Conference 7.286::sports_91

    Anything in sports over 5 years is ancient history, because of the
    turnover in personnel and the rapid changes in the games over the
    years.
    
    This won't cause me to revise my study, but I've come to the conclusion
    that a championship 50 years ago is worth as much as a championship
    now.  I say this because there are just as many arguments in favor of
    it being more difficult now as there are in favor of it being more
    difficult then.  If I were to do the NCAA study over again (which I'm
    not), I would set all championships equal at 64 points, all title game
    losses equal at 32 points and so forth.  I doubt it would change things
    all that much, but it would raise the value of the early titles more
    than they were in the original study.
    
    Jake, these are serious questions, and I'm not trying to bash you:  Are
    you devaluing the pre-Super Bowl championships because they involve the
    Browns or because you sincerely believe that the modern championships
    are worth more than the early ones?  If you value the modern titles
    more, then what are your reasons?  If you value the modern titles more,
    do you value the San Francisco titles of the eighties more than the
    Pittsburgh titles of the seventies?
    
    John

Personally, I tend to favor all of the Championships equally.

For a team to be the best in whatever league they are in is quite
an accomplishment.  Obviously, you could make some arguments in the
other direction however.

One such argument could be that winning a championship in the year
following an expansion is "worth more", because typically expansion
means that you have to make some of your players unprotected, to
be "drafted" by the expansion clubs.  Now, does that impact you
more than normal attrition?  Possibly.

Another argument could be that, in the case of today's Super Bowl,
all of the hype has a tremendous pyschological effect on players that
wasn't there 25 years ago.  I remember one of the Packers saying that
Super Bowl I seemed like just another game, despite the hype.

Could a Super Bowl seem more "important" than the regular old NFL
Championship game?


Like I said, to me they're all equal....
'Saw

    
    It's certainly more difficult to win a championship in an age of
    increased league membership and to a lesser extent, scheduling and
    draft parity.  For example, I don't think you can equate a Stanley 
    Cup victory in the days of the six-team NHL (which wasn't that long 
    ago) with one now.  Makes sense, doesn't it?
    
    glenn
     

    Teams generally would need more depth now than they did in the past. In
    football, there was a single championship game between the east & west.
    Now, teams have to win at least 3 and possibly 4 playoff games. That's
    a lot of intensity to keep up. 
    
    In the 6 team NHL, if you won 2 playoff series, you were the champs. 
    Now it takes 2 just to get out of the division, and another 2 to win 
    the Cup. Basketball is a similar situation. The most greuling thing about
    the hockey setup is that there are games every other night, and the
    only time you'd get to rest is if you won a series in 4 or 5 games.
    Also, seeing the same team (especially one from your division that
    you've already played 8 times) for up to 7 games in a row can be
    physically tougher as well. 
    
    Tom

 There are a large number of incredibly diverse issues that make the debate
 over the worth of a championship especially lively.
    
 At first glance, it might seem safe to equate, let's say, the 1914
 "Miracle Braves" World Series sweep victory with the 1990 whitewash
 triumph of the underdog Cincinnati Reds.  They both beat the A's, for
 example.
 
 However, the 1914 Boston Braves played when the longest road trip was by
 train to St. Louis, when minority players were barred from the game
 entirely, before night baseball was even dreamed of, and before the
 importance of the relief pitcher was truly understood.
 
 All of which goes to prove nothing.
 
 Bob Hunt

    
    All games should be rated equally!  
    
    Notice, Jake had no responce.............
    
    	Jake is a fake!
    
    
    	Awwwwooooooo!
    

    re-.1
    No response cause I'm in training and don't have unlimited access to
    this notesfile at all times, plus slow response times.
    
    Re John Hendry.  Actually, I think that winning any kind of
    championship in a league of any sort is an accomplishment the winning
    team should be proud of.  It's just that I LOVE to bash Clevescum and
    their championships in a former lifetime sort of screw up that ability,
    ya know what I mean????
    
    JaKe
    

    Ok Ok, if you all think that a championship is a championship then
    you all recognize the accomplishments and championships that Warren
    Moon one in the CFL (Canadian Football League right).  So just who
    is the best QB in the NFL ?
    								MaB

Joe Montana.

Championships have nothing to do with being a great QB.  There are
many QBs on the roll who were good that don't have a championship
ring on their finger, just as there are many baseball players
who were great without a Series ring on their finger.  (Ted Williams
comes to mind, Hank Aaron would be another...)

'Saw

> comes to mind, Hank Aaron would be another...)
    
    Aaron's got one with the 1957 Braves...
    
