what if someone other than the Jets wins Super Bowl III?

[DTF955]

How much of an effect do you think the Jets' upset had on the game's popularity? (Note that the poll also includes whether you think another team would have had the same impact had they pulled the upset.)

It's commonly said that "The Greatest Game Ever Played" in 1958 is what launched the NFL into prominence now, though when I was young (middle '70s), because of its recency, then namath entering the Hall of Fame quickly, it was presumed Super Bowl III, where the Jets upset the Colts, was just as much of a catalyst, if not more.

Suppose that the Chiefs make it and upset the Colts, 24-6 (score of the replayed Super Bowl I did with the two after a www.whatifsports.com replay), then follow it up next season going 13-1 and beating the Colts? The Chiefs were tied witht he Raiders but lost a playoff game< IIRC, so I can see this happening, if they get in the title game and beat the Jets.

I see a couple results from this:

1. Namath's overall accomplishments are looked at more; he may still get in, but probably not till the Veterans' Committee starts looking at other AFL stars. Still, being from New York, and with the first 4000 yard passing season, he might get in.

2. The Chiefs are looked at like the Browns of the old AAFC (1946-1949), as far as a major dynasty, but also as being easily the class of their league. Some people might even complain about the merger (though it was agreed upon before their last 2 wins in this timeline), saying that only the Chiefs and maybe Raiders and 1-2 others clubs should have been added. They would seen as far more the class of that league, though they hadn't won an AFL title before the Super Bowl era.

Effect on the NFL's popularity? Not sure. 20-30 years ago, people would have said it was a big boost, but now, I'm not so sure. I think rather, it was a big boost to the *Super Bowl's* popularity. It might take a series of close games for it to really reach its height; say by the first Dallas/Pittsburgh one at the latest. (Although the replayed Super Bowl after the '69 season, when both the Chiefs and Vikings made it, could have also helped. Jan Stenerud kicked a field goal, one of 5 in the game, to win 9-6 as time expired!.

If the Colts win, of course, but in a close one, then people might not take the AFL quite as seriously in retrospect, probably even less so than if the Chiefs had won Super Bowl III.

What do you all think?

[Denbrnc]

If the Chiefs would have beat the Raiders in the one-game playoff and beat the Colts, the game wouldn't quite have the iconic status that it does because Namath isn't there, but it still would have been pretty darn important in keeping the SB going. I heard, though, after that game, that the AFL was thinking about dissolving the merger and staying a seperate league, but Paul Brown wouldn't have accepted that. He would have filed a lawsuit. He only took an AFL team because they were promised to be in the NFL by 1970. The merger would have dissolved that.

[Calif_Eagle]

How much of an effect do you think the Jets' upset had on the game's popularity? (Note that the poll also includes whether you think another team would have had the same impact had they pulled the upset.)

It's commonly said that "The Greatest Game Ever Played" in 1958 is what launched the NFL into prominence now, though when I was young (middle '70s), because of its recency, then namath entering the Hall of Fame quickly, it was presumed Super Bowl III, where the Jets upset the Colts, was just as much of a catalyst, if not more.

Suppose that the Chiefs make it and upset the Colts, 24-6 (score of the replayed Super Bowl I did with the two after a www.whatifsports.com replay), then follow it up next season going 13-1 and beating the Colts? The Chiefs were tied witht he Raiders but lost a playoff game< IIRC, so I can see this happening, if they get in the title game and beat the Jets.

I see a couple results from this:

1. Namath's overall accomplishments are looked at more; he may still get in, but probably not till the Veterans' Committee starts looking at other AFL stars. Still, being from New York, and with the first 4000 yard passing season, he might get in.

2. The Chiefs are looked at like the Browns of the old AAFC (1946-1949), as far as a major dynasty, but also as being easily the class of their league. Some people might even complain about the merger (though it was agreed upon before their last 2 wins in this timeline), saying that only the Chiefs and maybe Raiders and 1-2 others clubs should have been added. They would seen as far more the class of that league, though they hadn't won an AFL title before the Super Bowl era.

Effect on the NFL's popularity? Not sure. 20-30 years ago, people would have said it was a big boost, but now, I'm not so sure. I think rather, it was a big boost to the *Super Bowl's* popularity. It might take a series of close games for it to really reach its height; say by the first Dallas/Pittsburgh one at the latest. (Although the replayed Super Bowl after the '69 season, when both the Chiefs and Vikings made it, could have also helped. Jan Stenerud kicked a field goal, one of 5 in the game, to win 9-6 as time expired!.

If the Colts win, of course, but in a close one, then people might not take the AFL quite as seriously in retrospect, probably even less so than if the Chiefs had won Super Bowl III.

