- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
AFC vs NFC - which is more prestigious?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:19 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:19 am
I realized I have never waded into such a discussion and am interested to hear the arguments.
14
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:20 am to Jon Ham
I don’t think there’s a discernible difference. There’s definitely prestige with certain divisions - NFC East and NFC North, AFC North and AFC West, AFC East to some extent. While divisions like the AFC and NFC South are newer franchises with less prestige and history
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:21 am to Jon Ham
The NFL doesn’t have conference pride, nor should we try to shoehorn that garbage in 
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:26 am to Jon Ham
Stupid thread
Tracks
quote:
Jon Ham
Tracks
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:27 am to Jon Ham
Think about it in terms of all-time great teams.
The NFC has the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Bears, Commanders (Redskins), Giants. Just between those 6 teams, that’s about 20 Super Bowl titles. Not to mention the championships before the Super Bowl era.
The AFC has been more dominant in recent years with the Patriots and Chiefs dynasties. In the 70’s, the Steelers practically owned the NFL. The Dolphins and Raiders have also had multiple Super Bowls each in that era.
I would say both have had their dynasties, and both conferences can lay claim to plenty of prestige. As far as today’s NFL goes, the AFC is king, no doubt.
The NFC has the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Bears, Commanders (Redskins), Giants. Just between those 6 teams, that’s about 20 Super Bowl titles. Not to mention the championships before the Super Bowl era.
The AFC has been more dominant in recent years with the Patriots and Chiefs dynasties. In the 70’s, the Steelers practically owned the NFL. The Dolphins and Raiders have also had multiple Super Bowls each in that era.
I would say both have had their dynasties, and both conferences can lay claim to plenty of prestige. As far as today’s NFL goes, the AFC is king, no doubt.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:33 am to Jon Ham
Losing 13 straight Super Bowls(84-96) by an average score of 38-17 will forever taint the AFC
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:42 am to Jon Ham
Pretty sure the AFC and NFC are dead even in SB wins, which is how it should be
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:47 am to Jon Ham
Depends on your definition of prestige. Is that more with older history in mind or do more recent accomplishments count?
The NFC has the most historical franchises because it was around roughly 40 years before the AFL (which became the AFC after the 1970 merger) was founded. Bears, Giants, Colts, Browns, Packers and Rams all have some great history attached that preceded the foundation of the AFL. I'd add the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers, but their true greatness came after the merger and in Pittsburgh's case, it came in the AFC. The Steelers were a perennial doormat in the pre-merger NFL.
The Chiefs, Bills, Jets, Chargers and Oilers had their moments in the AFL, and the Dolphins and Raiders in the '70s and '80s boost up the AFC's legacy, But the successes of the Broncos, Patriots and Chiefs are more nouveau riche at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.
Right now, most of the best QBs are in the AFC, and so it feels more like the '70s. Back then, the Dolphins, Steelers and Raiders were so good that even really good teams with really good QBs like the Bengals with Ken Anderson and the Colts with Bert Jones couldn't get over the hump. But the NFC won Super Bowl just three and four years ago so it's not quite to the point where the AFC is clearly dominant yet.
The NFC has the most historical franchises because it was around roughly 40 years before the AFL (which became the AFC after the 1970 merger) was founded. Bears, Giants, Colts, Browns, Packers and Rams all have some great history attached that preceded the foundation of the AFL. I'd add the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers, but their true greatness came after the merger and in Pittsburgh's case, it came in the AFC. The Steelers were a perennial doormat in the pre-merger NFL.
The Chiefs, Bills, Jets, Chargers and Oilers had their moments in the AFL, and the Dolphins and Raiders in the '70s and '80s boost up the AFC's legacy, But the successes of the Broncos, Patriots and Chiefs are more nouveau riche at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.
Right now, most of the best QBs are in the AFC, and so it feels more like the '70s. Back then, the Dolphins, Steelers and Raiders were so good that even really good teams with really good QBs like the Bengals with Ken Anderson and the Colts with Bert Jones couldn't get over the hump. But the NFC won Super Bowl just three and four years ago so it's not quite to the point where the AFC is clearly dominant yet.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 10:50 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:29 am to Jon Ham
NFC seems more historical prestigious and grander.
But i am biased.
Chiefs and Patriots certainly break that narrative.
But i am biased.
Chiefs and Patriots certainly break that narrative.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:35 am to crazyatthecamp
There’s more parity right now in the NFC… the AFC was dominated by great quarterbacks in Brady, Manning, Mahomes, Allen, and Jackson
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:04 pm to chalmetteowl
NFC has more historical teams but the AFC to me is way more interesting to watch.
That may have to do with CBS' better broadcast and the better QB play.
That may have to do with CBS' better broadcast and the better QB play.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:14 pm to Lolathon234
quote:
Losing 13 straight Super Bowls(84-96) by an average score of 38-17 will forever taint the AFC
Most of that occurred during the pre-salary cap era where success was skewed heavily towards big market teams which the NFC had more of in abundance. Are National League West teams weak because the Dodgers have won 11 out of the 12 division titles? Or are NL West teams not as successful because the rules of the game are stacked in favor for teams like the Dodgers?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:20 pm to Jon Ham
NFC has more of the old guard…Packers, Giants, Redskins, Bears, Lions, Eagles, etc.
AFC had many AFL teams, so the histories are a tad younger.
AFC had many AFL teams, so the histories are a tad younger.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:21 pm to Lolathon234
quote:
Losing 13 straight Super Bowls(84-96) by an average score of 38-17 will forever taint the AFC
Agreed. I grew up when the NFC title game was the de facto Super Bowl.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:58 pm to crazyatthecamp
quote:
NFC seems more historical prestigious and grander.
The NFC is all the old NFL franchises minus the Steelers and Browns. The Steelers and Browns agreed to move to the AFC to balance the league.
quote:
Losing 13 straight Super Bowls(84-96) by an average score of 38-17 will forever taint the AFC
This was an era mostly before free agency. The AFC was actually a more competitive conference top to bottom, but the NFC in that era had the few elite teams. The 49ers, Cowboys, Giants and Redskins made up most of those wins. There was really only a couple of one-offs in there with the Bears and Packers. It was a era with long winning streaks because of no free agency. Before that 13 game run the AFC had won something like 11 of the previous 14 Super Bowls.
As of now, the AFC and NFC both have 27 Super Bowl wins.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 2:20 pm to Jon Ham
I identify as NFC, but the AFC has kicked arse recently. Obviously with Mahomes, Brady, Manning and Elway winning all those super bowls.
NFC = old folks
AFC = young hot shots
NFC = old folks
AFC = young hot shots
Posted on 1/24/25 at 2:27 pm to Jon Ham
I don't know about prestigious, but historically the NFC broadcasting rights were considered more valuable then the AFC due to the NFC being in larger markets. I assume this is true even still today. Of the 15 largest media markets in the US, the NFC is in 13 of them (NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Dallas, Atlanta, DC, San Francisco, Phoenix, Tampa, Seattle, Detroit and Minneapolis). The AFC is only in 4 (NYC, LA, Houston and Boston).
Posted on 1/24/25 at 2:31 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
AFC vs NFC - which is more prestigious?
lol...what?
quote:
Jon Ham
Ohhhhhh...
Posted on 1/24/25 at 2:34 pm to RummelTiger
We gotta close that back gate that’s letting the SEC ranters over here
Posted on 1/24/25 at 2:35 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
We gotta close that back gate that’s letting the SEC ranters over here
I'm not going back there - fricking place is like zombieland. Don't want some weirdo from TN biting my leg.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News