Titletown U.S.A.

[Moonboots]

Warrior07, you effort to invalidate the accomplishments of the Packers are pitiful.  Your agenda is plain as day.  You've sunken to using semantics to validate your already-shaky point.

If you really have a problem with the phrase "world" championship and how we use it, then so be it.  In reality, the term "world" championship didn't even fit in 1967, nor does it fit today.  It's an American sport.  But if you're really going to establish a difference between the term "championship" (pre-merger) and "world championship" (post-merger) you're barking up the wrong tree.

The point is, a championship is outlasting whatever competition stands in your way at any given time and excelling past all obstacles.  The Packers have been champions 12 times (World Champions, League Champions, NFL Champions, Champions of Professional Football, I don't care how you want to look at it, just don't play this semantics game with me, it's pointless).  That is more championships than any other team.  Something we're proud of, and continue to be proud of. 

You've put the "aura of importance" on the name yourself.  Your semantics game holds no weight in the grand scheme of NFL history, but Packer championships stand the test of time.

As far as attacking the self esteem of Green Bay natives, Wisconsinites, and Packer fans everywhere, it's been said that those who lack self esteem tend to take it out on others, so you may want to take a long look in the mirror before challenging the collective self esteem of an entity that spans areas all across the globe.  The only person here who seems to be lacking self esteem or starving for attention is you.

I've freely admitted, as will many Packer fans, that in the post merger era of the NFL, Dallas, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh are the collective king.  Where we disagree is that you somehow feel that invalidates Packer championships or somehow makes them less worthy.  

It's all about being on top of the competition in whatever era you play.  The Packers were on top of the football "world" in the early 30's, the mid 30's, again in the 60's, and most recently in 1996. 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Ok, thanks for playing.

You don't want to look at any history. You don't want to look at anything that's been published. You don't know a damn thing about football or history. YOU are the one OBSESSED, even ADDICTED to semantics. You live by it. You die by it. You own a billion articles of clothing that proclaim it. You've designed your home to reflect it. I understand the weight of importance you've placed in this imaginary universe somehow being true. Trust me, it's the world I and every person I knew who could fled. I know how hard you cling to it.

You can't admit that winning a Superbowl -- a "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP" in the words of the then-NFL and AFL, which you refuse to accept -- is simply not the same thing as winning what would now be a conference title while an entire other league exists, as did in the 1960's before the merger, or winning by percentage default in the 1920's-30's. These are NOT my words, they are those of the NFL. To argue with that is to argue with the NFL. Again, you know no history.

It's you who have a sad, sad problem with the word "WORLD." That's what the NFL has used to describe the Superbowl. That is not what anyone - ANYONE - used to describe anything before. They are simply not the same.

If you have something based on actual HISTORY, I'd love to discuss it. Otherwise, I'd suggest you and your fellow fans get a life.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Let me ask you this, PBI.

If winning the NFL championship is the same thing in the 1920's as in the post merger era, so much so that they can both be called by their post-merger name (such as you and all other Packer fans do), "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS," do you believe that the NFL should retroactively apply the term Superbowl to the beginning of the NFL and then simply renumber the post-merger Superbowls? They are the same thing, right?

[Moonboots]

Let me ask you this, PBI.

If winning the NFL championship is the same thing in the 1920's as in the post merger era, so much so that they can both be called by their post-merger name (such as you and all other Packer fans do), "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS," do you believe that the NFL should retroactively apply the term Superbowl to the beginning of the NFL and then simply renumber the post-merger Superbowls? They are the same thing, right?

No.... typically speaking, the full description of the Packers Championship prowess is "12 World Championships including 3 Super Bowls."  I think that does it justice.  The game wasn't called a Super Bowl until after the merger. You're correct.  But the NFL is and was the highest level of football available at the time (as displayed by the domination of Lombardi's Packers both before and after the merger).  By competing and winning at the highest level of American Football, you are the world champion at that sport.

The spot where weakness remains in my argument is that the Packers didn't defeat the champion of a competing league for the 1961, 1962 and 1965 championships.  Now, on a side note, you may agree with me that it would be reasonable to assume that Green Bay likely would have defeated the AFL champion in those years, but obviously nothing is for certain.  That 1962 team is considered one of the top 5 teams of all time.

As far as the championships before that, does the fact that those teams were not asked to win in a playoff format discount what they did?  I mean, what do you call it?  There was no football team in the world at the time capable of beating them to the point of having a better record over a 14 game season, the criteria that was judged at that time. 

