Talk:Super Bowl/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The selection criteria

Can anyone post the actual criteria that each stadium must meet to even be considered as Super Bowl venue?

[edit] Trivia

 Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.
The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.
  • Despite winning just five Super Bowls, the Dallas Cowboys actually have seven Super Bowl MVPs all-time so far; one MVP from a Super Bowl loss and one victory which featured two co-MVPs. Because of this, the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts have only one MVP despite winning both Super Bowl V and Super Bowl XLI.
  • In 6 of the last 7 Super Bowls, the team that won the coin toss went on to lose the game.
  • The Raiders (Oakland & Los Angeles) and Colts (Baltimore & Indianapolis) are the only teams to win Super Bowls for 2 cities.
  • Currently, thirteen defending Super Bowl champions have failed to make the playoffs: The 1968 Packers, 1970 Chiefs, 1980 and 2006 Steelers, 1981 Raiders, 1982 49ers, 1987 and 1991 Giants, 1988 Redskins, 1999 Broncos, 2002 Patriots, and 2003 Buccaneers.
  • No team has won three straight Super Bowls. The following teams are the only ones to win two back-to-back: Green Bay (I, II), Miami (VII, VIII), Pittsburgh twice (IX, X) and (XIII, XIV), San Francisco (XXIII, XXIV), Dallas (XXVII, XXVIII), Denver (XXXII, XXXIII), and New England (XXXVIII, XXXIX). Of these teams, none have played in the Super Bowl the following year to even attempt the three-peat.
  • The best short term Super Bowl run has been 4 out of 6 years, by Pittsburgh (1975-80> IX, X, XIII and XIV). Dallas (1993-96> XXVII, XXVIII and XXX), and New England (2002-05> XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX) have won 3 out of 4.
  • Finishing second: The Buffalo Bills played in 4 straight Super Bowls (XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII), losing them all. The Minnesota Vikings also lost 4 times, but not consecutively (IV, VIII, IX, XI).

*Teams scoring first are currently 26-15 (.634); 14-7 with a touchdown, 11-8 with a field goal and 1-0 with a safety. *Teams scoring the game's first touchdown are currently 30-11 (.732); teams scoring the game's first field goal, 21-18 (.538). *Teams scoring at least 30 points are currently 21-1 (.955) {17-0 since the 1979 season}; teams scoring under 20 points are currently 4-31 (.114) {0-22 since the 1975 season}. More specifically, teams scoring at least 32 points are undefeated (18-0) and teams scoring under 14 points are winless (0-17). *Field goals have been attempted in every Super Bowl to date, and converted in all but two: VII and IX. In VII Miami and Washington were each 0 for 1, likewise with Pittsburgh and Minnesota in IX (not counting an additional Pittsburgh attempt aborted by a fumbled snap).

  • To date, there have been at least two touchdowns scored in every Super Bowl.
  • Only two post-merger expansion teams have failed to win a conference title: the Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars. The 1999 expansion Cleveland Browns are a continuation of the original franchise.
  • Only three Super Bowls have not seen a double digit margin at any point in the game: V, XXIII and XXV. The largest margin incurred in any of those games was 9 points in XXV. Teams trailing by 10 points or more at any point are 1-37 (Washington in XXII being the only team thus far to recover).

[edit] Previous

*There has never been a Super Bowl between two wild card teams.

