Talk:National Football League/Archive 2

The Packers championships section isn't in the correct format and had some incorrect gibberish before I edited it; if someone could fix it it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.144.137 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The map showing the locations of NFL teams has the Giants and Jets in the wrong state. The map has them in New York, but they play in New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.16.82 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the team names that were vandalized in the conference/division table.128.205.127.129 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Wooley

I::Expanded playoff section. My next goal is the Race section. It shouldn't be too hard, what with all of the press the issue gets. I will provided copious refs and try to make it more NPOV. --Jayron32 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

these sections have been moved to other articles --Jayron32 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up and referenced the tie-breaker section. Next up is the salary section I think (OK, I am avoiding the race section. But I am not at all convinced that it should stay. I will probably end up getting to that one last. Ho-hum.) --Jayron32 01:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This section has been moved to the playoff article. --Jayron32 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Salary section is started. I still want to make the whole section more coherant. I have created an new umbrella section (Player compensation and contracts) to handle all of the stuff on the CBA, Salaries, Salary Cap, Draft, and Free Agency. I haven't gotten to cleaning up the old writing yet, but the new stuff makes an effective introduction. Also, see below about reducing this article. The guy who posted the message below has some good ideas. --Jayron32 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New parent section for this and other related info (Player contracts and compensation) has been updated. IDEA: Maybe move to new article, since it has gotten bigger? We'll see if that is necessary with the other reductions we have done. --Jayron32 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Salary section finished. Also, I moved the entire playoff section (as requested below) to the main NFL Playoffs article. Still left to do:

• The Draft (reference)
• Free Agency (reference)
• History (Reference and expand FIRST, then move to the NFL History article WHEN FINISHED like was done with the Playoffs section) --Jayron32 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for what to do next to both clean up and reduce the size of this article:

• History section still needs work (see above)
• Remove the teams/stadiums/metro area chart to a new article: List of current NFL Franchises. Will reduce largely redundant information already found in the {{nfl}} template, and greatly reduce the size of the article. Comments anyone???
• Reorganize to a more logical organization. Not sure what this is, but it aint great right now.--Jayron32 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on player contracts needs an update. It says that the current CBA will expire after the end of the 2006 season. I believe it was at the end of the 2005 season (which in fact is in 2006) it expired. The Free Agency period in 2006 was delayed because of the negotiations before a new agreement was reached. The new agreement also have some new rules about sharing money between big market teams and small market teams.

First of all, thank you User:Jayron32 for all your clean-up contributions to the article. I just noticed that this article is absolutely huge. This page is 78 kilobytes long, which WP:SIZE recommends a 32 KB page and 12-15 pages printed (it's 32 right now). I think some sections could be possibly split. Possible sections that need the bulk trim could possibly be;

1. Playoffs- it's longer than the length of the NFL Playoffs article. Should the tie-breaking rules be included, or left in the NFL Playoff article?
2. Racial policies- should it even be there at all? gone until referenced
3. Rules named after players- could this be moved to NFL Lore? done
4. History- Could this deserve it's own article? Not that it is too long, it's just that it seems it could be expanded a bit more given the extensive history of the NFL.

Just throwing some ideas out there, I know almost every pro-sports page is long (NHL, MLB, NASCAR), just wondering if this page should be split up a bit, or timmed--aviper2k7 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • reply Thanks for the input. I was thinking that the article WAS much too long. My thought was to improve first and split later. My recent edits seem to have generated some interest in improving the article quite a bit, and I would like to see it continue. Its easier to keep improving all of this information in a central place. Once the writing and references are up to snuff, we can consider forking or moving some of this information to more relevant articles. I think the NFL article needs all of these sections, but we can move the bulk of the writing to the derivative articles and use the {{main}} or {{details}} tags to redirect for further info. Sound good? --Jayron32 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. A brief, brief summary would be nice, with extended details in the split article. Much like many of the NFL teams have separate team history pages and a brief summary of their history.--aviper2k7 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the playoffs section already. Article is down to about 54 kb. Getting better. Once we improve and move the history section, it should be even better. --Jayron32 05:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe such sections as television and radio are important for the total detail of the NFL, besides mentioning the NFL Network which is run by the league. Also, the players and coaches headers can be removed, with the links moved entirely to "See Also," right? Bmitchelf 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

