If you're going to uodate that, get it right this time. Fix 1973. Notre Dame is the sole NC. They beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. ND 11-0, UNBEATEN, BAMA 1 LOSS TO ND. FINAL POLL 1. ND 2. Ohio St 3. Oklahoma 4. ALABAMA YOU DON'T GET TO SHARE OR CLAIM YOU WON THE NC WHEN YOU LOST THE NC GAME AND FINISHED 4TH IN THE FINAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL POLL. Also, fix 1930. Again that is SOLELY A NOTRE DAME NAT CHAMP. Don't belittle or tarnish the last Rockne coached team by giving credence to Bama's made up false claims after the fact. The DICKINSON SYSTEM WAS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS NC SELECTOR OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE AP POLL, AND DICKINSON CHOSE NOTRE DAME. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND QUIT TRYING TO ALTER HISTORY.
For those that care: The NFL began play in 1920. The modern AFL started in 1960, and prior to 1966, the two leagues never played one another, as they had their own championship. Buffalo won 2 titles, the Titans (Oilers) won 2 titles, and the Chargers won 1 title in the AFL. Detroit, Cleveland and Arizona (Chicago Cardinals) won championships in the old NFL. In 1966, the two leagues agreed to let their champions play each other in a "Super Bowl" at the conclusion of the 1966 season (Super Bowl 1 played on January 1967). Then in 1970, the two leagues mergerd and became one.
The AFC was a much better conference in the 70's (when the Vikes made three Superbowls). After the 70's, they've underperformed in big games due to never quite having the formula of a good coach/good QB/good enough defense. The potential is their but sooner or later the coach/QB/defense fails at the worst time.
This begs the question: how much has the Belichick era of New England raised the win percentage? Being in the playoff hunt for the last 21 years has to do something to that winning percentage, in a good way.
@@vincesmith2499 they're inexplicably linked. When I say Belichick, you're obviously getting the entire time Brady was there. However, the last 2 seasons with Mac Jones almost prove that Belichick can win without Tom.
The Browns actually having a winning record is insane. I know they were the it team pre merger to the early 70s and some good season in the 80s but only having 3 winning seasons since they came back in 99' I for sure thought they'd have a losing record. Pittsburgh only being 10th is kinda surprising to considering they've had only 4 losing seasons in the last 34 years is wild to me
"How are the Browns 16th?" Because the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 80s all happened. The Browns only got their trash reputation (rightfully so) when they returned after Modell screwed them over. Since 1999, they've been a shell of their former glory, with only 2 (arguably three if you count the one where they missed the postseason on a tie-breaker) seasons of note. It may be old news, but all lots of teams that suck now were good then (Browns, Colts before they moved)) and a lot of top teams in recent memory were TRASH back then (Steelers, Patriots)
Pittsburgh has been good for over 50 years now. Yes they were trash for some time but every team has had low points. At one time Raiders had the best winning percentage of any professional team.
I know a court settlement combined the 2 Browns teams records But if you count the team that started in 1999 by itself, they would BY FAR be 32nd...78 points behind the Bucs By the same token, if you add the 50 seasons of the old Browns to the Ravens record, they would be #1 by 20 points
@@danieljackett4193 It doesn't matter. By court settlement the Browns history stayed in Cleveland and Baltimore was considered an expansion franchise. So it is officially exactly how he had it.
@@dmichael1172 and with every other sports franchise that moved, the records went with the team Not saying the settlement is wrong, just sharing what would happen in any other circumstance
I personally wouldn't, since only 3/8 A-AFC teams survived the NFL-A-AFC merger (And one of those 3 folded right after.), unlike the AFL-NFL merger where all 10 AFL teams survived the merger. Also if you did count it, then you'd need to count their win-rate in those 4 seasons as well. But I can see why people count them (Besides for glory & 1948 A-AFC perfect season recognition.).
It just means the Cowboys have become like the Vikings regular season champs but choke in playoffs. They have done anything in playoffs in almost 30 years.
@@dmichael1172 hey now they've won some wild card games. But as far as the super bowl there's 18 teams that haven't won a super bowl longer than the cowboys' current drought
Before the 1960s SUPER BOWL WAS CALLED The NFL championship game As a buccaneers fan since 2018 last all time behind the Texans and Jaguars who haven’t even been in the league longer than 4 decades
Don't forget that from 1960-1969 there were two leagues: the AFL and the NFL, and prior to 1966, the two leagues never played one another, as they had their own championship. Buffalo won 2 titles, the Titans (Oilers) won 2 titles, and the Chargers won 1 title in the old AFL. In 1966, the two leagues agreed to let their champions play each other in a "Super Bowl" at the conclusion of the 1966 season (Super Bowl 1 played on January 1967). Then in 1970, the two leagues mergerd and became one.
@@HTV315 okay that makes sense. Lots of Bucs fans have been bandwagon jumpers ever since Brady went there. Clearly that isn't you given you are so young
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
It'd be one thing if the Vikes were a continually terrible team. But they win just enough to give you hope and then watch as it blows up. Year after year after year. And I'll still be on my couch in September waiting to go through it again.
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
@@no.1minnesotavikingsfan249 Unfortunately, 1969 doesn't count because we still lost Super Bowl IV. And the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts don't have their league championships from 1966-1968 counted because they lost Super Bowls I-III.
Titles: Tampa Bay: Super Bowls XXXVII (2002) and LV (2020) Jacksonville: None Houston: None Arizona: 1925 and 1947 NFL Championships (as "Chicago Cardinals") Atlanta: None New York Jets: Super Bowl III (1968) Detroit: 1935, 1952, 1953, and 1957 NFL Championships Cincinnati: None New Orleans: Super Bowl XLIV (2009) Carolina: None Buffalo: 1964 and 1965 AFL Championships Tennessee: 1960 and 1961 AFL Championships (as "Houston Oilers") Philadelphia: 1948, 1949, and 1960 NFL Championships and Super Bowl LII (2017) Washington: 1937 and 1942 NFL Championships and Super Bowls XVII (1982), XXI (1987), and XXVI (1991) LA Chargers: 1963 AFL Championship (as "San Diego Chargers") LA Rams: 1945 NFL Championship (as "Cleveland Rams"), 1951 NFL Championship (as "LA Rams"), Super Bowl XXXIV (1999; as "St. Louis Rams") and Super Bowl LVI (2021) Cleveland: 1946-1949 AAFC Championships and 1950, 1954, 1955, and 1964 NFL Championships Seattle: Super Bowl XLVIII (2013) Las Vegas: Super Bowls XI (1976), XV (1980; both as "Oakland Raiders") and XVIII (1983; as "Los Angeles Raiders"). Did win 1967 AFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl II Denver: Super Bowls XXXII (1997), XXXIII (1998), and 50 (2015) Indianapolis: 1958 and 1959 NFL Championships (as "Baltimore Colts"), Super Bowls V (1970; as "Baltimore Colts") and XLI (2006; as "Indianapolis Colts"). Did win 1968 NFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl III. New York Giants: 1927, 1934, 1938, and 1956 NFL Championships and Super Bowls XXI (1986), XXV (1990), XLII (2007), and XLVI (2011) Pittsburgh: Super Bowls IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2005) and XLIII (2008) San Francisco: Super Bowls XVI (1981), XIX (1984), XXIII (1988), XXIV (1989), XXIX (1994) Kansas City: 1962 AFL Championship (as "Dallas Texans") and Super Bowls IV (1969) and LIV (2019). Did win 1966 AFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl I. Minnesota: None; Did win the 1969 NFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl IV. Miami: Super Bowls VII (1972) and VIII (1973) Chicago: 1921, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1946, and 1963 NFL Championships and Super Bowl XX (1985) New England: Super Bowls XXXVI (2001), XXXVIII (2003), XXXIX (2004), XLIX (2014), LI (2016), and LIII (2018) Baltimore: Super Bowls XXXV (2000) and XLVII (2012) Green Bay: 1929, 1930, 1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, and 1965 NFL Championships and Super Bowls I (1966), II (1967), XXXI (1996), and XLV (2010) Dallas: Super Bowls VI (1971), XII (1977), XXVII (1992), XXVIII (1993), and XXX (1995)
We may have the lowest all time record, but at least we got 2 super bowls, I'll always love and support my Buccaneers no matter how bad we suck, GO BUCS 🏴☠️
@@saulgoodman.exe_ The Cards have two titles: 1925 and 1947. However, they have the longest current championship drought in the four major North American sports. Cleveland Guardians are #2. Sacramento Kings are #3.
