namepeace said:

I agree. I would love it.
Everybody learned basketball . . . .(yes, technically Canadian, but more often associated with U.S. greatness . . . )

SUPRMAN said:

Naismith was Canadian, but he developed basketball in America and that's where it was first played. We can claim it.

Anyway, I think the rest of the world would have a much harder time catching up to us in football than they did in basketball. Our professionals in b-ball had moved so far away from the fundamentals (shooting, good passing, team defense, and hustle) that it was easy for them to catch up. By contrast, the fundamentals of football are very sound at the highest levels, so I just don't see much competition for a long time.

july said:

There were bad called against the Steelers as well. Arizona was holding Harrison way to many times and it wasn't never call. Roughing the kicker didn't result in anything because Arizona stop the Steelers and just resulted in the Steelers going for another field goal. Officials upstairs made the call it was a fumble. Most commentators all say that there were enough to over turn the call (of course Kurt Warner is gonna say it wasn't a fumble, no shocker there)
[Edited 2/2/09 20:21pm]

James Harrison interception return. It was a horrible decision by Kurt Warner, who stared down Anquan Boldin like a teenager would a playboy centerfold. He might as well have announced at the line of scrimmage that he was throwing it to Boldin.

Harrison also made a great play and a fantastic run, but was there some illegal help namely a clip by the Steelers Lamar Woodley, #56, on Arizona's Tim Hightower, #34, just before Harrison gets to the end zone.

july said:

I completely disagree. It was a poor decision, but they baited him into it with a perfect defensive call. Harrison showed blitz, but he dropped back into coverage when the ball was snapped. If he hadn't, it would've been a touchdown. Still, if anyone deserves the blame for that play, it's offensive coordinator Jack Haley. Why call a slant like that with such little time left? How about the fade to Fitzgerald that's nigh unstoppable?!?

AlexdeParis said:

I would of run the ball.

AlexdeParis said:

But not only that, you risk forcing the QB to throw it across his body and in that situation it can be deadly.
Throwing to the corner was poor play calling, you know it's subject to being picked and returned.

AlexdeParis said:

If you excluded tackling I'd probably agree.

SUPRMAN said:

Good point!

july said:

phunkdaddy said:

I thought is was questionable when they called Ben's TD back. I didn't see the final replay but my sons did and insist his knee was down before the ball crossed the line. I didn't beef about it either. There were missed and questionable calls on both sides. That guy who ran over the kick holder was no better than when Harrison lost his mind...he just thought he was slick.

It was one of the most thrilling super bowls ever and I give the Cards props for playing the Steelers as tough as they did, especially in the red zone. I have 3 new gray hairs and no voice to show for it. Like Tomlin said, the Steelers play down to the wire, full 60 minutes of ball.

I was always cussin' Ben's ass out every time my coworker defended him because I kept telling her that he needed to learn how to work that pocket properly when the pressure is on. I wanna see him channel Tarkenton and Stabler 'cause I luvs me a scrambling QB. IMO, that's what separates the men from the potatoes, (Marino excepted). He's not the most graceful but Ben improved a lot in this area in the post-season. He really impressed me.

I watched that last fumble over and over and it seems to me the ball was dislodged before his arm started going forward, (I'm watching espn right now and they report that the officials stated that the play was reviewed and ruled a fumble)

Did anybody else think Harrison was gonna die out there after that TD?

july said:

I'm surprised Seahawk fans aren't debating about Jeff Reed's field goal yet.

SUPRMAN said:

How terribly American
The difference is that you don't get the Aussie rules guys claiming in gaudy rings "world champion" or the Irish hurling champions doing likewise. It just seems so.....well American.
They are national champions, the NFL is exactly that the "National" Football league so to claim that a domestic championship makes a team "world champions is crazy.
Yes i agree, due to the fact that nobody else really plays the game they would probably win a "world" tournament, however this is NOT a world tournament it is a domestic one. Hence my comment.
[Edited 2/3/09 1:04am]

namepeace said:

Thats a horrible idea

kpowers said:

cheer up.

you may say I'm a dreeamer . . .

mdiver said:

I get what you're saying. Theoretically, unlike the World Cup or the Olympics, it's an exclusive tournament.

That being said, you concede there's no other team in the world that could beat the NFL champion. wouldn't that make them the best team in the world? it is hyperbolic, I grant you, that's American. but as a practical matter, no other team outside the NFL could beat them today. the term "World Champion" lies solely on that presumption, the validity of which you do not dispute.

As the Americans have proved in "futbol," and the rest of the world has proven in basketball, it might take generations for a team outside the NFL to even be competitive.

SUPRMAN said:

A pick on a fade route in the corner of the end zone is very hard to convert to a pick six unless the fade is underthrown and the defender can pick it off while facing his own end zone with a crease along the sideline.

namepeace said:

And that is exactly what it is....a presumption..hence my comment. If it were FACT there would be nothing anyone can say but until then...it is a presumption and the "world champions" tag is exactly that ....presumptuous

mdiver said:

I prefer presumptive, as defined by American Heritage Dictionary:



The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

v. presumptuous, as defined by American Heritage.