reply good idea. I will get on moving it to the NFL on TV article. A few sentances should suffice. --Jayron32 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I moved it to the main NFL on TV article, and reduced this to a summary. We should avoid adding to this article too much, and any major details should be added to the main NFL on Television article. Though, if anyone wishes to copyedit my writing to make it better and more succinct, feel free. --Jayron32 17:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The section about scheduling is VERY long right now. It's very interesting, but it's also too much detail for the main article in a project of this size. I'm going to look into moving most of the scheduling info into a sub-article and leaving a condensed version (maybe two paragraphs) on the main page.Adam613 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and made this update. I'm not quite sure how I feel about how sparse the season structure section is now. I'll probably add a bit of detail back in, or someone else can if they want.Adam613 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was bold myself, and put some of it back in. I think a happy medium has been achieved. Last step is the history section rewrite. --Jayron32 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you shouldn't just delete the whole page. If you are going to split a section always leave a summary. I'm not even sure if they really needed a split. I think the history should once it gets more information, but most the regular season information is vital to the article. You can't even tell there is a separate article right now. Use {{Main:Article}} for that. The playoff summary is completely gone, which I thought did an excelent job of summarizing the main NFL Playoffs article. The Exhibition Season really wasn't long enough and notable enough to be split, and should be noted in the article.

I applaud your boldness, but I feel that it wasn't necessarily the right thing to do. The article is still a bit long, but I feel that the history section is the thing that needed splitting (and expanding) before anything else. In time the regular season will eventually need splitting. I'm sure many people feel right now should be the time. That's fine with me, but you should remember to do it the right way. Many people on Wikipedia call it "trimming the fat", which is what you should do to the section after you split it, not erase it completely. That's my two cents. I'm going to revert it to the original version, and you can "trim the fat" from there if you want off the regular season and link to the NFL regular season page. Refer to the NFL playoff page to how they summarized it.--aviper2k7 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the history section needs work, but it's not something I know a lot about, so I didn't want to mess with it. And I agree that the scheduling looks better now than when I left it (Thanks Jayron!).Adam613 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, in the middle of my reply Jayron32 does exactly what I'm talking about. I agree with what Jayron did. --aviper2k7 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved here for your perusal and editing. If you find references to any of these parts, move them back to the main article. Until and unless you can do so, please leave them here until we can find VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE SOURCES to these statements. Also, if you find any other information added to the article that you think MIGHT be useful to it, but has not yet been referenced, please move it here.

Before 2002, an NFC team didn't play an "entire" AFC division each year; it would play four of the five (or six, as in the case of the AFC Central 1999-2001) teams in a division each year. Therefore, an NFC team wasn't guaranteed to play every AFC franchise over the course of three years. Also, the old "fifth place schedule" (pre-1995 when there were only two fifth place teams in each conference) dictated that any team that finished fifth in its division the previous year would not play a particular division in the other conference but rather the two fifth place teams from the other conference. For example, the Denver Broncos finished fifth in the AFC West in 1990. In 1991, while the other four teams in the AFC West played the NFC West, the Broncos played only the Minnesota Vikings (fifth place in the NFC Central in 1990) and the Phoenix Cardinals (fifth place in the NFC East in 1990) from the NFC in 1991. In other words, the Broncos did not play a single team from the NFC West (excluding their Super Bowl game against the 49ers) between 1988 and 1994.Politician818 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and fix this if you like. In the future, you can feel free to Be Bold and fix any problems you find yourself. Don't feel the need to ask permission. You are encouraged to make changes, and THEN justify such changes on the talk page. If others disagree, they will be changed back and we can hammer it out then. Happy editing! --Jayron32 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the championships won by Buffalo?? None?