  • The famous "I'm Going to Disney World!" Advertising campaign did not take place at Super Bowl XXXIX for the first time since it started at Super Bowl XXI, although Disney did run an ad several times during the game showing several players from both teams practicing the catch-phrase. The campaign has been restarted for Super Bowl XLI.
  • The only team to win back-to-back Super Bowls under different head coaches are the San Francisco 49ers. They won Super Bowl XXIII under legendary coach Bill Walsh and the next year returned to victory under George Seifert.
  • No Super Bowl game has ever gone into overtime play. The closest instances to overtime play were in Super Bowl V, Super Bowl XXXIV, Super Bowl XXXVI, and Super Bowl XXXVIII. yup...
  • No Super Bowl has ever ended in a shutout. Super Bowl VII with Miami Dolphins kicker Garo Yepremian's failed field goal attempt is perhaps the most dramatic example of a near shutout. The lowest number of points scored in a Super Bowl is 3, put up by those same Dolphins in the previous year's Super Bowl, Super Bowl VI.
  • Despite winning just five Super Bowls, the Dallas Cowboys actually have seven Super Bowl MVPs all-time so far; one MVP from a Super Bowl loss and one victory which featured two co-MVPs. Because of this, the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts have only one MVP despite winning both Super Bowl V and Super Bowl XLI.
  • The original Super Bowl XXXVI logo was re-designed following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • In 6 of the last 7 Super Bowls, the team that won the coin toss went on to lose the game.
  • No team has ever played at a Super Bowl in their home stadium. (Though Super Bowl XIX was played at Stanford Stadium which is a short distance from the 49ers' home stadium, Candlestick Park
  • Only 4 stadiums have hosted a Super Bowl, and a World Series: Dolphin Stadium in Miami Gardens, FL; The Los Angeles Coliesum in Los Angeles, CA; Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, CA; and The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, MN. Of those only Qualcomm Stadium hosted both in the same year (1998).
  • Currently, twelve defending Super Bowl champions have failed to make the playoffs:the 1968 Packers, 1970 Chiefs, 1980 Steelers, 1981 Raiders, 1982 49ers, 1987 Giants, 1988 Redskins, 1991 Giants, 1999 Broncos, 2002 Patriots, 2003 Buccaneers and 2006 Steelers.
  • The Denver Broncos are the only franchise to have played in a Super Bowl televised by each network (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX).

Moved Trivia. Perhaps it would be best to keep this artile under general terms without having any trivia; particularly any trivia mentioning specific games. KyuuA4 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umm, I dunno you guys

Do you really think this is notable? Seems like a pretty pointless article to me that only matters to a cult few. Best put it up for VFD.

What exactly are you talking about? KyuuA4 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This super bowl thing is just a ripoff of Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl but with the puppies replaced with burly running guys. It should just redirect to Puppy Bowl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.49.11 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Obviously the preceeding comments were made by either non-Americans or people who know nothing about sports. Half of all people in the US that have a TV set watch the event. That's more than "a cult few"

I think you'd have a hard time proving it's notable though. I'm not convinced.
Let me get this straight. You are questioning the importance of the Super Bowl? I suppose, to the uninterested, it really should not be. However, this recent Super Bowl drew in 93 million viewers; and over 2 million dollars are spent on a single 30 second commercial. In other words, big numbers are dealt around this game. KyuuA4 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it's notably bad? I agree, but that's hardly represented in the article. Some editing should be made, perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Number One: I think they're kidding. Anyone with the brain activity of a stapler knows about the Superbowl. Number Two: If he isn't kidding, he isn't well enough informed and we should ignore any further comments. The Superbowl is, without question, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sports events in existance. So there. RAmen, Demosthenes 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good irony from the original poster here. The Super bowl is the largest sporting event in a non-soccer world cup year. MLA 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's kinda dumb though, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Ah, foolish anti-americans. Always funny to hear the crap that they come up with. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ad agency astroturfing?

The advertising agency Pavone keeps adding a listing for "Super Bowl Commercial Polls" to promote its SPOTBOWL.com website. It has re-appeared a few times after being deleted. Their Wikipedia page (for SPOTBOWL) has been deleted before as well, and the user who created it has been reprimanded. Please be advised.

RegulatorOSX 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Jinx Trivia

From Super Bowl XXXV through Super Bowl XXXIX, five consecutive runners-up went on to post losing records the following year. This trend finally ended after Super Bowl XL, when the Seattle Seahawks repeated as division champions and posted a winning record after losing to the Pittsburgh Steelers. The most recent jinx followed the Philadelphia Eagles, who lost Super Bowl XXXIX to the New England Patriots in the 2004 season (played on February 6, 2005), who posted a 6-10 record in the 2005 season. The most glaring example is the Oakland Raiders. Following their 48-21 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2003, the Raiders posted a 4-12 record in the 2003 NFL season (the worst post-Super Bowl record), a 5-11 record in the 2004 NFL season, another 4-12 record in the 2005 NFL season, and a 2-14 record in the 2006 NFL season, with the Raiders still failing to recover.

There are notable exceptions to this pattern, such as the Buffalo Bills who went to the Super Bowl and lost four years in a row, from XXV to XXVIII. Another was the Tennessee Titans. Following their close loss to the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV, the Titans were able to retain the same 13-3 record they had the year before, but they lost in the playoffs to eventual Super Bowl XXXV winner Baltimore Ravens. Also, the Denver Broncos lost Super Bowl XXI to the New York Giants and repeated another loss in Super Bowl XXII to the Washington Redskins.