    If you look at the question logically it doesn't matter a bit how long
    the road trips were, how much mud and muck and neck-high snowdrifts
    those tough guys in the old days had to play through, because the
    conditions were the same for everyone.  There's an amazing statistic
    that spans all sports in all eras (well, almost all): exactly one 
    team has won a championship in each and every year for each sport.
    No more, no less.  It's not like things were so tough in the old days
    or in modern times that they just decided not to declare a champion
    ("Things were so bad in the dust-bowl 1930's that we didn't have no
    NFL champion... and we LIKED it!").
    
    glenn
     

    The argument about more teams maiking the playoffs and having longer
    playoffs to go through can be countered by saying, at least in
    football, that it was tougher to make the playoffs in the old days. 
    When there was only 1 round of playoffs, 2/12, or 16.7% of the teams
    made it.  Now, 12/28, or 42.5% or so, make the playoffs.
    
    Since there are so many arguments and counter-arguments, it makes more
    sense to make all championships equal, unless by not doing so, you can
    bash Cleveland :-)
    
    John

You know, I had a feeling I was wrong about Aaron, but my 
Baseball Encyclopedia is at home (I really should bring it to the office)
and I had to basically guess....

Boy, the 'Saw is really screwing up these days....8^)

'Saw

PS  Back when the Browns were winning all those Champeenships, they
    were a team to be reckoned with.  Just because it's been a long
    time doesn't lessen the fact that they were King of the Hill
    during those years.....

    Sheez John, just when I get on a good roll, you go and bring up
    statistics and screw my whole argument up.
    
    JaKe
    

    
    Playoffs are also irrelevant.  It doesn't matter how many teams make
    them or don't because there's still only one champion (playoff systems 
    may make it tougher or easier to win consecutive championships, but 
    that's another story).  John, do you agree that it's tougher for a 
    single team to win a championship in a league where the talent is 
    spread over 28 teams versus 12 teams?
    
    The growth in the leagues in all sports goes a long way towards
    explaining the increased difficulty in establishing a dynasty.  It
    makes what the 49'ers have accomplished, for example, all that more 
    impressive.  If you don't accept that it's tougher for a single
    team to win a championship in a larger league, then it follows as a
    necessary consequence that the greatest teams, the ones who won the
    most championships, have already been established, and will probably
    never be matched.  I don't buy into that assumption...
    
    glenn
                        

    It's funny how basketball, football, and hockey has been mentioned, but
    NOBODY wants to touch basketball.
    
    You know why ?
    
    Because if the premise that John Hendry advances is true, then the
    Celtics won devalued championships.
    
    RIGHT ?
    
    They played in a 8-team NBA, with two playoff rounds and a lower brand
    of officiating.
    
    Plain and simple the 1980's Lakers are the true dynasty of dynasties !
    
    Thank you,
    
    Doc

    Champion - 1) warrior, fighter 2) a militant advocate or defender 3)
    one that does battle for another's rights or honor 4) a winner of first
    prize or first place in competition, one who shows marked superiority.
    
    To me this describes those Pirates, Steelers, Pitt, Penn State, and Ohio
    University teams that won championships while I was around to be one of
    their fans.  I value these and no one can take away how special they
    were at that given, respective time.  They were and still are my
    champions and I will tell my children and grandchildren about them. 
    There is no comparison to make.  They were the greatest at that moment
    and that's all that matters in my sports-loving heart.
    
    	--dan'l

    > I value these and no one can take away how special they
    > were at that given, respective time.  They were and still are my
    > champions and I will tell my children and grandchildren about them. 
    > There is no comparison to make.  They were the greatest at that moment
    > and that's all that matters in my sports-loving heart.
      
    Exackly, dan'l, which heeds back to my original point.  What matters
    most is that *you* were there, and *you* experienced them.  Everything
    else is cold, hard, analytical derivations from results of the long-
    forgotten past, which shouldn't even be brought into silly, emotional, 
    childish, my-team-is-better-than-yours CAM::SPORTS arguments...
    
    glenn
     

    re .8
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    Let me get this straight, Warren Moon the best QB.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    And no, CFL championships mean nothing - only thing less impressive
    would be a USFL championship.  Heck, Bobby Douglas would be a great QB
    playing that wimpy offense the Oilers play.  IF you chuck the ball
    every down, your bound to have lots of dastistics.  Moon is a good QB,
    and a good citizen, but he's clearly not the best.  Thanks for the
    laugh.  You must be related to the DOc.
    
    JD

Okay, then. It's settled... right?

All championships are created equal. They triumphed over the competition
of the day. They were the best at that time. So they get the credit.
Except, of course, for any so-called championships that a Cleveland team
might have won in some long ago time. Let's be serious.

This seems the only fair way to handle the matter. I suppose the Cleveland
fans will start whining, but then, what's new, hey?

