowl 41.5. No coincidence that the game starts at 4:15 EST either...

Don't forget to set your clocks back an hour, as DST has ended...

Thanks

Bill McD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondered about something which I don't know will ever happen.

Assuming that the Colts and Patriots both lose at least once this season, and assuming that no other team goes 19-0 (16-0 in reg season + 3-0 in post-season), were the Miami Dolphins to go 19-0, would Shula, Csonka, et al, stop doing the champagne celebration thing since they weren't the only team to go completely undefeated anymore, or would they still do the toast since it would be the Dolphins doing it once again? I realize the chances of this happening are about as slim as my dead cat being struck by lightning on Jupiter, but it's just something that occured to me and I was curious to see what you all thought.

I'm inclined to think they'd no longer do the champagne celebration since it was their specific team, the 72 Dolphins that did it. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a time where the Dolphins were the last undefeated team in any given season, and then fell. If that did happen, I'm guessing Shula & company might have felt a bit awkward in toasting their own team, the Dolphins, getting beat. Just curious about what you all think about this, in lieu of today's Patriots vs Colts matchup, being hailed as Super Bowl 41.5. No coincidence that the game starts at 4:15 EST either...

Don't forget to set your clocks back an hour, as DST has ended...

Thanks

Bill McD.

The sad part is the game probably will be more entertaining than the super bowl itself featuring the colts/patriots vs some random team in the nfc. btw guess we are back to pre salary cap days of 2 teams dominating the league ie 49ers/cowboys and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a product of the "new" schedule the NFL's used since 2002. 14 of an NFL team's 16 opponents each season are based on the league's divisional alignment, leaving only 2 games based on what used to be known as a "common opponent" formula.

The result is more frequent matchups along the lines of Cowboys-Dolphins and Patriots-Rams, and fewer matchups between more competitive teams, such as Patriots-Cowboys or Colts-Packers. The pre-2002 scheduling formula mandated more "good team vs. good team" matchups. As a result, certain divisions are seen as powerful (AFC East, for example) while others (AFC West) are seen as weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to think they'd no longer do the champagne celebration since it was their specific team, the 72 Dolphins that did it. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a time where the Dolphins were the last undefeated team in any given season, and then fell. If that did happen, I'm guessing Shula & company might have felt a bit awkward in toasting their own team, the Dolphins, getting beat.

I'd have to agree with you on that, although it wouldn't surprise me if they twisted it up and tried to keep doing it because it was the Dolphins. I'm not a big fan of this "tradition" anyway, though, and the way the '72 Dolphins handle it each and every year.

As an aside, though, as much as I don't like the way they handle it, I have to give them credit for one thing. This morning, in the opening to ESPN NFL Countdown, Mercury Morris said something to the effect of, "Don't call me when they're in my town. Call me when they're on my block." Amen to that. Every year, when a team gets to 6-0, 7-0, 8-0, then the networks start pulling out the references to the '72 Dolphins, and it drives me insane. I can't stand hearing about an undefeated season in Week 6; if a team is 13-0 or better, then I'm ready to hear about it. (But then again, there's still the playoffs to get through, which is no cake walk no matter how well a team did in the regular season; see: 1998 Vikings.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a product of the "new" schedule the NFL's used since 2002. 14 of an NFL team's 16 opponents each season are based on the league's divisional alignment, leaving only 2 games based on what used to be known as a "common opponent" formula.

The result is more frequent matchups along the lines of Cowboys-Dolphins and Patriots-Rams, and fewer matchups between more competitive teams, such as Patriots-Cowboys or Colts-Packers. The pre-2002 scheduling formula mandated more "good team vs. good team" matchups. As a result, certain divisions are seen as powerful (AFC East, for example) while others (AFC West) are seen as weak.

Inter Conference matchups wouldn't be a good way to prove your point; just an FYI.

And personally, I like the format; with the increased emphasis the NFL has placed on winning your division following 2002, it helps to have a similar schedule to truly "prove" which team in the division is the best.

I'd also like to point out that if it weren't for the Patriots, the AFC East would be the weakest division from top-to-bottom in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that if it weren't for the Patriots, the AFC East would be the weakest division from top-to-bottom in the NFL.

Except with the New England Patriots, it's actually better than the NFC West. And if Joe Montana was playing in his prime for the Bills, and Dan Marino in his prime for the Jets, and Otto Graham in his prime for the Dolphins, they'd probably be the best division in the history of football. Also, if we used hypothetical situations to make points, we'd all look like dorks.

Oh, wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that if it weren't for the Patriots, the AFC East would be the weakest division from top-to-bottom in the NFL.

Except with the New England Patriots, it's actually better than the NFC West. And if Joe Montana was playing in his prime for the Bills, and Dan Marino in his prime for the Jets, and Otto Graham in his prime for the Dolphins, they'd probably be the best division in the history of football. Also, if we used hypothetical situations to make points, we'd all look like dorks.

Oh, wait.

That actually wasn't a dig at the Patriots. But you're right only the NFC West is worse than the AFC East right now. My point was that the AFC East, though, is not a power this year, with the exception of their leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.