Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

NOTE: Was VERY HOT and, somewhere, there is another Thread with a very similar theme.

ARCHIVE

The NFL's Modern Era?
Started by JoeZagorski, Sep 22 2014 09:50 PM

Page 1 of 4

73 replies to this topic

#1 JoeZagorski
PFRA Member
Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:50 PM
Hey guys: What year is generally credited by football historians as being the first year of the NFL's Modern Era? Is it 1960 (because of the birth of the AFL)? Or is it prior to 1960? Please back up your opinions if you can. I want to be as accurate as possible. Thanks!
Joe Zagorski

#2 lastcat3
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:54 PM
Think it is usually considered to be '66 when the Super Bowl started.

#3 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:19 PM
I would say 1970 because of the merged NFL, with the NFC and AFC, and also the wild cards in the playoffs. Another reason is that 1970 was the first season of Monday Night Football, which was event television back in the 70's and helped make pro football the major TV spectacle in the country. Also, by 1970 NFL Films was just entering it's golden era, which would continue thru the death of John Facenda after the 1983 season; it cannot be underestimated the effect NFL Films had in documenting the history of the game. My favorite quote about NFL Films (I don't remember who said it) was along the lines of NFL Films is the most effective propaganda tool in the United States.

#4 MIKETOUHY
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:47 PM
Maybe 1958?

The Overtime game between The Colts and Giants?

#5 MatthewToy
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 01:27 AM
Rupert Patrick, on 22 Sept 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:
I would say 1970 because of the merged NFL, with the NFC and AFC, and also the wild cards in the playoffs. Another reason is that 1970 was the first season of Monday Night Football, which was event television back in the 70's and helped make pro football the major TV spectacle in the country. Also, by 1970 NFL Films was just entering it's golden era, which would continue thru the death of John Facenda after the 1983 season; it cannot be underestimated the effect NFL Films had in documenting the history of the game. My favorite quote about NFL Films (I don't remember who said it) was along the lines of NFL Films is the most effective propaganda tool in the United States.

That's what I go by. But I wasn't born until 1977 so that's just my perspective.

#6 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 02:22 AM
We've had the discussion of how to define the eras a couple different times in the past few years. Here's one thread http://www.pfraforum...l= 1978 merger
Not the one I was looking for though.

Either way: Playoff/championship game, Free Substitution, Television, Super Bowl, Post-Merger, Specialization, Rule Changes, Free Agency, No defense allowed/Goodell era, etc ... all those could be dividers or starting points to define eras. Depends on what angle you're coming from for what's "modern"; on the field? league structure? rules? and so on. Changes between what you're trying to define.

#7 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 02:52 AM
The answer will differ depending on whose perspective you're considering: fans, players, coaches, owners, the networks, agents....

#8 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 23 September 2014 - 07:35 AM
lastcat3, on 22 Sept 2014 - 9:54 PM, said:
Think it is usually considered to be '66 when the Super Bowl started.

No. That is the beginning of pro football. [/ESPN]

I usually consider it 1946. However, I am not sure that many will agree with me.

#9 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 08:04 AM
The "modern era" always brings to mind the image of a line separating but two periods of time. Many might say the story of Football has far more than two chapters.
Among them and the most recent could easily be "Football and Crime: Does Violence Beget Violence?"

But, if one were force a single separation of time frames, why not: "Football: Halas and post-Halas."
That may not say it all but it says a lot.

Here's a trio that know of what they speak: Ditka, Sayers and Butkus.
(Have your "print screen" finger ready. There are a couple of great photos I have never seen before?)

http://espn.go.com/v...clip?id=9352583

#10 Shipley
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 09:14 AM
I've heard some younger fans say 1978 marks the beginning of the modern era, since it ushered in the 16 game schedule and all of the liberalized new passing rules. While I don't agree them, there's no question it was a significant season in terms of how the game changed forever.

#11 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 09:21 AM
I would say since mid-1940s, when scoring (avg points per game) became relatively constant and the passing game started to resemble what we have today.

#12 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 09:32 AM
I think of 1950 as the start of the "modern era"...you had the merger with the AAFC (minor reason), teams really started playing two-platoon football (major reason), and the roster listing in my old Neft & Cohen "Football Encyclopedia" seperated players into offensive and defensive units (most important reason).

#13 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 09:46 AM
Probably when Pete Rozelle took over. Under Bert Bell, the NFL schedule was made up on his kitchen table, the weekly stats were compiled haphazardly and the television contracts were all over the place.

#14 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:14 AM
Halas era? Doesn't that start in 1919?

Why is there this all-consuming need for a dividing line. anyway? When I was watching the early 1960s championship games, it certainly seemed modern to me. To the sponsors. To the networks, To the cigar stomping uncles who had been watching and listening and going to games since the 1930s. In a continuity that continues with descendants today..
Start with Super Bowls? Even when the first two were seen as silly jokes by the mature and modern NFL?

When the AFL began? even when teams were playing in low attended bathtubs with also-ran players, rejects from the NFL? Expansion when everything became watered down? Before ESPN, it was considered maybe 1958 when the audience exploded after the OT championship game. Or once upon a time, 1934 after the first popular and famous championship game.

Baseball which easy could point to the DH or when playoffs were introduced, does not much bother fretting over divisions. Although Jackie Robinson would be n important one. Basketball seems to have new modern eras every generation, though for college game it may be when the 64 team tournament brackets began though few know when that was. Or the clock era or the three-point shot era. For the women when the NCAA finally acknowledged them seems the pandering and commercial waay to think of it.

NFL?
I think of it as 1919. In a thousand years if they care that would be where they see it start and all the rest just diddling around....

Maybe say when fantasy football began as gambling seems important in this populist explosion. When ESPN began might be the best answer since they dominate thinkiing. When videotape replaced film?

#15 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:19 AM
luckyshow, on 23 Sept 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:
Halas era? Doesn't that start in 1919?

Why is there this all-consuming need for a dividing line. anyway? When I was watching the early 1960s championship games, it certainly seemed modern to me. To the sponsors. To the networks, To the cigar stomping uncles who had been watching and listening and going to games since the 1930s. In a continuity that continues with descendants today..
Start with Super Bowls? Even when the first two were seen as silly jokes by the mature and modern NFL?

