You have an issue with one game playoffs because you can get "lucky". So what if only the regular season mattered....and a team got lucky in the first game of the year against a team that went on to have a really great season but fell short by one game because in that first game they were just a little off? Or their best player misses a game or two in the middle of the season and they drop a couple games. But he comes back at the end and lights it up....but his team falls short because of something that happened mid season? We have playoffs because they are challenging. They add to the pressure and great players and great teams can rise to the occasion and meet that challenge while guys like Phillip Rivers never have, and maybe never will. That is what makes football so great. And other sports like hockey....hockey playoffs are f'n incredible...and the #1 seed very rarely wins. I completely disagree they are proportionally they same. The are very, very different and the importance of the titles won are therefore very different as well. I wouldn't put the same emphasis on it, no. The greatness involved in winning a SB is the path you take there. That path matters. As it should. There's a grind to the season and that's very important. I understand that but expecting every team to play every team now is insanely unrealistic. Any given Sunday is a real thing....you're right...a team can get lucky or get unlucky. But that is where greatness comes in. The players and teams that are worthy of being called great earn that by overcoming odds....consistently performing when other teams and players can't or don't. There's a beauty in seeing a team like the Patriots do what they've done in an era that all logic says it would be impossible to do. In my opinion....the best playoff system belongs to the NHL. The NFL regular season is far from meaningless. Home field matters....winning your division matters....getting a first round bye really matters. They play the games for a reason. The teams have the best players in the country now too. There are just more of them. I do think the modern era is better than any before it. The game has greatly evolved...it's harder now. And winning is harder. I'm totally okay with that.
But translate that to today.....if every team played every team....does that mean you're always facing that team on their best day? Or yours? No. So while I see merit in your point....you're still off base because you think a playall cures the luck factor. It doesn't. Any given Sunday does have meaning and that's a good thing. If it didn't have meaning the Patriots would have been 19-0 instead of 18-1. That's very good thing for the fans and the sport because it means every game matters. My only point was the champions of 1920-1932 aren't exactly equal to champions that came after via a playoff system.
I don't have an issue with any of it, other than saying one era isn't as important as another. I agree 100% I apologize, that definitely didn't come out right.. What I meant to say was no one cares what happens in the regular season, only that they get JUST ENOUGH wins to make the post season. Even when you only win 56% of your games all season, you still have a chance to be called the Worlds Best Team for that year... I agree that the modern era, because it has evolved, is better...and harder to win... I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against taking away the accomplishments of the men that paved the way for this new era in the first place..
But that's the thing....I'm NOT arguing to take away anything. Me saying a championship today is more important than a championship in 1925 isn't taking away that earlier championship. It counts. It definitely counts and the history of the game is extremely important. But they just aren't equal. It's like me saying anyone that won a batting title during the dead ball era of baseball...when pitchers were far more dominant and before a bunch of rule changes slanted towards the batters....definitely earned that title more so than a guy winning a batting title does. I believe that. Obviously anyone can disagree and argue it. But I fully believe that you can respect all eras of a particular sport while putting weight on them. There's no doubt in my mind winning in the NBA in the 70's through 90's was harder than today and I hold the titles the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Rockets, and Bulls won then in much higher regard than than the titles the Warriors are winning today. Just like I hold the Patriots current title they just won in a higher regard than the Bears 1932 title. Obviously just my opinion...but I think there's some good logic behind it.
I don't get the batting title reference one bit. Everyone back then was playing by the same rules. It wasn't like the guys that didn't win were facing "live balls".
You know what else they have more of, which is far more important than conf. championships? Asterisks. That doesn't just give the Steelers the edge, that maintains them hands down superiority. Hell your guys have to win at least another couple non-taint SB's for this to even be a discussion.
The dead ball era was also the small ball era. Every hitter was mainly trying to mash the ball into the dirt and run it out to first for a hit. Look at batting averages for the era....they are higher than today across the board and you see more players with high batting averages. Couple that with the fact rules were biased towards pitchers....they used the same ball all game until it was a mashed up soft ball....it wasn't easy to hit and it wasn't easy to win a batting title. I don't think winning a batting title today comes with the same challenges. Just my opinion.