But lost Super Bowl IV, so it doesn't quite count. The Chiefs and Raiders won the 1966 and 1967 AFL Championships and the Colts won the 1968 NFL Championship, but because all three lost Super Bowls I-III, those aren't included as well.
@@timfortune9 I say the 1969 NFL Championship for the Vikings counts, and so do the NFL record books. The Vikings won the last NFL Championship, and its listed that way in the NFL record books. I know the Chiefs celebrated not just the SB win, but they also celebrated winning the last AFL Championship in 1969 in 2019 50th anniversary. There were 2 leagues before the 1970 merger, the NFL and the AFL. The Vikings won the last NFL Championship regardless of the Super Bowl result. The Super Bowl was NOT the NFL Championship in 1969, 68, 67 or 66. It was the NFL-AFL Championship Game. Watch those broadcasts. It couldn't have been "the NFL Championship" because it was between the 2 leagues. It wasn't formally called the Super Bowl until the 1970 season after the merger. So this video is in error not counting the Vikings 1969 NFL Championship. Its just as valid as any of the previous 37 NFL Chamoionships. I know the Packers considered winning the Ice Bowl in 1967 their THIRD NFL CHAMPIONSHIP IN A ROW, which no one has ever equalled. It was an NFL Championship before the SB. The Packers regarded the SB vs the Raiders as an afterthought. The important Championship was winning that Ice Bowl NFL Champ.
@@scottlowman.1044 The Lions won their last postseason game of 1957. The Vikings did not win their last postseason game of 1969. The totals are all correct, although the Browns' four AAFC Championships shouldn't count. The NFL does not recognize AAFC statistics.
The longest playoff drought for the Vikings was between 1961 (the year they started) and 1967. From 1968 on, 4 years in-between playoff berths has been the longest time. Hell, between 1968 to 1979 or so, 1972 was the only year they missed the playoffs. Not to mention being one of the rare 15 win teams (1998). There have been a lot of good teams who just ended up not being quite good enough.
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
Football must be the only sport where people are only recognize half it's history. It's amazing the number of people who either are not aware of or do not recognize championships won before the super bowl was created.
An NFL title is an NFC championship and an AFL title is an AFC championship. They are equal to SB appearences not SB's. Those eras shouldn't be ignored and need to be focused on more but in terms of title counting those titles are not the equals of SBs.
@@commodorezero That's only true from 1966-69. Before 1966, winning an NFL or AFL Championship was the furthest you could go. So why should the 1965 Buffalo Bills' AFL Championship, for instance, not count? It's not their fault there was no Super Bowl that year for them to win. And what about before the AFL even existed? Why should all those NFL Champions be penalized because there was no AFL team to play in a "Super Bowl"? That seems unfair to me. If you win your last postseason game, you've won a title.
2:45 just curious- why are the Ravens ahead of the Pats? Both have the same winning percentage, but the Pats have more titles and have played more games. Just curious. Not a fan of either team, my lowly terrible Washington Commanders are 19 lol
The team with the lower games played with the same winning percentage will get the nod because the Pats have 8 more ties than the Ravens. Same winning percentage. The team who has fewer ties will be ahead.
The Ravens are ahead of EVERY team when you combine their record with the Browns from 1946-95...That Browns team moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens in 1996
@@danieljackett4193 yeah, at first I was wondering if they were taking that into account with how they ranked the teams, but when they listed the Ravens as only having 2 “titles” I figured they must be referring to only their Super Bowls, so they only were looking at the franchise post move in 1996
The NFL says the Ravens are the expansion team, and the Browns were "paused" for 1996-98, and that's because of the court settlement If the old Browns and Ravens were combined, the winning percentage would be .594, and the Browns from 1999's would be .326 If
Why does it say the browns have 8 titles? They have won 0 super bowls, and if we are basing this off of NFL championships, the Vikings have at least 1. They won it in 1969.
@@vincesmith2499 That doesn't erase the fact that the Vikings won the 1969 NFL Title Game. We also don't know if the Packers in 61, 62 and 65 would have beaten the AFL Champion those years. But they are still rewarded with NFL Championships those years. Please educate yourself. You look silly.
@@kbrewski1 If the Super Bowl had existed those years and the Packers had lost the Super Bowl, they would not count either. 1966 Chiefs, 1967 Raiders, and 1968 Colts aren't listed.
Browns didn't suck til Modell screwed them over and they came back in 1999. Before the move, they were historically good. Talking "all-time" means talking all time. People act like the 1940's-1960's never happened and the Browns weren't a guarantee to make the finals every year for 10 years straight under the GOAT Otto Graham before Brady took the title. It wasn't until after their "grand return" that the Browns have been total trash, with like, 2 seasons worth talking about since.
The browns used to be good before the owner moved the team to Baltimore. A lot of teams that suck now where amazing back in the day and before the super bowl era. (Lions, Bears, Browns). People don't tend to count football before the super bowl era. So they forget that teams like the browns, Packers, etc... used to dominate. That's the main reason why the Packers have the most championships of any team because they won 8 of them before the NFL became a thing.
The browns QB Otto Graham, along with owner Paul Brown practically invented the modern passing game. And all 8 of their championships came between 1946-1964
@@Rebel-eq7ul if only Super Bowls counted, then the video has statistics wrong for a lot of teams, including Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Arizona, Titans, etcetera. This shows all time win-loss records along with all time titles won for every single still-existing franchise, not just Super Bowls won.
@@KID_JEDI_76 I know I’m full aware this includes pre Superbowls and pre AFL/NFL merger. I just think back in dinosaur times when there was less than 15 teams and barley any Black players played it DOESNT count. Only Super Bowls count in my book
The Cleveland Browns are actually the 32nd ranked team with a 125-258-1 record for a .326 winning percentage with 0 titles The Baltimore Ravens are actually the #1 ranked team with a 664-450-14 record for a .594 winning percentage and 10 Pro football titles
This is of course if you add the 50 seasons of the old Browns to the 27 seasons the Ravens have been in Baltimore, and treat the Browns that started in 1999 as their own team
@@danieljackett4193 I fully agree with this since the NFL would probably do it this way if it weren't for the city of Cleveland being salty and filing a lawsuit. Also you should probably add your reply to the main comment.