When the AFL began? even when teams were playing in low attended bathtubs with also-ran players, rejects from the NFL? Expansion when everything became watered down? Before ESPN, it was considered maybe 1958 when the audience exploded after the OT championship game. Or once upon a time, 1934 after the first popular and famous championship game.

Baseball which easy could point to the DH or when playoffs were introduced, does not much bother fretting over divisions. Although Jackie Robinson would be n important one. Basketball seems to have new modern eras every generation, though for college game it may be when the 64 team tournament brackets began though few know when that was. Or the clock era or the three-point shot era. For the women when the NCAA finally acknowledged them seems the pandering and commercial waay to think of it.

NFL?
I think of it as 1919. In a thousand years if they care that would be where they see it start and all the rest just diddling around....

Maybe say when fantasy football began as gambling seems important in this populist explosion. When ESPN began might be the best answer since they dominate thinkiing. When videotape replaced film?

Actually, your post makes a lot of sense.

Regarding the role of gambling in the populist explosion, that would place it again in the early to mid 1940s with the arrival of pointspread betting which made obvious mismatches an attractive proposition.

#16 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:23 AM
It is open to interpretation. There are good arguments for 1950, 1966, 1970, 1978, 1993 or 2002.

As for 1950, it might be a reach to say 64 years ago is when the modern era began while keeping in mind the league is only in its 95th year. It seems the modern era should be more recent or modern.

#17 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:58 AM
Modern is a fluid term. To those who can't handle black and white film, I guess the 50s could be a start. But if we must mean near current, then whn Rozelle left, or better, the Goodell era. We actually are still waiting for the moment (if) the NFl starts treating drugs like baseball or the Olympics. Yearlong suspensions for dangerous drugs like steroids and what get baseball players seen as criminals.

Or when they play with rubber helmets or change to touch football.

I guess it depends on your age. Is 1950 really in the stone ages? 1970 is over 40 years ago, hardly "modern" in many senses. It was before VHS tape, before everyone had a remote or a color television, probably before all network programming was in color.

Most of us still used antennas and adjusted the horizontal or vertical hold the 1980s, and had televisions weighing a ton or so it seemed, in 1990.

Hardly modern. My modern era begins with Rachel Nichols. Not really, but for women, perhaps it started with women reporters who only now are reaching a certain level of respect, and perhaps this modern era hasn't really even begun.

Or perhaps we go a different direction. Did it start with a player like Jimmy Brown, both in being a black football hero or maybe anti-hero. Or when he left football for Hollywood. Or did it begin when blacks were finally given the respect to become starting QBs and middle linebackers, captains, even coaches? Or did modernity begin with the exposé books. Was it Matusak who wrote the first, or was that about the college game at Syracuse?

Los Angeles might think the NFL's modern era ended a while back when location maybe became secondary; to television, so maybe the future modern might become like roller derby where all games take place at the same location. As TV is most important. Then the Super Bowl really is a dividing point as home team was finally disregarded in a championship game. The first American sport and maybe still the only one, to do so...?

It began with the modern usage of the T formation, specifically after the slaughter of the Redskins in the early 40s championship game. Or with Benny Friedman when he was paid more than anyone except Babe Ruth, becoming the first star passer or New York playboy football star. Or with Paul Hornung, the ifrst modern scandal involving betting. Or was it when George Blanda retired, the last true multi-use player of that sort? Or with Pete Gogolak and the soccer style kicker, or Pete Gogolak and the first zooming up of salaries? Or with the players union? Or with replay? Or with Joe Namath beginning football's Bo Belinsky era which never ends? Or did the celebrity player begin with Frank Gifford? Paul Warfield? Red Grange?

With White Shoes Johnson? Icky Woods? With fancy celebrations after TDs? The Bears making that music video in 85?

With Paul Brown in 1946? Or as someone implied, Halas as early as,w as it 1911 or 1913?

#18 Shipley
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 12:13 PM
I don't think the modern era can include the 40s and 50s, since there were few if any black players on NFL rosters back then.

#19 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 03:53 PM
Baseball likely considers the modern era as starting in 1969, since they now ridiculously equate "postseason" records, with what formerly were stand-alone World Series records. Never mind that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb never had an opportunity to rack up home runs and hits in a League Championship or Division Series.

For those who don't follow that approach, then the first expansion era of 1961-62, when schedules moved from 154 to the current 162 games, will suffice.

#20 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 04:49 PM
I don't know. Seems nuts to not count Willie Mays in the so-called "moden era" just as it is nutso not to include Jimmy Brown in the NFL modern era since he never played in the Super Bowl era, or before more general acceptance of black players...

The discrimination certainly should count in this, but the NFL slowly changed. How many potential black QBs ended up on defense, at receiver positions, in the CFL, due to this slow acceptance? So one might start with when the Redskins won the Super Bowl..

An interesting concept. NCAA basketball would only then begin the modern era in 1950 when a mostly all-black team won the NCAA and NIT, or perhaps a few years earlier when Manhattan College forced the NAIA to lighten up on discrimination. Or 1964 with Texas Western winning, symbolically toppling the lily white southern power, Kentucky.

Will someday they say the NFL only became modern when they somehow alleviated the brain deadening era, if they ever can solve that?

Despite the country being so bigotted for so long, being forced to change (and nstill having deep crevices remaining as we see constantly), I still find the "modern" era idea silly. The segregation is the only reason I find valid, though

Page 1 of 4
oldecapecod 11

The NFL's Modern Era?
Started by JoeZagorski, Sep 22 2014 09:50 PM

Page 2 of 4

73 replies to this topic

#21 MIKETOUHY
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 05:43 PM
I think this thread is kind of silly.

Modern is of the present day and the past is ancient.

#22 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:13 PM
Well, people usually come here because they're acquainted with, and enjoy discussing, the history of pro football, so it's a valid topic. Ancient vs. present day is another way of saying that there's a point in time where the NFL of that particular year bears no resemblance to the NFL of 2014. In between would be a time where, in retrospect, the transition between two eras was obvious. I'm curious about whether you have an opinion about when the present version of the game became the norm.

#23 lastcat3
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:15 PM
Whenever it was it was definitely after Sparta

#24 MIKETOUHY
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:27 PM
Well I do Mark but it just seems goofy to say when the modern era began since change goes on all the time, including sports.