There have also been teams who, after winning the Super Bowl, have gone on to a losing or dissapointing record the next season. The most recent example is the Pittsburgh Steelers, who won Super Bowl XL against the Seattle Seahawks, but then went on to see starting quarterback Ben Roethlisberger suffer multiple life-threatening off-the-field injuries during the offseason, and eventually lost their division and missed the playoffs. Meanwhile the Seattle Seahawks continued the following season as playoff winners, before losing to the top seeded Chicago Bears in overtime during a hotly contested divisional playoff round 27-24. Other examples include the New England Patriots, who failed to make the post-season following their first championship, in the 2002 season, but have been division champions in every year since. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who beat the Raiders, somewhat joined them in mediocrity. Though they did make a post-season appearance in the 2005 season (where they went "one-and-done"), they have had losing seasons in all their other years.

Text moved here for sorting. Too much triva information in Super Bowl Jinx section. KyuuA4 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Not only that, it's almost completely "original research". The probability of repeating in any sport is not all that high, but it's especially difficult in football because there are so many variables. To call it a "jinx" is nothing more than ESPN-style hype. Wahkeenah 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Coin Toss Results

Um... why is that relevant? KyuuA4 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe if someone wants to try to infer a correlation between winning the coin toss and winning (or losing) the game. Wahkeenah 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That table of coin toss results is looking rather trivial - especially when an entire column indicates that every team winning the coin toss elected to receive first. Maybe a paragraph or two on the coin toss would be enough. However, if a correlation would be made, that'll be a bit more interesting. Yet, that can be summarized in text as well. KyuuA4 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the winner of the coin toss usually defer? LightningOffense 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Typically the winner will choose to receive, hoping they can get the jump on the other team by scoring first. I think they can either decide whether to kick off or not, or which goal to defend first. Taking the second option is rare, but could be important on a windy day. If the winner of the toss chooses which goal to defend, then the loser of the toss chooses whether to kick off or receive, and of course they would likely receive. The situation is reversed at halftime, i.e. the team that kicked off may then choose whether to kick off or receive at the start of the third quarter. That whole process is pretty much automatic. It may be hard-coded in the rules by now. I know in the old days, on rare occasions, there would be an end-zone switch at the start of the third quarter. That's very rare now, if ever. Typically a team will defend the same goal in the first and fourth quarters, and the opposite goal in the second and third quarters. Let me know if this is not clear. :) Wahkeenah 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a site that describes the rule. It's as I thought. [1] I saw something somewhere else about defering because receiving at second half supposedly has more "value". That's equating it to batting last in baseball instead of first. It's a nice theory, but in the pros, if you win the toss, you elect to receive. It's a given. The only reason not to is if you want to defend a particular goal due to high winds or some such. Rarely does that happen nowadays. I don't recall the last time I saw it. Maybe in the 1960s. It might be more common in colleges, where the offense is assumed to be less potent than in the NFL. Wahkeenah 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This could be wrong, but I thought that the team that wins the coin toss chooses what they want to do first in the first half. After halftime, the captions come out and then the other team gets their choice. So if the team that wins the toss says they want to kick off, then during the second half the team that lost the coin toss can make that team kick off again. By defer, teams are saying that the other team can decide in the first half and then they will decide in the second half. LightningOffense 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You said the same thing I was trying to say, only more succinctly. As a practical matter, in the NFL anyway, the winner of the coin toss always, or nearly always, elects to receive. Wahkeenah 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a little reseach and it looks like defering is not an option in the NFL, only college and high school. I also read that the loser of the coin toss gets to pick in the second half.LightningOffense 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If there's going to be a "Coin Toss" table, make it interesting and relevant by adding a column of who the celebrity coin tossing participant was in each year. Doctorindy 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion:Delete the table, and put the information on each of the specific Super Bowls' articles. The data is trivial and too specific for this article. --ChaChaFut 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Every Super Bowl article already has a field in the infobox indicating who threw the coin tosses. Best to indicate coss toss results there. KyuuA4 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that's a great idea and it would eliminate the eyesore of an infobox that takes up so much room on the page. RAmen, Demosthenes 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We need to get the coin toss section out of the article.. it's unencyclopedic trivia. Doesn't really matter whether the individual articles mention coin toss winners, or we move the whole section to a new article. Also, I removed a section about how the law of averages states that the coin toss results "should be" 50-50. While it is interesting to note that the NFC won the coin toss 27 times vs. the AFC's 14, it is not statistically impossible for this to occur. A binomial distribution for 41 trials with p=.5 shows a 1.6% probability of 27 successes. Rhobite 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Why on earth is half of this article made up of the coin toss results? Cogswobble 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Super Bowl loss jinx