@@FusionCyborg this is how every Major League sports team that moved (including the Rams, Chargers, Colts, Bears, Raiders and Lions in this video) are recorded...Only the Baltimore Ravens are treated differently
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
@@vincesmith2499 Once again I have to correct the butthurt nimrod. The Vikings won the last true NFL Championship in 1969, 27-7 over the Cleveland Browns. Its in the record books, look it up. They don't get that NFL title erased from history just because they lost the following NFL-AFL World Championship Game as it was called then, aka unofficially called the Super Bowl. Only a uneducated moron would think that. The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship. The Chiefs won the 1969 AFL Championship, the last AFL one, and the following NFL-AFL Championship. ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE AND HAPPENED. ONE DOES NOT CANCEL OUT THE OTHERS FROM HISTORY. Try telling a Packers fan that the 1967 NFL Championship game aka the iconic ICE BOWL, did not count or mean anything, just because there was a NFL-AFL World Championship Game the following 2 weeks vs the Raiders. Any Packer who played in that game will tell you: 1. It was and remains the most important and iconic game in the history of the NFL. Yes more important than the earlier 1958 Colts v Giants NFL Champ Game won in OT, more important than the fluke Jets SB upset in 1968. 2. The Packers mission that year was to be the first team in the history of the NFL to win 3 NFL Championships in a row, something that had never been done. They had missed the chance to accomplish that in 1963 after winning the 61 and 62 NFL Championships. Lombardi was peeved about that. They not only accomplished the historic feat of 3 in a row, they did it in iconic historic dramatic fashion in -13 degree weather in the last 16 sec of the game on an all or nothing play. The 3 NFL TITLES IN A ROW OCCURRED THE SECOND THE FINAL GUN SOUNDED IN THE ICE BOWL. The Packers regarded the following Raiders game as an afterthought, almost an inconvenience. Read ANY BOOK ABOUT THAT SEASON OR ABOUT THE ICE BOWL. There are many books about just the Ice Bowl. I know of no books just about the following NFL-AFL World Championship game, even though it was Lombardi's last as Packers coach. THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE GIVING THEM 3 IN A ROW WAS THE ICE BOWL, NOT THE "SUPER BOWL". ASK ANY PACKER OF THAT ERA. THAT 1967 ICE BOWL WAS AN NFL TITLE JUST AS VALID AS THE VIKINGS 1969 NFL TITLE. WRONG YET AGAIN.
You are actually correct about something! This is the 1st correct statement I've seen you make! Yes, it was impossible for the Browns to win NFL Championships from 1946-49, because the Browns weren't members of the NFL until 1950, since they were in the AAFC. Whereas, the Minn Vikings were members of the NFL when they won the last NFL Championship in 1969 over the....Browns. One has to give the Browns some credit, they played in 11 of the last 20 NFL Championships, and 4 of the last 6. Over HALF of those Title games in the last 2 decades. I bet not many people realize that. Unfortunately, they only won 4 of the 11.
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
@@vincesmith2499 The last guy who I was replying to just said it short bus rider. You still don't get it TROLL. An NFL Championship is a TITLE. CHAMPIONSHIP = TITLE. SAME THING. You don't get to make up different definitions of the English language idiot.
@@vincesmith2499 This video is ranking the teams by winning percentage. You're so stupid you don't even know what's going on. You just are here to TROLL the Vikings. What a loser.
I'm only guessing, but maybe the reason why the person who made this video put 3 titles instead of four for the Raiders, is because he is maybe not counting the AFL championship they won in 1967 due to the "Super Bowl" already in place, and because of that, the AFL and NFL championship games from 67 through 79 doesn't count as a "Championship".
@@KID_JEDI_76 Can't be, as the Chiefs titles' is also incorrect. They won 3 AFL titles, 2 SB titles, for 5 total. This video credits 3 titles. So which 3 are they crediting them for? 2 SB and only 1 AFL? One of the AFL titles is from 1969, so if that was excluded, why only 3 instead of 4? I imagine there are quite a few mistakes on the other teams as well. A title is a title, no matter before or after the merger.
@@Matt-xv2cp you're probably right, the video is only counting the 1 AFL championship in which the Chiefs won in 1962 and the two Super Bowls in 1969 and 2019. They are probably treating the two AFL championships in 1966 and 1969 as "conference championships" instead of "titles won". Also, if they (the 66 and 69 AFL titles) counted as "titles won", then the Chiefs earned two "world titles" in the same year; 1969, and the creator of the video probably didn't want to do that.
@@Matt-xv2cp I'm guessing that is probably what he did because Minnesota should have 1 "Titles Won" as they won the NFL championship in 1969 but lost to the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. But yeah, the creator the video treated the AFL/NFL championships from 66 through 69 as conference championships instead of titles, or else they would have to add two more Titles Won for Green Bay, one more for the New York Jets and two more for the Chiefs.
@@KID_JEDI_76 Whomever created the video needs to check the official Website of each team, which in the case of the Raiders and Chiefs, attributes 4 and 5 titles respectively. Apparently, they're making their own definition of what qualifies as a title and what does not. Not sure if they're qualified to determine that, lol.
The NFL counts the 4 AAFC titles for the Cleveland Browns before they came to the NFL, and they count the AFL titles before the Superbowl began in the 1966 season
These are not fictitious titles. Buffalo won AFL titles in the mid 60s BEFORE the Super Bowl era. San Diego won an AFL titles in 1963 BEFORE the Super Bowl era. The Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans) won AFL titles in the early 60s BEFORE the Super Bowl era. As far as Seattle, they won a "nailbiter" vs. Denver and Peyton Manning by a 43-8 final score in SB48. NONE of these titles were fictitious.
And yet an NFC South member (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) won the Super Bowl in the 1st season of the NFC South's existence, and another NFC South Member (Carolina Panthers) won the 2003 NFC Championship Game in the NFC South's 2nd season of existence. History is damn interesting.
The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship, actually the last NFL Championship before the merger of the 2 leagues. So this video is wrong. If you are going to credit the Bears and Browns and Packers with their NFL Championships you need to credit the Vikings also. Flawed Video with inaccurate info.
You're confusing titles with championships. Winning the AFC or NFC championship in 1969 did not win them the title. It only got them to the title game.
@@ScottCleve33 THERE WAS NO NFC OR AFC IN 1969 YOU IDIOT. TRY TO KEEP UP. Championship and Title are interchangeable. The NFL Championship was also called the NFL Title game back in the 60s. I have all the NFL Films shows on those NFL Champ games. The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship/Title. The fact that they lost the NFL-AFL Championship Game (aka Super Bowl) doesn't mean their NFL Championship suddenly disappeared. Win or lose the SB, they still won the 1969 NFL Championship. KC won the AFL Championship also.
@@kbrewski1 I'd say that you're not very bright but I don't think that that's your problem. It seems that you believe this by choice. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
@@ScottCleve33 Well, well, well, we have a self anointed Einstein in the house. I guess you'll need to conduct a seance and chastise the Sabols on how stupid they were all those years interchangeably using the words "Title" and "Championship" in their official NFL produced films and videos. Silly them, how stupid of them. They also better update all the Pro Football record books and sites which also use the terms interchangeably. I would give you a thorough lesson in English vocabulary and semantics if I thought it would help, but its obvious you have your oxygen starved noggin so far up your azz that I don't think that would be worth my time. And I bet it really stinks up there. What a meatwad. Now back to my book, Last Kings of the Old NFL, the story of the Minnesota Vikings 1969 season.
@@kbrewski1 Look, I get I, you're butthurt that your Vikings have never won anything and I sympathize with you but that die change anything. The reality is that winning an AFL or NFL championship in 1968 doesn't rate any higher than an AFC or NFC championship today. It still leaves them a win short of a title. I'm sorry if that gets your panties in a bunch.
