Because Super Bowl is the biggest sporting event of them all. World Series and NBA Finals don't come close.......
As much as I hate to do it, I agree with ATKOOL's basic premise, because I agree with little of what he has to say... Basic logic tells you that it is more difficult to beat 31 teams than it is to beat 10.. Regardless of where you decide to draw the line, your argument will be arbitrary, because all things are not equal. I draw it at the merger, because that seems to be the most equalizing place to do so.While I agree that it is certainly more difficult to beat 31 other teams than it is to beat the 13 other teams in the NFL in 1966, you connot diminsh the accomplishments of other teams simply because it doesn't fit into your personal agenda.
Actually, that's not the reason why they called it the Super Bowl.Actually, the name Super Bowl was coined by Lamar Hunt, naming it after a toy his kids had, which was a "Super Ball" For those of you who don't remember. a super ball was a red ball that was made of some kind of rubber that would bounce up to an ungodly height.
The game was created as part of a merger agreement between the NFL and its then-rival league, the American Football League (AFL). It was agreed that the two leagues' champion teams would play in an AFL–NFL World Championship Game until the merger was to officially begin in 1970. After the merger, each league was redesignated as a "conference", and the game was then played between the conference champions. Currently, the National Football Conference (NFC) leads the series with 25 wins to 22 wins for the American Football Conference (AFC).
The Super Bowl was officially used on the tickets for the first time in 1970 (Dallas-Baltimore)
Prior to that the official name was the AFL-NFL World Championship game.
Didn't read the whole thread (just page one) but I don't think you can discredit championships over superbowls, especially if you're using the number of teams argument. The superbowl era started in 67 and there were 25 teams back then. But in 1960, there were 21 teams. So do those championships get discredited because of four less teams? If you say yes, then you need to also discredit a LOT of superbowls and here's why.
The superbowl of 1994 was won in a year that featured 28 NFL teams. But in 2002, there were 32 teams. If you'll discredit the above mentioned championships because of a four team difference you definitely have to discredit superbowls with a four team difference right? Unless you have an agenda like Aktool does, you have to acknowledge no less than 7 championships if you're using the number of teams argument.
I'll await the hypocrites' responses on this, starting with the OP.
I don't know of these hypocrites of which you speak, but I took that into consideration years ago.
What else you got?
(Author's note: this was originally posted as a NFL Main Board thread on 10/7/09, but is being reposted here with the update of SB44)
THE DEFINITIVE CHAMPIONSHIP LIST
This is the definitive championship list. It was put together to for once and for all silence the whining about ancient championships against the Trojans and the Spartans and the Hitites, etc. It shows the state of the NFL and the value of winning the championship in the years that they occured. This value is calculated from the level of competing teams in the league as compared to the 32 team league today. It does not count AAC, or AFL Championships. Why? Because they are not the NFL. It does not count NFL "championships" from 1920-1932 because there was no game deciding the outcome, so they don't count. They are worth zero, and although the Giants, Packers and Bears fans may complain, no fans of the Akron Pros, Cleveland Bulldogs, Canton Bulldogs, Frankford Yellow Jackets, or Providence Steam Rollers are going to object. Why? Because obviously those teams like the championships from those years are utterly unimportant as they have no real value. So those just flat out don't count.
From 1933-1965 championships count at the fraction of competition they faced in their league that year compared to the current 32 team league level of competition. For example, there were 10 teams in the NFL in 1933, so that championship counts for 10/32 (0.313) of 1 championship. There were only 9 teams in'35 and '36 and only 8 teams in '43, so those would count for 0.281, 0.281 and 0.250 value respectively.
The Definitive Comprehensive Championship Equivalents List:
1 Steelers - 5.376
2 Packers - 4.690
3 Cowboys - 4.376
4 49ers - 4.375
5 Giants - 3.782
6 Redskins - 3.251
7 Patriots - 2.969
8 Bears - 2.815
9 Raiders - 2.625
10 Colts - 2.563
11 Broncos - 1.876
12 Rams - 1.657
13 Dolphins - 1.626
14 Browns - 1.594
15 Lions - 1.406
16 Eagles - 1.032
17 Saints - 1.000
17 Bucs - 1.000
19 Ravens - 0.969
20 Chiefs - 0.813 (tie)
20 Jets - 0.813 (tie)
22 Cards - 0.313
There, you now have been given Wisdom.
Immaterial, I stopped watching baseball in 1992 and I couldn't give a rats ass about it.That's too bad because I'm quite certain you could be another ubergeek that could explain to me in painstaking fashion why Mike Trout deserved the MVP over a guy who won the Triple Crown, possibly baseball's most unique accomplishment.
I know you are trying to block out a few years ago but if this formula is correct shouldn't the Packers get a +1 for beating the Steelers a few years ago which in turn would make them 5.69 which in turn changes
1 Steelers - 5.376
2 Packers - 4.690
1 Packers - 5.690
2 Steelers - 5.376
And Steelers fans have to find a new way, nice try I give you an A for effort
And I give you an "F" for reading comprehension as I also said this:
NAVY, this list was objective, Steeler SB victories were devalued in the same manner as all other franchises, PLUS, this list is extremely out of date, it was from 2/12/2012, I copied and pasted it to show the demonstration to the other posters objection to SB that were less than the full 32 team competative field. Additionally, the Steelers are no longer at the top of this list, the Packers are.