I know what it all means. But the only thing that make it tougher is more players that can take at-bats. For a batting title you are competing vs other batters of your year. You gotta beat their numbers. Ya it'll be tougher to hit but it's the same for everyone. Today you gotta beat a pool of players that bat in the same favorable conditions as you would yourself.
Just some food for thought, the BEST TEAM EVER (Super Bowl Era) would be the 1972 Miami Dolphins, the ONLY team to finish UNDEFEATED and which is still celebrated by surviving members of that team with drinks whenever the final team in the current season takes a loss. The current shape of football now compared to the early days of football is night and day. I will say this though, the early days, a football player was hands-down tougher than today's player. They didn't substitute back then, they didn't have all kinds of padding and "protective" rules all about them. They played nasty, they played on both sides of the ball, they played without face masks and with leather "helmets", no high tech gear helping them get bigger and stronger, no PED's. Today's player wouldn't make it out of the first half of an old school game, just my opinion.
Best season ever by a team, no doubt. But it's impossible to say who the best team is because you can't have them play each other. And honestly....I think a player from the golden age of football would have a harder time playing in today's game than vice versa. The players then were a lot smaller than the players now. Mel Hein was a Hall of Fame offensive lineman and linebacker...ironman that player both ways. But he was 6'2 and 220lbs...the size of some defensive backs these days. Think he could block Aaron Donald or Khalil Mack or survive a whole game playing opposite Warren Sapp in his prime?
Depends on if they played by THEIR rules. There are a few dirty players in todays game that just try to get away with things..but today's players are more "athlete" than football player. If they were to get hands in their face causing a bloody nose, they would be under the tent getting it checked out.
Pick the rules from any era you want....pick the equipment from any era you want......you think Mel Hein in his prime could consistently block Warren Sapp in his prime? Yeah they'd be under the tent.....and if Red Grange played in today's game....he'd be in concussion protocol. Everything along those lines are relative to the era. There was a time hockey players didn't wear helmets. And when they finally started wearing helmets they didn't have visors on them. Players in today's NHL aren't less tough than those guys....times have just changed.
IMHO, its fruitless to compare players from different eras. Every point/counterpoint is speculative. There are players from the 1940's and 50's that could very well compete today and there are players today who could very well curl up in a fetal position never to be heard from again if they played in the 40's or 50's. Its literally impossible to determine which players would end up in which category.
I agree but I hate when I see the mentions of toughness along with leather helmets and no pads. If those players in leather helmets and no pads were suddenly forced to play against Lawrence Taylor, Sean Taylor, Brian Urlacher, and Ray Lewis.....I think a healthy percentage of them would re-evaluate their life choices. Getting tackled by a linebacker that is 6'2 and 220lbs is a lot different than one that is 6'4 260 and has spent a lot of time in the weight room.
They played with leather helmets and no pads because that was what was available to them at that time. Put them in today's equipment and their ferocity would probably (note the speculative tone) increase. Put today's players in leather helmets with no pads and they probably (ditto) wouldn't do so well.
Let's take it all the way here...Make Warren Sapp play 60 minutes of football like Hein did and see if he can make it to the second quarter without needing oxygen.
I don't have to speculate that a 6'1 220lb offensive linemen would be out of place in today's game....give him a helmet and all the pads you can find....he still ain't gonna block Khalil Mack. Take off all the pads and helmets from today's players....and you still have amazing freak athletes that can do things the players from 20's wouldn't be able to do. Sports have just simply changed so much due to size and athleticism. It doesn't erase the greatness of the past. But you gotta be somewhat realistic when comparing eras.
If Warren Sapp grew up playing that style of football....playing every snap of every game....he'd likely be able to easily handle it. If Hein grew up only playing one side of the ball....suddenly asking him to do both would drain him the same exact way.
