AFC / NFC Logos

[cajunaggie08]

I never will forget about the AFL. The first 2 AFL titles are the only football titles the city of houston has.

[Gothamite]

Exactly. The AFL is just as relevant to the modern NFL as the old pre-merger NFL was.

No, it's not.

The AFL needed the Colts, Browns and Steelers in order to balance out with the old NFL. Sure, the AFL was by far the most successful challenger to the NFL, but the NFL still won the football war, albeit barely.

I disagree. The NFL did not win the war, if so there never would have been a merger in my opinion. Those 3 teams balanced out the conferences for realignment purposes. If the NFL had won the war, I don't think they would have taken all of the franchises, they would have chose specific markets to keep and fold the rest. Kind of like what happened with the old AAFC.

This.

The old AFL/AFC weren't given the Colts, Browns, and Steelers because they needed the talent boost, they just needed three more teams to even up the alignment numbers.

And I don't even think you can all merger a complete NFL victory. An NFL victory would have been the absorption of the top one or two AFL teams, the the closure of the rest.

The post-merger NFL was very much a different entity then the pre-merger NFL. Yes, the names and symbols of the old league were carried over, but the formal rival league, which the NFL tried to stamp out initially, was now an equal partner in this new, post merger National Football League.

Not quite an "equal partner." The AFL added some of their traditions into the new league, to be sure, but some - like revenue sharing and names on the back - would have happened anyway. The AFL ceased to exist after the merger, though, absorbed into the established league.

I'm convinced that the difference between the AFL and the AAFC (and others) was the television contract. That gave them leverage when dealing with the NFL, and even lousy teams were brought into the NFL to increase the number of markets the NFL reached.

And FWIW, I never claimed that it was a "complete NFL victory". I said it was barely a victory for the NFL. But the NFL clearly got the better of the merger deal, you need only look at the letters on the league's logo.

[Luigi74]

The NFL sorta won the war, it was pretty much a tie but the AFL owners were forced to pay the Giants and 49ers because the Jets and Raiders infringed on their territorial rights.

The merge happened because Tex Schramm, Art Modell, Lamar Hunt and a few other owners saw the money that could be made by negotiating tv contracts together and player salaries would go down since there would be no competition for rookies and no free agency.

The Browns, Colts and Steelers were asked to move instead of the Falcons, Saints and Vikings because they were established franchises with highly respected owners, had the three most recent entries into the NFL been asked to move the AFC would still be viewed as a inferior league.

Its time to update the conference logo's, both scream 1970's to me.

[DrBear]

One of the key reasons the established teams, instead of recent expansion teams, went from the NFL to the AFC was to even out the TV markets between the two leagues - the AFL at the time was mostly in smaller markets (Buffalo, San Diego). Granted, a couple - Denver and Houston - have grown since then.

[IceCap]

Here's an idea I've had floating around for a while, based off of the suggestion that the AFC just use the old AFL logo. Instead I used an AFL alternate mark from 1960-64, recolouring it entirely red. If using an AFL mark for the AFC worked, something similar to the NFL shield might work for the NFC.

To round it all out, I use the (much superior, IMO) NFL Network logo as the primary league mark.

[winghaz]

Both the NFL and the AFL won. The whole thing was a win-win situation. Despite the rivalry, the AFL made the NFL better, and vice versa.

And remember: If it weren't for that AFL-NFL rivalry, there wouldn't be a Super Bowl. So the AFL logo, and the subsequent AFC logo, have pertinence.

I say keep those logos as they are because they both give hints as to the previous old rivalry.

[The_Admiral]

That's a really good idea, Icecap, but that C is a real bugbear.

[LEWJ]

What if they just renamed the two divisions AFL and NFL

and called the current NFL by a much more superior-sounding name.

Like "Football Union of America." Then that would still allow for an expansion to Canada, Mexico, or even Puerto Rico because technically they are all "America" (North America, that is.)

Just throwing ideas out there.

But I do like the idea Icecap had.

[The_Admiral]

That window has shut forever. They'll never mess with the name "NFL."

[LEWJ]

That window has shut forever. They'll never mess with the name "NFL."

Yea that's kinda my opinion on it.

I guess I'm just kinda throwin crazy ideas out there.

[Mac the Knife]

But the AFL had to yield on their most treasured demand - they didn't get to keep the name.

I admit that the AFL was by far the most successful of the challengers. But like all the others, they got absorbed into the NFL. Unlike the AAFC, the AFL just had better teams across the board, or at least teams in markets that the NFL wanted.

Well, yes and no. Reading contemporary accounts of the time, the AAFC had built itself into a successful challenger to the NFL in terms of talent level. In many cases actually, the AAFC was viewed as superior to the older circuit. They marketed well, put out an equal if not better product than the NFL did in their first year (thanks to getting hundreds of pro players returning from WW II)... the only real problem the AAFC had was that its owners weren't as well-heeled as their NFL counterparts, and gradually as salaries went up, some opted to bail with moderate losses (or small profits) rather than to ride out the wave 'til it hit the shore.

The AAFC had teams in markets (Cleveland, Baltimore, San Francisco, New York) the NFL wanted, but in other cases (Chicago, Los Angeles) had teams that caused duplication (or triplication in Chicago's case) where it wouldn't have been desirable, and at least one other market (Buffalo) that the NFL didn't consider large enough. Had the owners of Chicago, LA and Buffalo's franchises chose to stick to their guns, odds are they'd have had an opportunity to field NFL franchises, though probably in other cities, and the NFL would've had its NFL-AFL style merger in 1950 rather than 1970.