Mike JN

    Jake, I suppose you can call me a party-pooper, but that's what I'm
    here for.  :-)
    
    Doc, the premise I put forth states that all championships should be
    considered equal, so that doesn't devalue the Celtics at all.  If it
    does, then it has to equally devalue the Yankees, and we all know Dan
    will never buy that.  :-)
    
    Glenn, the odds of one team out of 28 winning the title are greater
    than the odds of one team out of 12 winning the title, I will agree
    with that.  However, on the other side of the argument, you can just as
    easily say that with only 2 teams making the playoffs as compared to 12
    teams making the playoffs, and if you accept the fact that a team has
    to make the playoffs in order to compete for the title, then you have
    to ask which is worth more - a title where you had a tougher chance to
    make the playoffs but an easier road once you got there, or a title
    where making it to the playoffs is easier but making it through the
    playoffs is harder.
    
    In a debate like this, just like in the Russell vs Chamberlain debate,
    a person tends to use whichever facts supports his/her side. In fact,
    Celtics fans will tend to support Russell over Chamberlain because of
    the titles but support Bird over Magic because Magic played with a
    better team and so on.  That's using opposite sides of the same
    argument to support two different positions where I believe they should
    be consistent - if they're going to call Russell a better player than
    Wilt because of the titles, then Magic is a better player than Bird for
    the same reason.  Or, if they consider Bird to be a better player than
    Magic then they must also consider Wilt to be better than Russell.  Or,
    if they want to call the Celtics the greatest dynasty in basketball
    then they must also accept the fact that two of Boston's bitterest
    rivals in other sports, namely, the Yankees and Canadiens, are the
    greatest dynasty in other sports and the same arguments used to tear
    down the Yanks and Habs must also be equally applied to the Celtics.
    
    That's OK, but it's not the kind of debate I really enjoy because there
    is no absolute answer.  (I suppose that sounds kind of hypocritical since
    I'm the one who brought up the entire history of the Browns to prove a
    point and bust Jake's chops, and if it is hypocritical, then fine)  I
    actually agree more with Dan Medvid's last reply, and I'll leave it at
    that.
    
    John

    re .18
    
    Has anyone seen JD, Schneider, and whitehair together at the same 
    time ?
    
    so JD, tell me is Moon better Phil Hosterler ?
    
    heh heh heh 
    

    
    Face it, a championship is a championship is a championship.  The team
    winning the championship is the BEST team in the league.   Several 
    points are to be made.
    
    1)  Just because a championship in 1950 is just a important or
    meaningful as a championship in 1990 is in a give league (take the 
    NFL for example), does not imply that a championship team in some
    other league of the same sport (example: Football - CFL, USFL) is
    as good, better or worse than the championship team in the other
    league.  Unless of course, the two leagues participate in a single
    championship.
    
    2)  ALL CHAMPIONSHIPS revert back to the teams origin.  Example:
    All lakers championships are property of Minneapolis, all Raiders
    championships are property of Oakland, all Dodgers championships
    are property of Brooklyn, and all Rams championships are property
    of Cleveland.  IS LA THE ONLY CITY THAT CAN"T BUILD A TEAM FROM
    GROUND?  No teams of origin from LA?
    
    3)  A team winning the championship can be considered to be the
    best team in the league ONLY at the end of the season if the 
    playoffs are heavily diluted and all teams get to play each other
    several times during the regular season.  Example:  Hockey.  The
    team that wins the championship can claim only to be the best team
    at the end of the season unless they also happen to have one of the
    top 2 or 3 records for the regular season.  This is because most
    of the teams make the playoffs and all teams play each other during
    the regular season.  The NFL is getting diluted, but since all teams
    do not play each other during the regular season, there can be a
    debate made about strength of schedule and so forth...
    
    In other words... the Browns reign in the 50's is TRUELY AWESOME!

>================================================================================
>Note 100.19             Championships - Past vs. Present                19 of 23
>QUASER::JOHNSTON "LegitimateSportingPurpose?E.S.A.D" 11 lines  12-FEB-1991 10:56
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This seems the only fair way to handle the matter. I suppose the Cleveland
>fans will start whining, but then, what's new, hey?

    Mike gets prophet of the day award!  Of course that wasn't too hard to
    predict.
    
>    In other words... the Browns reign in the 50's is TRUELY AWESOME!
    
    RE: .22
    
>Does Roger Bannisters sub-4 mile pale in comparison to the mile
>times today?  No, it doesn't because it's one of the most intense
>athletic achievements of all time....    

    Good point, Frank.  When I swam in college I consistently posted times
    faster than a few of Mark Spitz' gold medal 1972 times.  I wasn't even
    close to Olympic status.  Does this taint Spitz's accomplishment.  Not
    in the least.
    
