What is widely considered the "modern-era

Post Reply
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

What is widely considered the "modern-era

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE

What is widely considered the "modern-era
Started by MichaelPeters, Feb 19 2014 04:30 PM

Page 1 of 2

21 replies to this topic

#1 MichaelPeters
Starter
PFRA Member
118 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Johnson City, TN
Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:30 PM
As so many true historians are tuned in here, I thought that I would ask a question that I've always been curious about. Also, I'm asking because, as far as I know, there is no clear-cut absolute correct answer. That is.... what do you consider the modern era of pro football? I'm sure that some younger fans consider it post-merger, and others go back to 1960 with the AFL/NFL really taking off, while others still might use the 1958 season for television reasons. I would typically think that the time when most (or all) teams abandoned the single-wing -- sometime in the mid-1940s???

#2 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:43 PM
The '78 rule changes . . .

The other major point in time changing football was free-substitution.

#3 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:38 PM
I would say the modern era definitely began with free substitution.

#4 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:45 PM
1950 and 1978 and 2002 are the most acceptable answers in my opinion. It depends upon how many eras somebody would consider to have elapsed. If there are only two eras, then they are definitely 1920-49 and 1950 to the present.

#5 byron
Starter
PFRA Member
259 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:38 PM
Reaser, on 19 Feb 2014 - 4:43 PM, said:
The '78 rule changes . . .

The other major point in time changing football was free-substitution.

Basically, free substitution was official in 1950. (1956 was the last season of the Single Wing IIRC but the T really took over in the late 40s). The league saw major rule changes in 1978 as well.

I really see a few "eras" in Pro Football, not just an "old" and "modern". I would think there have been at least four "eras", if not more. Of course, you can break it up any way you wish.

#6 Jeffrey Miller
Veteran
PFRA Member
756 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Western New York
Interests:Buffalo Pro Football History
1920s NFL
1960s AFL
Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:39 PM
Of course, if you ask a guy that was posting on a Facebook page recently, the NFL didn't exist prior to the creation of the NFL Network ...

#7 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:40 PM
I remember the first edition of "The Sports Encylopedia: Pro Football", around 1976, covered it from 1933 onward. In later editions, St. Martin's Press referred to the "The Modern Era" as starting in 1974 when the rules were overhauled. I'd agree that NFL football as we know it now began in 1978 with the strict limits on how much the defense could do.

#8 Jagade
Veteran
PFRA Member
862 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:55 AM
I think that the "modern era" starts when someone first starts watching pro football. For me, that was 1951, which coincides with the year my parents got their first TV set (a used Zenith). We got the Browns on TV where I live at the time, so I soon became a Cleveland Browns fan (I think that many people become fans of the best teams when they start watching the game, like many became Giants or Colts fans if they started watching in the late 1950's, or the Giants or Packers if they started watching in the early 1960's).

#9 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
2,441 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:54 AM
If I were splitting pro football up into eras, starting from 1920, I would put dividing lines at 1933, 1960, 1978 and 2002. I think 2002 is the beginning of the current era, when the NFL seems content with 32 teams and there hasn't been any talk of expansion since Houston entered the league although I think it is time for the NFL to expand to 34. I believe the NFL can add two teams every ten years without a dropoff in quality simply due to the increased population. And for those who say there isn't enough quality players, I can point to guys like Kurt Warner who should have been starting in the NFL by at least 1995 but lost the first third of his career because NFL scouting is not an exact science.

#10 Jeffrey Miller
Veteran
PFRA Member
756 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Western New York
Interests:Buffalo Pro Football History
1920s NFL
1960s AFL
Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:55 AM
You could probably slice this up differently in terms of cultural impact ... 1958 (the year of the Greatest Game Ever Played) and 1970 (the year of the Merger).

