Super Bowl 0 - What if?

[JeffreyMiller]

I'm not going to argue that the AFL teams would have beaten the NFL teams in 1963, 64, 65, etc .... who knows? No one thought the Jets would beat the Colts. But I must say, alot of NFL bias is obvious here. I know you can bet on anything, but actually predicting that Kemp would throw five INTs? Come on, man!

[SixtiesFan]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

Given Rote's penchant for throwing INTs and the Bears' ability to pick off passes, I don't think the Chargers would have had a chance to win that game.

I dunno 'bout dat.

Rote's postseason performances heading into the mythical SB vs. Bears were damn impressive. He'd played 3 games, won them all, throwing 7 TD and 1 pick in a collective 64 attempts. He also tossed in a couple short TD runs. He'd led the greatest (at the time) comeback in postseason history ('57 PO at SF) and QB'd two of the biggest title game routs (Lions 59-14 v. Browns in '57 and Chargers 51-10 over Pats six years later).

I actually believe SD would beat the Bears. Big key would be keeping Lincoln and Lowe healthy. Another key would be venue. On a dry, fast track the Chargers have the advantage.

That the 1963 Chargers would beat the 1963 Bears was a hobby horse of San Diego/Pro Football Weekly columnist Jerry Magee for decades. Magee thought the Chargers would win a Super Bowl over the Bears in a blowout.

[RichardBak]

Well, that's the fun of any mythical matchup---you can never be proven wrong. One guy says Chargers would beat Bears in a blowout, another says Packers would squeeze past the Bills, my Uncle Snuffy says Martians would kidnap Jack Kemp the night before the big game and SB Zero would have to be canceled.

I'm going with Uncle Snuffy's prediction. Prove me wrong.

[rhickok1109]

I'm not going to argue that the AFL teams would have beaten the NFL teams in 1963, 64, 65, etc .... who knows? No one thought the Jets would beat the Colts. But I must say, alot of NFL bias is obvious here. I know you can bet on anything, but actually predicting that Kemp would throw five INTs? Come on, man!

I wouldn't have bet that he would throw five INTs.

I would have bet that he would throw more than five.

[DavidSollender]

Instead of comparing AFL teams with the NFL champions, a more valid exercise is to evaluate them against the Cowboys (created the same year as the AFL) and the Vikings (created one year later). How much success would those teams have experienced if they had been in the AFL instead of the NFL?

The Cowboys reached 7-7 in their sixth year, then went toe-to-toe against the Packers for the NFL Championship in 1966. The Vikings were actually 8-5-1 in their fourth season, but didn't really challenge for an NFL championship for another four years - the same year the Jets won their Super Bowl.

Two questions: 1) Would the Cowboys and Viking been more competitive in the AFL during their formative years, and 2) on what basis would one assume that any of the AFL teams would have done better had they competed in the NFL - at least until 1966?

[Jay Z]

Instead of comparing AFL teams with the NFL champions, a more valid exercise is to evaluate them against the Cowboys (created the same year as the AFL) and the Vikings (created one year later). How much success would those teams have experienced if they had been in the AFL instead of the NFL?

The Cowboys reached 7-7 in their sixth year, then went toe-to-toe against the Packers for the NFL Championship in 1966. The Vikings were actually 8-5-1 in their fourth season, but didn't really challenge for an NFL championship for another four years - the same year the Jets won their Super Bowl.

Two questions: 1) Would the Cowboys and Viking been more competitive in the AFL during their formative years, and 2) on what basis would one assume that any of the AFL teams would have done better had they competed in the NFL - at least until 1966?

In 1963 the NFL was still the more lucrative league. It's why the Vikings went with the NFL and the Cowboys won in Dallas.

No 1963 AFL game drew 40,000 fans. Probably dozens in the NFL. AFL TV contract was with ABC and likely far less money there too. AFL could sign some rookies, but man for man probably wasn't going to get 50%. The NBC TV contract helped a lot, but that was still in the future in 1963.

[Bryan]

I'm not going to argue that the AFL teams would have beaten the NFL teams in 1963, 64, 65, etc .... who knows? No one thought the Jets would beat the Colts. But I must say, alot of NFL bias is obvious here. I know you can bet on anything, but actually predicting that Kemp would throw five INTs? Come on, man!

I don't really see it as an "NFL superiority over the AFL" or a slap at the Bills. Teams in the NFL weren't really beating the Packers in the 1960's, either. I view it as the Packers specifically being better than the Bills/AFL champions by subjectively looking at a number of factors, which was kind of proven out in Super Bowls I & II. Kemp's postseason TD-INT ratio is 2 TDs 10 INTs. Bart Starr's ratio is 15 TDs 3 INTs (for instance).

[rhickok1109]

Instead of comparing AFL teams with the NFL champions, a more valid exercise is to evaluate them against the Cowboys (created the same year as the AFL) and the Vikings (created one year later). How much success would those teams have experienced if they had been in the AFL instead of the NFL?

The Cowboys reached 7-7 in their sixth year, then went toe-to-toe against the Packers for the NFL Championship in 1966. The Vikings were actually 8-5-1 in their fourth season, but didn't really challenge for an NFL championship for another four years - the same year the Jets won their Super Bowl.

Two questions: 1) Would the Cowboys and Viking been more competitive in the AFL during their formative years, and 2) on what basis would one assume that any of the AFL teams would have done better had they competed in the NFL - at least until 1966?

An interesting perspective, but...it's not quite comparing apples to oranges but it is perhaps like comparing Granny Smiths to Fujis.
Without going into a lot of detail here, because it would be a major essay that I simply don't have time for, I think the strategy of building an expansion team in an existing league would be quite different from the strategy of building a team in a new league.
In other words, I think the Cowboys and Vikings would have been very different teams had they entered the AFL instead of the NFL.

[JeffreyMiller]

I'm not going to argue that the AFL teams would have beaten the NFL teams in 1963, 64, 65, etc .... who knows? No one thought the Jets would beat the Colts. But I must say, alot of NFL bias is obvious here. I know you can bet on anything, but actually predicting that Kemp would throw five INTs? Come on, man!

I wouldn't have bet that he would throw five INTs.

I would have bet that he would throw more than five.

Ya know I love ya, Ralph, but you're anti-AFL attitude is well known. And being a Packer loyalist makes your attitude even more suspect. But, you know I love ya!

[rhickok1109]

I'm not going to argue that the AFL teams would have beaten the NFL teams in 1963, 64, 65, etc .... who knows? No one thought the Jets would beat the Colts. But I must say, alot of NFL bias is obvious here. I know you can bet on anything, but actually predicting that Kemp would throw five INTs? Come on, man!

I wouldn't have bet that he would throw five INTs.

I would have bet that he would throw more than five.

Ya know I love ya, Ralph, but you're anti-AFL attitude is well known. And being a Packer loyalist makes your attitude even more suspect. But, you know I love ya!

Well, I watched the AFL through its formative years and I followed it pretty closely. In I covered the Patriots in 1960, the AFL's first season, and I was a sports editor from 1961 through 1963. I saw the league and its teams grow and improve but I also saw its deficiencies in those early years.

I'm not really anti-AFL, just realistic.