This section only describes the recent trend -- OR -- is it relevant? KyuuA4 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's "original research" and is totally irrelevant. There's nothing special about winning the Super Bowl and failing to qualify for the playoffs the next year. It happens in baseball fairly often, and other sports as well. Every season is different, every team's circumstances are different every year. Typically, the more players you have, the more variables you have. That's why football is so tough to repeat. Baseball is easier, and small-squad sports like hockey and basketball are even easier. Not easy, just not as hard. Winning back-to-back in football is extraordinary. Winning three league championships in a row, especially in a game like football, is incredible. Just being in position to win consecutive Super Bowls is the sign of an extraordinary team. Wahkeenah 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Name

"The Super Bowl was first played in January 1967", but lots of the earlier "year in sport" pages link to here [2]. I presume it was a different competition before then? If so, is there anyone with the knowledge and interest to fix this? -- sannse 18:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this has now been fixed. Paul August ☎ 18:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey if you guys are going to lock the page and fix it for the Vandalism you might as well correct the list of super bowl appearances and teams that have not been in it and re-add the Seahawks...or don't. If people editing these pages can respond to a simple edit which ended up being correct but can't fix other glaring problems I don't see why they are editing at all.

[edit] Why Bowl

OK. I give in. I can't find anywhere on wiki the reason WHY it is called a BOWL (or why quix bowls and such also use the word bowl). Can anyone put a par in the article explaining the why of it? Moriori 03:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

College football post season games have been called "Bowls" for a very long time. I believe it started with the Rose Bowl Game in the early part of the century being named after the stadium it is played in. Subsequent post season games like the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl cemented the term Bowl. From what I've read, some official of the NFL saw his son playing with a Super Ball and it clicked in his head. Super Ball ---> Super Bowl.

This is close to what happened...The actual event was Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt seeing his DAUGHTER playing with a Super Ball...The rest, as they say, is history  :)

[edit] Why Two Weeks vs. One Week Break

Why is it, that some years there is a two week break between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl, and some years it's just the week after the NFC/AFC Championship. KwikStah

  • NFL executives changed it to two weeks to give teams more time to prepare and to give more time to promote the event. All scheduling is determined by the executive office. Kingturtle 01:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So will it always be two weeks from now on? It seems to change arbitrarily. KwikStah

  • Historically (meaning in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s), there was always a 2-week break before the Super Bowl. In the late 90s, the league replaced the 2-week break with the 1-week break and the "bye week"—giving each team 1 off-week during the season; thus, the Super Bowl was always played near the end of January. In 01-02, the league reverted back to the 2-week break before the Super Bowl—and left in place each team's floating bye week—so now the Super Bowl occurs in the first week of February.

OK, this is not true. There is no "historical" basis for there being a 1- or 2-week break between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. Nor was it "always" a 2-week break. Super Bowl I featured a two week break. Super Bowl IV had a one week break. Super Bowls XXV and XXVII had a one week break, Super Bowls XXVI and XXVII had a two week break. XXXIII: two weeks. XXXIV: one week.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/7035457

Now, the NFL would like to have it after a two-week break, and in fact, moving forward, it will be: "In the past, aberrations have occurred to make it one week," NFL spokesman Steve Alic said. "It will be two weeks exclusively every year. Two weeks is natural."

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/SPT0201/601290413/1067/SPT

That same article claims that only 15 Super Bowls have been played after two weeks off. I wouldn't necessarily accept that as fact without some sort of verification.

Super Bowl XXXVI (Patriots-Rams) was the first February Super Bowl:

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps

I get the following information from the official 2005 NFL record and Fact book.

there have been 7 Super Bowls played with a one week break, they were IV, XVII, XXV, XVIII, XXXIV, XXXVI, XXXVII, That means that 33 Super Bowls have had a two week break.

