The broncos hold the NFL title belt. They defend it tonight.

[sneakers]

http://i.imgur.com/R3zory4.jpg

[Ziggy]

Great post. What does it mean?

[sneakers]

if a team beat's the reigning champion, then they're the champion until they're beaten, and so on and so on. Basically like a wrestling belt....I can't believe i have to explain this

[slim]

Ziggy, Pls....

[BroncoWave]

This chart is stupid. Why wouldn't the team who won the SB the previous year always start with the title belt the next season?

[slim]

BTB y u alwys eat karot?

[olathebroncofan]

I need someone to break this down. So how many times were the Broncos champs? Who had had the most time as champion in the afc west ?

[wayninja]

Is this classified? Why is so much of it redacted?

[BroncoWave]

Is this classified? Why is so much of it redacted?

The black parts mean games weren't played those weeks or that the team holding the belt missed the playoffs. So in years before the league went to 16 games, you will see black spots for the last few weeks. And years in which the team holding the belt missed the playoffs, there will be black spots there as well.

[Joel]

This chart is stupid. Why wouldn't the team who won the SB the previous year always start with the title belt the next season?
Exactly. The 7-9 2011 Chiefs won the Championship when GBs first loss was their sixth win? Even though they finished last in their division? This isn't the SECAA; the NFL has a playoff tourney for a reason.

[BroncoWave]

Exactly. The 7-9 2011 Chiefs won the Championship when GBs first loss was their sixth win? Even though they finished last in their division? This isn't the SECAA; the NFL has a playoff tourney for a reason.

That's not why it stupid. The premise of the "championship belt" is that when the team with the belt loses, the belt goes to the team that beat them. So it makes sense that the chiefs got the belt then, because they beat the team that was holding it.

What doesn't make sense is that when the team holding the belt after week 17 misses the playoffs, they still keep the belt for week 1 of next season. Once they miss the playoffs, I feel like they should lose the belt and it should then go to the SB champ.

[wayninja]

The black parts mean games weren't played those weeks or that the team holding the belt missed the playoffs. So in years before the league went to 16 games, you will see black spots for the last few weeks. And years in which the team holding the belt missed the playoffs, there will be black spots there as well.

A very logical, boring response. A CIA conspiracy would have been way better.

[VonDoom]

I agree with the concept here, but I'm not sure that all of these matches were for the belt. What about non-title matches? Why would the champs put the belt up against a team without a winning record, let alone the number one contender? Too many variables for me :D

[wayninja]

That's not why it stupid. The premise of the "championship belt" is that when the team with the belt loses, the belt goes to the team that beat them. So it makes sense that the chiefs got the belt then, because they beat the team that was holding it.

What doesn't make sense is that when the team holding the belt after week 17 misses the playoffs, they still keep the belt for week 1 of next season. Once they miss the playoffs, I feel like they should lose the belt and it should then go to the SB champ.

But the new SB champ hasn't actually beaten the belt holder, which is why the belt holder doesn't give up the belt. What makes it weird though is if Team A is the belt holder and they don't make the playoffs, and team B becomes the new SB champ, what happens if in week 1 during the next season, Team B loses? Shouldn't the team that beat them also get a belt?

This chart would be much better if it tracked every permutation of belt ownership.

[BroncoWave]

I agree with the concept here, but I'm not sure that all of these matches were for the belt. What about non-title matches? Why would the champs put the belt up against a team without a winning record, let alone the number one contender? Too many variables for me :D

Another very good point. I was never into wrestling/boxing, so I guess I'm not as well versed on the ways of the belt as others.

[jhns]

I don't get it.

[Joel]

That's not why it stupid. The premise of the "championship belt" is that when the team with the belt loses, the belt goes to the team that beat them. So it makes sense that the chiefs got the belt then, because they beat the team that was holding it.

What doesn't make sense is that when the team holding the belt after week 17 misses the playoffs, they still keep the belt for week 1 of next season. Once they miss the playoffs, I feel like they should lose the belt and it should then go to the SB champ.
It should, if the NFL did things that way. But, again, getting a dog team getting a lucky win against a current champion not even trying isn't enough to become NFL champion. That stuff is reserved for the highest (but ONLY the highest) levels of amateur football; winning pro championships requires beating multiple teams, each progressively tougher, until the last man standing is champion.

It's not enough to just be good once: Champions must be good every time.

[BroncoWave]

I don't get it.

It's the boxing/wrestling concept of the "title belt". When a team wins the title, they have the belt. When another team beats that team, the belt goes to them. And so on and so forth. This chart tracks the progression of that belt.

[sneakers]

I agree with the concept here, but I'm not sure that all of these matches were for the belt. What about non-title matches? Why would the champs put the belt up against a team without a winning record, let alone the number one contender? Too many variables for me :D

hmmmm, this brings me to an idea, to increase revenue, i think they should consider a tables/ladders/chairs match on ppv

[BroncoWave]

It should, if the NFL did things that way. But, again, getting a dog team getting a lucky win against a current champion not even trying isn't enough to become NFL champion. That stuff is reserved for the highest (but ONLY the highest) levels of amateur football; winning pro championships requires beating multiple teams, each progressively tougher, until the last man standing is champion.

It's not enough to just be good once: Champions must be good every time.

:lol: The title belt is just a fun, gimmicky thing. No one is saying it means that the team with the belt is the "NFL champion". Just that they are the team with the belt. It really doesn't mean anything until the end of the season. So yeah, the Chiefs had the belt for a week, but at the end of the season it still went to the best team.

[sneakers]

I don't get it.

have you ever watched pro-wrestling?

[wayninja]

Do you like movies about Gladiators?

[BroncoWave]

Do you like movies about Gladiators?

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

[MOtorboat]

I love it.

[MOtorboat]

I need someone to break this down. So how many times were the Broncos champs? Who had had the most time as champion in the afc west ?

The Broncos have held the belt for 38 weeks by my count.

[MOtorboat]

Top 10s:
Total Weeks with belt:
1. New England 71
2. Dallas 66
3. Pittsburgh 46
4. Baltimore/Indianapolis 45
t5. San Francisco 42
t5. New York Giants 42
7. Oakland 41
8. Green Bay 39
9. Denver 38
t10. Minnesota 36
t10. St. Louis 36

No. of Times Held Belt for any length of time:
1. Dallas 20
2. Oakland 19
3. New England 18
4. Buffalo 16
t5. San Francisco 14
t5. Atlanta 14
t5. Cleveland 14
t5. Kansas City 14
t9. Pittsburgh 13
t9. Minnesota 13
t9. Miami 13
t9. Washington 13

Longest Streaks
t1. Denver 16
t1. Green Bay 16
3. New England 14
t4. New England 12
t4. Pittsburgh 12
t6. New York Giants 10
t6. Minnesota 10
t8. Dallas 9
t8. St. Louis 9
t8. New England 9