Official Super Bowl XLIV Thread

[IceCap]

Well they definitely aren't former NFL champs, I'm not saying that. Even saying they're former world champs is tricky, because they were competing against another league for all of their independent history. On that note though, could you can't consider the 1960-1970 NFL champs world champs because they were facing the AFL at the time. It's tricky.

So I would say the NFL champions prior to the AFL's emergence were also world champs, and neither league's champions were world champs during the years they were separate, and that from 1967-1970 the SB champion really outranked the champions of either independent league.

I think that "World Champs" is stupid regardless of the sport. They're the NFL champions (which is now synonymous with Super Bowl Champions), World Series Champions, NBA Champions, Stanley Cup Champions, etc. So I won't argue your world-then league-then back to world title statement, but I would contend the lineage of the NFL title rolls back only through the actual NFL, so the AFL titles would be separate league titles. It just so happened that for a few years, being the NFL champion didn't mean that you were the undisputed American professional football champion (or whatever designation you want to use there.)

Again, there are valid arguments on either side.

Very true. I guess if no other professionl league exists in a given sport, fine, but for the most part it is kind of silly.

Normally I would agree. Which is why I don't like MLB, NHL, or NBA teams using the title. There are leagues out there who's champions could give the champions of those leagues a run for their money.

With the NFL though, it's a different story. There is no other American football league out there that could go toe-to-toe with the NFL champions. And I say that as a CFL supporter. Simply put, the Super Bowl champions are the undisputed best team in American football in the world, so the term "world champions" doesn't bother me when used in that regard.

[Jigga]

Well they definitely aren't former NFL champs, I'm not saying that. Even saying they're former world champs is tricky, because they were competing against another league for all of their independent history. On that note though, could you can't consider the 1960-1970 NFL champs world champs because they were facing the AFL at the time. It's tricky.

So I would say the NFL champions prior to the AFL's emergence were also world champs, and neither league's champions were world champs during the years they were separate, and that from 1967-1970 the SB champion really outranked the champions of either independent league.

I think that "World Champs" is stupid regardless of the sport. They're the NFL champions (which is now synonymous with Super Bowl Champions), World Series Champions, NBA Champions, Stanley Cup Champions, etc. So I won't argue your world-then league-then back to world title statement, but I would contend the lineage of the NFL title rolls back only through the actual NFL, so the AFL titles would be separate league titles. It just so happened that for a few years, being the NFL champion didn't mean that you were the undisputed American professional football champion (or whatever designation you want to use there.)

Again, there are valid arguments on either side.

Very true. I guess if no other professionl league exists in a given sport, fine, but for the most part it is kind of silly.

Normally I would agree. Which is why I don't like MLB, NHL, or NBA teams using the title. There are leagues out there who's champions could give the champions of those leagues a run for their money.

With the NFL though, it's a different story. There is no other American football league out there that could go toe-to-toe with the NFL champions. And I say that as a CFL supporter. Simply put, the Super Bowl champions are the undisputed best team in American football in the world, so the term "world champions" doesn't bother me when used in that regard.

You really think so?

[IceCap]

Relative to the complete lack of leagues that could challenge the NFL? Yes. I'm not saying that the NBL is the equivalent of MLB, it clearly isn't. But its closer to MLB then any other league is close to the NFL.

[The_Admiral]

no

[Cujo]

one of my buddies posted this on my facebook wall

Way to keep things classy around here, Mac!

(C'mon man. Of all people, you should know better.)

[rams80]

Relative to the complete lack of leagues that could challenge the NFL? Yes. I'm not saying that the NBL is the equivalent of MLB, it clearly isn't. But its closer to MLB then any other league is close to the NFL.

"Close" is not the same as "could actually beat in a seven-game series".

The same applies to basketball and hockey. Their respective North American League champions are the world's club champions in those sports.

[The_Admiral]

I thought it was funny. I think players named Gay should always insert themselves into ambiguously homoerotic sport moments. Make it a running gag, kind of like Morganna The Kissing Bandit, only this is Mr. Gay The Elucidator Of Questionable Gaiety. To wit, read in your best baseball announcer voice:

"that ball hit hiiiigh and deep to left, this one might go and it does, a three-run homer! And they take a two-run lead! And they are celebrating at home plate [read: ass-slapping] after that one, and rightfully so, and heeeere comes Mr. Gay! He's on the field, and folks, this'll take a moment..."