[edit] Superbowl prophecy

I have posted a Superbowl prophecy on my TalkPage. The prophecy is made by Sollog. You may care to read the Wiki pages (which are biased as they delete pro-Sollog posts) and elsewhere about him. More importantly, you may care to look at the prophecy, decipher it correctly and then you'll know the winner before the game is played!

The Number 13:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This prophecy is correct - it will tell you who the winner is if you interpret it correctly. Sollogfan 13:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't bet on it - but I know people in USA who did - and won. Yes this 'prophecy' is correct and 'yes' it could be twisted to reflect either side so 'yes' it proves absolutely nothing The Number 22:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not always played in a "southern region".

There is a statement in the article (see below) where it states that the Superbowl is always played in southern regions. This is not correct. It has been played in Detroit (actually the Pontiac Silver Dome) and will be played at Ford Field in Detroit in February 2006. Both facilities are domed.

Excerpt from the article:

The chosen venues have always been located in southern regions of the United States where the wintertime weather is expected to be mild, or in domed stadiums where weather is not an issue.

The word "always" was changed to "either" so it now reads, "The chosen venues have either been located...". Does that work for you? (Zzyzx11 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

This part has been edited bc whether it includes always, either or anything else, it is inaccurate. Many SB's have been played in California, which last time I checked was not a "southern locale".

Your last comment fails to distinguish between a "Southern locale" in the US, which would be someplace within the political region roughly equal with the former Confederate States of America, and a "southern locale" in the US, which refers to a locale in its more southerly regions. The point of the Superbowl's locale is to take advantage of felicitious weather in the middle of winter; while northern Virginia (a Southern locale) would not be suitable, Pasadena (a southern locale) is eminently so. The article at present correctly uses the lower case, and is indeed accurate. All Superbowls past and scheduled for the future are in either a domed stadium or a locale which enjoys temperate weather in the winter. The nearest exceptions are XVI (in Pontiac, MI, in a dome); XIX (in Stanford, CA, which can get a bit rainy in the winter but not overly cold); XXVI (in the Metrodome in Minneapolis); and XL (in Detroit, in a dome). The other locales are manifestly warm and southerly. (Citizen Sunshine 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Very insightful and very well put but I am not sure that Pasadena would be considered a southern city or locale, (more likely a western one), It is for the same reason that Palo Alto iwould not be considered a northern locale. California is The West.

Perhaps the perception of 'southerliness' is variable depending on where you are from? As an Englishman I look at Pasedena and it looks to me as if it is in the south of the country, geographically speaking. For instance, it's at roughly the same Latitude as Atlanta. (TimTim 14:00, 1 February 2006 (GMT))

Suggested edit: Instead of "Southern locale", how about "more temperate climate" or similar wording to indicate that unless it's in a dome, the NFL would like the location to be somewhere warm. (06-Feb-2K6)

[edit] Game history

Your edit summary about "duplicate content" is incorrect. I wrote this copy myself, and in fact some of the games I included are not even mentioned on NFL lore, which is a far broader topic than simply historically important Super Bowls. Your revert also runs afoul of rule 9 in the Wiki simplified ruleset (don't revert good faith edits). Why is it not appropriate to mention, briefly, some of the more historic games here? Simply sending people to a long list of games provides no context and gives the reader no idea which games are considered historically important. Simishag 03:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • On second thought, you might be right. I'll restore it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can see now why you removed it, although I still like it. We're at 10 games in this section, which is 25% of all the games (including XL in a few weeks). I think all these games are notable, and I think we've done well at leaving out the boring ones. How many games would be appropriate to mention here? I don't want everyone to add their "favorite" game, but I'm not sure how to avoid that. Simishag 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Super bowl 40 was in no way notable

[edit] Las Vegas

The statements in the Advertisement section concerning Las Vegas are not clear. Is it saying that the City of Las Vegas itself is not allowed to buy commercial slots (like "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"), or is it saying that when the SuperBowl is broadcast in the city, no commericals are shown? The reference to the TV show "Las Vegas" makes it even more confusing... is there a ban on all commericals that mention Las Vegas?

