The New Math

[Off The Grid]

Curious what you think, Ladies & Laddies...

Has anyone come up with a Formula to compare the Value of Salary Cap Era Championships Versus Pre-Salary Cap Era Championships??

1 ~ How would one compare the Value of a 3rd Millennium Championship to, say, that of the Imperial Miners of the 1980's? Does 3 equal 5? Is it less? Is it more? Who's Dynasty is greater, at this point??

2 ~ And how does our Dynasty ~ so far ~ compare to the Steelers of the 70's? Is 3 greater than 4, under these Roster-stripping conditions...equal?? Less??

3 ~ And of course...How do we measure up ~ so far ~ versus the Packers of the 60's, winners of no less than 5 Championships, but against far fewer teams ~ the first 3 in particular ~ and before the Cap, of course??

Frankly, I don't care as much as most about listing #1, #2, #3, in any category, and am far more interested in discussing The Top Pantheon in this or that...But I'm interested in how y'all see this, from an historical Perspective.

 

[AzPatsFan]

OTG,

If you asked Bill Belichick, he would say you forgot the best dynasty of all. The 1946 through 1962 Cleveland Browns under Paul Brown who played for the Championship vitually every year, winning in both the AAFC, and the NFL. That dynasty under Paul Brown won 7 Championships, and an 8th under Blanton Collier.

The dynasty continued through 1973 before they fell to only .500. Thats a competitive run of 25 years, above .500!

 

[Ring 6]

OTG,

If you asked Bill Belichick, he would say you forgot the best dynasty of all. The 1946 through 1962 Cleveland Browns under Paul Brown who played for the Championship vitually every year, winning in both the AAFC, and the NFL.

The dynasty continued through 1968 before they fell to only .500.

weren't there like 6 teams in the entire league for many if those years?

 

[Off The Grid]

OTG,

If you asked Bill Belichick, he would say you forgot the best dynasty of all.

The 1946 through 1962 Cleveland Browns under Paul Brown who played for the Championship vitually every year, winning in both the AAFC, and the NFL.

The dynasty continued through 1968 before they fell to only .500.

He wouldn't say any such thing.

I've reverently referenced that Dynasty on several occasions.

In fact, I've started Threads, in these very Pages, with that Dynasty as a CenterPiece.

But the cold, hard fact is that their most impressive and indisputable Accomplishment is that they won 3 NFL Championships in 6 years:

What they did in the AAFC was amazing, especially combined with the 3 in 6 that immediately followed...But I didn't want to bog down the question with an Argument over how to put a Value on that phenomenal 10 Year Run.

If you actually have an Argument about which was the greater Dynasty, I'd love to see it.

 

[Off The Grid]

Hell, you could expand the Discussion to include the Bears of the 1940's, as I in fact have, previously: George Halas, Sid Luckman, and their boys won no less than 4 Championships in 7 years, including that EPIC Massacre of the Washington (formerly Boston!!) RedSkins in the 1940 Championship, 73-0!!!

I'm more than happy to expand the conversation, if that pleases ya...But I was actually hoping to solicit Arguments, not references to Dynasties that you imagined I've forgotten, despite my previous references to'm.

 

[patsfan13]

I saw the ending of the old era of the NFL (the 50's) and the transition to the modern era of the NFL (after SB3).

The game was very different then to win an NFL Championship you only had to win 1 playoff game (unless there was a tie for the confernece championship), there were 12 games to the season (6 exhibition games) and 2 conferences with 6 teams each conference (went to 7 teams per conference with 14 games when the Cowboys and Vikings came into the league in 60 & 61).

Winning a championship where there are 16 games + 3-4 playoff games is very different, of course with more playoff games there is more of a chance for a good teams to lose a game. With only 1 playoff game however there was a big premium on winning the conference title in the regular season. There were also ties at that time.


The regular season was tougher before the playoff expanded but there was only a championship game.

In 63 the Bears got into the championship game with an 11-1-2 record and the Packers were second with an 11-2-1 record. I imagine Lombardi wasn't too happy with that. The Giants were 11-3 and the Browns were 10-4. Think the reg season games between the conference leaders were a big deal?

 

[Off The Grid]

I saw the ending of the old era of the NFL (the 50's) and the transition to the modern era of the NFL (after SB3).

The game was very different then to win an NFL Championship you only had to win 1 playoff game (unless there was a tie for the confernece championship), there were 12 games to the season (6 exhibition games) and 2 conferences with 6 teams each conference (went to 7 teams per conference with 14 games when the Cowboys and Vikings came into the league in 60 & 61).

Winning a championship where there are 16 games + 3-4 playoff games is very different, of course with more playoff games there is more of a chance for a good teams to lose a game. With only 1 playoff game however there was a big premium on winning the conference title in the regular season. There were also ties at that time.


The regular season was tougher before the playoff expanded but there was only a championship game.

In 63 the Bears got into the championship game with an 11-1-2 record and the Packers were second with an 11-2-1 record. I imagine Lombardi wasn't too happy with that. The Giants were 11-3 and the Browns were 10-4. Think the reg season games between the conference leaders were a big deal?

Awesome stuff, Brother 13. Thanks. Takes me Back To The Day.

1 ~ The Math here is really daunting, which is why it intrigues me.

2 ~ I tend to think that if we could ever come up with a Graph, based on # of Teams in different Eras ~ 12 teams back then, as opposed to 32, today, for instance ~ it'd be more of a curve than a straight line.

3 ~ What I mean is: I don't propose that a Championship in this Era counts 2.666X that of the 12 Team Era, just because there's 32 now and 12, then...but you could certainly make that Argument!!

4 ~ And that's without figuring out how to Account for the Leveling Affect of the Salary Cap!!

 

[patsfan13]

Well Grid, I love threads like these. IF IF IF the BB/TBF gang wins SB #4 I have to think that this is the greatest feat in the history of the game.

When you are 1 of 32 teams, have to win 3 PO games instead of 1, salary cap designed to breakup teams with 'too much' talent getting to 7 Conference championships in 12 years (especially when your GOAT of misses 1 of those seasons) is something we may never see in our (certainly my) lifetime.

It may take 20 years for younger fans to fully realize what we are having the pleasure of watching. The only thing that has been comparable in my lifetime was the Russell Celtics, of course the challenges are far different, what they had in common was the greatest team players/leaders in the history of the respective sports.

When Brady wins #4 next month it will be hilarious to watch the media spin how Brady isn't the hands down GOAT already.