We both agree that there is a probability that the NFL champion would defeat any team outside of the NFL, under the current climate, so we presume as such.

BUT, to say such a title is "presumptuous" is to say it is claimed beyond what is proper, when we both know that the Pittsburgh Steelers would beat anyone else outside the NFL, because there are no teams of comparable quality outside the United States. Mainly because the rest of the world sees American football as a sideshow to futbol and that's where they gravitate (although Great Britain does have some pretty sharp American football analysts).

namepeace said:

I prefer the second definition....the use of "excessively forward" is perfect.

We have all been to sporting events where the outcome was "never in doubt" and yet.....we were wrong. Sport takes many turns and so to claim world champion status with NO proof is just that excessively forward. Until the Steelers take part in a world tournament and whoop ass...they are domestic champions. The won the NFL..the national league. That is it.
The rest is conjecture and semantics until they hold the world trophy

The worst feeling is when football season ends. There's nothing like NFL Sunday - the best there is. And February to mid-March is the deadest period in American sports, until March Madness, Baseball, the NFL Draft and the NBA Playoffs.

kpowers said:

I don't know but matt hasselbeck is still whining about that super bowl. I'm
like stfu. The shehawks haven't even sniffed a playoff win since and they totally sucked this past season and he has been a spectator. He should go
ahead and retire and get him a guest spot on the view with his whiney
sister in law elizabeth.

uPtoWnNY said:

Professional basketball is just not what it used to be for me. So after March Madness it's a long ass six months til the NFL season starts.

mdiver said:

but this is what you said earlier.



So they would be the best American football team in the world, no?





First, let's correct something right now. The Vince Lombardi Trophy is inscribed "Super Bowl Champion." Not "World Champion." The term "world champion" is a mythical title based upon a presumption you agree with -- that because no one else plays the sport, the best team in America is the best team in the world.

Name one American football team outside of the National Football League that could beat the Steelers today. You think you could just get 53 guys together from the rest of the world and beat them today? Next week? Next YEAR?

You can't concede that the Steelers would "probably" win a world tournament there were one and then say that such a contention is "excessively forward" because there isn't one. Which is it?

The term "world champion" is not conferred by the NFL. It's a marketing term that is based on the absence of evidence to the contrary. If only 32 teams in the world are capable of playing in the best American football league in the world, and one wins the league title, then that one can legitimately be considered the best in the world. A champion may be defined as



The Steelers fit either definition.

Until the rest of the world provides evidence that constitutes more than "anything can happen in a sports tournament," which is true when you have similarly situated competitors.
[Edited 2/3/09 10:15am]

An image of the Super Bowl XVI trophy, to give you an idea of the inscription.

SCNDLS said:

...and then another season of disappointment as the Cowgirls underachieve again.

namepeace said:

You missed the word probably huh?

So what we have here is the idea that "no one could beat them so we will assume"

This is the definition of champion

cham⋅pi⋅on
   /ˈtʃæmpiən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [cham-pee-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place: the heavyweight boxing champion.
2. anything that takes first place in competition: the champion of a cattle show.
3. an animal that has won a certain number of points in officially recognized shows: This dog is a champion.
4. a person who fights for or defends any person or cause: a champion of the oppressed.
5. a fighter or warrior.
–verb (used with object)
6. to act as champion of; defend; support: to champion a cause.
7. Obsolete. to defy.
–adjective
8. first among all contestants or competitors.
9. Informal. first-rate.

So based upon the dictionary they are NATIONAL champions...no argument, never was.

However as YET they have not won a world tournament so therefore the title "world champions" does not apply.
Argue all you wish that they may be,probably would be, could be...whatever...fact of the matter is that they are national champions and that is all.

uPtoWnNY said:

mdiver said:

so predictably and amusingly puckish. so mdiver. so beside the point.

My definition is from the American Heritage dictionary.

you may wish there were a team outside the US of A that would beat the best team in the NFL, but there isn't. in the absence of any team anywhere else that could play the level of competition, Pittsburgh Steelers' first place finish establishes them as the premier American football team. If everybody knows the NFL is the best American football league, and if even the omniscient mdiver knows the league champion would beat anybody else in the world, then one can reasonably call them the "presumptive" world champions.

unless, of course, you can name a team that could beat them.

and, actually, if you knew anything about American football, you'd know that the term "national champions" is used for the champions in the college programs in different divisions. in one division, there are legitimate arguments about whether the named national champion is indeed the champion because there exist other similarly situated programs which, if given the opportunity, would best the named champ.

That situation does not exist in American football.

It does exist in baseball and basketball. The MLB and NBA champs could arguably not claim the term "world champion" because 1) there are teams that compete on a similar level which have proven they can beat such American teams, and 2) to that end, world titles are decided in the Olympics. The "World Series" as a term has lost its cachet in baseball for that reason.

But that doesn't exist in football.

So, okay, you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers are not world champions? Fine.

Can you say that there is a better team in the world that does not play in the NFL? If you're honest with yourself (and recall your admission) . . . no.

So even presuming you're right about the definitions of champion (and you're not), you'd still have to concede that the Steelers are the best team in the world, which makes your argument a distinction without much difference.
[Edited 2/3/09 11:55am]