#25 Jeffrey Miller
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 07:31 PM
1906, the birth of the single wing ...

#26 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 08:27 PM
I've said this before, but to me its two platoon football. I think its hard to imagine that many players who are playing today could have effectively played two ways - particularly at QB. I cannot imagine that Manning or Brady would've taken a single snap as a QB had they had to play both ways.

#27 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 September 2014 - 10:13 PM
I am quite confused now. I have noticed many things this year that differ from even last year. And this also includes that where in the past domestic abuse was sort of a slap on the wrist while now it is indefinite suspension.

So modern begins this year? And even last season is "ancient" (in this odd usage which harkens back to before World War Two, at least. ).

I found the single wing idea amusing as well. One could point to that decade since the forward pass was first legalized in a limited way and lightened up the usage in the rest of those years. The field was made as it is today, as were such things as 4 downs to make 10, and on and on.

Of course it is difficult to say the modern NFL began before it existed!

I still think 1956 is a good demarcation line because before then one wasn't tackled just by being hit and falling down. And this change changed how yardage was calculated.

Or any of the others discussed.
Modernity does not begin with just who and what exists today. If that were true, every year starts a new modern and history would be difficult to learn, to teach, to understand. One maybe sees this in architecture and art, where we now have such terminology as post-modern, post-post-modern and so forth.

There is a continuity to all history, including sports, including football. If you watched the Burns Roosevelt documentary, one can see this. Some aspects seem like so long ago yet other aspects seem like they might have occurred yesterday.

If all we have to research is this season, well, that sort of limits perspective. And in my personal opinion much of the House of Representatives are not "modern" at all, but anachronisms harkening back to about the time Teddy Roosevelt was born

So who would win in a game between the ancient and the modern? (and I mean the actual old, before the two platoon system, before kicking specialists, before fair catches, before they squeezed the hash marks into the middle of the field, before helmets were just short of what the Ferguson, Missouri police wear on their heads) Scrawny Sid Luckman covered Don Hutson on defense, so all the modern frail QBs probably could play defense. Are today's men weaker than the old ones?

Wouldn't today's receivers run past the defenders of old, wouldn't the defense do similar. Or would the gouging of their eyes get in their way?

#28 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 10:45 PM
For me it is 1951 because that is the year that my parents got their first TV set (a used Zenith). If there was TV five years earlier for me, then maybe it would be 1946. Also, players came back from the war then.

I thought that the football was pretty good then. I once saw the 1947 AAFC title game (Browns-Yankees) on film and the football looked pretty good to me. It was a very tough game from what I saw.

#29 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 23 September 2014 - 10:57 PM
luckyshow
Posted Today, 10:13 PM
"... There is a continuity to all history, including sports, including football..."

There is, indeed, and the timelines of all from architecture and art to xylophones and zebras differ by subject.
One thing is for certain.
There was a time when the Father-in-law or brother-in-law or uncle-in-law of Ray Rice would have made discipline by the NFL not needed and Ray's first days with his new hands would be a reminder to others that it is not a smart thing to beat your wife or girlfriend or even to take a big bite of her a la Marv Albert.
Can you just imagine if either of these two gals was Cookie Gilchrist's sister or Artie Donovan's daughter?
Ouch! It hurts to even think of it.

#30 Moran
PFRA Member
Posted 24 September 2014 - 05:44 PM
I think of the modern era as the era of free substitution and the old era as the era of the two way player.

#31 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 24 September 2014 - 05:48 PM
Moran, on 24 Sept 2014 - 5:44 PM, said:
I think of the modern era as the era of free substitution and the old era as the era of the two way player.
If there has to be a dividing line, I'd agree with that one.

#32 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 24 September 2014 - 07:06 PM
rhickok1109, on 24 Sept 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:
If there has to be a dividing line, I'd agree with that one.

#33 coach tj troup
PFRA Member
Posted 24 September 2014 - 07:18 PM
...in 1949 nfl adopted free substitution on a "trial" basis, and kept it for '50....that for me begins the modern era as guys like van brocklin, title, conerly did not have to play defense.

#34 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 24 September 2014 - 08:17 PM
coach tj troup, on 24 Sept 2014 - 7:18 PM, said:
...in 1949 nfl adopted free substitution on a "trial" basis, and kept it for '50....that for me begins the modern era as guys like van brocklin, title, conerly did not have to play defense.

Well that four of us that kind if agree. But leaving aside my suspicion that I'm dragging the average age of the four of us down. I think if you polled people who watch football on Sunday that their dating the modern era would correlate with their age. People who watched in the 50's might say 58, or 60, people who watched in the 60's might say ''67 or 70. People under 30 would probably say - god knows what. It seems most people - not the PFRA mind you - look to the biggest change during their lifetime. Frankly, mist of them cannot be bothered to learn what happened before they were around, sadly.

#35 JohnMaxymuk
PFRA Member
Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:50 PM
NWebster, on 24 Sept 2014 - 8:17 PM, said:
Well that four of us that kind if agree. But leaving aside my suspicion that I'm dragging the average age of the four of us down. I think if you polled people who watch football on Sunday that their dating the modern era would correlate with their age. People who watched in the 50's might say 58, or 60, people who watched in the 60's might say ''67 or 70. People under 30 would probably say - god knows what. It seems most people - not the PFRA mind you - look to the biggest change during their lifetime. Frankly, mist of them cannot be bothered to learn what happened before they were around, sadly.

Yes

#36 Jeffrey Miller
PFRA Member
Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:58 PM
1950 works on another level, in that that was the year of the "merger."

Friends, I think we have a movement (to quote Arlo Guthrie)

#37 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 25 September 2014 - 11:42 AM
I tend to agree with Reaser's statement, which I'll quote in part since it's back on page one

Reaser, on 23 Sept 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:
We've had the discussion of how to define the eras a couple different times in the past few years....

Either way: Playoff/championship game, Free Substitution, Television, Super Bowl, Post-Merger, Specialization, Rule Changes, Free Agency, No defense allowed/Goodell era, etc ... all those could be dividers or starting points to define eras. Depends on what angle you're coming from for what's "modern"; on the field? league structure? rules? and so on. Changes between what you're trying to define.

There have been several significant milestones along the way in last 40 years in strategy, rules concerning defense of the pass, and (departing from the field and into boring old business and labor relations) the relationship between the owners and the players in the years after the last of the NFL competitors bit the dustin 1986.