I just realized you ridiculously included the Cleveland Browns 4 AAFC Championships from 1946-49. The AAFC was NOT PART OF THE NFL. The Browns have won only FOUR NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS, 1950, 54, 55 AND 1964. The bizarre thing is you give credit for 4 Browns Championships in another league, yet you don't count USFL or World League Championships. You also laughably don't count NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS before the AFL-NFL merger, ie the Vikings 1969 NFL Championship!! Makes no sense at all. All you're doing is confusing things. The NFL was a league in 1969. The Vikings won the last league championship. Just as the AFL was a league with their own championship. What I suggest to make things clearer and not all muddled is to make 1. A Super Bowl Champions video 2. An NFL Champions video from beginning to 1969. Don't include the AAFC, they were not part of the NFL. 3. Do an AFL Champions video, 1960-69. 4. Do a Conference Champions ie post merger video from 1970 to present. That way you will be clarifying and giving proper credit instead of confusing it and muddying it all up.
The Packers have not won 13 NFL Championships. They have won 10. There was no NFL Championship Game until 1933. That's when you start counting NFL Championships. Before 1933, the NFL just played a slate of games but no final playoff game. The Packers had the best winning pct 3 years, but those are not considered NFL Championships. So this is another error and flaw with your listings. It should only begin in 1933, it should not include the AAFC, and you need to COUNT ALL THE NFL Championships through 1969, the last year of the pre merger NFL.
NCAA Football Champions Update will come sometime this week as well!
W
new york giants
world series
Plz do a ncaa orange bowl video by year
If you're going to uodate that, get it right this time. Fix 1973. Notre Dame is the sole NC. They beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. ND 11-0, UNBEATEN, BAMA 1 LOSS TO ND. FINAL POLL
1. ND
2. Ohio St
3. Oklahoma
4. ALABAMA
YOU DON'T GET TO SHARE OR CLAIM YOU WON THE NC WHEN YOU LOST THE NC GAME AND FINISHED 4TH IN THE FINAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL POLL.
Also, fix 1930. Again that is SOLELY A NOTRE DAME NAT CHAMP. Don't belittle or tarnish the last Rockne coached team by giving credence to Bama's made up false claims after the fact. The DICKINSON SYSTEM WAS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS NC SELECTOR OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE AP POLL, AND DICKINSON CHOSE NOTRE DAME.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND QUIT TRYING TO ALTER HISTORY.
Where does your favorite team rank?!
#17 not bad
#11
Cowboys don't deserve it, giants are better.
#4
17th
For those that care: The NFL began play in 1920. The modern AFL started in 1960, and prior to 1966, the two leagues never played one another, as they had their own championship. Buffalo won 2 titles, the Titans (Oilers) won 2 titles, and the Chargers won 1 title in the AFL. Detroit, Cleveland and Arizona (Chicago Cardinals) won championships in the old NFL. In 1966, the two leagues agreed to let their champions play each other in a "Super Bowl" at the conclusion of the 1966 season (Super Bowl 1 played on January 1967). Then in 1970, the two leagues mergerd and became one.
That doesn’t explain the packers’ 13 titles
@@Piebomb what do you mean?
@@Piebomb They won 9 titles in the NFL before the Super Bowls just like the OP was trying to tell people.
The Chicago Cardinals didn't win 2 NFL Championships.
@@kbrewski1 yes they did 1925 and 1947.
Shows how much of a regular season team the Vikings are
Continual hope and continual pain.
:(
The AFC was a much better conference in the 70's (when the Vikes made three Superbowls). After the 70's, they've underperformed in big games due to never quite having the formula of a good coach/good QB/good enough defense. The potential is their but sooner or later the coach/QB/defense fails at the worst time.
@@ryanjacobson2508 they really need a new Qb
11th alltime in playoff wins. Not bad
He has returned 😳
This begs the question: how much has the Belichick era of New England raised the win percentage? Being in the playoff hunt for the last 21 years has to do something to that winning percentage, in a good way.
Tom Brady era, you mean.
@@vincesmith2499 they're inexplicably linked. When I say Belichick, you're obviously getting the entire time Brady was there. However, the last 2 seasons with Mac Jones almost prove that Belichick can win without Tom.
The worst team in this list has 2 championships… that’s actually insane
And then there’s the Vikings
Giants best
Nah, just two improbable runs
@@andrewpestotnik5495 what..? 2003 and 2020 we're not improbable at all.
@@BrysonConroy the bucs had done nothing but fall short from 1997-2001, No one expected Brady to win them a title in his first year there
The return of the king
you’re back!
There was a time before Jim Mora and Sean Payton when New Orleans was last by far on this list.
The Saints suffered through 20 consecutive losing seasons.
The Browns actually having a winning record is insane. I know they were the it team pre merger to the early 70s and some good season in the 80s but only having 3 winning seasons since they came back in 99' I for sure thought they'd have a losing record. Pittsburgh only being 10th is kinda surprising to considering they've had only 4 losing seasons in the last 34 years is wild to me
Pittsburgh was the worst team in the NFL from the 30s through the 60s. 4 decades of losing.
The expansion Browns (from 1999) should be 32nd
The Ravens (when you add in the Browns record from 1946-95) should be #1
What happened? It’s okay if you don’t want to say but anyway heres a video idea: updated world series champions. You da goat bro
I just now realized after watching the video that the titles won are all time not just superbowls
"How are the Browns 16th?" Because the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 80s all happened. The Browns only got their trash reputation (rightfully so) when they returned after Modell screwed them over. Since 1999, they've been a shell of their former glory, with only 2 (arguably three if you count the one where they missed the postseason on a tie-breaker) seasons of note. It may be old news, but all lots of teams that suck now were good then (Browns, Colts before they moved)) and a lot of top teams in recent memory were TRASH back then (Steelers, Patriots)
Colts were good long after their move too. Peyton Manning.
Pittsburgh has been good for over 50 years now. Yes they were trash for some time but every team has had low points. At one time Raiders had the best winning percentage of any professional team.
I know a court settlement combined the 2 Browns teams records
But if you count the team that started in 1999 by itself, they would BY FAR be 32nd...78 points behind the Bucs
By the same token, if you add the 50 seasons of the old Browns to the Ravens record, they would be #1 by 20 points
@@danieljackett4193 It doesn't matter. By court settlement the Browns history stayed in Cleveland and Baltimore was considered an expansion franchise. So it is officially exactly how he had it.
@@dmichael1172 and with every other sports franchise that moved, the records went with the team
Not saying the settlement is wrong, just sharing what would happen in any other circumstance
Chargers over .500 now lets goo
@BoltBilly Yessir💪
Welcome back
Hats off to you for including the Browns’ four AAFC titles.
And he absolutely should.....
I personally wouldn't, since only 3/8 A-AFC teams survived the NFL-A-AFC merger (And one of those 3 folded right after.), unlike the AFL-NFL merger where all 10 AFL teams survived the merger. Also if you did count it, then you'd need to count their win-rate in those 4 seasons as well.
But I can see why people count them (Besides for glory & 1948 A-AFC perfect season recognition.).
The Vikings won the NFL championship in 1969 when there was 16 teams and he didn't it but he counted the browns wins when there was like 3 teams? wtf
@@FusionCyborg he should have added the Vikings as well they won in 1969 when there was 16 teams
Which shouldn't have counted, if this is supposed to be a NFL HISTORY VIDEO.
Cowboys take over the Packers spot from a year ago!
It just means the Cowboys have become like the Vikings regular season champs but choke in playoffs. They have done anything in playoffs in almost 30 years.
@@dmichael1172 hey now they've won some wild card games. But as far as the super bowl there's 18 teams that haven't won a super bowl longer than the cowboys' current drought
Before the 1960s SUPER BOWL WAS CALLED The NFL championship game
As a buccaneers fan since 2018 last all time behind the Texans and Jaguars who haven’t even been in the league longer than 4 decades
Don't forget that from 1960-1969 there were two leagues: the AFL and the NFL, and prior to 1966, the two leagues never played one another, as they had their own championship. Buffalo won 2 titles, the Titans (Oilers) won 2 titles, and the Chargers won 1 title in the old AFL. In 1966, the two leagues agreed to let their champions play each other in a "Super Bowl" at the conclusion of the 1966 season (Super Bowl 1 played on January 1967). Then in 1970, the two leagues mergerd and became one.