• also, the XFL doesn't stand for xtreme football league, in fact it doesnt stand for andthing I worked for the Los Angeles Xtreme which was a team in the league and I was straightened out about that my first day on the job. --Blackmachismo131 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• What were the NFL teams prior to the American FL joing? 67.41.213.180 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Browns, Colts, Steelers, and every team currently in the NFC except for the Seahawks, Bucs, and PanthersPolitician818 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Does anyone know the jingles used at the beginning of NFL broadcasts over time? Here's some hints:
  • 1998-2003 CBS: All I remember is it had a big CBS eye and the NFL Shield landed on its pupil at the end.
    • 2001-present Fox: Blue grids and stuff with a dark blue oval. Lasers turn it into the Fox Sports logo, and shortly after, a grid turns it into the NFL logo. Originally had the 1998-2003 NFL jingle, then used the current one from 2003-present.
      • 2006-present NBC: Extreme close-ups of the NBC Sports logo are shown, and it zooms into place on a gray background. Then these... things reveal the NFL logo. *Anyone know what I'm talking about?? WizardDuck 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be good information to add to the article NFL on Television if you can find references to verify it. We are trying to keep this article's size down so as to conform to wikipedia's standards on size. --Jayron32 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Refs: Memory for CBS (anyone who has old NFL on CBS tapes from up until they started using Posthumus Zone might find this), Fox uses theirs on Sunday afternoon and Thanksgiving, and NBC's appears on Sunday Night Football. Unfortunately I do not have access to the 1998 CBS tag, but I do have videos of the current CBS, Fox & NBC tags (I may upload them). WizardDuck 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Brand New: Nov. 23-2006-present NFL Net: It starts with extreme close-ups of the NFL logo. When it gets to the stars and football, however, they lift off, and the rest of the shield (except for the "NFL" script) falls down, as the red parts of the letters sink down (within their own outlines) and the screen quickly cuts to the text emerging from the NFL Network "football" logo, and five stars zoom out, completing the logo. At the end, the glow dies down until only the outline is visible. WizardDuck 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just minutes ago, I uploaded the NBC Sports logo from Sunday Night Football (just a still picture) onto the NBC Sports article. It may give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Hopefully someone finds this and replies. WizardDuck 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I already knew what you were talking about, but I see.++aviper2k7++ 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Someone has vandalized the article, look in the infoboxes under "Teams". Someone who knows something about american football (I don't) please restore it!Heiz 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is vandalized a lot. Just revert edits made by vandals instead of trying to hand pick them out. To do this, click history, then the date of the last good version. Then click edit this page, go to the bottom and give a revert summary and click save page. That's what I always do, it works pretty good. Here, someone made good edits on top of the vandalized edits, in that case just revert to a good version and re-add the good edits by hand by looking in the history. Not a big deal--aviper2k7 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was Jordan Schwartz? Wasn't Jim Thorpe the frist NFL-President until Joe Carr took over?

Is this table really necessary here? It just makes the page longer unnecessarily. The table is already on the "more information" page, History of NFL Championships, and "most" does not mean that all should be included. Instead, the top five or so can be listed along with those teams who are defunct winners and current teams that have never won; this can be listed in a paragraph rather than a table, in an effort to shorten the entire article. bmitchelf•T•F 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is necessary, but I think a distinction should be made here between NFL Championships and specifically Superbowl Championships, as this is the more common and popular measuring stick in gauging NFL franchises. By this count, San Francisco and Dallas would be tied for first, with five apiece. mass147 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This distinction is made on the history page, on a bigger table, which makes it even more appropriate to link to that article, with just a blurb here. bmitchelf•T•F 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, the table is WRONG. The Jets and Chiefs were never NFL champions. The 1968 and 1969 NFL champions were the Colts and Vikings, respectively. The Jets and Chiefs were AFL champions, who won the super bowl, but the super bowl, prior to 1970, did NOT determine the NFL champion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

When the Jets and Chiefs were Super Bowl champions, it is correct that they were not NFL champions. Since the AFL-NFL merger, the NFL has retroactively included AFL championship victories as AFC championship victories, and Super Bowl Championships as NFL Championships. Thus, the JETS AND CHIEFS BOTH HAVE NFL TITLES, as according to the NFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.21.234 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the NFL if the Jets and Chiefs have those NFL titles should we remove the titles from the Vikings and Colts from the table? I am correcting the table but I would like to hear others thoughts. Dark567 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that table is worthless, simply because theres a difference between NFL Championships and Super Bowls. You can have them all together on one table claiming that some of these teams have won a "championship". The NFL Championship and the Super Bowl are two totally different events/championships. you cannot put them together its like putting salt in your coffee insted of sugar. IMURDAD 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Am removing table for lack of clarity. As stated above, the NFL Championship has been a different thing over the years, most of the pre-1970 championships equivalent to a conference championship today. Jx972 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The NFL counts all pre Superbowl, pre merger, championships on the same level as a Superbowl title. This is fact. Proof of this is the NFL record book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhammerle123 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the table back in because it is quite relevant to this article. One stat most people want to know is who won the most championships. And this table provides a quick reference. For more information, people can click on the link that will give detailed information on post-season play. What I really don't understand is why the above posters can't seem to separate the difference between conference championships and overall championships. Every sport plays a championship of some sort, so how can a list of champions be confusing? Championship: 1. the distinction or condition of being a champion: to win a championship. or 2. championships, a series of competitions or contests to determine a champion: the tennis championships. Pick the definition you prefer, but it seems rather simple to me.

