Were NFL games televised the Sunday of JFK's death

[74_75_78_79_]

I, of course, wasn't around for it. Those who were around obviously have a better take on it such as my parents who were sent home from school on that Friday afternoon. But from what I gather, as much as 'Kennedy' and 'the 60s' are associated with one another, I see the decade itself - sadly - not truly beginning until that very day itself. With plenty of "innocent" '50s leftoverture still seeming to take over those first few years, the country and the world seemed to change overnight. The LP, 'With the Beatles', was hauntingly released here in the States on that very day! 11/22/63, the British Invasion, and Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali is the one-two-three-punch that started it all thus culminating into Civil Rights, Vietnam, the Summer of Love, '68 Election, more assassinations, etc. Would JFK have invited the Fab Four, and Ali, to the White House? Wondered that for quite some time.

Again, I wasn't around for it, but its still hard for me to watch that B&W footage of 'As the World Turns' (and did it ever turn upon) instantly segueing into Cronkite. I remember not having any interest in watching the CC's in January '91 with Operation Desert Storm just having started (plus, I was moving into the dorms to start a new semester on that day; loading up the two cases of Coors Extra Gold into the mini-fridge that I smuggled in awaiting the rest of the gang to show up was more on-the-brain as well), so its pretty safe to say that I may have not wanted to tune in anyway on 11/24/63. Not even hearing it on the radio. Not even if it involved a 6-3-1 team, just one-and-a-half games out of 1st-place, welcoming da 9-1 Champs-to-be from the other division.

As stated by quite a few, including in that recent AFL documentary, pro football in the '60s and its changes throughout seemed to mirror society. Best example being the NFL representing the establishment with the AFL being rebellious/radical. The same parallel can perhaps be applied to the '70s: more gritty down-to-earth (running and defense) through most of it, but "flashier" (disco, new wave) at the end with the opening up of the passing game. Pro football coverage/exposure has definitely progressed with the times. I think it's way too much today with the 24/7 talking-heads, but not sure I would have been into the very low exposure from back in the early-'60s/pre-NFL Films. The '80s or, better yet, NFL Primetime added on/pre-NFL Network was ideal though many may opine it was too much already. In fact, Summerall said back in the '70s that he felt then that it was too much! '70s? Overexposed? As a mid-Gen-Xer who didn't grow up earlier, I got to super-respectfully (yes, this is Pat we're taking of) disagree.

Tragedy aside, I've opined here previously that I think 1963 was the best pro football season of the '60s. Each of the four total division races were suspenseful to the very end - even in the ridiculously mediocre AFL Eastern. In the other AFL division, was Al Davis in his only year as a HC. His Raiders sweep the historically-heralded Chargers en route to a 6-0 finish! Hot on their heels, Oakland made the league-champs-to-be sweat to the very end! Of course that cluster-jam of an NFL Eastern race between four teams! And George Halas winning his 6th and final NFL title as a HC (43 years-in, mind you!), but not before sweeping Lombardi's Pack thus topping the Western by a half-game! Yes, he could have excelled in any era! And '63, according to very popular opinion, is widely seen as the first season that an AFL champ could have possibly beaten an NFL champ. I, however, am in the sheerest of sheer minority in that - despite my utter respect for the Legend of Gillman, Alworth, etc - I feel IMHO da Bears (or GB) win lopsided a la SF-over-Mia '84, Hawks-over-Broncos '13, etc. Close game or not, G-men also beat SD. "Defense wins championships!" But that's all for another topic that has already been discussed numerous times.

[RichardBak]

I, of course, wasn't around for it. Those who were around obviously have a better take on it such as my parents who were sent home from school on that Friday afternoon. But from what I gather, as much as 'Kennedy' and 'the 60s' are associated with one another, I see the decade itself - sadly - not truly beginning until that very day itself. With plenty of "innocent" '50s leftoverture still seeming to take over those first few years, the country and the world seemed to change overnight. The LP, 'With the Beatles', was hauntingly released here in the States on that very day! 11/22/63, the British Invasion, and Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali is the one-two-three-punch that started it all thus culminating into Civil Rights, Vietnam, the Summer of Love, '68 Election, more assassinations, etc. Would JFK have invited the Fab Four, and Ali, to the White House? Wondered that for quite some time.