You've only been a fan for 5 years? How old are you?
@@deftone330 17 going on 18
@@HTV315 okay that makes sense. Lots of Bucs fans have been bandwagon jumpers ever since Brady went there. Clearly that isn't you given you are so young
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
It'd be one thing if the Vikes were a continually terrible team. But they win just enough to give you hope and then watch as it blows up. Year after year after year.
And I'll still be on my couch in September waiting to go through it again.
They never seem to get the coaching/QB/defense to all do their jobs right at the most important times.
I understand your pain as a Dallas fan who was born the year after the last super bowl
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
@@no.1minnesotavikingsfan249 Unfortunately, 1969 doesn't count because we still lost Super Bowl IV. And the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts don't have their league championships from 1966-1968 counted because they lost Super Bowls I-III.
@@no.1minnesotavikingsfan249 Spam.
Titles:
Tampa Bay: Super Bowls XXXVII (2002) and LV (2020)
Jacksonville: None
Houston: None
Arizona: 1925 and 1947 NFL Championships (as "Chicago Cardinals")
Atlanta: None
New York Jets: Super Bowl III (1968)
Detroit: 1935, 1952, 1953, and 1957 NFL Championships
Cincinnati: None
New Orleans: Super Bowl XLIV (2009)
Carolina: None
Buffalo: 1964 and 1965 AFL Championships
Tennessee: 1960 and 1961 AFL Championships (as "Houston Oilers")
Philadelphia: 1948, 1949, and 1960 NFL Championships and Super Bowl LII (2017)
Washington: 1937 and 1942 NFL Championships and Super Bowls XVII (1982), XXI (1987), and XXVI (1991)
LA Chargers: 1963 AFL Championship (as "San Diego Chargers")
LA Rams: 1945 NFL Championship (as "Cleveland Rams"), 1951 NFL Championship (as "LA Rams"), Super Bowl XXXIV (1999; as "St. Louis Rams") and Super Bowl LVI (2021)
Cleveland: 1946-1949 AAFC Championships and 1950, 1954, 1955, and 1964 NFL Championships
Seattle: Super Bowl XLVIII (2013)
Las Vegas: Super Bowls XI (1976), XV (1980; both as "Oakland Raiders") and XVIII (1983; as "Los Angeles Raiders"). Did win 1967 AFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl II
Denver: Super Bowls XXXII (1997), XXXIII (1998), and 50 (2015)
Indianapolis: 1958 and 1959 NFL Championships (as "Baltimore Colts"), Super Bowls V (1970; as "Baltimore Colts") and XLI (2006; as "Indianapolis Colts"). Did win 1968 NFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl III.
New York Giants: 1927, 1934, 1938, and 1956 NFL Championships and Super Bowls XXI (1986), XXV (1990), XLII (2007), and XLVI (2011)
Pittsburgh: Super Bowls IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2005) and XLIII (2008)
San Francisco: Super Bowls XVI (1981), XIX (1984), XXIII (1988), XXIV (1989), XXIX (1994)
Kansas City: 1962 AFL Championship (as "Dallas Texans") and Super Bowls IV (1969) and LIV (2019). Did win 1966 AFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl I.
Minnesota: None; Did win the 1969 NFL Championship, but lost in Super Bowl IV.
Miami: Super Bowls VII (1972) and VIII (1973)
Chicago: 1921, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1946, and 1963 NFL Championships and Super Bowl XX (1985)
New England: Super Bowls XXXVI (2001), XXXVIII (2003), XXXIX (2004), XLIX (2014), LI (2016), and LIII (2018)
Baltimore: Super Bowls XXXV (2000) and XLVII (2012)
Green Bay: 1929, 1930, 1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, and 1965 NFL Championships and Super Bowls I (1966), II (1967), XXXI (1996), and XLV (2010)
Dallas: Super Bowls VI (1971), XII (1977), XXVII (1992), XXVIII (1993), and XXX (1995)
Hey he’s back!
My Raiders used to be top 5/3 before the dark days fell upon the Raider Nation
Raiders used to be the top winning percentage in all of sports. You used to destroy the West for 30 years. Made Us Broncos fans sad till the late 70s
@@dmichael1172especially those John madden days
@@N.O.XpressFF yeah pretty much. Hated the Raiders with a passion when I was a kid.
@@dmichael1172 Now everybody just laughs at them.
Thank you for including all the nfl titles and not cherry picking just the SB titles
Missed you bro
We may have the lowest all time record, but at least we got 2 super bowls, I'll always love and support my Buccaneers no matter how bad we suck, GO BUCS 🏴☠️
The Browns team that started play in 1999 (the 31st NFL team) actually has a .326 winning percentage
Imagine being a Cardinals fan rn, worst win% with no titles and a bum ass franchise qb laughing to the bank
@@saulgoodman.exe_ And being the oldest franchise in the NFL.
@@saulgoodman.exe_ The Cards have two titles: 1925 and 1947. However, they have the longest current championship drought in the four major North American sports. Cleveland Guardians are #2. Sacramento Kings are #3.
@@rgfdg4y46 Cards and Bears have both been in the NFL since the beginning.
Cleveland became Baltimore. So Cleveland hasn't won jacksquat.
NFL records say otherwise. Baltimore is the expansion team.
Yooo where you been?
Jeez we should make a nfl playoffs with the all team of every team
Despite being newer, Jags never tied, Texans once, this year too.
At least the Jets have a title. LOL
They are basically known for 1 lucky game.
Just a thought. The Vikings actually won the last NFL championship before the merger.
But lost Super Bowl IV, so it doesn't quite count.
The Chiefs and Raiders won the 1966 and 1967 AFL Championships and the Colts won the 1968 NFL Championship, but because all three lost Super Bowls I-III, those aren't included as well.
@@timfortune9 i didn't say it did.
@@timfortune9
I say the 1969 NFL Championship for the Vikings counts, and so do the NFL record books. The Vikings won the last NFL Championship, and its listed that way in the NFL record books. I know the Chiefs celebrated not just the SB win, but they also celebrated winning the last AFL Championship in 1969 in 2019 50th anniversary.
There were 2 leagues before the 1970 merger, the NFL and the AFL. The Vikings won the last NFL Championship regardless of the Super Bowl result. The Super Bowl was NOT the NFL Championship in 1969, 68, 67 or 66. It was the NFL-AFL Championship Game. Watch those broadcasts. It couldn't have been "the NFL Championship" because it was between the 2 leagues. It wasn't formally called the Super Bowl until the 1970 season after the merger.
So this video is in error not counting the Vikings 1969 NFL Championship. Its just as valid as any of the previous 37 NFL Chamoionships. I know the Packers considered winning the Ice Bowl in 1967 their THIRD NFL CHAMPIONSHIP IN A ROW, which no one has ever equalled. It was an NFL Championship before the SB. The Packers regarded the SB vs the Raiders as an afterthought. The important Championship was winning that Ice Bowl NFL Champ.
But the Lions championships do. Not sure what championship totals are we totaling on here.
Championship totals seem incorrect.
@@scottlowman.1044 The Lions won their last postseason game of 1957. The Vikings did not win their last postseason game of 1969. The totals are all correct, although the Browns' four AAFC Championships shouldn't count. The NFL does not recognize AAFC statistics.
13 championships? That’s why they’re called Title Town, they also have the most wins of any franchise
The Bears will reclaim the most wins this decade, and the Bears also have the most HOF's.