#38 Veeshik_ya
Forum Visitors
Posted 25 September 2014 - 11:56 AM
The 1940s would be my first response. But asked to provide a second, I'd say 1978. It was the year rule changes were implemented specifically to make the game more TV-friendly, an approach that continues to this day.

Sure, they tinkered with rules over the years to try to improve the game, but I don't know many changes that were an outright pandering to network TV interests like the changes they made in 1978. There was nothing wrong with 1970s football; it was great. But television didn't like it. It goes without saying that broadcast entertainment value weighs heavily in everything the league has done since.

So in that sense, 1978 might've kicked off "the modern era".

#39 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 26 September 2014 - 08:40 AM
Today's "modern era" will be different tomorrow. The times they are a'changin' - still.
Luckyshow hit the nail where it does the most good when he referred to Art and Architecture. Other than the birth of Christ, the history of our world has been defined by Art and Architecture and WAR - pre- and post-.
Football will be no different. It will be defined by "Eras" and, quite likely, most of those suggested by the above posts will be valid. There will simply be new events that will mark the beginning of the then "modern era." These "events" will likely be games.
Just as wars have defined eras, it is quite probable the Football will be defined by the games that caused changes.
And, just as people have defined wars or battles, so have people helped define football: the forward pass, the "Night Train" face-mask tackle, Doug Atkins "Don't cut me," the Ameche TD, the "Ice Bowl," and so-on and so-on and so-on.

Looking for something else, this book popped up. I will bet it highlights many of the "defining" games.
(Funny, I never saw RJ referred to as "pro football’s #1 game-tape guru" but there it is - in B&W.)
The best part is that the book is available for a Penny - probably its true value in this age of high tech. It is sad to think that shipping and handling has a greater cost than the item but that's where we are.
In any case, for those who might want to be "in for a penny," here it is.

The Games That Changed the Game: The Evolution of the NFL in Seven Sundays
Paperback – August 30, 2011
by Ron Jaworski (Author) / David Plaut (Author) / Greg Cosell (Author) & 1 more
Hardcover from $0.01
107 Used from $0.01
27 New from $0.82
1 Collectible from $8.75
Professional football in the last half century has been a sport marked by relentless innovation. For fans determined to keep up with the changes that have transformed the game, close examination of the coaching footage is a must. In The Games That Changed the Game, Ron Jaworski - pro football’s #1 game-tape guru - breaks down the film from seven of the most momentous contests of the last fifty years, giving readers a drive-by-drive, play-by-play guide to the evolutionary leaps that define the modern NFL.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0345517962

#40 MichaelPeters
PFRA Member
Posted 26 September 2014 - 03:21 PM
This might be the thread Reaser was looking for: http://www.pfraforum...3338#entry41892. I don't find the topic silly at all; I think it's one of the most interesting questions dealing with history of the game just because of the possible subjective answers.

I tend to agree that free substitution is the most logical, but 1958, 1960, 1970 or 1978 also make good sense. For those highly interested in stats, 1978 makes lots of sense simply because there's no fairness in comparing the 12 or 14-game season to the 16-game season. Since the league size virtually doubled in 1970, one wouldn't be nuts for considering the modern era beginning then either. Likewise, the playoff format expansion in 1967 shouldn't be considered nuts either considering how much it changed fan involvement. The only idea that I would strongly disagree with is one which somehow has the "modern era" beginning later than 1978.

Somewhat related..... One of my favorite questions from my database of pro football pub trivia (still trying to find publisher BTW): Which was the first year that more passes were attempted league-wide than rushes in the NFL? 1976, 1979, 1982, or 1985

Page 2 of 4
oldecapecod 11

The NFL's Modern Era?
Started by JoeZagorski, Sep 22 2014 09:50 PM

Page 3 of 4

73 replies to this topic

#41 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 September 2014 - 04:32 PM
I've always considered 1958 a turning point. It saw the Sudden Death championship game. Johnny Unitas and Jim Brown starting becoming famous in the way Mantle and Mays were.

Also, it was the first year I followed pro football on TV.

#42 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 26 September 2014 - 08:21 PM
MichaelPeters, on 26 Sept 2014 - 3:21 PM, said:
This might be the thread Reaser was looking for: http://www.pfraforum...3338#entry41892. I don't find the topic silly at all; I think it's one of the most interesting questions dealing with history of the game just because of the possible subjective answers.
That was it.

Knew I had said free substitution and 1978 rule changes, two of many but the two main ones, in my opinion.

#43 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 September 2014 - 11:59 PM
1950 was my choice in the previous thread and it remains so. The combination of free substitution, the merger with the AAFC and the ongoing maturation of the passing game are the reasons for my opinion. 1960 or 1970 would also be logical choices for obvious reasons.

#44 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 28 September 2014 - 12:27 AM
From my personal (age) perspective I would have answered 1960 or 1970 as the Birth and Merger of the AFL were the most important "historical" events of my formative football years.

1978 is another year that, to me, seems a clear demarcation line.

But after reading this thread and with careful consideration I could agree that the free-substitution rules lead to the single biggest change in the way the game was played and therefore should be the demarcation line (if one is needed) between ancient and modern (football) history.

#45 Shipley
PFRA Member
Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:46 PM
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the modern era can be considered underway in any year where there are still only a handful of black players in the league and most teams' rosters are still fully or nearly lily white. If for no other reason, the level of talent must be considered pre-modern and subpar as long as that was the case.

#46 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 09:45 AM
Shipley, on 28 Sept 2014 - 2:46 PM, said:
Again, as I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the modern era can be considered underway in any year where there are still only a handful of black players in the league and most teams' rosters are still fully or nearly lily white. If for no other reason, the level of talent must be considered pre-modern and subpar as long as that was the case.
While I can understand that, I can't agree with it for a very simple reason: There's absolutely no evidence that any black player who might have had an impact was denied the opportunity to play in the NFL.

The situation in football was not at all like the situation in baseball. When I was a kid, the average baseball fan know the names of a dozen or more legendary black players who had been shut out of major league baseball. I was in the pressbox with my father at a Class D baseball game in 1948 when the news came over the AP wire that the Cleveland Indians had signed Satchel Paige. When the news was announced over the PA system, a big cheer went up. There were about 2,000 people at the game and I bet that every one of them knew who Satchel Paige was.