    	--dan'l
    
    
    

    IF a USFL championship is not as important or as much of an
    accomplishment as winning the NFL, then why is the AFL any better.
    The afl was supposidly the sub par league to the NFL in the 50's
    and today the USFL is the sub par league to the NFL, the real big
    difference is money.  The USFL championships today should be considered
    as were the AFL championships before the merge.  As far as dynasties
    Id say dynasties of early football cant be compared to, now adays all
    you have to do is lay out the money for the best QB's, recievers and
    Running backs and your odds have increased imensily.  If they had a
    salary cap and a team paying out the same $$$ as everyone else wins
    4 champoinships in 5 yrs then Ill call them a dynasty.  In the NBA
    I still consider the Celtics they best dynasty in history of the NBA
    but not of the 80's.  They had complete domination in all aspects.
    hands down....
    
    Best Basketball team of all time:		Celtics
    Best football team of all time:		Pitt or GB (toss up)
    Best Hockey team of all time:		Habs
         Baseball				Yanks...
    
    The hole is growing...quick jump while the jumpings good

Mike B

	You forgot the best Sports City of all time (this includes every
city from the time of the Etruscans on... before that doesn't count).

And the winner is:


Yes, it's unanimous!



                         C H I C A G O !!!!!!

Mike JN

    Does this mean that the city of Chicago has won more championships
    with all there teams combined then any other city ????????? Im not
    exactly sure what your saying, but while Im asking if chicago is not
    the city with the most championship then what city does own the most
    championships, 
    
    Boston Celtics+Bruins+Redsoxs+Pats
    Chicago Bulls+Blackhawks+cubs+bears
    
    I know some states have multiple teams so they have to go by the city
    to which they are host to.

    How bout New York?
    
    Yankees-Mets_Jets_Nets_Rangers_Giants_Knicks_Islanders???
    
    
    
    
              JD

    It's got to be Chicago because of the enthusiasm and on-going loyalty
    of her fans -- even when the teams are scraping the bottom of the
    barrel!  :-)
    
    I think you had to be at a sold-out Wrigley Field, for a weekday
    game, in the late '60's/early '70's to truly understand the phenomena.
    The team was awful, they hadn't come close to a pennant in forever
    (since then they've come close -- it's not my same old Cubbies)
    and they enjoyed fan support like the Red Sox can only dream
    about......
    
    A&W

    Yes, let's keep this in perspective.  If someone is going to compute
    this (and I don't think it will happen today), you have to figure out
    the number of teams a city has...pro and college...and which colleges
    count (for instance, do you count Carnegie Tech, Division III, as a
    Pittsburgh team;  UConn as a Hartford team though it's not in Hartford,
    etc.).
    
    My best advice is to drop this before we get into a Dean vs. Bobby type
    of bigtime, unanswerable rathole.
    
    	--dan'l

    What Dan'l said earlier brings up an important point about the romance
    and memories of sports being buried by the commercialization and
    proliferation of information.  It's very true what he said about the
    championships being important to him and no amount of proof about them
    being more important or less important mattering.  I think that's what
    happens with an overuse of sports data and stats as well.  There has to
    be a happy medium between the importance of new knowledge about the
    sports we follow vs the ruining of what's being measured due to too
    much factual information.  I like knowing more about what a true
    winning strategy is, how much the stolen base contributes to winning,
    seeing new ways of measuring performance and learning more about the
    sports we watch yet at the same time I bemoan the growing
    impersonalization that this leads to.
    
    Where the people who are too much into numbers fail to realize is that
    there are real flesh and blood people behind the making of the numbers,
    there are happy memories and there are great experiences being lost by
    applying a 100% data-based analysis of what's going in.  In some ways,
    I suppose I'm as guilty of that as anybody.
    
    The growth of fantasy leagues contributes to this as well.  This is not
    to say that fantasy leagues are all bad (though I don't like them) but
    I think the growth of these leagues has created a demand for more and
    more information to the point where's there's almost too much info. 
    Further, fantasy leagues reduce the players to their raw numbers
    instead of realizing that there's more to an athlete instead of his
    numbers.  This in turn I think has contributed (though it's not the
    only reason) for the selfishness of the modern athlete in playing for
    his stats instead of playing for the team.
    
    I'm not sure which came first - the information being available giving
    folks the idea to "invent" fantasy sports or the existence of fantasy
    sports fueling the demand for more information.  I don't think fantasy
    leagues are the entire impetus behind the growth in sports information.
    
    Consider collectibles as well.  What was once a fun childhood hobby,
    baseball cards and autographs, is now a major industry and it's not as
    much fun as it once was.
    
    I don't know where the right answer is, but it's somewhere in the
    middle.  But, in the interests of settling arguments, the next note
    includes all-time titles by city, so anyone who wants to go through and
    add them up by city can be my guest.
    
    John

    
    Best football team of all-time = GB?  HA HA HA!  The same team that
    lost the NFL Championship in '64 to the Browns... that team.  The
    team that won 2 Super Bowls and not much else....  