Again, I wasn't around for it, but its still hard for me to watch that B&W footage of 'As the World Turns' (and did it ever turn upon) instantly segueing into Cronkite. I remember not having any interest in watching the CC's in January '91 with Operation Desert Storm just having started (plus, I was moving into the dorms to start a new semester on that day; loading up the two cases of Coors Extra Gold into the mini-fridge that I smuggled in awaiting the rest of the gang to show up was more on-the-brain as well), so its pretty safe to say that I may have not wanted to tune in anyway on 11/24/63. Not even hearing it on the radio. Not even if it involved a 6-3-1 team, just one-and-a-half games out of 1st-place, welcoming da 9-1 Champs-to-be from the other division.

As stated by quite a few, including in that recent AFL documentary, pro football in the '60s and its changes throughout seemed to mirror society. Best example being the NFL representing the establishment with the AFL being rebellious/radical. The same parallel can perhaps be applied to the '70s: more gritty down-to-earth (running and defense) through most of it, but "flashier" (disco, new wave) at the end with the opening up of the passing game. Pro football coverage/exposure has definitely progressed with the times. I think it's way too much today with the 24/7 talking-heads, but not sure I would have been into the very low exposure from back in the early-'60s/pre-NFL Films. The '80s or, better yet, NFL Primetime added on/pre-NFL Network was ideal though many may opine it was too much already. In fact, Summerall said back in the '70s that he felt then that it was too much! '70s? Overexposed? As a mid-Gen-Xer who didn't grow up earlier, I got to super-respectfully (yes, this is Pat we're taking of) disagree.

Tragedy aside, I've opined here previously that I think 1963 was the best pro football season of the '60s. Each of the four total division races were suspenseful to the very end - even in the ridiculously mediocre AFL Eastern. In the other AFL division, was Al Davis in his only year as a HC. His Raiders sweep the historically-heralded Chargers en route to a hot-on-SD's-heels 6-0 finish, making the league-champs-to-be sweat to the very end! Of course that cluster-jam of an NFL Eastern race between four teams! And George Halas winning his 6th and final NFL title as a HC (43 years-in, mind you!), but not before sweeping Lombardi's Pack thus topping the Western by a half-game! And '63, according to very popular opinion, is widely seen as the first season that an AFL champ could have possibly beaten an NFL champ. I, however, am in the sheerest of sheer minority in that - despite my utter respect for the Legend of Gillman, Alworth, etc - I feel IMHO da Bears (or GB) win lopsided a la SF-over-Mia '84, Hawks-over-Broncos '13, etc. Close game or not, G-men also beat SD. "Defense wins championships!" But that's all for another topic that has already been discussed numerous times.

That's very perceptive, because the Kennedy years really were more of an extension of the Eisenhower '50s than what would come after JFK's assassination---more assassinations, urban riots, Vietnam, psychedelia, drugs, women's movement, sexual revolution, Civil Rights Movement, other "movements" of all types, space race, all sorts of things happening here and abroad from about 1964 onward. So 1963 really was a kind of dividing line between one era and another, much as 1914 or 1939, the run-ups to two world wars, were for previous generations. In the mid to late '60s it was just one monumental event after another, it seems, and it often felt like the country was falling apart. But really, what we think of today as "The Sixties" really started in Nov. 1963, not when the decade started in Jan. 1960.

One constant, however, was the ever-present fear that we might one day somehow wind up in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I was eight years old when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, and I remember bomb shelters being discussed (and actually built), "duck and cover" drills at school, reservists (in the neighborhood and family) being called up, and of course, since I grew up in a Catholic household, reciting rosaries. Scary times--and this week's war in Ukraine has unfortunately reminded me of that clammy feeling from way back then.

A good football analogy of what's going on right now would be like the 1963 Boston (Ukraine) Patriots going up against the mighty Chicago (Russia) Bears. The aptly named Patriots would be huge underdogs going against the ferocious Bears, but as they say (and Putin is learning), that's why they play the game.

