More appropriate term Super Bowl or World Champions?

[Seahawks1983]

America is not the world. Period.

This man is obviously a Communist!

:les:















:sarcasm_off:

 

[Greenhell]

Love the banter. Super Bowl Champions it is. Ink gets done tonight. Pics to follow.

Here's the tatt as it looks.

 

[DrDix]

Of course this hasn't been updated yet. But I like World Champions.

Nice, world champs when only the USA competes in the league. Makes sooo much sense!!!!


People please.

 

[RolandDeschain]

By this "logic", there's no such thing as a futbol/soccer world champion, either; because not every single country in the world competes in it.

Give me a break. If it's the highest possible stage of the sport that exists anywhere in the world, and you win it, then you are the world champions.

 

[Seahawks1983]

By this "logic", there's no such thing as a futbol/soccer world champion, either; because not every single country in the world competes in it.

Give me a break. If it's the highest possible stage of the sport that exists anywhere in the world, and you win it, then you are the world champions.

Technically there is a Club World Cup, so there is a club world champion.

 

[pmedic920]

For what it's worth, thee official cap says "Super Bowl Champions".

 

[Seaswab]

Every other team refers to themselves as World Champions, thats what we should call ourselves.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Technically there is a Club World Cup, so there is a club world champion.

Aye, but you get my point. The implication previously in this thread is that since it's not a sport played around the world, it can't have a "world" champion. What's the requirement, then? 71.385% of the countries in the world must participate? 40%? Etc.

There are tiny countries without official sports teams, so there can't be a "world champion" for any sport if it's defined as you are better than the rest of the world. Those arguing against the use of the phrase "world champion" for the Seahawks right now need to define a minimum percentage of the number of countries around the world that participate in trying to win the Lombardi, and justify why they chose that percentage.

Jesus, I hate that I had to type this out, haha.

 

[kidhawk]

I'm a little late to the party since the decision has been made (and I believe Super Bowl is how I would have gone as well), but I do want to add in my two cents, and that as far as "World Champion" goes, until there is such a time as anyone contests it, then the Super Bowl Champion IS the world Champion. So both, to me, are correct

 

[Largent80]

Either is great. I am going with WORLD, to tell everyone...SUCK IT BITCHES.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Technically there is a Club World Cup, so there is a club world champion.

Aye, but you get my point. The implication previously in this thread is that since it's not a sport played around the world, it can't have a "world" champion. What's the requirement, then? 71.385% of the countries in the world must participate? 40%? Etc.

There are tiny countries without official sports teams, so there can't be a "world champion" for any sport if it's defined as you are better than the rest of the world. Those arguing against the use of the phrase "world champion" for the Seahawks right now need to define a minimum percentage of the number of countries around the world that participate in trying to win the Lombardi, and justify why they chose that percentage.

Jesus, I hate that I had to type this out, haha.

The difference though is that a multi national tournament to decide a champion actually exists, so there is a World Champion.

For the purposes of the NFL, no one else plays it, so the champ is the World Champion.

You could invent your own sport, play it with your buddies, and crown the winner World Champion if you wanted to.

 

[RolandDeschain]

The difference though is that a multi national tournament to decide a champion actually exists, so there is a World Champion.

For the purposes of the NFL, no one else plays it, so the champ is the World Champion.

You could invent your own sport, play it with your buddies, and crown the winner World Champion if you wanted to.

Either way, you're excluding people & countries if you don't have 100% of the countries in the world competing; just different scales.

 

[Seahawks1983]

The difference though is that a multi national tournament to decide a champion actually exists, so there is a World Champion.

For the purposes of the NFL, no one else plays it, so the champ is the World Champion.

You could invent your own sport, play it with your buddies, and crown the winner World Champion if you wanted to.

Either way, you're excluding people & countries if you don't have 100% of the countries in the world competing; just different scales.

 

[RolandDeschain]

No, but if it makes you feel better to think it, then go for it.

 

[kidhawk]

Just one more bit of information for the argument.....The top of the Super Bowl Winning Ring says WORLD CHAMPIONS.

 

[KiwiHawk]

The Seahawks are a regional team in the United States, not a National team, therefore they can't be World Champions. If they were a National team competing with other National teams around the world, then they could call themselves World Champions.

It's only a technicality of course, but the NFL is not even an international game, apart from the Bills being from Canada and the Seahawks being from Egypt.

Americans in general don't get the concept, because the pinnacle level of all of their major sports is played on the National level, not the World level. But like the metric system, that's not the way the rest of the world works. The rest of the world plays in international competitions to determine the World Champs.

 

[onanygivensunday]

What do you know... you're a friggin' Kiwi. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Greenhell]

The Seahawks are a regional team in the United States, not a National team, therefore they can't be World Champions. If they were a National team competing with other National teams around the world, then they could call themselves World Champions.

It's only a technicality of course, but the NFL is not even an international game, apart from the Bills being from Canada and the Seahawks being from Egypt.

Americans in general don't get the concept, because the pinnacle level of all of their major sports is played on the National level, not the World level. But like the metric system, that's not the way the rest of the world works. The rest of the world plays in international competitions to determine the World Champs.

Yeah I have no doubt that on the international level no other country would ever be able to compete in the game of American football with NFL caliber players or teams.

 

[Hawknballs]

Unless there is a football league in the world that plays at a higher level than the NFL, then "World Champions" is entirely appropriate.

They are the best football team in the world.

whether or not the NFL is purely an american sport or not is completely irrelevant.

If you were a car manufacturer, but you only sold cars in the continental united states, but you sold more cars than any other car manufacturer, would you still be the world-leader in automobile sales? Yes.

Personally I would go with XLVIII CHAMPIONS myself only because roman numerals are cooler.

 

[Seahawks1983]

The Seahawks are a regional team in the United States, not a National team, therefore they can't be World Champions. If they were a National team competing with other National teams around the world, then they could call themselves World Champions.

It's only a technicality of course, but the NFL is not even an international game, apart from the Bills being from Canada and the Seahawks being from Egypt.

Americans in general don't get the concept, because the pinnacle level of all of their major sports is played on the National level, not the World level. But like the metric system, that's not the way the rest of the world works. The rest of the world plays in international competitions to determine the World Champs.

Americans get the concept, we just don't give a shit.