Thank you so very much! Lots of hard to find information there. Greatly appreciated Mr. Fitch!Ronfitch wrote:https://web.archive.org/web/20120111203 ... f_Bowl.htmRetro Rider wrote:At one time there was a website that chronicled all ten Playoff Bowl games but I can't seem to find it anymore (MBolding I think).
Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
- Retro Rider
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:03 am
- Location: Washington State
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
To kind of answer my own question, a quote from Viking quarterback Gary Cuozzo in an AP story (about the January 5, 1969, game following the 1968 season):Ronfitch wrote:I wonder how widely known that was among the players at the time. (I have no idea, just curious).rhickok1109 wrote:The only reason for the Playoff Bowl was to raise money for the players' pension fund.
"The game, which has produced over a million dollars in nine years for the players' pension fund, has been attacked from every angle over the past few years. But, Minnesota Quarterback Gary Cuozzo doesn't quite agree.
'I think it’s a great game,' he said. 'It's all for the players fund and that is what's important. Plus, it gives you a chance to come down here for a week or so.'
'Many players resent having to work to provide insurance and retirement money for the rest of the league, which is sitting at home watching on TV. I don't agree with that.' said Cuozzo. 'It all works out in the end. Those guys sitting home may be here next year, putting money into the fund for me and the Vikings. It balances out.'”
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120118213 ... ikings.htm
"Now, I want pizza."
- Ken Crippen
- Ken Crippen
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
I think they must have known. It was pretty well publicized. I was certainly aware of it at the time and I had no sources deep inside the NFL power structureRonfitch wrote:I wonder how widely known that was among the players at the time. (I have no idea, just curious).rhickok1109 wrote:The only reason for the Playoff Bowl was to raise money for the players' pension fund.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
That would have made a great pep talk. "The only reason you're playing today is to raise money for the players' pension fund, so get out there and hit somebody!"rhickok1109 wrote:The only reason for the Playoff Bowl was to raise money for the players' pension fund.
-
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:14 pm
- Location: NinerLand, Ca.
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
I've been motivated to hit people for a lot less...JohnR wrote: That would have made a great pep talk. "The only reason you're playing today is to raise money for the players' pension fund, so get out there and hit somebody!"
"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm you will be fired with enthusiasm." -- Lombardi
- 65 toss power trap
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
That has to be it. When they went to the 4-team playoff the following season, the tiebreakers were head-to-head points, then longest since a division title. Cleveland was +8 that season vs Philadelphia, so obviously that wasn't a tiebreaker.Throwin_Samoan wrote:Apparently because (similar to how some college bowl games used to do it), the Browns (1963 season) had been there more recently than the Eagles (1961 season), so that was the tiebreaker.74_75_78_79_ wrote: Why did the Eagles get the nod to play in the '66 Playoff Bowl over Cleveland? Both were 9-5, both split with each other, but the Browns did have the better conference record at 9-4 as opposed to 8-5.
That screwy tiebreaker was expanded in 1970 to (from what I can tell) longest since a postseason game, but it was specifically skipped for that season. They re-did the tiebreakers in 1971, so it never was actually in force after the merger.
-
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
I seem to remember if one of the games of Week 14 in 1970 had gone another way, a playoff team would have been decided by a coin flipped by George Halas. This caused more tiebreakers to be added in 1971.65 toss power trap wrote:That has to be it. When they went to the 4-team playoff the following season, the tiebreakers were head-to-head points, then longest since a division title. Cleveland was +8 that season vs Philadelphia, so obviously that wasn't a tiebreaker.Throwin_Samoan wrote:Apparently because (similar to how some college bowl games used to do it), the Browns (1963 season) had been there more recently than the Eagles (1961 season), so that was the tiebreaker.74_75_78_79_ wrote: Why did the Eagles get the nod to play in the '66 Playoff Bowl over Cleveland? Both were 9-5, both split with each other, but the Browns did have the better conference record at 9-4 as opposed to 8-5.
That screwy tiebreaker was expanded in 1970 to (from what I can tell) longest since a postseason game, but it was specifically skipped for that season. They re-did the tiebreakers in 1971, so it never was actually in force after the merger.
-
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
Below are all the scenarios, which are easier to read than me trying not to lose my mind explaining:SixtiesFan wrote:I seem to remember if one of the games of Week 14 in 1970 had gone another way, a playoff team would have been decided by a coin flipped by George Halas. This caused more tiebreakers to be added in 1971.
- Attachments
-
- Screenshot 2020-06-11 at 7.49.54 PM.png (165.77 KiB) Viewed 19483 times
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
It was head-to-head points from 1960-64. The tiebreakers were then changed in 1965. If one team had played previously and the other had not, the team that had not played previously would be chosen. If both teams had participated in the Playoff Bowl before, then the team that had appeared the least recently would get the nod, as was the case with the Eagles. If neither team had gone to the Playoff Bowl previously, then it would come down to head-to-head points.65 toss power trap wrote:That has to be it. When they went to the 4-team playoff the following season, the tiebreakers were head-to-head points, then longest since a division title. Cleveland was +8 that season vs Philadelphia, so obviously that wasn't a tiebreaker.Throwin_Samoan wrote:Apparently because (similar to how some college bowl games used to do it), the Browns (1963 season) had been there more recently than the Eagles (1961 season), so that was the tiebreaker.74_75_78_79_ wrote: Why did the Eagles get the nod to play in the '66 Playoff Bowl over Cleveland? Both were 9-5, both split with each other, but the Browns did have the better conference record at 9-4 as opposed to 8-5.
That screwy tiebreaker was expanded in 1970 to (from what I can tell) longest since a postseason game, but it was specifically skipped for that season. They re-did the tiebreakers in 1971, so it never was actually in force after the merger.
@Ivan_Urena1
Re: Playoff Bowl ('60-thru-'69) discussion
BD Sullivan wrote:Below are all the scenarios, which are easier to read than me trying not to lose my mind explaining:SixtiesFan wrote:I seem to remember if one of the games of Week 14 in 1970 had gone another way, a playoff team would have been decided by a coin flipped by George Halas. This caused more tiebreakers to be added in 1971.
Here's a thread we had on the 1970 coin flip scenario:
http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=5&t=5000
@Ivan_Urena1