Here is a list, as close as I can figure it out, of titles by city by year.  It
includes winners and losers in almost all cases, one gross exception is the WHA.
I used the same convention in the titles by city reply - MLB, NFL, AFL, AAFC, 
NBA, ABA, NHL and CFL.  I took one liberty and switched the sports calendar to
run from February 1 - January 31.  I do this because the NFL considers Washing-
ton to be the 1987 champion and not the 1988 champion.  Further, there is a 
point in history where the NFL title game was played in the same calendar year
as the season.  If you make football go strictly by the calendar year, there'd
be a point back in history where there may be no champion for a given year and/
or two champions in a given year.  So, I kept it consistent.  

The most recent time 2 cities in the same year won a title was 1987, when the
Edmonton Oilers won the Stanley Cup and the Edmonton Eskimos won the Grey Cup.
Prior to that, the most recent was 1986, with the Giants winning the 1986 NFL
title and the Mets winning the 1986 World Series (of course, we all know that
1986 should have been the Red Sox and Celtics, but I won't argue that point).

Anyway, I hope this helps settle the winners and losers arguments.  You all can
note for yourselves the multiple winners and losers from the same city in the
same year.

				John

Note:  In each column, the winner is the left hand team, the loser is the
right hand team.

Year	NHL/WHA		Baseball	CFL	NFL/AFL		NBA/ABA
						AAFC

1990	Edm-Bos		Cin-Oak		Win	NYG-Buf		Det-Por
1989	Cal-Mtl		Oak-SF		???	SF-Den		Det-LA
1988	Edm-Bos		LA-Oak		???	SF-Cin		LA-Det
1987	Edm-Phi		Minn-Stl	Edm	Wash-Den	LA-Bos
1986	Mtl-Cal		NY-Bos		Ham	NYG-Den		Bos-Hou
1985	Edm-Phi		KC-Stl		Van	Chi-NE		LA-Bos
1984	Edm-NY		Det-SD		Win	SF-Mia		Bos-LA
1983	NY-Edm		Bal-Phi		Tor	LA-Wash		Phi-LA
1982	NY-Van		Stl-Mil		Edm	Wash-Mia	LA-Phi
1981	NY-Minn		LA-NY		Edm	SF-Cin		Bos-Hou
1980	NY-Phi		Phi-KC		Edm	Oak-Phi		LA-Phi
1979	Mtl-NY  Win-	Pit-Bal		Edm	Pitt-LA		Sea-Wash
1978	Mtl-Bos	Win-	NY-LA		Edm	Pitt-Dal	Wash-Sea
1977	Mtl-Bos	Que-	NY-LA		Mtl	Dal-Den		Port-Phi
1976	Mtl-Phi	Win-	Cin-NY		Ott	Oak-Min		Bos-Phoe NY-Den
1975	Phi-Buf	Hou-	Cin-Bos		Edm	Pitt-Dal	GS-Wash  KY-Ind
1974	Phi-Bos	Hou-	Oak-LA		Mtl	Pitt-Min	Bos-Mil  NY-Utah
1973	Mtl-Chi NE-Win	Oak-NY		Ott	Mia-Minn	NY-LA    Ind-KY
1972	Bos-NY		Oak-Cin		Ham	Mia-Wash	LA-NY    Ind-NY
1971	Mtl-Chi		Pit-Bal		Cal	Dal-Mia		Mil-Bal  Utah-KY
1970	Bos-Stl		Bal-Cin		Mtl	Bal-Dal		NY-LA    Ind-LA
1969	Mtl-Stl		NY-Bal		Ott	KC-Minn		Bos-LA   Oak-Ind
1968	Mtl-Stl		Det-Stl		Ott	NY-Bal		Bos-LA   Pit-NO
1967	Tor-Mtl		Stl-Bos		Ham	GB-Oak		Phi-SF
1966	Mtl-Det		Bal-LA		Reg	GB-KC		Bos-LA
1965	Mtl-Chi		LA-Minn		Ham	GB-Cle  Buf-SD	Bos-LA
1964	Tor-Det		Stl-NY		Van	Cle-Dal Buf-SD	Bos-SF
1963	Tor-Det		LA-NY		Ham	Chi-NY  SD-Bos	Bos-LA