As far as this argument is concerned, I apologize for getting a bit heated in my last post.  I never wanted this to get personal, and I still don't.  I actually enjoy this debate a lot, because I'm quite passionate about the Packers, and I'd really like it to continue. Especially in a friendly manner.  So no hard feelings?

[chapman]

The United States is full of themselves everytime we make these "world" claims.  It's stupid.  World Series...really?  I don't see any other countries playing in it.  World champions of football or baseball or basketball.

I guess the "World Series" title technically belongs to Japan, since they won that joke of a "World Baseball Classic" two years ago.  Speaking of which, do they really need to have that again next year and make a bunch of star players stink at the beginning of the year because they missed spring training?   

[Moonboots]

ummm no, they couldn't take espn to court.  they are not using the term for any financial gain.  it'd be like if they took you to court for starting this thread, which is for the mere purposes of creating a discussion, which is all ESPN is trying to do.  

Just to bring this back to the forefront, voting starts tonight on this abomination of a contest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/titletown/index



And to address what I have quoted here, I will once again remind everyone that "Titletown U.S.A." is trademarked by the Green Bay Packers.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=h9mmu4.2.12

Contrary to what the above post says, ESPN's "Titletown U.S.A. brought to you by Dick's Sporting Goods" sounds suspiciously like corporate sponsorship to me, and I'm surprised that the Packers HAVEN'T taken them to court for it yet.  This is clearly just a publicity stunt and ESPN IS making a buck off of it.

If this is anything like Click for Cans, it won't even be a contest.

Go Titletown. Go Pack.

[muarmy81]

Will this thread ever die?

Since you've gotten so worked up over this meaningless issue I think I'm going to vote for Boston just so GB doesn't win this worthless "contest".

Hugs and Kisses...

[Moonboots]

Will this thread ever die?

Since you've gotten so worked up over this meaningless issue I think I'm going to vote for Boston just so GB doesn't win this worthless "contest".

Hugs and Kisses...

Good luck with that... the Packers don't lose online voting contests.

http://www.chunky.com/ClickForCansResults.aspx

That's 5 years in a row now.

This is merely a matter of retaining what is already ours.  Even if we were to lose, Titletown U.S.A. is still Green Bay, WI, but that won't be an issue. Trust me.

[dsfire]

And to address what I have quoted here, I will once again remind everyone that "Titletown U.S.A." is trademarked by the Green Bay Packers.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=h9mmu4.2.12

Contrary to what the above post says, ESPN's "Titletown U.S.A. brought to you by Dick's Sporting Goods" sounds suspiciously like corporate sponsorship to me, and I'm surprised that the Packers HAVEN'T taken them to court for it yet.  This is clearly just a publicity stunt and ESPN IS making a buck off of it.

Assuming you're talking about the only one that I could find (it appears the trademark office doesn't allow direct links to entries), it only applies to apparel.  Unless ESPN is selling hats, the Pack would lose said lawsuit in the blink of an eye.

[muhoosier260]

Good luck with that... the Packers don't lose online voting contests.

http://www.chunky.com/ClickForCansResults.aspx

That's 5 years in a row now.

This is merely a matter of retaining what is already ours.  Even if we were to lose, Titletown U.S.A. is still Green Bay, WI, but that won't be an issue. Trust me.

i agree with everyone that the titletown contest was dumb in the first place, espn does this in the summer because they need something else to talk about other than baseball and nfl training camp. but man, is it sweet to see a packer fan eat his words

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good luck with that... the Packers don't lose online voting contests.

http://www.chunky.com/ClickForCansResults.aspx

That's 5 years in a row now.

This is merely a matter of retaining what is already ours.  Even if we were to lose, Titletown U.S.A. is still Green Bay, WI, but that won't be an issue. Trust me.

Valdosta Georgia is the winner.  Thank God!

[Chili]

glad this espn farce is over.

[ChicosBailBonds]

glad this espn farce is over.

I'm going to forever refer to Valdosta as TITLETOWN USA

 

[dsfire]

I wonder what percent of ESPN visitors knew there was a Valdosta, GA before this contest began.

[Strokin 3s]

FYI:  Wisconsin is still #1 in cheese production and will continue to be for awhile.