[John Grasso]

I, of course, wasn't around for it. Those who were around obviously have a better take on it such as my parents who were sent home from school on that Friday afternoon.

I was a senior in college and ironically researching obituaries in the school library for an assignment, when I heard that the
president was dead. I thought they meant the president of the college. Later that day, when I got home, I found out the
truth. I had tickets for the Johnny Carson tv show that night and wasn't sure if it was going to be televised. It wasn't, of course.

The Kennedy assassination was just one of several deaths that decade in which the truth may never be known.
Others include heavyweight boxers Eddie Machen, Zora Folley and Sonny Liston and actress Marilyn Monroe.

[RichardBak]

Wow, Zora Folley...you're definitely an old-timer if you remember that name. I went back to refresh my memory...here's a link to a good, short piece about his life and mysterious death.

https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/boxing-article ... ora-folley

[John Grasso]

Wow, Zora Folley...you're definitely an old-timer if you remember that name.

Yup, born in 1943,, first boxing match I saw was in September 1950 on our one-month old Philco TV was
Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles. My father let me stay up late to see it.

[65 toss power trap]

Regarding the decision for CBS to not air football, it was actually decided before a decision had to be made. CBS had already committed to not breaking their live coverage until after the president's burial. I believe NBC and ABC had made the same commitment early on as well.

[SixtiesFan]

Regarding the decision for CBS to not air football, it was actually decided before a decision had to be made. CBS had already committed to not breaking their live coverage until after the president's burial. I believe NBC and ABC had made the same commitment early on as well.

Yes, the decision was made by the network bosses to pre-empt all programming that weekend. There was never going to be football (or the regular shows) on television that Sunday in any event.

As previously indicated, I remember that weekend. When you turned on the TV the assassination and the funeral were the only thing on.

[BD Sullivan]

The seven NFL games that weekend had pretty good attendance, given the circumstances. The belief was that people wanted to get away from the news for a few hours. While some of the attendances look small, some of the stadiums they played weren't huge to begin with:

Dallas-Cleveland: 55,096
Washington-Philadelphia: 60,971
Chicago-Pittsburgh: 36,465
STL-NYG: 62,992
Detroit Minnesota: 28.763
SF-GB: 45,905
Baltimore-LA: 48,555

In the Bears game, Ditka had his best-ever catch, going 65 yards on a 3rd-and-35 to set up the tying FG in the 17-17 tie. Had the Bears lost the game, they very likely would have faced the Packers in a playoff. Ditka's great day is notable because he and Oswald were both born on 10/18/1939, with Oswald obviously not having a great day in comparison.

[Jay Z]

There was a magazine type book about the 1963 season, Best Plays Of The Year, by Robert Riger. Each week an NFL game was chosen to highlight. The choices:

Week 1: Giants 37, Colts 28
Week 2: Bears 28, Vikings 7
Week 3: Steelers 23, Cardinals 10
Week 4: Bears 10, Colts 3
Week 5: Browns 35, Giants 24
Week 6: Packers 30, Cardinals 7
Week 7: Giants 33, Browns 6
Week 8: Cowboys 35, Redskins 20
Week 9: Giants 42, Eagles 14
Week 10: Bears 26, Packers 7
Week 11: No game chosen because of JFK assassination. Typically 6 pages are devoted to each game. Three pages are devoted to JFK. The remaining three are about the Bears Steelers tie, so that game would have been chosen.
Week 12: Rams 21, 49ers 17
Week 13: Lions 38, Browns 10
Week 14: Giants 33, Steelers 17

Each team was featured at least once.

As far as 1963 goes, my opinion is that the 1963 Chargers are overrated and would have been beaten by the Bears had a Super Bowl existed. In looking at the rosters of the 1963 AFL teams, there are just too many weak players on the AFL side at that point to think that the leagues were anything near to equal. The 51-10 AFL Championship game isn't any more relevant than the 1967 AFL Championship where a weak contender was blown out.

[Brian wolf]

The Bears were three yards and a cloud of dust in 1963. I think the Chargers would have beaten them in a close game, with all their skill positions. A great Bear defense sure but other than the Colts, Vikings, Browns and maybe Eagles, not alot of explosive offensive teams they had to face.