There were no equivalent black football players, mainly because there were very few black players on the college level. During the period when the NFL tacitly banned black players, there was only one black named to an All-America team, Brud Holland of Cornell. Holland no doubt could have played in the NFL, but not many other black players could have made it.

Even if the entire squad of Fritz Pollard's Brown Bombers could have played in the NFL (which is doubtful but not impossible), they might have raised the level of play slightly, but it wouldn't have been a great impact. And the historically black colleges, as they are now known, didn't boast any genuinely outstanding players until after World War II. (If you doubt that, look at the Black College Football Hall of Fame: Only two of its inductees played before the war.)

There were a few black players, here and there, who could undoubtedly have played in the NFL if there hadn't been a de facto, but only a few. Even after the war, major colleges were slow to add black players, which meant that there were not many available to enter pro football.

In short, I can't accept the idea that the level of talent was subpar because of the shortage of black players in 1950. In an ideal world, there might well have been a lot of black players being sent to the NFL by college, but unfortunately that ideal world did not exist. I don't think that any blacks with the talent to play in the NFL were excluded from 1950 on. If there were any, I'd be curious to know who they were.

#47 Bob Gill
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 10:07 AM
Interesting point.

Pollard's Brown Bombers might have had a couple of players with NFL ability, but as a unit they couldn't have won a game in the NFL, period. The team was at its best from 1935 to '37, and in those years they played a few games with American Association teams -- winning one, losing seven and tying two. They're occasionally mentioned as some kind of unknown super team, but that's simply wrong. I think it's a result of the mistake you mentioned: the assumption that black football was on the same sort of level as black baseball in the same period, which it was not.

I do think Kenny Washington would have been (not "might have been") a star in the NFL, ranking somewhere among the likes of Ace Parker, Parker Hall and Frankie Sinkwich. Maybe Ozzie Simmons could have been a successful scatback in the mold of Dick Todd or Steve Bagarus. There are probably a handful of others, but not enough to derail your essential point.

#48 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:48 AM
rhickok1109
Posted Today, 09:45 AM
"... There were a few black players, here and there, who could undoubtedly have played in the NFL if there hadn't been a de facto, but only a few. Even after the war, major colleges were slow to add black players, which meant that there were not many available to enter pro football..."

Sad; but true!
In fact, the Southeast Conference prohibited black players until 1967 - three years AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The first black player was signed by Kentucky in 1965 - Nat Northington. His first game was not until September 23, 1967.
Tennessee followed signing Lester McClain in 1967 and his first game was September 14, 1968.
Auburn signed James Owens in 1969 and he played his first game September 19, 1970.

There were a few others in the early '70s and the first black player from the SEC to play in the NFL was Wilbur Jackson of Alabama. He was signed by Alabama in 1970 and first played September 18, 1971. Jackson was also the first black scholarship football player at Alabama.
Bear Bryant, when asked what he thought of integration at Alabama, remarked that he did not care who they brought into the school as long as he could run with the football.

#49 Shipley
PFRA Member
Posted 29 September 2014 - 08:48 PM
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. While I have no specific examples to provide (that would be a real challenge), I can't help suspecting that for every Emlen Tunnell, Wally Triplett, Bob Mann and Kenny Washington who beat the odds and were fortunate enough to get a chance to play in the NFL starting in the late 40s, there were dozens of other black players from that era none of us have ever heard of because they did not play at big-name college programs who were NFL-worthy but were kept off rosters by less talented white players. Because of that, I stand by what I said that the modern era should not include the years when most NFL rosters had few if any black players on them. I'm sure it is also not lost on most in this group that with the exception of the Detroit Lions, the teams that won the most championships or competed for them in the 50s -- the Browns, Rams, Giants and Colts -- had the most black players.

#50 John Grasso
Board of Directors
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:38 AM
rhickok1109, on 29 Sept 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:
The situation in football was not at all like the situation in baseball. When I was a kid, the average baseball fan know the names of a dozen or more legendary black players who had been shut out of major league baseball. I was in the pressbox with my father at a Class D baseball game in 1948 when the news came over the AP wire that the Cleveland Indians had signed Satchel Paige. When the news was announced over the PA system, a big cheer went up. There were about 2,000 people at the game and I bet that every one of them knew who Satchel Paige was.

I totally agree with your point about football but disagree with the statement that "the average baseball fan knew the names
of a dozen or more legendary black players who had been shut out of major league baseball".

I was probably more than an average baseball fan as were many of my friends, growing up in NYC, but the only
legendary black players we were aware of in the 1950s were Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson. We were aware, of course, of
the black players in the major leagues during that time but it was not until Robert Peterson came out with "Only the Ball was White"
in 1970 that we became aware of the legendary black players (Cool Papa Bell, Buck Leonard, Judy Johnson, etc.) that were shut out.

The only black football players we were aware of were those in the NFL such as Tank Younger, Ollie Matson and Buddy Young.

#51 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 10:26 AM
John Grasso
Posted Today, 08:38 AM
"... I totally agree with your point about football but disagree with the statement that 'the average baseball fan knew the names of a dozen or more legendary black players who had been shut out of major league baseball'.
I was probably more than an average baseball fan as were many of my friends, growing up in NYC, but the only
legendary black players we were aware of in the 1950s were Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson. We were aware, of course, of the black players in the major leagues during that time..."

New Yorkers (and others) almost had more.
While Jackie Robinson was still in Kansas City, Gus Greenlee and a guy named Branch Rickey founded the United States Negro League which operated in 1945 and 1946.
One of the teams was the first incarnation of the Brooklyn Brown Dodgers.
Some folks wonder, if this League and team had been a success and survived, would the Brown Dodgers have continued as a league entity and / or been a farm club for "Dem Bums?" Only BR knew for sure...
United States Negro League
1945-1946
1945 founded by William Augustus Gus Greenlee & Brooklyn Dodgers’ executive Branch Rickey
Boston (Massachusetts) Blues
Brooklyn (New York) Brown Dodgers { I }
Cleveland (Ohio) Clippers
Motor City (Detroit, Michigan) Giants
Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Crawfords
Toledo (Ohio) Cubs

(Although never expressed by Greenlee or Rickey, the opinion here is that the reason this league failed can be blamed partially on the armed services. Both men felt that post-war America could handle a (small) Negro league and that the war had softened the lines of integration. They failed to consider that most blacks in the military were in subservient roles. There were very few Tuskegee Airmen.)