1962	Tor-Chi		NY-SF		Win	GB-NY  Dal-Hou	Bos-LA
1961	Chi-Det		NY-Cin		Win	GB-NY Hou-SD	Bos-Stl
1960	Mtl-Tor		Pit-NY		Ott	Phi-GB Hou-LA	Bos-Stl
1959	Mtl-Tor		LA-Chi		Win	Bal-NY		Bos-Min
1958	Mtl-Bos		NY-Mil		Win	Bal-NY		Stl-Bos
1957	Mtl-Bos		Mil-NY		Ham	Det-Cle		Bos-Stl
1956	Mtl-Det		NY-Bklyn	Edm	NY-Chi		Phi-Ft Wayne
1955	Det-Mtl		Bklyn-NY	Edm	Cle-LA		Syr-Ft Wayne
1954	Det-Mtl		NY-Cle		Edm	Cle-Det		Min-Syr
1953	Mtl-Bos		NY-Bklyn	Ham	Det-Cle		Min-NY
1952	Det-Mtl		NY-Bklyn	Tor	Det-Cle		Min-NY
1951	Tor-Mtl		NY(A)-NY(N)	Ott	LA-Cle		Roch-NY
1950	Det-NY		NY(A)-Phi(N)	Tor	Cle-LA		Min-Syr
1949	Tor-Det		NY-Bklyn	Mtl	Phi-LA Cle-SF	Min-Wash
1948	Tor-Det		Cle-Bos		Cal	Phi-Chi(C) Cle-Buf  Bal-Phi
1947	Tor-Mtl		NY-Bklyn	Tor	Chi(C)-Phi Cle-NY   Phi-Chi
1946	Mtl-Bos		Stl(N)-Bos(A)	Tor	Chi-NY Cle-NY
1945	Tor-Det		Det-Chi		Tor	Cle Rams - Wash
1944	Mtl-Chi		Stl(N)-Stl(A)	Mtl	GB-NY
1943	Det-Bos		NY(A)-Stl(N)	Ham	Chi-Wash
1942	Tor-Det		Stl(N)-NY(A)	Tor	Wash-Chi
1941	Bos-Det		NY-Bklyn	Win	Chi-NY
1940	NY-Tor		Cin-Det		Ott	Chi-Wash
1939	Bos-Tor		NY-Cin		Win	GB-NY
1938	Chi-Tor		NY(A)-Chi(N)	Tor	NY-GB
1937	Det-NY		NY(A)-NY(N)	Tor	Wash-Chi
1936	Det-Tor		NY(A)-NY(N)		GB-Bos
1935	Mtl(M)-Tor	Det-Chi		Win	Det-NY
1934	Chi-Det		Stl-Det			NY-Chi
1933	NY-Tor		NY-Wash		Tor	Chi-NY
1932	Tor-NY		NY(A)-Chi(N)	Ham	Chicago
1931	Mtl-Chi		Stl(N)-Phi(A)	Mtl	Green Bay
1930	Mtl-Bos		Phi(A)-Stl(N)		Green Bay
1929	Bos-NY		Phi(A)-Chi(N)	Ham	Green Bay
1928	NY-Mtl		NY(A)-Stl(N)	Ham	Providence Steam Rollers
1927	Ott-Bos		NY-Pit			New York 
1926	Mtl(M)-Ott	Stl(N)-NY(A)	Ott	Frankford Yellow Jackets
1925	Vic-Mtl		Pit-Wash	Ott	Chicago Cards
1924	Mtl(C)-Cal	Wash-NY			Cleveland Bulldogs
1923	Ottawa		NY(A)-NY(N)		Canton Bulldogs
1922	Toronto		NY(N)-NY(A)		Canton Bulldogs
1921	Ottawa		NY(N)-NY(A)	Tor	Chicago Bears
1920	Ottawa		Cle-Bklyn		Akron Pros
1919	NONE		Cin-Chi
1918	Toronto		Bos(A)-Chi(N)
1917	Seattle		Chi(A)-NY(N)
1916	Mtl(C)		Bos-Bklyn
1915	Vancouver	Bos(A)-Phi(N)	Ham
1914	Toronto		Bos(N)-Phi(A)
1913	Quebec		Phi(A)-NY(N)	Ham
1912	Quebec		Bos(A)-NY(N)	Ham
1911	Ottawa		Phi(A)-NY(N)
1910	Montreal?	Phi(A)-Chi(N)
1909	Ottawa		Pit-Det
1908	Montreal?	Chi-Det	
1907	Montreal?	Chi-Det	
1906	Montreal?	Chi(A)-Chi(N)	
1905	Ottawa		NY(A)-Phi(N)
1904	Ottawa		NONE
1903	Ottawa		Bos-Pit
1902	Montreal?
1901	Winnipeg
1900	Montreal?
1899	Montreal?
1898	Montreal?
1897	Montreal?
1896	Winnipeg
1895	Montreal?
1894	Montreal?

Notes:  Every Montreal winner after 1935 is the Canadiens.  Mtl(M) is the now
defunct Maroons, Mtl(C) is the Canadiens, Montreal? is an unknown Montreal
franchise.  Victoria is Victoria, British Columbia.  Seattle is the Seattle
Metropolitans, the first American Stanley Cup winner.

In the baseball column, (A) in parens means American League, (N) in parens means
National League.