[Gothamite]

And remember: If it weren't for that AFL-NFL rivalry, there wouldn't be a Super Bowl.

Only the name was new - the NFL had been playing a championship game for decades before the Packers stomped the Chiefs on that day in Los Angeles.

[Buffalo]

What's goin on with that letter "C"???

[Claystation360]

Well the first 4 Super Bowls were not for a NFL or AFL Championship for they where desided 2 weeks before . The First 4 Super Bowls were for the World Championship of pro football. After the Raiders there the 2nd AFL Champion thashed by the NFL's Packers it had got to the point almost the equal merger was off and Owners of a few key AFL teams were making deals for their futures ( Kansas City , Houston, San Diego, Miami, and Boston) I think and of course a few of those where by NFL interest becuase the NFL had a lack of teams in those markets but seen promise with them making the Original NFL a 20 team system or so, un sure even how they would do talent wise with the other NFL Teams at the point. That is what made the Upset of the NFL's Colts by the AFL's Jets such a mile stone for the AFL it gave the teams something to agrue, the League, and the JETS that they were not pushovers and could play on the field with any NFL team and there were still doubts on how many AFL teams would play in 1970 going into SuperBowl IV and if the AFL would have any identity at all or just all be broken up and put in different divisions between the WC and EC of the NFL. But the AFL's Chief's big win over the NFL's Vikes gave the AFL alot to work with and back up going into the arguements of course as it was said before and was said when the Merger was first being talked about was both Leagues staying seperate like MLB and still playing each other in Interleague play and the Super Bowl but the AFL still didn't have that much pull by the time it was said and done for that so it was settled on the fact of Changing the League Championships for each to Confernce and making the World Championship the NFL Championship ( Which is a major key fact the NFL won) and course controling the Mergered League which has to be even so 3 of the NFL teams had to join the AFL 10 to make the new AFC and it was not anyone picked Pete put the cash on the table and the first 3 owners that took it argeed to move . I don't know which teams but i am interesting to know were not alot to be in the cash dive ( meaning not allowed to move.) anyways point being AFL was 10 years old at the end the NFL was 50 at that point. The win goes to the American Football League4 .

[Gothamite]

I'm not sure I understood any of that.

[tBBP]

I'm not sure I understood any of that.

You ain't the only one.

[IceCap]

And remember: If it weren't for that AFL-NFL rivalry, there wouldn't be a Super Bowl.

Only the name was new - the NFL had been playing a championship game for decades before the Packers stomped the Chiefs on that day in Los Angeles.

And the AFL had it's own title game for years before the first Super Bowl. The SB wasn't an extension of the NFL, it was a completely new event; the champions of two, competing leagues going at it to determine which team was truly the best in football. The NFL needed the AFL to pull that off as much as the AFL needed the NFL.

FTR the NFL and AFL split the four Super Bowls where they competed as separate leagues down the middle. The NFL won two, and the AFL won two, including a NY Jets upset of the favoured NFL Baltimore Colts, and the KC Chiefs taking the NFL's Minnesota Vikings to the cleaners.

That's a really good idea, Icecap, but that C is a real bugbear.

What's goin on with that letter "C"???

Basically I just cut the "L" in the current NFL logo in half, and doubled up the bottom half. It does look a little weird, but it was the best way I could get a "C" in there that matched the font style the NFL uses.

[Gothamite]

True enough, and (as mentioned), had the Jets not beaten the Colts the merger would have been in jeopardy.

But the Super Bowl is the NFL's title game. Although the AFL and NFL were technically separate leagues when it began, it was part of the merger agreement. So they might have been "two competing leagues" but they weren't two independent leagues (as the National and American Leagues were when the World Series was begun).

[blueziggy]

True enough, and (as mentioned), had the Jets not beaten the Colts the merger would have been in jeopardy.

But the Super Bowl is the NFL's title game. Although the AFL and NFL were technically separate leagues when it began, it was part of the merger agreement. So they might have been "two competing leagues" but they weren't two independent leagues (as the National and American Leagues were when the World Series was begun).

actually that is not true. the first Super Bowl wasnt even called the Super Bowl and it was between the AFL Champions and the NFL Champions

from wikipedia:

The Super Bowl was first played on January 15, 1967 as part of an agreement between the NFL and its younger rival, the American Football League (AFL) in which each league's championship team would play each other in an "AFL-NFL World Championship Game". After the leagues merged in 1970, the Super Bowl became the NFL's championship game, played between the champions of the league's two conferences: the American Football Conference (AFC) and the National Football Conference (NFC).

the merger didnt take place till after Super Bowl IV with the 4 games pre-merger being split 2-2.

[IceCap]

True enough, and (as mentioned), had the Jets not beaten the Colts the merger would have been in jeopardy.

But the Super Bowl is the NFL's title game. Although the AFL and NFL were technically separate leagues when it began, it was part of the merger agreement. So they might have been "two competing leagues" but they weren't two independent leagues (as the National and American Leagues were when the World Series was begun).

It is now. When it began it was the game played by the NFL and AFL champs, after both had played in their respective league championship games.

The NFL Championship didn't become the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl eclipsed both it and the AFL Championship.

If anything the NFL Championship Game became the NFC Championship Game, and the AFL Championship Game became the AFC Championship Game.

the merger didnt take place till after Super Bowl IV with the 4 games pre-merger being split 2-2.

Yes, but the merger had been arranged for 1970 back around 1965-66 (if not earlier) before the first Super Bowl. The Super Bowl was started with the merger already having been worked out.