#52 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 September 2014 - 11:17 AM
Shipley, on 29 Sept 2014 - 8:48 PM, said:
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. While I have no specific examples to provide (that would be a real challenge), I can't help suspecting that for every Emlen Tunnell, Wally Triplett, Bob Mann and Kenny Washington who beat the odds and were fortunate enough to get a chance to play in the NFL starting in the late 40s, there were dozens of other black players from that era none of us have ever heard of because they did not play at big-name college programs who were NFL-worthy but were kept off rosters by less talented white players. Because of that, I stand by what I said that the modern era should not include the years when most NFL rosters had few if any black players on them. I'm sure it is also not lost on most in this group that with the exception of the Detroit Lions, the teams that won the most championships or competed for them in the 50s -- the Browns, Rams, Giants and Colts -- had the most black players.

Its an interesting thought, but it might be too subjective to define a time when the NFL was (for lack of a better term) "black enough" to be considered "modern". While I do think the late-40's/early 50's Browns and Rams teams were helped on the field by having black players, I don't think of the 1950's Giants and Colts as being successful because they had more black players than the other NFL teams. In fact, I'm not really sure if either the Giants or Colts had any more black players than other NFL teams. They just had better black players, which was true of their white players, too.

#53 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:28 PM
I've said this before, that I regret that pro football indexes shy away from identifying the race of a player.Although it does bring all sorts of fears of being politically incorrect, researchers and historians use demographic information in describing trends objectively. Charles K. Ross wrote an excellent book, Outside the Lines, in 2001 and it included an appendix of "African Americans in Pro Football, 1904-1962". Some interesting information--

*There were 13 black NFL players in the 1920-33 era
*Of the 26 who got into pro ball during the AAFC era, 19 were in the AAFC and 7 in the NFL. The 7 NFLers were Kenny Washington, Woody Strode and Tank Younger of the Rams; Mel Groomes, Bobby Mann and Wally Triplett of the Lions; and Emlen Tunnell of the Giants, and none of the other NFL teams integrated until the 1950s. On the AAFC side, Miami/Baltimore and Buffalo (the original Colts and Bills) were the two that weren't hiring
*There were no new black players in the NFL in 1951 (though there were 19 on NFL teams at that time)

Ebony Magazine used to do an annual "Pro Football Roundup" article, and I'm quoting from these:
*Its count for 1963 was an even 100 in the 14 team NFL, and 46 in the 8-team AFL. The numbers per team ranged from 4 on the Steelers, to 12 on the Rams; and from one at Houston (Charles Frazier) to eight at San Diego and Denver.
*In 1965, the Ebony headline was "National Football League Now Counts Some 140 Negro Players Among Its Ranks", while the AFL had 80.
*By 1968, there were "300 plus black athletes" among the 26 teams

I don't know if anyone has done any historical census data on the NFL, using the current Census Bureau classifications, but it would be interesting to see.

#54 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 September 2014 - 01:36 PM
Mark L. Ford, on 30 Sept 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:
Ebony Magazine used to do an annual "Pro Football Roundup" article, and I'm quoting from these:
*Its count for 1963 was an even 100 in the 14 team NFL, and 46 in the 8-team AFL. The numbers per team ranged from 4 on the Steelers, to 12 on the Rams; and from one at Houston (Charles Frazier) to eight at San Diego and Denver.
*In 1965, the Ebony headline was "National Football League Now Counts Some 140 Negro Players Among Its Ranks", while the AFL had 80.

In one sense the AFL gave opportunity to black players who were not given that same opportunity in the NFL for whatever reason...but these numbers seem to show that the NFL was actually more proficient than the AFL in having black players on their roster (at least in 1963 & 1965). I think the general idea of the time is that the NFL shunned black players while the AFL welcomed these same players with open arms, which appears to be incorrect.

#55 Bob Gill
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 02:53 PM
I had the same thought about the NFL vs. the AFL as Bryan did. I think the idea of the AFL welcoming black players has become sort of the standard version of what happened, but the figures don't support that at all. That's the value of actually looking things up, as opposed to accepting what "everybody" says.

#56 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 03:12 PM
If there is any validity to the 1965 Ebony data, all it shows is that there was an equal distribution of blacks in both leagues.
I.E. 140 NFL divided among 14 teams = 10 per team; and, 80 AFL divided among 8 teams = 10 per team.

I would bet that is NOT accurate. Someone who wanted to take the time and look roster-by-roster could make that determination.

i would also bet that however the distribution numbers fell, there would be an even number on each team.
(The old roommate thing, you know - which goes back to the very first "pair.")

If, however, such review DID determine that there were 10 per team then the (pun intended) black mark of racism is clearly evident in both leagues and Ebony would have made a bit more noise.
But, if not, it is just as guilty of headline grabbing as was the NAACP for calling Grant Fuhr an African-American.

#57 Jeffrey Miller
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 03:36 PM
How about the change from leather to plastic helmets? Or the advent of television?

#58 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 30 September 2014 - 04:28 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 30 Sept 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:
If there is any validity to the 1965 Ebony data, all it shows is that there was an equal distribution of blacks in both leagues.
I would bet that is NOT accurate. Someone who wanted to take the time and look roster-by-roster could make that determination.

I would also bet that however the distribution numbers fell, there would be an even number on each team.
(The old roommate thing, you know - which goes back to the very first "pair.")

If, however, such review DID determine that there were 10 per team then the (pun intended) black mark of racism is clearly evident in both leagues and Ebony would have made a bit more noise.
But, if not, it is just as guilty of headline grabbing as was the NAACP for calling Grant Fuhr an African-American.

Easy to say stuff like that fifty years later, but I imagine that the editors anticipated back in 1963 that they needed to back up their statements. I think that everyone knows that Ebony is published for an African-American readership, though crackers like I have read it too, because of its quality as a magazine. The reason that I trust their information (and those of the Ross book) more than I would any other source from that time, the NFL and AFL included, is because it wasn't just they had the frickin' names of all the Negro players in the league -- and, in Ebony's case, the pictures of the players, for any critic who might say "hmmm, Don Perkins doesn't sound like a black guy".

http://books.google....roundup&f=false

The whole article is a who's who. If they had omitted mention of a player for any reason, there would have been plenty of critics at the time to call them on it. The evidence is all there, pardon the pun, in black and white.