In football, I'm missing several Grey Cup winners.  These are either defunct
teams or teams such as the University of Toronto that competed for the Grey Cup.
In the NFL area, Chi(C) is Chicago Cardinals (the current Phoenix Cardinals) and
all other Chicago titles have been won by the Bears.  Cleveland is the Browns
except for 1945 (the Rams) and 1923 (the former Canton Bulldogs).  A Cleveland
team played for a league title for 11 consecutive years (1945-1955) and the
Browns played in its league title game for 10 straight years.  The Browns also
won 5 straight titles.
    

    Green Bay has won 11 NFL titles:  1929-31, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961,
    1962. 1965, 1966 and 1967, so they've won far more than just 2 Super
    Bowls.  In addition, they didn't lose the NFL Championship to Cleveland
    in 1964, Baltimore did.
    
    You're welcome,
    
    John

    How much do you want to bet?
    
    The 1964 NFL title was won by Cleveland, 27-0 over Baltimore, in one of
    the major upsets in NFL title history.  The 1965 NFL title, which was
    the last pre-Super Bowl NFL title, was won by Green Bay, 23-12, over
    Cleveland, in the Browns' last appearance in an NFL title game.  Green
    Bay made the title game after their controversial overtime win over
    Baltimore in which Jim Tunney ruled a late Packer field goal good when
    it didn't appear to be.  This led to the lengthening of the uprights. 
    The 1965 title game was played on a wet day and a very muddy field in
    Green Bay and it was Jim Brown's last game, if I'm not mistaken.  
    
    The 1964 title game was highlighted by 3 Frank Ryan to Gary Collins TD
    passes as well.
    
    John

I remember reading in the paper last year or two years ago (two year ago
I think) that it was the first year since the 50s that a Boston team
did not win a championship.

Obviously, the Celtics string of championships carried that, and figured
in there were several divisional championships and pennants for the Sox.

It was an interesting article, which covered a three page spread in the
Sunday Sports section...

Thanks John, for listing the Packers achievements.  I knew it was 11, 
but I didn't know when and wasn't sure I could do the reply justice.

The Packers also had the greatest coach of all time, Vince Lombardi...

'Saw

    re .35
    
    Moreover John and Paul, the Pack beat the Browns for the 1965 NFL title
    23-12 ... the last of the pre-Super Bowl NFL championship games ...

>The Packers also had the greatest coach of all time, Vince Lombardi...
    
    I bet he was cool depending on the month.  I'm sure the coaches in
    Minnesotta and Buffalo were also.
    
    John, what about MISL, minor league baseball, indoor football, etc.?
    I warned ya'll not to get into this.  Someone is always going to find
    something to boost and alter a city's placement.
    
    Let it rest, good buddies.
    
    	--dan'l

    Just a few serious words about the basenote :
    
    Usually, trying to compare dynasties in a given sport is futile. The
    variables involved such as time, the physical difference in players, 
    styles, ect, that it tends to make a comparison impossible. 
    
    But that is what's so unique about a possible Steeler-Niner Dream Bowl.
    The Steeler's of the 70's could have easily played in the 80's or 90's.
    
    However, there is one big difference between the Niners dynasty, and
    almost every other one before it. Something that only Landry (to a
    limited extent) had been able to do successfully.
    
    And that is continue to win championships with *different* key personnel.
    
    Lombardi's teams featured Starr, Taylor, Wood, Nitchske, Adderly, Pitts,
    Jordan, Davis, Wood, et al with very few changes as time went on. 
    
    Hence, when key players got old, the dynasty began to crumble, and
    fast. Lombardi certainly knew this, and retired on top (only to come
    back after a year to turn the Redskins around).
    
    Ditto with the Steelers. Greene, Bradshaw, Swann, Stallworth, Lambert,
    Ham, Shell, Webster, Bleir ... the same faces. And when they got old,
    the Steelers slipped into mediocrity.
    
    Now look at the Niners. In 1981, their SB backfield was Lenvil
    Elliott and Paul Hofer(sp), that changed to Craig and Tyler, then Craig
    and Rathman. The wideouts went from Clark and Solomon to Rice and
    Taylor. Fred Dean, Louie Keltcher, and Board changed to Burt, Haley,
    and Micheal Carter. Williamson and Harris were replaced. 
    
    The only constants (and big ones) are Montana and Lott. And had the
    Niners held on in the AFC title game, we would have seen Steve Young at
    QB.
    
    That has to be considered one of the most remarkable achievements in
    NFL (any dynasty) history.
    
    Yet, I could see a great game between the two teams. The Steel Curtain
    of the mid-70's was probably the most dominating defensein NFL history.
    Yet I believe that the Niners (of the mid and late 80's) would have found 
    ways to score. The 1975-76 Steelers were too limited on offense to have
    done much against the very underrated defense of the Niners. 
    
    Now if you match the 79-80 Steelers against the Niners, you'd have an
    even better game IMO.
    