There should never be any confusion. It's real simple. It's NFL championships. Championship of the entire National Football League. As in Pittsburgh Steelers 2008 NFL champs. NFL championships = 1920-2008, not 1966-2008. Mjhammerle123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I think that there should be a specific section on the history of the NFL's expansion, maybe leading to a separate article. Unschool 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the San Antonio Metropolitan area larger than Portland? The article says Los Angeles and Portland are the largest areas without a team.

Yes, it is. I live there & I support San Antonio getting an NFL team--72.183.200.78 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Lucario210

How can the team helmets not pass FU? It's an article on the NFL and the teams are the NFL.Sumoeagle179 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please fix and freeze this section. The table is vandalized every once in a while. Admins, please, lock it after repair. TRakowski 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up the columns?

I think the table could be cleaned up a bit, and also keep the spirit of breaking up the first 4 Super Bowls as non-NFL championships, but keep the table cleaner since there's only 3 teams that fall into that category...

For example....

And it was originally called "AFL-NFL World Championship" ...just a thought, and my 0.02....Doctorindy 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Cincinnati Bengals on this list? 192.138.70.245 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The all-time won/lost records for several teams appear to be wildly out of sync with what's accurate. I am assuming this resource is accurate (http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/history/W-L%20-%20Start%20of%202006.pdf) since it is done by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Our numbers are way off. San Francisco, for example, has almost 40 fewer wins through this past season as that resource says they had before this past season. I think this needs to be addressed.

Below is a section moved from the talk page. It is a far better section on racial issues in the NFL than has ever appeared in this article. However, references are needed, and a more thorough an neutral treatment needs to be given to assure that this section serves to improve the article to Good Article and eventual;ly Featured status. I would have no objection if this section were moved back AFTER REFERENCES ARE ADDED TO IT. If the original author has references, but is uncertain of the techinical aspects of citing sources at wikipedia, I would be glad to help as needed. --Jayron32 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A few black people played, and even starred for professional football teams in the American Professional Football Association and other early leagues as well as the APFA's successor, the NFL. But shortly after the entry of George Preston Marshall to the league in 1932 as owner of the Boston Braves/Washington Redskins franchise, black players disappeared from NFL rosters. In the mid-1940s, following the lead of the All-America Football Conference, a few NFL teams signed black people as individuals, but there were no black people included in the NFL college draft until 1949. Though five black players were on the draft list, the first of those to actually play NFL football was Wally Triplett, a halfback from Penn State who played for the Detroit Lions and the Chicago Bears. In those years, black players who did manage to make NFL rosters were subject to unwritten but stringent "quotas" for the number of black players on a team and the positions that could be filled by black people. At that time, there were no black quarterbacks, centers, or middle linebackers in the NFL. One source of talent that had been traditionally ignored by the NFL was small, historically black colleges.

The American Football League, in contrast, actively recruited from the black colleges, and used black players at positions not permitted to them in the NFL. For example, in 1963, the AFL's Kansas City Chiefs became the first team in pro football history to use the first overall pick of a draft on a player from a small black college – defensive tackle Buck Buchanan of Grambling State, while the NFL's New York Giants relegated Buchanan to their 19th round pick that year (Buchanan was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1990). The effect was cumulative, and more and more outstanding black players opted for the AFL, recognizing their chances to play were greater there. Willie Lanier (also destined for the Hall of Fame), for example, became pro football's first black middle linebacker with the AFL's Kansas City Chiefs; Marlin Briscoe became the first modern starting black quarterback with the AFL's Denver Broncos, etc. Thus, the expansion of the role of black people not only as players but as assistants, and finally head coaches, in the NFL is traced to the more equitable treatment of black people pioneered by the NFL's rival, the American Football League.

In 2007 Tony Dungy became the first African-American head coach to win the Vince Lombardi Trophy, winning Super Bowl XLI with the Indianapolis Colts.

I have taken the time to reorganize some structural work to this article such as tables and placement. I will continue doing this, and I will then start to proofread and rewrite the article so it can reach Good Article status. --Happyman22 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

may 14,2007 some idiot conmpletly ruined the page

23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)bob

On 6/6/07 I found that the first paragraph of the "history" section has been vandalized.