#59 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 September 2014 - 05:14 PM
Bryan, on 30 Sept 2014 - 1:36 PM, said:
In one sense the AFL gave opportunity to black players who were not given that same opportunity in the NFL for whatever reason...but these numbers seem to show that the NFL was actually more proficient than the AFL in having black players on their roster (at least in 1963 & 1965). I think the general idea of the time is that the NFL shunned black players while the AFL welcomed these same players with open arms, which appears to be incorrect.

Believe it or not, the AFL gave opportunity to white players who were not given that opportunity in the NFL for whatever reason.

By the way, I regularly watched the AFL on TV in 1960, the Houston Oilers in particular.

#60 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 05:23 PM
rhickok1109, on 29 Sept 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:
While I can understand that, I can't agree with it for a very simple reason: There's absolutely no evidence that any black player who might have had an impact was denied the opportunity to play in the NFL.
...
In short, I can't accept the idea that the level of talent was subpar because of the shortage of black players in 1950. In an ideal world, there might well have been a lot of black players being sent to the NFL by college, but unfortunately that ideal world did not exist. I don't think that any blacks with the talent to play in the NFL were excluded from 1950 on. If there were any, I'd be curious to know who they were.
I'm having some trouble unpacking this. You're relying on the racism prevalent in the college system, which prevented thousands of black kids from playing college football, as your argument that racism didn't keep blacks out of the NFL, because there weren't any black kids coming out of college ready to turn pro?

In Michael MacCambridge's book America's Game, he writes about the troubles teams were having getting players during the war years. For at least one team, the tryout process was, if you can run around the block without stopping, you made the team. Since there wasn't any racism happening in the NFL, I guess black guys just didn't know how to run yet.

Or maybe there's just no evidence that any black guys could run around the block without stopping.

Page 3 of 4
oldecapecod 11

The NFL's Modern Era?
Started by JoeZagorski, Sep 22 2014 09:50 PM

Page 4 of 4

73 replies to this topic

#61 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:34 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 04:28 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 30 Sept 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:
"If there is any validity to the 1965 Ebony data..."
-----
"Easy to say stuff like that fifty years later, but I imagine that the editors anticipated back in 1963 that they needed to back up their statements. I think that everyone knows that Ebony is published for an African-American readership, though crackers like I have read it too, because of its quality as a magazine..."
" http://books.google....roundup&f=false
"The whole article is a who's who. If they had omitted mention of a player for any reason, there would have been plenty of critics at the time to call them on it. The evidence is all there, pardon the pun, in black and white."

Whatever "stuff" was "anticipated back in 1963," accuracy might not have been in the mix.
Any article that references John Mackey as an offensive halfback, I.E. "OHB," could not have been very thoroughly researched?

Tight End would probably have been ID'd in that article as "TE."

The earlier data that you posted included some stuff compiled in 1965.
That data was what was the subject of my post - not 1963, which is cute.

It might interest you to learn that "crackers" are not the only people who give periodic attention to publications such as Ebony. Transplanted New Englanders with an ancestor who was a major conductor on the Underground Railroad often utilize those sources.
http://en.wikipedia....ground_Railroad

#62 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:29 AM
oldecapecod 11, on 30 Sept 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:
If there is any validity to the 1965 Ebony data, all it shows is that there was an equal distribution of blacks in both leagues.
I.E. 140 NFL divided among 14 teams = 10 per team; and, 80 AFL divided among 8 teams = 10 per team.
I would bet that is NOT accurate. Someone who wanted to take the time and look roster-by-roster could make that determination.
I would also bet that however the distribution numbers fell, there would be an even number on each.

I did a cursory review of the 1965 AFL rosters according to the Neft & Cohen Football Encyclopedia. My review is by no means comprehensive, but I counted 56 black AFL players that I had knowledge of. I'm sure there are several backup RBs and DBs and some fringe players that I missed, but I highly doubt that my initial number is so far off that Ebony's total of 80 is significantly lower than the actual number. San Diego and Denver (surprisingly) had the most players, Houston had the least, and Kansas City was middle of the pack with 8. Two things that stood out were how few black OLs there were in the AFL, and IIRC there were only two black AFL LBs in 1965 (Bobby Bell and Frank Buncom).

#63 Shipley
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:50 AM
I've found this discussion about representation of black players on AFL/NFL to be really interesting, and have enjoyed hearing different posters' perspectives, but I realize we've veered somewhat off the original topic about what constitutes the beginning of the modern era. Does it make sense to create a new thread on the topic of how the NFL and AFL began integrating rosters? It's clear this is a lively topic and people have plenty of interesting comments, and I'd like to continue the discussion if the rest of the group is also interested. I'd be happy to create a new thread if others agree, or would welcome it if someone else would get it started.

#64 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 01 October 2014 - 09:16 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 30 Sept 2014 - 5:23 PM, said:
I'm having some trouble unpacking this. You're relying on the racism prevalent in the college system, which prevented thousands of black kids from playing college football, as your argument that racism didn't keep blacks out of the NFL, because there weren't any black kids coming out of college ready to turn pro?

In Michael MacCambridge's book America's Game, he writes about the troubles teams were having getting players during the war years. For at least one team, the tryout process was, if you can run around the block without stopping, you made the team. Since there wasn't any racism happening in the NFL, I guess black guys just didn't know how to run yet.

Or maybe there's just no evidence that any black guys could run around the block without stopping.

I agree with another post that this is worth a separate thread.

Whether or not there were enough black players on major university teams in the 30s and 40s, there were black college football teams, they weren't picking players from places like Grambling at the time either. A common error in websites (pro-football-reference.com) and the ESPN Draft Encyclopedia is in listing the listing of draftees from historically black Howard College, located in Washington, D.C. The list includes "George Dougherty- B, Howard" as a pick in the 1940 draft by Brooklyn, nine years before Chicago drafted George Taliaferro. The reason that the 1940 pick wasn't historical is that Dougherty was drafted out of a different Howard College, a Southern Baptist school in Birmingham that later became Samford University, which has had five other players drafted since then. None of the Samford draftees made it into the pros until 2006, when current Titans' safety Cortland Finnegan became the first.

