1965 NFL season discussion

[74_75_78_79_]

Watched the NFL Films short on it. Graphically all the pennants for each team was made into a spinning wheel, 'Wheel of Fortune'-style. They go into each team, one at a time, starting with the Eastern Conference teams, starting with their champ (as well as defending-League-Champ), Cleveland! From there, they go down from the second-place team in the conference, Dallas, and then third, Giants, and so on all the way down to...2-12 Pittsburgh. I didn't know until very recently that Dallas was actually IN 2nd in '65 at 7-7 (NYG finished 7-7 as well). I always liked that old St. Louis pennant, the giant Cardinal-man running with the ball beneath the Arch.

When moving on to the Western Conference, instead of starting from the top, they go straight to the other cellar-dweller...the 4-10 Rams who, it was mentioned, will have George Allen as their HC the following season (Austin going to Pittsburgh next year also mentioned)! The entire Fearsome Foursome were already in-tact! Then from there, they move up one at a time to 6-7-1 Detroit, 7-7 Vikes, 7-6-1 Forty Niners, and so on. Wow! The WC's third-worst team had the same record as the EC's 2nd & 3rd place teams (Lions only a half-game lesser)! Quite the stronger conference, I'd say! Clever how they went in that opposite direction so they can conveniently end things with...GREEN BAY who'd of course, be League Champs again for the first time in three years!

Quite a significant NFL season! JIM BROWN's final season as well as BUTKUS & SAYERS' rookie years! No, they didn't play the Browns in the LCG three years prior, but Green Bay won their first Title in three years, and against the defending-Champ, just like the Steelers won their first in three years by beating Dallas, who also was defending-Champ, in Super Bowl XIII.

Meanwhile, in the AFL, BIlls win it again vs San Diego.


Thoughts?

[Jay Z]

The Western Conference was better year over year than the Eastern Conference. This year, the West won 13 of the 14 interconference games by a combined score of 437 to 205.

[74_75_78_79_]

The Western Conference was better year over year than the Eastern Conference. This year, the West won 13 of the 14 interconference games by a combined score of 437 to 205.

Wow! Remarkable! Dallas the only team to beat a Western team - they over San Fran at home midseason. Even Cleveland lost both their inter-conference games: home vs Minny and the last-place Rams blowing them out in LA although, yes, it was Wk#13 and Browns had things wrapped up. Still.

Looking over each Eastern team’s schedule, an odd-number of seven teams in each conference, and seeing what two Western teams each had to play, I find it surprising that at least one of them, and another one from the other conference, weren’t matched up to play each other twice to make it right. Each team from the Eastern, I see, played two different teams from the Western.

So I tried figuring it out…three teams from one conference - A, B, and C - were matched with three from the other - D, E, and F.

A doesn’t play D, but play the other two.
B doesn’t play E, but play the other two.
C doesn’t play F, but play the other two.

Looking further, I see it’s the Browns (1st place in division the year prior), Cardinals (2nd) and Giants (7th) being the trio in the Eastern with Vikings (3rd), Rams (5th) and Bears (6th) in the Western for the 2-out-of-3 round-robin.

As for the others, Dallas (5th) and Pittsburgh (6th) were matched against Green Bay (2) and San Fran (7) while Philly (3) and Washington (4) were matched with Baltimore (1) and Detroit (4).

A bit weird how they did it considering the previous year’s standings. Why not have the middle threesomes, 3rd-through-5th, from each conference do that round-robin while we get to see Browns & Colts in a LCG rematch as well as a Playoff Bowl rematch between Cards & Pack? Or maybe criss-cross it to Clev/GB, StL/Balt instead? Yes, Cards fell in ’65 but at least try to schedule some of the best match-ups possible (have 3s play each other).

In either event, Ivan should be proud!

[Citizen]

The Western Conference was better year over year than the Eastern Conference. This year, the West won 13 of the 14 interconference games by a combined score of 437 to 205.

The two were pretty evenly matched for years, but all that started to change in 1957. Between then and when the two conferences were done away with following the 1969 season, the West won regular-season interconference matchups more than 62 percent of the time and came away with the title 11 times in 13 tries.

A big reason was the emergence of Green Bay and Baltimore as powers in the West. The Browns were probably the top team in the East during that 13-year period, but they won only 15 of 35 games against West teams. The Packers, meanwhile, won a staggering 32 of 38 against East foes. The Colts weren’t much worse, taking 28 out of 36 from East teams.

[Jay Z]

As far as the rotation of interdivisional games went, it was complicated by a rule that Baltimore and Washington played every year. So in 1960 and 1966, when Dallas and Atlanta had the round robin schedules, Baltimore's only interdivisional game was with Washington. So from 1961-65, there were only time for five other divisional games. But for some reason they played St. Louis twice during this five year period. They didn't play Pittsburgh at all and the only game Baltimore and Pittsburgh had was in 1957. They also did not play Dallas other than the 1960 game, but everyone played Dallas that year.