This page is vandalized practically every day. Did you fix the vandalism or just report it here? -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it is politically correct to use "African American" instead of "Black." However, this is a case where the use of "American" is incorrect. There are non-American Blacks in the NFL. There are non-American Whites in the NFL. I feel that the "American" qualifier should be dropped. Perhaps a note below should point out that not all players in the NFL are "American" so the PC crowd will understand why we cannot use "African American" or "Samoan American" or "Native American" -- well, I seriously doubt there are any non-American Native Americans in the NFL. -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to use the exact wording of the source of the information. However, that's not possible at this point since the info is not sourced. A source needs to be found, or the section removed. - BillCJ 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this: "In July of 2007, Michael Vicks who plays for the Atlanta Falcons was the target in an 18 page federal indictment with overwhelming evidence of vicious pit bull fighting. To date, the NFL has refused to suspend or terminate Michael Vick's contract." actually belong in an article about the NFL? This is but one of many players having been indicted for less than stellar behavior (Ray Lewis? OJ Simpson? Corey Fuller?) If no one disagrees, I'm going to go ahead and remove it... Leebert 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know each team maintains a practice squad and that when players on the roster are out for the season with an injury practice squad players are occasionally signed to the regular roster. It would be nice if the article had some information about the practice squads. Does the team currently employing a player on their practice squad have any sort of exclusive rights to the practice squad player? Is there a minimum salary for practice squad players? Do practice squad players earn enough to live on their practice squad play or do they usually have to get other jobs? Funkyj 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The information exists in the article Scout team; which redirects from Practice squad. It seems a little esoteric an idea to include in this article, maybe a drop-in in the see also or a single line where contextually appropriate to include the wikilink; if you want to, please go ahead and add it where it fits... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get a license to use the new NFL logo set to be used next season? It's basically an update of the current logo. Jgera5 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [1]

• I just created a 3D version of the new logo and put it up. (ScottJohnson20 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to remove the old logo for two reasons. One, the caption is wrong: The current NFL logo was in use in the 60s (see [2], for example). Secondly, the picture is inaccurate -- the original logo was fatter than the current one. -- Mwalcoff 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 23 stars on the shield, not 25 (I counted them). 71.114.212.8 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The last two are behind the football. Pats1 ^T/C 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid. If you use that logic, then the new shield has 10.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.213.186 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the 1960-69 logo: [3] Mdumas43073 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The USA Today story clearly states the logo has 25 stars, for whatever reason. The NFL has specifically stated the new logo has 8 stars, not 10. Please supply a verifiable, reliable source before changing the texts back to 23. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sold out now, apart from a few hospitality packages maybe. The "40,000" tickets reference could probably do with an update 84.65.171.19 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring it up, but it seems like the most common area. Why aren't the division standings made into templates? For example, 2007 Philadelphia Eagles season, 2007 Dallas Cowboys season, 2007 New York Giants season and 2007 Washington Redskins season each have the current division standings on their pages, but they are all kept up individually. Is there a reason for there not to be a common template so it only has to be updated once? -Joltman 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the simple fact that nobody has been bold and done it before. This is really only the second year that individual 200X [NFL TEAM Y] season articles have been updated while the season is in progress. iirc, the division standings were not constantly updated on all of the 2006 [NFL TEAM Y] season articles last year during the season, and some pages did not even list them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I kind of figured it was just because no one did it, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some particular reason why. I went ahead and created Template:NFC East division standings and put that one on the applicable pages. -Joltman 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

for Current sports would it be better if some on would creat current sport temple with pic of the american football ball insted of the soccer ball as we are here talking about NFL not the English premerleague in scoccer. And I also saw that Formula One have replaced the soccerball and clock with helmet and clock.The Tramp 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of guys in my school. And every monday, I always here about the weekend games. Then on tuesday, I hear about the Monday night football games. Are there any people on here who are dedicated fans or like watching football, or anybody who doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubs2493 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why Jon Vaughn was not credited as being one of the kickoff return leaders in his best years. Please see the last paragraph in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First, this should be on Talk:Jon Vaughn. Second, it is mixing two different databases with different information and expecting to get the same results. The NFL site's database has Vaughn's kickoff return stats. The DatabaseFootball site does not have Vaughn's kickoff return stats. How could any remotely sane person expect a database that does not have Vaughn's kickoff return stats to list him as a top kickoff returner? -- kainaw™ 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Vaughn's returns stats are not included?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever made the DatabaseFootball site didn't import them into his database for one reason or another. Only the site administrator could answer that question acceptably. Anyone else could only speculate. -- kainaw™ 04:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. it seems they also did this with former Michigan Wolverines football player Tyrone Wheatley. The long and the short of this is can we find a way to say whether Vaughn was in fact the NFL kickoff return average leader for the season?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing all usage of DatabaseFootball and using the NFL's player stats (go to nfl.com and click on Stats). You can select a year and a category. According to NFL.com, Jon Vaughn was 21st kick return leader in 1991. You will notice that the DatabaseFootball list is missing a lot of players. -- kainaw™ 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. He was actually 12th in 1991 among those with 16 returns and the league leader in 1992.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. so 1994 is puzzling me. Why aren't his stats for both teams aggregated?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Vaughn's teams I mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just realized I thought I was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add some related queries over there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The introduction states that "[the] MLB [has a] much longer schedule, currently 162 games per team with 81 home games each". I would think that the number of total games suffices. The number of home games is always half of it... The Gnome (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up this section to remove the following factual errors:

-It was listed that the three largest metropolitan areas without an NFL franchise are Los Angeles, San Antonio and Portland. This is incorrect; depending on your definition of "metropolitan area": Using the Census Bureau's MSA definition, the three largest would be Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino and Portland.

Using the Census Bureau's PCSA definition (MSAs + CSAs), the three largest would be Los Angeles, Orlando and Sacramento. Using the Nielsen definition of media market, the three largest would be Los Angeles, Sacramento and Orlando.

-It was listed that the largest cities never to host an NFL team were San Antonio and Portland. This is incorrect; San Antonio hosted some Saints games post-Katrina; the two largest cities that have truly never hosted an NFL franchise are San Jose and Austin. However, this seems redundant if metro areas were used earlier in the paragraph, so I've removed this part entirely. Dtcomposer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Portland never hosted an NFL team or had games there (San Antonio had the saints) so Austin & Portland are the 2 largest cities that never hosted a team or game. San Antonio will get an NFL team by 2011 or 2012--72.183.200.78 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

the oldest team in the nfl is not the packers its the cardinals founded in 1898 could someone please change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.46.139 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as "in the NFL", the oldest is both, Cardinals and Bears. Cardinals is the oldest franchise. Second is the Packers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhammerle123 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was rather obvious from the context that by "oldest", it meant "oldest City-Team name", not oldest team that has moved from city to city to city, changing names along the way. I clarified it even further. -- kainaw™ 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some one put uo the new logo. its on nfl.com and the draft has like started i think... nfl.com people!! look!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! I've put the old logo at the head of the "Modern" history section; the new logo was at the bottom of that section before. - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just added an SVG version. CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we add Canada to the infobox? The Buffalo Bills are now treating Toronto as a second home, and their article lists the Rogers Centre as a home field. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not since it would be confusing to non-North Americans. They are still primarily based in Buffalo, technically still a USA-based team. They are scheduled to only play one regular season game on Toronto, much like a European team coming over here to play only one regular season in the USA every year. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way I would put Canada in there is if there is an asterisk, IMO. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This (issue of gang signs flashed at games) is legitimate to put in the article. This is something that is of great enough concern for the League to spend much money on consultants. If you want it in wiki news, put it there too.Dogru144 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not relevant in the grand scheme of things, especially since there really haven't been any developments or findings yet. If it becomes a big and long-running issue, it's warrant inclusion. But right now it doesn't even constitute a blip on the radar of the NFL's lifetime.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the permanence of this issue. Right now, this is just current news. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Is this really something that will be important in five or ten years time? I don't think so. Is it something that a person learning about the NFL needs to know about? I don't think so. Is it required for an encyclopedic definition of the NFL? I don't think so. That is why it was removed and, unless a good argument can be made to keep it, will be removed again. -- kainaw™ 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is getting attention. It has gotten hundreds of appearances in google search. Dogru144 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's current news. But not all news related to the NFL is relevant to it's history. Kainaw said it best and gave you a handful of reasons why it is not worth for inclusion here. Unless dozens of players are found to be gang members and it becomes a significant, long-lasting story, it's just not relevant to the league's history. As it stands right now, nothing about the news story will be relevant in a year, five years or ten years.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Playoff Bowl was meaningless, but it did take place for a decade; it's valid to list it, even as an oddity (on second thought, it does seem hardly worth mentioning...). The inclusion of NYJ and KC as holding NFL titles refers not to AFL titles but to their victories in Super Bowls III and IV. JNW (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently reads: "The National Football League is a loose coalition of technically independent football teams from across the state of Ohio that had existed in some form since the 1890s. An unofficial "championship" was contested since 1903. "League" powerhouses included the Canton Bulldogs, Ironton Tanks and the Massillon Tigers."