#11 Shipley
Starter
PFRA Member
173 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Northern Virginia (Washington, DC suburbs)
Interests:NFL/AFL history, semi-pro football
Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:42 AM
Another reason to consider 1978 a pivotal year...it was the first year of the 16-game season.

#12 Teo
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,107 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Mexico City, MEX
Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:24 AM
I know nobody will agree with me, but I would also put 1983 (the year after the strike that cost half the season, expansion of rosters to 49 platers, the birth of the USFL, ESPN expansion in covering pro football) since it appeared more "modern". The USFL helped too (instant replay, most uniforms with gold and silver pants/helmets, etc.)

#13 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors
662 posts
Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:43 PM
Does anyone know why ESPN's "looking backwards" ends with the start of the merger? They always use that as a cutoff point in their NFL statistics.

#14 JohnR
Starter
PFRA Member
184 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:09 PM
I would tend to agree with Ralph about free substitution ushering in the modern era. I would call 1978 the beginning of the post-modern era.

#15 byron
Starter
PFRA Member
259 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:34 PM
Quote
Does anyone know why ESPN's "looking backwards" ends with the start of the merger? They always use that as a cutoff point in their NFL statistics.

To my mind ESPN, and to a certain extent the NFL, don't pay attention to anything before the merger. At best they may go back to discuss the 1958 NFL Championship game with a side conversation on the AFL years.

#16 Citizen
Veteran
Forum Visitors
757 posts
Posted 22 February 2014 - 11:41 AM
I would also point to 1970 as a notable line of demarcation. The merger provided an even platform for comparing teams and centralized much of the NFL's stat maintenance -- hence the common refrain "since 1970" when media outlets cite records and other achievements.

#17 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors
668 posts
Posted 22 February 2014 - 11:58 AM
Nobody thinks 1993 when the salary cap was installed and teams could virtually build a winner overnight deserves recognition of starting a new era? In my opinion that changed the game a lot. It all of a sudden became much more difficult to maintain a good team while it became much easier to build a good team.

#18 JohnH19
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,356 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Winnipeg
Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:18 PM
I consider 1950 the beginning of the modern era.

#19 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:31 PM
Other possible demarcations to the (or "a") modern era, might be:
•1956, the first season when one didn't nearly need to be pinned to the ground with the ball for a play to be whistled dead. After this, the era of lateralling a lot diminished...
•The modern media era began with the bidding wars for the Gogolaks and Namath. Which led to the network growth vis a vis the NFL (ABC later regretting dropping the AFL too soon.)
•Another possible Hadrian's Wall might be those Gogolaks. The rather quick takeover of the "soccer-style" placekick as the conventional kick.

#20 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors
796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:18 AM
Funny cause its most recent, but I don't see 2002. Doesn't seem nearly as big a change as free substitution or passing game liberalization. Without the former Tom Brady would never be an NFL player, without the latter he would, but boy would the numbers be different. Also appreciate 60 and 70.

Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11

Page 2 of 2

21 replies to this topic

#21 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,144 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:46 AM
Bryan, on 20 Feb 2014 - 1:43 PM, said:
Does anyone know why ESPN's "looking backwards" ends with the start of the merger? They always use that as a cutoff point in their NFL statistics.

Part of that might be that the NFL records were revised in 1970 to include AFL records. For example, in 1969, the NFL Record Book had the holder of "Most Fumbles, Game" as "6 Sam Etcheverry, St. Louis vs. N.Y. Giants, Sept. 17, 1961". In 1970, the NFL record was revised to "7 Len Dawson, Kansas City vs. San Diego, Nov. 15, 1964", which had been the AFL record.

#22 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
563 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:17 AM
Here is part of a page from the Big Blue website.
Clearly, you can see that their start of the "modern era" is the merger.
All the AFL QBs are listed with the "modern era" group.
(Note: this is the same site that is referenced in the "interesting article" thread.)

Edited to add correct title of Thread: "Article on 1938 New York Giants"
Attached Thumbnails
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
Post Reply