More appropriate term Super Bowl or World Champions?

[RolandDeschain]

Sigh @ Kiwi.

 

[pmedic920]

^^^ two more post like this and thread will get moved.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

If any other country in the world wants to put together a team that can challenge the Seahawks for the Super Bowl title and win then we won't be world champions. Until then we're the best goddam football team in the world and IMO that makes us World Champions.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

The whole 'World Champions' thing gets brought up by every non-NFL fan in the UK.

And to be fair, there's nothing I can say in response.

When only one country plays the sport, you can't boast about being 'world' champions.

 

[fenderbender123]

The Seattle Seahawks are world champions at playing in the NFL in America. It makes sense to me!

 

[hawknation2014]

Super Bowl

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Is there a better team in the world?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[White Devil]

If any other country in the world wants to put together a team that can challenge the Seahawks for the Super Bowl title and win then we won't be world champions. Until then we're the best goddam football team in the world and IMO that makes us World Champions.

This.


Also, threads like this are what separates Seahawks fans from other fans of teams that have been called World Champions for winning the Super Bowl.

They are World Champions. There is no team in the world that is better than them at the moment a championship was determined.

The entire idea that someone in Paris, or Zimbabwe doesn't agree with the statement....is irrelevant.

Seahawks 2014 Super Bowl XLVIII World Champions. :0190l:

 

[TruHammer07]

I cringe every time I hear world champions applied to the NFL, NBA and MLB. With the exception of a few games in Toronto these are national leagues, not international. It's plain wrong to designate them world champions. I would chalk it up to plain ole American ignorance. The Stanley cup champion is rarely referred to as world champions. Certainly not by any players. There are world championships and Olympics and world cups to designate world championships. None of the major 4 should claim these titles. My apologies to any American readers.

 

[lsheldon]

Until there is another American rules football organization the likes of the NFL anywhere else in the world, I think you can call it whatever you want to.

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.

^^ + this

 

[White Devil]

I cringe every time I hear world champions applied to the NFL, NBA and MLB. With the exception of a few games in Toronto these are national leagues, not international. It's plain wrong to designate them world champions. I would chalk it up to plain ole American ignorance. The Stanley cup champion is rarely referred to as world champions. Certainly not by any players. There are world championships and Olympics and world cups to designate world championships. None of the major 4 should claim these titles. My apologies to any American readers.

See that's just it. Non-Americans are so concerned with what Americans think. You can have Cricket World Champions, Ping Pong World Champions, Curling World Champions, or even Tiddly Wink World Champions if that's a sport in some country, and guess what?

WE DON'T CARE.

The Seattle Seahawks are World Champions :229031_thewave:

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

If any other country in the world wants to put together a team that can challenge the Seahawks for the Super Bowl title and win then we won't be world champions. Until then we're the best goddam football team in the world and IMO that makes us World Champions.

Yep. The Seahawks are currently the best professional football team anywhere. Anyone in the world is more than welcome to try and take that title from us. No one in the world is capable of such a task.

 

[KiwiHawk]

See that's just it. Non-Americans are so concerned with what Americans think. You can have Cricket World Champions, Ping Pong World Champions, Curling World Champions, or even Tiddly Wink World Champions if that's a sport in some country, and guess what?

WE DON'T CARE.

The Seattle Seahawks are World Champions :229031_thewave:

It's not true that we are so concerned with what Americans think any more than you are "so concerned" over the guy who makes a fool out of himself on FailBlog. We simply facepalm and occasionally respond when someone like the OP asks for the "more appropriate" designation. Since the Seahawks don't play the world, the "more appropriate" term is "Super Bowl Champions".

That in no way implies that the Seahawks wouldn't steamroll any international side. It simply states that one of the designations is more appropriate, because "Super Bowl Champions" is 100% correct.

I don't CARE if you don't CARE, but since the OP is inking it onto his arm, he DOES CARE.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

I cringe every time I hear world champions applied to the NFL, NBA and MLB.

You notice what league we don't do that with? MLS. You know why? Because nobody can make a case that the winner of the MLS Cup is the best soccer squad in the world. But it's easy to make the case that the Seahawks/Heat/whoever is the best. There's a basketball team somewhere that's going to beat Miami in a 7-game series? Seriously?