#65 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:07 AM
Shipley, on 01 Oct 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:
I've found this discussion about representation of black players on AFL/NFL to be really interesting, and have enjoyed hearing different posters' perspectives, but I realize we've veered somewhat off the original topic about what constitutes the beginning of the modern era. Does it make sense to create a new thread on the topic of how the NFL and AFL began integrating rosters?

I guess that depends on your perspective as to if/how integration is the major factor as to when the modern era began. I don't see integration as being the major factor -- to me, eras are dependent on rules and strategy, so the modern era begins in either 1950 or 1978 IMO.

#66 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:09 AM
Bryan
Posted Today, 08:29 AM
"I did a cursory review of the 1965 AFL rosters according to the Neft & Cohen Football Encyclopedia. My review is by no means comprehensive, but I counted 56 black AFL players that I had knowledge of. I'm sure there are several backup RBs and DBs and some fringe players that I missed, but I highly doubt that my initial number is so far off that Ebony's total of 80 is significantly lower than the actual number. San Diego and Denver (surprisingly) had the most players, Houston had the least, and Kansas City was middle of the pack with 8. Two things that stood out were how few black OLs there were in the AFL, and IIRC there were only two black AFL LBs in 1965 (Bobby Bell and Frank Buncom)."

It is not Neft & Cohen and maybe you would call this "cheating" but I looked at the 1965 Patriots' team photo.
They seem to be in the "middle of the pack" also with eight (8.)

NOTE: As you say - NOT an OL or LB in the bunch.

Houston Antwine.. DT....1939-04-11 Southern Illinois
Ron Burton.......... RB... 1936-07-25 Northwestern
J.D. Garrett.......... RB... 1941-11-28 Grambling
Larry Garron....... RB.... 1937-05-23 Western Illinois
Jim Hunt.............. DT.... 1938-10-05 Prairie View A&M
Ellis Johnson....... RB.... 1943-07-09 Southeastern Louisiana
Jim Nance........... RB.... 1942-12-30 Syracuse
Don Webb.......... DB.... 1939-05-22 Iowa State

#67 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:37 AM
Bryan
Posted Today, 08:29 AM
"I did a cursory review of the 1965 AFL rosters according to the Neft & Cohen Football Encyclopedia..."

Using the same method of looking at the 1965 team photo, I see the Buffalo Bills have ten (10.)

So:
08 Boston
10 Buffalo

And, of course, this is only using the "official" team photos which do not include on and offs before and after the photo sitting.

#68 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:44 AM
The 1965 New York Jets also had ten (10.)

08 Boston
10 Buffalo
10 New York

#69 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:53 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 30 Sept 2014 - 5:23 PM, said:
I'm having some trouble unpacking this. You're relying on the racism prevalent in the college system, which prevented thousands of black kids from playing college football, as your argument that racism didn't keep blacks out of the NFL, because there weren't any black kids coming out of college ready to turn pro?

In Michael MacCambridge's book America's Game, he writes about the troubles teams were having getting players during the war years. For at least one team, the tryout process was, if you can run around the block without stopping, you made the team. Since there wasn't any racism happening in the NFL, I guess black guys just didn't know how to run yet.

Or maybe there's just no evidence that any black guys could run around the block without stopping.
I don't think it was racism on the college level so much as it was a cultural problem, basically socio-economic. Scholarship programs were virtually non-existent before World War II; as a result, very few people from poor families, even lower middle-class families, attended college; and, of course, there was a disproportionate number of blacks in the lower economic strata. This was especially true during the Great Depression, when only relatively wealthy families could afford to send their children to college.

#70 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 10:54 AM
The 1965 Oakland Raiders, it appears, had twenty-two (22.)

08 Boston
10 Buffalo
10 New York
22 Oakland
---------------
50 One-Half of the AFL
NOT DONE are the teams Bryan has completed.
Note: "even" numbers among this four...

#71 Bryan
Forum Visitors
oldecapecod 11, on 01 Oct 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:
The 1965 Oakland Raiders, it appears, had twenty-two (22.)

Please list. I don't think I could have been that far off. I have 10 (in numerical order...Mingo, Todd, Williams, Daniels, Atkins, Roberson, Grayson, Lassiter, Powell, Oates).

#72 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 11:58 AM
Bryan, I am not saying it is accurate - only what appears in what was shown as a 1965 team photo.
Some of the numbers are not legible because of bodies blocking others.
I cannot post the photo here because I do not know how and have asked for help but...
If you put your e-mail in a message above, I will send the link or the photo.
Sorry...
P

#73 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:56 PM
Bryan, I hate back-to-back posts but the editing process is more difficult so let me apologize to those offended.
My number - 22 - for the 1965 Oakland Raiders is WRONG. The photo came up in a pile of 1965 stuff but it was a 1976 photo.
Now, on both the plus and minus sides, I cannot find a 1965 Oakland Raiders team photo... but... have a WONDERFUL 1966 Raiders team photo.
Wonderful because it is captioned at the bottom by Row and Jersey Number (Rare that one sees both.)
So... although it is 1966, it might help. I also have three Rosters none of which designate by number. You will see the links and although one advertises alpha AND by number, they do not.
I have written to a guy on the left coast who may come up with a 1965 team photo. We shall see.
Let me know what you wish. I will dump this stuff in a folder for the now.
P
PS The 1966 Raiders had 13 black players.

#74 apbaball
PFRA Member
Posted 04 October 2014 - 10:53 AM
Shipley, on 01 Oct 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:
I've found this discussion about representation of black players on AFL/NFL to be really interesting, and have enjoyed hearing different posters' perspectives, but I realize we've veered somewhat off the original topic about what constitutes the beginning of the modern era. Does it make sense to create a new thread on the topic of how the NFL and AFL began integrating rosters? It's clear this is a lively topic and people have plenty of interesting comments, and I'd like to continue the discussion if the rest of the group is also interested. I'd be happy to create a new thread if others agree, or would welcome it if someone else would get it started.
I would say you can't divide football into two distinct eras but three would work. The first era would be the limited substitution era, the second up until 1977 and the third the modern era which began in 1978.

Page 4 of 4