@@stivosimz Highly doubtful
@@stivosimz and best running back all time imo
@@youngtimer964nope, lions got that claim
@@saulgoodman.exe_ Walter Payton was just as good and elusive as Barry Sanders.
Damn, I did not know the Vikings had that high of a win percentage despite not winning any superbowls! I thought they would be much lower on this list
That's why the fan base is the worst kind of tortured. Hope followed by despair.
The longest playoff drought for the Vikings was between 1961 (the year they started) and 1967. From 1968 on, 4 years in-between playoff berths has been the longest time. Hell, between 1968 to 1979 or so, 1972 was the only year they missed the playoffs. Not to mention being one of the rare 15 win teams (1998).
There have been a lot of good teams who just ended up not being quite good enough.
yeah, kinda though the vikings and bills would've traded places in the list with buffalo losing all those super bowls in the 90's
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
If you watched NFL football at all between 1968 to the present, you should have frequently seen the Vikings in the playoffs.
2023 Return 🥳
Football must be the only sport where people are only recognize half it's history. It's amazing the number of people who either are not aware of or do not recognize championships won before the super bowl was created.
An NFL title is an NFC championship and an AFL title is an AFC championship. They are equal to SB appearences not SB's. Those eras shouldn't be ignored and need to be focused on more but in terms of title counting those titles are not the equals of SBs.
@@commodorezero WRONG.
@@vincesmith2499 No not wrong that's technically correct. The only difference between an NFL/AFC title game and an NFC/AFL title game is the letter L.
@@commodorezero That's only true from 1966-69. Before 1966, winning an NFL or AFL Championship was the furthest you could go. So why should the 1965 Buffalo Bills' AFL Championship, for instance, not count? It's not their fault there was no Super Bowl that year for them to win. And what about before the AFL even existed? Why should all those NFL Champions be penalized because there was no AFL team to play in a "Super Bowl"? That seems unfair to me. If you win your last postseason game, you've won a title.
Now it's going to be a slugfest between the Bears and Packera to assert authority for most wins total.
yeah they'll both go 2-15 next year XD
The Greek Bat Packera.
@@no.1minnesotavikingsfan249 and your team will play for the regular season only again
2:45 just curious- why are the Ravens ahead of the Pats? Both have the same winning percentage, but the Pats have more titles and have played more games. Just curious. Not a fan of either team, my lowly terrible Washington Commanders are 19 lol
The team with the lower games played with the same winning percentage will get the nod because the Pats have 8 more ties than the Ravens. Same winning percentage. The team who has fewer ties will be ahead.
@@waynewalton8798 ahhhhhh ok that makes sense. I didn’t even take into account the amount of ties. Thanks for sharing!
The Ravens are ahead of EVERY team when you combine their record with the Browns from 1946-95...That Browns team moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens in 1996
@@danieljackett4193 yeah, at first I was wondering if they were taking that into account with how they ranked the teams, but when they listed the Ravens as only having 2 “titles” I figured they must be referring to only their Super Bowls, so they only were looking at the franchise post move in 1996
The NFL says the Ravens are the expansion team, and the Browns were "paused" for 1996-98, and that's because of the court settlement
If the old Browns and Ravens were combined, the winning percentage would be .594, and the Browns from 1999's would be .326
If
I know it's because of old football but the bears have tied 42 times while Jacksonville has never tied...
It took as long to get thru this video as it did for the Cowboys to get to #1.
Biggest thing is that the Cowboys haven't done anything in playoffs in 30 years. Doesn't matter in regular season if you can't complete the season.
The Packers won Superbowl II for the 1967 season
Minnesota Vikings do have 1 League Championship though in 1969. But thats the only league championship they have currently.
My bears in the top 5, not surprising because they are a charter member if the nfl, been around from the start of the league
So are the Cardinals, and their winning percentage is terrible.
You're right on top of the breaking news....
Break down the titles won by NFL AFL and superbowl.
If you’re going to count titles for the Bills, Chargers and Oilers, you may as well acknowledge that the Vikings won the NFL Championship in 1969.
Why does it say the browns have 8 titles? They have won 0 super bowls, and if we are basing this off of NFL championships, the Vikings have at least 1. They won it in 1969.
The Vikings lost the Super Bowl that year.
@@vincesmith2499
That doesn't erase the fact that the Vikings won the 1969 NFL Title Game. We also don't know if the Packers in 61, 62 and 65 would have beaten the AFL Champion those years. But they are still rewarded with NFL Championships those years. Please educate yourself. You look silly.
@@kbrewski1 The Packers went as far as they could go those years. The Vikings did not in 1969.
@@kbrewski1 If the Super Bowl had existed those years and the Packers had lost the Super Bowl, they would not count either. 1966 Chiefs, 1967 Raiders, and 1968 Colts aren't listed.
The Browns have been sh*t for 30 plus years, yet are still over .500!
Just shows how great they were back in the day.
The Browns from 1999 onwards percentage is 80 points lower than Tampa Bay's
The Minnesota Vikings have one Championship. The last NFL championship.
We still have the NFL championship, they just call it the Super Bowl.
They lost the Super Bowl that year. The Chiefs were the champions of 1969, not the Vikings.
@@vincesmith2499
Once sgain, that doesn't erase the fact that they won the last NFL Championship dipniblets.
Kinda have funny how everyone considers the browns as such a poverty franchise and their pretty high on this list
Browns didn't suck til Modell screwed them over and they came back in 1999. Before the move, they were historically good. Talking "all-time" means talking all time. People act like the 1940's-1960's never happened and the Browns weren't a guarantee to make the finals every year for 10 years straight under the GOAT Otto Graham before Brady took the title. It wasn't until after their "grand return" that the Browns have been total trash, with like, 2 seasons worth talking about since.
@@tfofgaming3413 Yeah
The browns used to be good before the owner moved the team to Baltimore. A lot of teams that suck now where amazing back in the day and before the super bowl era. (Lions, Bears, Browns). People don't tend to count football before the super bowl era. So they forget that teams like the browns, Packers, etc... used to dominate. That's the main reason why the Packers have the most championships of any team because they won 8 of them before the NFL became a thing.
The browns QB Otto Graham, along with owner Paul Brown practically invented the modern passing game. And all 8 of their championships came between 1946-1964
Come on! Jim Brown can't be that far out of memory.
Never a Brown's fan. But, Jim Brown was one B.A.M.F.!
The Bengals will rise quickly on this list.
Nobody rises “quickly” on this list….will take decades before you move up one spot
How about them Cowboys. #1. Should do the CFL as well.
Can you do updated fifa world cup champions?
Who cares?
FYI "old browns" win percentage was .592......
Green Bay, 13
Chicago, 9
Cleveland, 8
NY Giants 8
The Browns should only have four. The NFL does not recognize those four AAFC Championships.
Packers have only 10. No NFL Championship games before 1933.
@@kbrewski1 No championship GAME, but championships were awarded from 1920-32.
The Ravens should have 10, and the Browns ZERO
The Vikings won NFL in 1969,.
It's the equivalent of an NFC Championship today. Not a "title."
I knew we were gonna be #1
Except the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens are
I'm just wondering when the jags are ever going to end a game in a tie. Lol, only team without a 🎀 .
Time to update the Chiefs title win count
Proud to see my Cowboys in 1st
But they are going home tonight lol
They are actually 20 points behind the old Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens
@@Steven-bz1bz yeah but my mother always said cheer for your division so Eagles is my option I guess. 🤨🦅
@@Steven-bz1bz Your favorite team?
@@Steven-bz1bz I calculated and we are still in first with highest winning percentage!🗿
Is this accurate? Are these Bears really from this universe? I find that very hard to believe.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers have Tom Brady number 32.