For the most part, "World champions" is being used (quite appropriately, IMO) as a synonym for "best team in the world" as opposed to "winner of alphabet soup sanctioning body-sponsored international tournament". There's plenty of baseless "Yankee Exceptionalism" to find and complain about. Whingeing about this is simply that: whingeing.

 

[chris98251]

This is all I need, love Tina Turner also. Watched it and you kinda get that chill up your spine.

[youtube]GC5E8ie2pdM[/youtube]

 

[YYZHawksFan]

Does not matter. My 2 cents using world champs takes away from the world know brand, Super Bowl.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

The whole 'World Champions' thing gets brought up by every non-NFL fan in the UK.

And to be fair, there's nothing I can say in response.

When only one country plays the sport, you can't boast about being 'world' champions.

You think this is more about boasting than appropriateness of either label? :hmmmm: With all you know about the game, (even though I don't "know" you - just "of you" here on .net) I have no doubt you could easily come up with several things to say in response. Just read the numerous reasons shared in this thread.

I wasn't going to reply to this because I thought enough was said. Excellent comments by Roland and others. But, seems like (and I'm a little surprised at how much) this hits a nerve with particularly those outside the U.S. So, I'm replying in case something I have to say might be helpful. I think there's more worth being said that might weigh in on this.

We're discussing the appropriateness of a label for football teams that win what is universally considered the championship game that determines the very best that play this game. Sounds to me like the non-NFL fans in the UK you speak of simply refuse to recognize that to accommodate their position. Eyes from all around the world tune in with great interest. Why? Because they take great interest in who will win the championship between only the best teams from the U.S.? Is it that much of a stretch to concede that people from all around the world know these are the very best "American Football" teams and comprised of players in the best league in the world? (CFL players, as proud as they are of their version of the game, hope to get an opportunity to play in the elite NFL.)

On occasion, athletes do come to America in hopes to play this game and some even make the NFL. No reason for any America bashing nor any "this game doesn't include the whole world" business. Yes, it actually does. There's nothing stopping those from other countries from coming to the USA to try to make one of these 32 teams and, in fact, they are plenty welcome. Where does the NFL require that it's players are natural born citizens? No one cares about the country of origin. They're looking for THE BEST who play the game - no matter WHERE they're from. No one is trying to keep the rest of the world down and out. It's possible that perhaps one day teams could be playing in an expanded league around the world. Do you think, for example, that a team in the UK wouldn't have any Americans on the roster? Very likely it would.

I've lived and worked outside the U.S. for extended periods of time. Americans are not the only ones who are geocentric. It's unfortunate that got brought up as an over-riding issue in the discussion (American Pride/Boasting, all that), not determining if it would be valid to refer to Super Bowl Champions also as World Champions by reasonably concluding those playing in the NFL are the world's best American Football players. Again, is it really that unreasonable to make the assertion the Super Bowl Champs are the best at their sport in the World? unno: The answer is no. It's not an unreasonable assertion.

Participation is dependent upon skill, not where one is from. It would be silly to merely suggest that the Super Bowl Champions are merely the Champions of the United States. They are the elite, best of the best who play the game anywhere in the world. Super Bowl Champions are in essence the Champions of the World. Therefore (and for all intents and purposes), either label is correct and appropriate.

 

[Teqneek]

I am an American and I think calling any MLB NBA or NFL team "World" Champs, is utterly stupid.

Roland rebutted using Soccer as an example only made it even more concrete. Football is played in America, America is not the world. From the World Cup, to Premier Leagues, these people must face other teams from around the world. The team winning it all in Cricket even deserves to call themselves world champs more than any American sport.

When London gets a team, then I will fully support World Champs. As other countries are t rying to participate. Until then, its NFL Super Bowl Champs. Logic, common sense... they all pretty much point to this conclusion.

"Americans get the concept, we dont care" Speak for yourself. I get the concept, and I care if I look like a fool. But thats just me.

 

[Hawknballs]

If I'm a vacuum salesman, but I only sell in the US, and yet I still sell more vacuums than anyone else on the planet, am I the leading vacuum salesman in the world or just the US because that's the only place I do business?

stop being so overly PC. There is nothing ignorant or arrogant about saying you are world champs after winning at the highest level in a sport simply because other countries are unable and/or uninterested in playing.

 

[KitsapGuy]