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/pf/story.jsp?related=1&idq=/ff/story/0001/stand/farmscene.htm

[sigep80]

Just to stir things up a little more....

My dad (packer fan), brothers and me (educated MU Bear fans) went to GB for the Bears game in 1998.  We've have season tiks to the Bears, and always arrive at Soldier Field to tailgate by 7:30 or so.  We arrived in GB the Saturday before game, stayed in a hotel that night, and arrived at the stadium about 8:00 on Sunday morning.  We were astonished that the parking lots didn't even open until 9:00.  We ended up in the Packer HOF parking lot, the 1st car there.  We set up all our Bears chairs, flags etc right on the sidewalk so all could see. 

Tailgating in Chicago is much more intense, starts earlier and ends longer.  The food is also much better...

Take that!!!!

[JSwarriors08]

Come on...  Everyone is blowing this out of proportion.  Do Packers fans need to chill?  Yes; this ESPN crap doesn't change a thing.  But do they have a legitimate gripe?  Yeah, they do.

Nicknames and semantics are incredibly important to the self-perception of any sports franchise.  Think of the uproar in New York if ESPN had a contest for current baseball players to be voted on as the next Great Bambino.  Or think if another NFL franchise tried to create a fan section called the Black Hole.  It just isn't right.  These nicknames are a part of the tradition in their respective hometowns.

I think the contest is dumb, and no one is going to remember that some dinky southern high school won it, so I think people should relax.  But I do think that the idea that the nation can vote on a nickname already used for decades is silly.

[jmayer1]

Just to stir things up a little more....

My dad (packer fan), brothers and me (educated MU Bear fans) went to GB for the Bears game in 1998.  We've have season tiks to the Bears, and always arrive at Soldier Field to tailgate by 7:30 or so.  We arrived in GB the Saturday before game, stayed in a hotel that night, and arrived at the stadium about 8:00 on Sunday morning.  We were astonished that the parking lots didn't even open until 9:00.  We ended up in the Packer HOF parking lot, the 1st car there.  We set up all our Bears chairs, flags etc right on the sidewalk so all could see. 

Tailgating in Chicago is much more intense, starts earlier and ends longer.  The food is also much better...

Take that!!!!

Maybe if there were more bear fans like you they would have a 50 year waiting list to get season tickets like the packers do.  Instead, the Bears continue to be near the bottom rung in terms of stadium capacity for NFL home games. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Come on...  Everyone is blowing this out of proportion.  Do Packers fans need to chill?  Yes; this ESPN crap doesn't change a thing.  But do they have a legitimate gripe?  Yeah, they do.

Nicknames and semantics are incredibly important to the self-perception of any sports franchise.  Think of the uproar in New York if ESPN had a contest for current baseball players to be voted on as the next Great Bambino.  Or think if another NFL franchise tried to create a fan section called the Black Hole.  It just isn't right.  These nicknames are a part of the tradition in their respective hometowns.

I think the contest is dumb, and no one is going to remember that some dinky southern high school won it, so I think people should relax.  But I do think that the idea that the nation can vote on a nickname already used for decades is silly.

I'll have to remember that the next time a Packers fan tries to tell me they are America's Team.   

[JSwarriors08]

Touche, good sir. 

[DegenerateDish]

Maybe if there were more bear fans like you they would have a 50 year waiting list to get season tickets like the packers do.  Instead, the Bears continue to be near the bottom rung in terms of stadium capacity for NFL home games. 

Huh? That made no sense. What does stadium capacity have to do with anything?

[🏀]

I'm trying to figure that out as well

[jmayer1]

Huh? That made no sense. What does stadium capacity have to do with anything?

Sorry, should have reread that and went back and clarified.  Over the last 5 years (as far back as I looked) the Bears have been in the bottom of the nfl in terms of attendance as a % of stadium capacity.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry, should have reread that and went back and clarified.  Over the last 5 years (as far back as I looked) the Bears have been in the bottom of the nfl in terms of attendance as a % of stadium capacity.

To be fair, does that include when they had to play in Champaign?  That probably didn't help but I can remember if that was in the time period.

[DegenerateDish]

The Bears have one of the smallest stadium capacities in the NFL. What difference does that make though? It has nothing to do with the amount of people that want to go to Bears games.

You're foolish if you don't think the Bears (along with the Redskins, Cowboys) have one of the largest fan bases in the NFL. There's a reason a mediocre Bears time is on in primetime as much as they are this year.