Talk:List of NFL franchise post-season droughts

message: I am going to change the title of some of these tables. When all the teams are listed, it is not a list of the longest, it is a complete list.  Also, when you list a team that is the current Champion, it isn't a drought.  I will change them to "Time Span Since Last Championship" where appropriate.
Kevinskogg (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Titles

message: I am a Kansas City Chiefs fan, so this is a slight surprise, but the Vikings have an error on this page. You have them as never winning a championship and then have (Founded 1961). They won the NFL championship once, in 1969. The merger took effect in 1970, so the AFL champion Chiefs were playing the NFL Champion Vikings.
I'll have to agree about the Vikings.  Technically they have won a league championship. -2/9/2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.116.22 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vikings

message: Along that line (Vikings) the Browns lost the 68 and 69 NFL title games to the Colts and Vikings Smith03 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Browns and Old Browns aren't even the same franchise. Don't even pretend they are.
Every Team Season list from Arizona to Washington has NFL / AFL champs before 1970. If a Super Bowl was won, it was shown also. This list should conform for uniformity. I edited list and conformed to other lists.Spparky (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Browns

message: I think the title of this page should be shortened, the current title is too long and this page, along with the other 2 similar pages regarding NBA and MLB do not appear in any searches unless you type in the entire page heading.  lawnboy1977 13:27, December 2, 2005
It is shown on all NFL info templates as playoff droughts & playoff streaks. Also just type in NFL playoffs or NFL streaks or droughts in seek box, then scroll down to contains and click. The search feature will bring it up.Spparky (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: Apparently somebody posted the merge tag on here. Well, I oppose. National Football League is already too long as it is; it is over the preferable article size. Also, among the content that was previously on that page but was moved to separate articles were NFL lore   and NFL on television  Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it NFL needs splitting, but not by just creating this ugly titled sub page. The whole article needs splitting up somehow--Light current 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think this article is "ugly titled", then perhaps you should be thinking about a a page move/rename, or perhaps splitting this page itself, rather than a merge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with the title of this article, nor do I think that this article should be split up. I find it useful to have all this info on one page. Kingturtle 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On the subject of splitting the page, I do not think it is necessary, however, I do think the page should be linked to other pages on this site.  Maybe linked to the Super Bowl page, or the NFL main page.  lawnboy1977 68.110.72.4 18:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think these lists rather lend themselves to being tables. Any objections? —Wrathchild (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just make 'em pretty. Kingturtle 21:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The tables are somewhat confusing, if someone were to come looking for all the teams to never make a Super Bowl appearance, they would be thrown off by the addition of the NFL Championship games listed. For example; yes the Browns have appeared in and won NFL Championship games, but they have yet to make a Super Bowl appearance. This page should be cleaned up to make such a distinction.--Pioneer1973 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'll leave this open for comment, but I don't see any reason to use the 1970 formal merger as the break date -- we should break the table based on Super Bowl I, making it obvious that six teams have never appeared.  Anyway, at the time no one looked at the Browns appearance in the 1969 NFL championship game as an appearance in a championship game -- by then, the Super Bowl was accepted as the true championship.  If no one comments, I will change this next week. -- AyaK (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (For what ut's worth, the Chicago Tribune's annual All-Star football game was committed to matching the college all-stars against the "pro" champion.  When the AFL Jets upset the NFL Colts in Super Bowl III, it was the Jets that got the invitation. WHPratt (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  I think I have corrected what you whanted Table/list looks at AAFC/AFL or NFL championships as turth Championship titles from 1920-1965 even if there was one or 2 league around 1946-1949 and 1960-1965 AFL althoug formal merger didn't came before 1970 I think it is better too use 1966 as merge date as I was the first Super Bowl.DoctorHver (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This all depends upon how one defines a sport's champion.  For the seasons 1960-65, the NFL and AFL had separate champions who didn't meet in a playoff. One could argue that there was no undisputed champion of pro football for those years.  Under this interpretation, the Chicago Bears had no league world championships from 1947 through 1984; Philadelphia Eagles have none from 1950 to date; and the Cleveland Browns none from 1956 to date.  Although hardly anyone would argue that the AFL champions would have been comeptitive against the older league's winner, the fact that the AFL was eventually absorbed muddies the picture a bit.  No one would argue that the WFL, the USFL or the XFL renders the NFL title non-definitive. (Hmm, if you consider the AAFC and the Browns (who did beat the Eagles in 1950 after that merger), Philadelphia has never had an undisputed football title in the team's history.) WHPratt (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Very late reply. I agree, but I think this list should only reflects leagues that NFL has partly or fully merged with in an agreement deal. DoctorHver (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: :Regarding the Cleaveland Brown relocation contoversy, I think it makes sense to mention in the notes how they have fared at each stage since returning. Not that they were just dormant in 1996, 1997, 1998 157.157.242.144 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleveland Browns 

message: Is confusing I'm changing everything back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.242.144 (talk • contribs) 
:Have to degree with you there.  The concept that every team aside from the Packers is on at least a one-season "drought" is fairly silly.  And crucially, entirely lacking a proper source.  In fact the entire page is essentially WP:OR at present, as it cites only sources for the raw appearances, and defines its own "droughts" from that.  Hence uncertainties of definition like this one, and a distinct suspicion that much of the page in general lacks any real notability.  Does anyone have more directly relevant sources to hand?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing droughts midseason