    Doc

>    Now look at the Niners. In 1981, their SB backfield was Lenvil
>    Elliott and Paul Hofer(sp), 
    
    And don't forget Walt Easly.
    
    

    The Pack'feat of 5 titles in 7 years is pretty awsome accomplishment
    and pretty much establishes them as the "team of the '60's", while the
    Steelers were the team of the '70's, and the 49ers were it for the
    80's.  God only knows who will be the team of the '90's, who knows,
    with a little help it could even be the Patsies. (pondering what I just
    wrote)
    please hold on a little longer
    
    NAH, I highly doubt it.
    
    JaKe
    

       <<< Note 100.42 by CELTIK::JACOB "Teenage Moody Nugent Turtles" >>>
                                                       ^^^^^^

The Motor City Madman!

AS A DASTISTISHUN THE NINJA IZ TOO BLA'M!!!!

MIKE JN

    When I asked about most championships in a city I was refering to
    the big 4, being NBA,NHL,NFL(+afl) and lastly baseball....As far as
    NY goes, they have multiply teams under one city NY everything, I
    guess you would have to take the 1st team of each sport in each
    city, this also gets affected by teams moving, I was just curious if
    one city has dominated high above the rest (I would guess NY).  Did
    we have the Pats in the suberbowl, Bruins in the Cup, Redsox in the
    series and Celtics in the Finals all in 85 ????

    Nope.  The Red Sox did not win the division in 1985 and the Bruins were
    bounced out of the first round of the playoffs in 1985.  The Patriots
    were in the Super Bowl for the 1985 season (even though the game was in
    1986 but the game was still for the 1985 season champion) and the
    Celtics were in the NBA Finals.  For the 1986 season, the Celtics were
    in the finals and the Red Sox were in the World Series.  The Bruins
    were also bounced out of the playoffs early and the Patriots won the
    division, losing to Denver in the first round of playoffs.
    
    John

re .-1:

/Don hoists Doc on his own petard!

    What's that?  Doc petarded?

    
    > What's that?  Doc petarded?
    
    From Digital standard-issue American Heritage Dictionary (no lie!):
    
    pe-tard ...--idiom. hoist with (or by) (one's) own petard.  Harmed by
    one's own cleverness. [< Lat. pedere, to break wind]
    
    glenn
    

    Team championships are Team championships, new or old.  There are
    certainly times when the champs seem to get more breaks than other
    teams in attempts to repeat but most times they are earned.  I do think
    that baseball, hockey, and basketball are likely to have a true
    champion because of the multi-game series they play.  The NFL throws
    all of their marbles into the one game.  Granted the nature of the game
    doesn't allow for a multi-game series but a quarterback who has a
    single off day in a season could cause you to be the second best team
    in a league.
    
    A couple of things which may have bearing but can't be measured:
    
    * Aren't atheletes over time getting bigger, stronger, faster, and better
      training techniques from which he performs.  The teams of the
      70's and 80's may compare but can you image the teams of the
      40's walking in to warm up and seeing the size of a Giant offensive line. 
      Jumbo Elliot and co. might appear as real giants.  Ironhead Hayward,
      and Christian Okoye at running back.  Basketball teams with 6 to 8
      guys 6'8"" or taller.
    
    * Rule changes -- Steelers/Raiders aggressive bump and run style vs the
      5 yd powder puff that exists for Jerry Rice and Co.
    
    * I still think it more of a possible comparison for team sports as
      opposed to individual sports.  Such as boxing, swimming etc. because
      you are pushed by times and/or individuals.
    
     -ala  Who's the greatest Ali vs Louis vs Marciano vs Tyson
    
    Roy's random ramblings 

On the petard thing....

In medieval times, a petard was like this bomb that they'd hoist up
to a doorway, and it would blow the doorway in.  Nowadays a dab of
C-4 will do it, but in those olden times they didn't know about plastique.

So, to be hoisted by your own petard was to like get blown up by your
own bomb....

hth,
'Saw

That Docker... all the world's his hoister!

               { notice I refrained from saying anything
                  about hoisters on the half shell? }

Mike JN

    re .48
    
    One thing you forgot /don ..... Russell was a devalued center, right
    Don ?

	Doc, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either Chamberlain's 
records are devalued or the Celtics championships were as earned as any 
other.  It's really quite simple.  My contention is that in the regular 
season Wilt was the better player, but put the word "champeenship" in front 
of the game and Russ elevated his level of play, Wilt didn't.  The last 
two times Russ' team beat Wilt's, Chamberlain had the far superior teams 
and took the gaspipe in two crucial 7th games.
           
				/Don

       If it was so easy to win 8 straight, how come noone else could do
    it?
                                          Denny

Somebody has to (tm) gaspipe on behalf of all SPORTS noters.  I know
Slasher uses it a lot, maybe he could.

That word brings such vivid and sometimes hysterically humorous
images to my mind.....

'Saw