Should read: The National Football League began as a loose coalition of technically independent football teams from across the state of Ohio which existed in some form since the 1890s. An unofficial "championship" was contested since 1903. League powerhouses included the Canton Bulldogs, Ironton Tanks and the Massillon Tigers. Bca102 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, make the changes if you wish, or perhaps someone else will. Is there anyone else who may have another opinion, please say so.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How would the NFL handle future additions of teams? Are they 32 teams forever? Is there some sort of policy for how/when a team would apply to be included, or would they just wing it? How would an additional team affect the nice, neat game tree?

This may be a stupid question, since I doubt it will ever happen, but I'm curious as to if there's a policy for this or not. 32 is plenty, but hell, maybe one day we'll unify with the Canadian league or something.70.149.224.103 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

San Antonio should get a team to make it 33. Who cares about LA or Toronto wanting a team? Besides, this is an american league, & no canadian teams. I'm getting tired with SA just having the Spurs. Change will come in the future,change will come.--72.183.200.78 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Lucario210

I feel that it should be noted that the Baltimore Ravens were originally the Cleveland Browns and that the current Cleveland Browns franchise was technically an expansion team. CrazyLou411 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current consensus is that we follow the official NFL records and history as per the 1996 agreement made by the league, Art Modell, and the Cities of Baltimore and Cleveland: the Ravens are considered a 1996 expansion team while the Cleveland Browns are considered to have suspended operations from 1996-1998, keeping the same history, records and logo. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the NFL is now being broadcast by Sky Sports in the UK? As of this writing I am watching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers - New Orleans Saints game on the internet and the feed is from Sky Sports. It has three guys talkin' about the game in quick segments in a studio in England, one being Shaun Gayle a former NFL Defensive back with the San Diego Chargers, as well as two other British gentlemen. I first realized it was being broadcast by Sky Sports when I saw a commercial for a subscription for soccer updates on your "mobile" phone, as well as commericals for other Sky channels such as Sky Arts, as well as a website called CoachStilo.com "a site to teach American football." The feed that Sky Sports is using is the the regular FOX broadcast with Dick Stockton, Brian Baldinger, and [{Brian Billick]], just interepted slightly with the British analysts in their studio. Crash Underride 19:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} As of December 2008, the NFL now offers NFL Game Rewind, which can be found at http://gamerewind.nfl.com. This pay service allows fans to watch all 2008-09 NFL Regular Season, Playoff, and Superbowl game online in HD. The service is updated Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and offers full DVR functionality with the ability to watch up to 4 games at once.

Eradik (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  Doing... Leujohn ^(talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  Done Leujohn ^(talk) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"If the player is cut, or quits, for any reason, the balance of the contract is voided and the player receives no further compensation"

I suppose that "cut" has a meaning along the lines of: unilaterally released, sacked, fired, dispensed with. It is not a word I am familiar with in this context. I think that most people from the UK would agree. To me "cut" was a bit too ambiguous to get across the (IMO staggering) fact that a player's "contract" can be canceled without reason. I had to go to the citation to be truly convinced. (90.207.204.55 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I will begin updating the non-playoff bound teams directly after the final week of the regular season to reflect the changes being made for the 2009 season. The teams that are wearing their throwbacks for the 50th Anniversary of the AFL will be updated once they make it official. As of right now, only the Patriots and Titans have confirmed the use of their old AFL uniforms (there were a total of 9 AFL teams) for 2009. The Rams and Buccaneers will also wear throwbacks for the 2009 season. JohnnySeoul (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole season? This is the first I've heard of this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like weeks 3 and 6 (for the AFL teams). The Bucs have not given a date yet, but confirmed they are wearing them at least once. The Rams have also not given an official date yet. League rules allow the wear of an alternate uniform 3 times during a season. JohnnySeoul (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"9 AFL teams"? There were only 8 original AFL teams in 1960. The Dolphins did not begin play until 1966, and the Bengals (the 10th club before the AFL-NFL merger) were not established until 1968. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but according to www.titansradio.com, it would seem that ALL of the teams associated with the AFL will be involved. "For one week in the 2009 season, have an AFL Sunday on which all former AFL teams would play another former AFL team, all would wear AFL throwback uniforms, and have officials wear replicas of the AFL officials’ uniforms, with red stripes and the AFL logo."JohnnySeoul (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be 10 – all AFL teams before the merger. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 10. JohnnySeoul (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But there are no choices in involved in what teams play each other next year; all opponents are set. So how could they ensure all the former AFL teams play each other?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Perillo on PFW in Progress is reporting that the teams play each other during weeks 3 and 6 as I mentioned above. JohnnySeoul (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Football League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• This article has insufficient inline citations to verify the information.
  • Most of "History" is unreferenced; it's quite a massive section, too.
  • Same with "Season structure"
  • And at least the first paragraph of "Teams"
  • "Main league offices"
  • Most of "Uniform numbers" as well
  • All of "Awards"
• Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates.