Vikings have 1 championship. The 69 NFL championship. Even the NFL has them winning one
How come the giants have 8 super bowl titles?
8 titles which includes pre superbowl era championships
The NFL existed before the Super Bowl nutmunch. Pick up a history book.
Cowboys the best
As a Lions fan, I’m confused why we aren’t lower.
We have won one playoff game, and that was with Barry Sanders.
The Lions have won 4 NFL Championships in 1935 (the Tigers and Red Wings also won titles that year), 1952, 54, and 57
@@danieljackett4193 only Super Bowls count stop it with that nonsense from dinosaur times
@@Rebel-eq7ul if only Super Bowls counted, then the video has statistics wrong for a lot of teams, including Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Arizona, Titans, etcetera. This shows all time win-loss records along with all time titles won for every single still-existing franchise, not just Super Bowls won.
@@KID_JEDI_76 I know I’m full aware this includes pre Superbowls and pre AFL/NFL merger. I just think back in dinosaur times when there was less than 15 teams and barley any Black players played it DOESNT count. Only Super Bowls count in my book
The NFL existed for decades before 1966 nutmunch. History didn't begin when you were born.
The Vikings are the only team in the top 20 with 0 titles whyyyy
Favre cost them the NFC Championship with that interception.
They should be listed with 1 NFL Championship in 1969 and 3 NFC Conference Championships for completeness and accuracy.
@@kbrewski1 NFC Championships aren't "titles." The 1969 NFL Championship is the equivalent of an NFC Championship.
Hold on I want to say that the falcons were ranked 28 and the patriot were almost number 3 like wow
Chargers just lost so now they are .500
Postseason games aren't counted.
I like it but there is definitely some (*) in there.
I think Bucs have a higher chance than the Houston
The BILLS NEVER won a super bowl. You show them with two titles
Patriots have 420 losses
Define titles won, you said Buffalo had 2 but they don't
They won two AFL titles in the early 60s before they merged with the NFL
1:02 Bills have no wins
The Cleveland Browns are actually the 32nd ranked team with a 125-258-1 record for a .326 winning percentage with 0 titles
The Baltimore Ravens are actually the #1 ranked team with a 664-450-14 record for a .594 winning percentage and 10 Pro football titles
This is of course if you add the 50 seasons of the old Browns to the 27 seasons the Ravens have been in Baltimore, and treat the Browns that started in 1999 as their own team
@@danieljackett4193 I fully agree with this since the NFL would probably do it this way if it weren't for the city of Cleveland being salty and filing a lawsuit.
Also you should probably add your reply to the main comment.
@@FusionCyborg this is how every Major League sports team that moved (including the Rams, Chargers, Colts, Bears, Raiders and Lions in this video) are recorded...Only the Baltimore Ravens are treated differently
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
So you're just going to start making $hit up?
The title totals are incorrect.
I'm sure that the Patriots have more than two. And the Vikings have at least one NFL championship.
The Patriots are credited with six, not two.
The Vikings lost the Super Bowl the one year they won an NFL Championship, so zero is the correct number.
@@vincesmith2499
Once again I have to correct the butthurt nimrod. The Vikings won the last true NFL Championship in 1969, 27-7 over the Cleveland Browns. Its in the record books, look it up. They don't get that NFL title erased from history just because they lost the following NFL-AFL World Championship Game as it was called then, aka unofficially called the Super Bowl. Only a uneducated moron would think that. The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship. The Chiefs won the 1969 AFL Championship, the last AFL one, and the following NFL-AFL Championship. ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE AND HAPPENED. ONE DOES NOT CANCEL OUT THE OTHERS FROM HISTORY.
Try telling a Packers fan that the 1967 NFL Championship game aka the iconic ICE BOWL, did not count or mean anything, just because there was a NFL-AFL World Championship Game the following 2 weeks vs the Raiders. Any Packer who played in that game will tell you:
1. It was and remains the most important and iconic game in the history of the NFL. Yes more important than the earlier 1958 Colts v Giants NFL Champ Game won in OT, more important than the fluke Jets SB upset in 1968.
2. The Packers mission that year was to be the first team in the history of the NFL to win 3 NFL Championships in a row, something that had never been done. They had missed the chance to accomplish that in 1963 after winning the 61 and 62 NFL Championships. Lombardi was peeved about that. They not only accomplished the historic feat of 3 in a row, they did it in iconic historic dramatic fashion in -13 degree weather in the last 16 sec of the game on an all or nothing play. The 3 NFL TITLES IN A ROW OCCURRED THE SECOND THE FINAL GUN SOUNDED IN THE ICE BOWL. The Packers regarded the following Raiders game as an afterthought, almost an inconvenience. Read ANY BOOK ABOUT THAT SEASON OR ABOUT THE ICE BOWL. There are many books about just the Ice Bowl. I know of no books just about the following NFL-AFL World Championship game, even though it was Lombardi's last as Packers coach.
THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE GIVING THEM 3 IN A ROW WAS THE ICE BOWL, NOT THE "SUPER BOWL". ASK ANY PACKER OF THAT ERA.
THAT 1967 ICE BOWL WAS AN NFL TITLE JUST AS VALID AS THE VIKINGS 1969 NFL TITLE.
WRONG YET AGAIN.
Why are you counting AAFC Championships for the Browns? The NFL doesn't recognize those championships.
You are actually correct about something! This is the 1st correct statement I've seen you make! Yes, it was impossible for the Browns to win NFL Championships from 1946-49, because the Browns weren't members of the NFL until 1950, since they were in the AAFC. Whereas, the Minn Vikings were members of the NFL when they won the last NFL Championship in 1969 over the....Browns.
One has to give the Browns some credit, they played in 11 of the last 20 NFL Championships, and 4 of the last 6. Over HALF of those Title games in the last 2 decades. I bet not many people realize that. Unfortunately, they only won 4 of the 11.
It should say that the Vikings have 1 title because they won the NFL Championship in 1969 when there were 16 teams. He counted the Browns 8 title wins even though they have 0 Super Bowls and there were only like 6 other teams playing when the browns won their "titles". If he's gonna address the browns titles then he HAS to address the Vikings title in 1969 when there were 16 teams. The disrespect is unreal.
In 1969 the Super Bowl was already being played so it doesn’t count because they lost to the chiefs
@@matanmarmer3456
They lost the SB but they still won the last NFL Championship game in 1969. That isn't erased from the record books.
@@kbrewski1 Who said it's erased? It's just not a "title." It's the equivalent of an NFC Championship.
@@vincesmith2499
The last guy who I was replying to just said it short bus rider.
You still don't get it TROLL. An NFL Championship is a TITLE. CHAMPIONSHIP = TITLE. SAME THING. You don't get to make up different definitions of the English language idiot.
The Vikings' win percentage hasn't done much good for them. LOL.
Other than making them one of the 7 most successful teams in NFL history.
@@kbrewski1 Success is measured by titles.
@@vincesmith2499
This video is ranking the teams by winning percentage. You're so stupid you don't even know what's going on. You just are here to TROLL the Vikings. What a loser.
How come the bills have 2 titles?
AFL
Then vikings should have 1
@@dandahl5964 The Vikings AFL came when there was a SB that superseded it as the over championship.
@@ScottCleve33 NFL, not AFL.
The LV Raiders titles won is incorrect, they've won 4 titles, not 3; 3 SB's, 1 AFL Championship.
I'm only guessing, but maybe the reason why the person who made this video put 3 titles instead of four for the Raiders, is because he is maybe not counting the AFL championship they won in 1967 due to the "Super Bowl" already in place, and because of that, the AFL and NFL championship games from 67 through 79 doesn't count as a "Championship".