What do you all think?

Pro Football & the NFL was growing in popularity from 1946 onward. The AAFC failed only because of the Cleveland Browns extreme dominance. Had there been more competitive balance, the AAFC possibly could have hung on until TV really started to fly in the early 50's & everything would have been different. The NFL got its first National TV contract with CBS in 1956. Then in 1958 you have the first major turning point with whats often called "The Greatest Game Ever Played."

The stage was set for the AFL which succeeded & was winning the war with the NFL when Lamar Hunt and Tex Schramm dragged the two leagues to a peace treaty. The Super Bowl wasnt yet what it would become but the Jets victory and the flamboyant handsome Joe Namath definitely helped the AFL gain credibility. (Which it would have gained eventually anyway. The NFL playing personnel turns over about 85% every 4 years. The 15% that survive the 4 year span are basically the superstars everyone knows and talks about.)

Heres the thing on that though... the Jets werent the best team in the AFL and neither were the Chiefs. From 1966 through 1971, the six year span that saw the Chiefs make post season play 4 times and the Jets only make it twice, the Raiders (who also made it 4 times in this span) posted an 8-4-2 record against the Chiefs. In the 1968 Divisional Playoff, the Raiders crushed the 12-2 Chiefs 41-6. During the same six year span the Raiders were 5-2-1 against the Jets.

In the 1968 AFL Title Game the Raiders were driving for a winning score when Jets LB Ralph Baker pounced on a ball that Raiders RB Charlie Smith thought was an incomplete pass. It was a lateral and the ball was live. This killed the Raiders late drive and allowed the Jets to bag the 27-23 upset Title Game win.

The Jets later felt that the Colts had played very poorly on defense. Namath said later that had the Jets opened up their passing game more they might have beaten the Colts even more decisively than they did. But... the Raiders (assuming the Jets were right in this assumption) had the most prolific passing game in the AFL that season, with Daryle "The Mad Bomber" Lamonica at the controls, the Raiders threw 31 TD passes, top figure in the AFL that season. I feel the Raiders may well have beaten the Colts had they gotten by the Jets. They had a losing Super Bowl the season before and so had the experience they would have benefited from.

As for your speculations above: (1) Without the 1968 AFL Title and Super Bowl win, Namath has to buy a ticket to the Hall of Fame. Just not enough there without the legend of the 1968 season. (2) The merger was agreed on 1966. So if your Chiefs scenario took place, all the teams were still going into the NFL in 1970 regardless of perception. And remember... with a common draft in 5 years all the teams are going to have 85% turnover. Any AFL inferiority gets washed out over time. (3) I feel a Raider scenario of dominance is more likely in these years. The Raiders were 10 games over .500 3 years in a row. A very rare feat. Raiders were 1967 AFL Champs and the Jets dodged a bullet in 1968. In the 1969 AFL Title Game an early injury to Daryle Lamonica blunted the Raider offense against the Chiefs. The Raiders had driven to an early lead 7-0 and were driving again when Lamonica cracked his hand up following through on a pass on a fluke injury when he jammed it into pass rusher Aaron Brown's face mask. He kept trying to play but couldnt throw well, and the Chiefs picked him 3 times on the way to building a 17-7 lead. George Blanda, a year away from his 1970 MVP heroics, came in too late to save this one, and was ineffective when he did. Lamonica had played almost every offensive down of 1969 and Blanda was just too rusty. (4) The Colts had a very down year in 1969 while the Vikings of that season were simply overwhelming defensively. (5) I feel pro football and the Super Bowl both boom anyway post merger. The game is made for TV and is just too exciting. Namath and a Jets win... a New York team... that helped spur the media to action yes. But it would have all happened anyway, IMHO.

[Denbrnc]

Don't forget the long completion to Otis Taylor that was questionable. I looked at that play, and I don't think that he was in bounds.

Speaking of Oakland, what if they would have found a way to win SB II? Think about it. They were hanging in until that fumbled punt at the end of the first half. If that didn't happen, they are in striking distance in the second half, and if they find a way to upset Green Bay, it could have been the start of a dynasty. They could have three-peated from 67-69 if a few things work out differently, then still lost to the Colts in 70 and been dethroned by KC in the division in 71.

Then, in 72, if that Immaculate Reception doesn't happen, they go to the AFC Championship at Miami, where they probably lose, but that may have given them the extra motivation to go back to Miami for the AFC Title and win it in 73, and then beat the Vikes in the Super Bowl. That would have given them four SB titles in seven years. I still think that the Steelers would have beaten them in 74 and 75, though. However, if they still win in 76, that gives Oakland five titles in ten years.