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't have time to go through and draft and research a new version, but the written history of the league seems exclusively defined by what upstart league was competing with the NFL at any given time, instead of what was actually going on in the league. Perhaps a separate article could be created for "Rival Leagues to the NFL" or something and the content here can be re-written with only a cursory mention of these rivals (except the AFL, which is part and parcel of the NFL now), focusing more on actual changes to the league like expansion teams, rules changes (a la '78 and 2-point conversion), and personalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WallyCuddeford (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This section states that there is a 6 game preseason. It may be 6 weeks long, but all teams play only 4 preseason games. LunchBox5181 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)LunchBox5181 Feb. 4, 2009

It seems that this article has a different definition of the league's "Modern Era" than does the Hall of Fame. According to the article, the modern era began with the NFL/AFL merger. According to the Hall of Fame's usage, "modern era" refers to post-1946 (see Hall of Fame). Which of these definitions is correct?!?--Deejayk (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The image File:AmericanFootballLeague.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Total NFL Titles list is messed up (again). I think the confusion is the addition of (Super Bowls) in parenthesis. My suggestion: Make one column for pre-Super Bowl titles and one column for Super Bowls. The problem is that the column width will be too wide. Anyone have a solution that is less confusing than the current one? -- kainaw™ 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted that my understanding of the current format is that the total titles should be listed with the number of super bowls in parenthesis. So, the Packers SHOULD have 12(3), not just 3. I think it would be much easier to have 9 in one column and 3 in another. -- kainaw™ 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't any one ever made an article or some thing on Latino Players in The NFL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable and referenced, why not create the article. -- kainaw™ 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Below is a revised version of one of the article's web pages. (I created it because I wanted to know which large population areas did not already have an NFL team.) Please submit your comments, pro con, change this, change that, etc. I suggest trimming down the number of metro areas to just two, but I didn't want to make that decision right away.
LP-mn (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the table is more cumbersome and confusing, especially when you list multiple metro areas without an explanation in fine print or footnotes. Also, this is basically the same type of information found on List of major sports teams in the United States by city. That page actually uses primary census statistical areas, in which Metropolitan Statistical Areas are subsets, but the general idea of sorting by population areas is the same. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all!

Please join me here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The first Texans folded in the 50's. The AFl Texans became the Chiefs in 1963.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I had already reverted that. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya sorry. I reverted my own ignorance. I misread your edit.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it happens to me too! - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How many superbowls has payton manning appered in ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askachuck (talk • contribs) 11:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

His team won in 2006 and is returning for 2009. -- kainaw™ 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't a section talking about the NFL Playoff tiebreaker rules should be added? There are several instances of the tiebreaker rules being used. (a.k.a. Tennessee winning the tiebreaker for the last AFC Playoff spot in I believe it was 2007 over the Browns) It would be useful information to add in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericaHistory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That content was moved to the more detailed National Football League playoffs article. This article is already long as it is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the NFL is an unincorporated association, it would be helpful to note the revenue for the League for the most recent year, with possible reference to revenue for individual teams. Also the size of the contracts between the NFL and the major media outlets would be helpful. The wikipedia listing for the Premier League shows combined club revenues in the first paragraph, and states that "It is the world's most lucrative football league." While it is a different kind of football, similar data would be informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkmartwes (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Forbes Magazine, Special Report: 2009 NFL Valuations "Recession Tackles NFL Team Values" Kurt Badenhausen, Michael K. Ozanian and Christina Settimi, 09.02.09, 06:00 PM EDT "Revenues for the league's 32 teams rose 7%, to $7.6 billion primarily due to the league's television deals with CBS , NBC, Fox and ESPN, which combined paid each team $94 million last season. " This is more than twice the revenue of the Premier League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkmartwes (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)