@@KID_JEDI_76 Can't be, as the Chiefs titles' is also incorrect. They won 3 AFL titles, 2 SB titles, for 5 total. This video credits 3 titles. So which 3 are they crediting them for? 2 SB and only 1 AFL? One of the AFL titles is from 1969, so if that was excluded, why only 3 instead of 4? I imagine there are quite a few mistakes on the other teams as well. A title is a title, no matter before or after the merger.
@@Matt-xv2cp you're probably right, the video is only counting the 1 AFL championship in which the Chiefs won in 1962 and the two Super Bowls in 1969 and 2019. They are probably treating the two AFL championships in 1966 and 1969 as "conference championships" instead of "titles won". Also, if they (the 66 and 69 AFL titles) counted as "titles won", then the Chiefs earned two "world titles" in the same year; 1969, and the creator of the video probably didn't want to do that.
@@Matt-xv2cp I'm guessing that is probably what he did because Minnesota should have 1 "Titles Won" as they won the NFL championship in 1969 but lost to the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. But yeah, the creator the video treated the AFL/NFL championships from 66 through 69 as conference championships instead of titles, or else they would have to add two more Titles Won for Green Bay, one more for the New York Jets and two more for the Chiefs.
@@KID_JEDI_76 Whomever created the video needs to check the official Website of each team, which in the case of the Raiders and Chiefs, attributes 4 and 5 titles respectively. Apparently, they're making their own definition of what qualifies as a title and what does not. Not sure if they're qualified to determine that, lol.
The Lions have never even been to a Super Bowl why does this say they have 4
Pre-Super Bowl era championships.
Football existed before you were born. The world didn't start right when you came splashing out from your mommy's bloody cavern.
@@kbrewski1 drink your tea
@@steelpirzag1919
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
"Titles won"---not sure what that exactly means---obviously not Super Bowls.
Correct, The Lions have 4 NFL Championships but have never been to or won a championship in the Super Bowl Era.
There were football champions before Super Bowls. Not everything happened after 1967.
I suggest look up the history of the NFL. There was a lot of things that happened before Superbowls were played.
Just what it says: TITLES.
Wtf does titles even mean. Like it’s not Super Bowls, it’s not conference so what is it? 😂
Found the guy that thinks super bowl 1 was the first nfl season
there pre superbowl era championships
@@Y.d.o.b.o.n dude I’m not stupid I know the super bowl era was not part of the first nfl season dingus 😂
@@Jake-zs1mvhow are they Pre super bowl era if they ravens didn’t even exist yet?
@@blgchengus yeah that's why the ravens don't have any pre superbowl era championships they just won two superbowls
Care to explain these fictitious titles in buffalo, San Diego Seattle and Tennessee?????? Zero is the answer you are looking for
Football didn't start in 1967. Titles is the key word. There's a reason why it doesn't says Super Bowls
Before the Super Bowl era it was the nfl title and the afl title. Today that’s known as the nfc/afc champions
The NFL counts the 4 AAFC titles for the Cleveland Browns before they came to the NFL, and they count the AFL titles before the Superbowl began in the 1966 season
Seattle? Did Super Bowl 48 not happen?
These are not fictitious titles. Buffalo won AFL titles in the mid 60s BEFORE the Super Bowl era. San Diego won an AFL titles in 1963 BEFORE the Super Bowl era. The Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans) won AFL titles in the early 60s BEFORE the Super Bowl era. As far as Seattle, they won a "nailbiter" vs. Denver and Peyton Manning by a 43-8 final score in SB48. NONE of these titles were fictitious.
You got number two and one wrong.The packers has a higher record than the cowboys so the packers should be number one
Not higher winning percentage, though
The entirety of the NFC South is in the bottom 10. Go figure.
And yet an NFC South member (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) won the Super Bowl in the 1st season of the NFC South's existence, and another NFC South Member (Carolina Panthers) won the 2003 NFC Championship Game in the NFC South's 2nd season of existence. History is damn interesting.
The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship, actually the last NFL Championship before the merger of the 2 leagues. So this video is wrong. If you are going to credit the Bears and Browns and Packers with their NFL Championships you need to credit the Vikings also. Flawed Video with inaccurate info.
You're confusing titles with championships. Winning the AFC or NFC championship in 1969 did not win them the title. It only got them to the title game.
@@ScottCleve33
THERE WAS NO NFC OR AFC IN 1969 YOU IDIOT. TRY TO KEEP UP.
Championship and Title are interchangeable. The NFL Championship was also called the NFL Title game back in the 60s. I have all the NFL Films shows on those NFL Champ games.
The Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship/Title. The fact that they lost the NFL-AFL Championship Game (aka Super Bowl) doesn't mean their NFL Championship suddenly disappeared. Win or lose the SB, they still won the 1969 NFL Championship. KC won the AFL Championship also.
@@kbrewski1 I'd say that you're not very bright but I don't think that that's your problem. It seems that you believe this by choice. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
@@ScottCleve33
Well, well, well, we have a self anointed Einstein in the house. I guess you'll need to conduct a seance and chastise the Sabols on how stupid they were all those years interchangeably using the words "Title" and "Championship" in their official NFL produced films and videos. Silly them, how stupid of them. They also better update all the Pro Football record books and sites which also use the terms interchangeably.
I would give you a thorough lesson in English vocabulary and semantics if I thought it would help, but its obvious you have your oxygen starved noggin so far up your azz that I don't think that would be worth my time. And I bet it really stinks up there. What a meatwad.
Now back to my book, Last Kings of the Old NFL, the story of the Minnesota Vikings 1969 season.
@@kbrewski1 Look, I get I, you're butthurt that your Vikings have never won anything and I sympathize with you but that die change anything. The reality is that winning an AFL or NFL championship in 1968 doesn't rate any higher than an AFC or NFC championship today. It still leaves them a win short of a title. I'm sorry if that gets your panties in a bunch.
I just realized you ridiculously included the Cleveland Browns 4 AAFC Championships from 1946-49. The AAFC was NOT PART OF THE NFL. The Browns have won only FOUR NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS, 1950, 54, 55 AND 1964. The bizarre thing is you give credit for 4 Browns Championships in another league, yet you don't count USFL or World League Championships. You also laughably don't count NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS before the AFL-NFL merger, ie the Vikings 1969 NFL Championship!! Makes no sense at all. All you're doing is confusing things. The NFL was a league in 1969. The Vikings won the last league championship. Just as the AFL was a league with their own championship.
What I suggest to make things clearer and not all muddled is to make
1. A Super Bowl Champions video
2. An NFL Champions video from beginning to 1969. Don't include the AAFC, they were not part of the NFL.
3. Do an AFL Champions video, 1960-69.
4. Do a Conference Champions ie post merger video from 1970 to present.
That way you will be clarifying and giving proper credit instead of confusing it and muddying it all up.
The Packers have not won 13 NFL Championships. They have won 10. There was no NFL Championship Game until 1933. That's when you start counting NFL Championships. Before 1933, the NFL just played a slate of games but no final playoff game. The Packers had the best winning pct 3 years, but those are not considered NFL Championships.
So this is another error and flaw with your listings. It should only begin in 1933, it should not include the AAFC, and you need to COUNT ALL THE NFL Championships through 1969, the last year of the pre merger NFL.
Wrong about the Packers. Those absolutely are considered championships.
No. 1966-69 NFL and AFL Championships do not count for OBVIOUS reasons.
@@vincesmith2499
Its OBVIOUS you don't know or understand NFL history, and have never taken a Logic course.
@@kbrewski1 In what season did the Vikings celebrate after winning their FINAL postseason game?
HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!!;!!!
Welcome back