The Vikings also did not play Washington from 1961-66, playing two different Eastern conference teams four times each. I suppose someone had to be left out as Washington only had the one game that wasn't against Baltimore. The Packers also never played Washington as Washington played the Rams twice from 1961-65.

There was more or less a rotation everywhere else, but it was over time, sometimes the same teams would play two years in a row. From 1967 on the rotation was more formal.

[74_75_78_79_]

As far as the rotation of interdivisional games went, it was complicated by a rule that Baltimore and Washington played every year. So in 1960 and 1966, when Dallas and Atlanta had the round robin schedules, Baltimore's only interdivisional game was with Washington. So from 1961-65, there were only time for five other divisional games. But for some reason they played St. Louis twice during this five year period. They didn't play Pittsburgh at all and the only game Baltimore and Pittsburgh had was in 1957. They also did not play Dallas other than the 1960 game, but everyone played Dallas that year.

The Vikings also did not play Washington from 1961-66, playing two different Eastern conference teams four times each. I suppose someone had to be left out as Washington only had the one game that wasn't against Baltimore. The Packers also never played Washington as Washington played the Rams twice from 1961-65.

There was more or less a rotation everywhere else, but it was over time, sometimes the same teams would play two years in a row. From 1967 on the rotation was more formal.

Hmm, nice further informative detail there! Not as complex as the '70-thru-'75 formula, but still not easy to figure out. I figured out what I already wrote by myself out of luck. I still haven't read that intriguing 'schedule formula' book yet.

As for '67-thru-'69, I would have preferred it still being just two conferences with tie-breaker games if need be.

Even more-so than that, applying the criss-cross playoff format, like '69 AFL, all the way from 1950 until the merger. Bringing us back to the actual '65 season subject which this thread is, I opined it before, Dallas at GB despite 'Boys finishing at just 7-7 would have been intriguing. I feel the heavy-underdog gives the Champs-to-be a surprising good game thus foreshadowing the Landry Era to immediately come the following year. A nice Chess game it would have been between two who obviously were familiar with each other.

That Western tie-breaker game between Colts & Packers, as we all can agree, would have been nice to have been treated to a Unitas/Starr showdown. But I feel the Pack wins it in that scenario as well. The best team finished atop the NFL in the end (and would have beaten Buffalo, IMO).

[CSKreager]

The most infamous FG in NFL history

Not famous like Wide Right

But infamous because it was ruled good DESPITE NOT BEING GOOD

[LeonardRachiele]

The west as said won 13 of the 14 regular season games. In addition, the Packers defeated the Cleveland Browns in the NFL Title Game. In the Runnerup Bowl Baltimore defeated the Cowboys 35 to 3. But the shocker was the Eastern Conference make it look easy against the West in the Pro Bowl 36 to 7.

[Sonny9]

If Unitas stays healthy all year the Colts win the division
Unless the Bears start Bukich the entire season. The Bears may have been the best team that year

[74_75_78_79_]

If Unitas stays healthy all year the Colts win the division
Unless the Bears start Bukich the entire season. The Bears may have been the best team that year

The most infamous FG in NFL history

Not famous like Wide Right

But infamous because it was ruled good DESPITE NOT BEING GOOD

I'm not bad. Not bad at all. But not at all the perfect football historian and this, here, an example. I either forgot about nor never knew of the missed FG called "good". And never thought of Unitas being out late in the season. Maybe the Pack wins that second game anyway. But likely that would have been Baltimore's only other loss thus Colts finishing at 11-2-1 instead of 10-3-1 thus they winning the conference again thus no tie-breaker game to begin with. As for that tie-breaker...I just saw the highlights. That kick did not look good. But maybe from the official's view, the ball may have possibly crossed some of the top of the post which, I believe, could still be allowed to be considered as good. I'm surprised I don't hear enough of that controversy. Simply reading a news article the day after the game, its simply mentioned as a made game-tying FG and nothing else (I see that Starr still was the holder).

Either way, the next question does Baltimore beat Cleveland in the LCG-rematch from a year prior; they playing at home this time? Well, given Shula still being a new HC along with his struggles in high-stakes games from the get-go ('64 to the left of this very campaign, '67/'68 to the right), Collier & Co winning back-to-back not unlikely at all. But if the Colts DO win that, is the 'moneky' already off Shula's back? Having, now, experienced winning-it-all, does he now also do so in '67 & '68? And 1970 assuming he's still in Baltimore because? And with Miami "out of the way" in '71, is it still he-vs-Landry in SBVI after all (winner getting the, already-named, Don Shula Trophy)?