nature of ban clarified. Simishag 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, the paragraph is much better. I did do some Google research though, and all I could find were articles about the ban on the ad for Wynn Las Vegas last year, and about the NFL's crackdown on paid admission Super Bowl parties. That's why I removed the paragraph. I guess I didn't use the right search terms. Rhobite 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Would Super Bowl appearances be better put as a table? Especially considering the Super Bowl winners list directly below it and the two bulleted lists directly above it (Trivia and Notable Super Bowl Games). It lends itself quite well to a four column table (team, apperances, wins, and losses) and i just think it would do well to break up a long sucession of lists. Contrarily, the two bulleted lists above it are, both bulleted and contain longer notes (all at least two lines long), and it might seem arbitrary to have a random table floating in the middle of the article. I'm not really sure.jfg284 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and did it. Tablefied the list of winners, too. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Rings

What's the matter with them? They are referred to in various American sit-coms and tv series', usually to signify that their owner is rich or otherwise admirable, but as one of the billions of people who are not interested in American sport events ([/anti-americanism]), I have no idea what they are and wasn't able to find any information on them either.

Could someone shed some light on the mystary (sic) and maybe add a line to this article (or link to something other than a gallery of these rings)? -- Ashmodai 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As of now, the only picture of a Super Bowl ring that has been uploaded onto Wikipedia right now is Image:Super bowl XI ticket and ring.jpg. So I attached it to the "Super Bowl winners" section of this article. The short answer is that a Super Bowl ring is in some way similar to a class ring. Members of the winning Super Bowl team get a specially designed ring to commemorate their championship game win. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Championship rings are common in other sports as well, not just football, so it might be appropriate for its own article. Simishag 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we even use those Super Bowl rings images at SuperBowl.com and NFL.com? I'm no lawyer or into law but by reading their Website Terms and Conditions. It seems they don't like any of their media posted on outside websites such as Wikipedia. Read the first paragraph of their "Copyright Rights."
Under applicable copyright laws, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Service for any purposes. Which might means non-commerical is out of the question. Anybody a lawyer or into business law? I'm cracking down on people uploading copyright images and claim to be "fair use." --J. Nguyen 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

While there are certainly valid criticisms of the game and festivities, these are remarkably poor criticisms to use. The point about obesity is ridiculous. Neither of the sentences are supported by the referenced link. In fact, the reference is arguing the opposite position by pointing out how government standards classify athletes as "obese!" Also, how exactly does one compute the "obesity rate" and state categorically that it increases around Super Bowl Sunday? I don't believe there is a scientific way to compute it. It's not a statistic like traffic accidents or Nielsen ratings that can be computed instantly or within a short time period. Simishag 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference to alcohol fatalities is for the NEJM site, which has restricted access. Registration appears to be free for articles older than 6 months, but shouldn't this link point to an freely available source document? If that's not possible, shouldn't the reference be properly cited rather than linked? Simishag 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This section was added by a anonymous user [3], but I had to comment out the last two because no sources were given [4], and I too am unsure about the addition. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I too agree that the criticisms are stupid and have no business in the article. Obesity isn't something that spike on a given day of the year. The alcohol and church stuff is also silly. Why don't we put the obesity and alcohol claims on a criticisms of Christmas section of that page? Captain Jackson 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, most of the stuff in the Criticism (should be singular) should be removed. Deckiller 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've cut the one line of criticism line remaining - it was a reference to alcohol deaths and prefaced with 'some people point to' - the reference it supplied was not easily verifible as it was a teaser to a larger members-only article. MLA 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Networks?

The article curently states that:


In the United States it is currently shared among three of the four major television networks: ABC, CBS, and FOX.

Yet the chart above it show that NBC has show 17 Superbowl games, I was going to change it but then I thought it might be a contract thing, so I left it in but regardless NBC should be mentioned somewhere in the sentence as it currently sounds like NBC never televised a Superbowl which is untrue.Deathawk 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I removed some POV in the notable super bowl games section. Deckiller 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of that copy so maybe I'm biased, but I think your changes made the copy rather bland in places. Namath's quote was certainly "famous"; it's probably the single thing he is most known for. The Titans-Rams game was more than simply "close"; a link to The Tackle might be in order. Also, "upset" and "favored" are not POV; they are uncited but I don't think it would be hard to find historical betting lines on the game, which would show that the "favored" teams were, in fact, favored to win, not only by oddsmakers but by the vast majority of people who bet on the game. There are well-established uses of "favorite" and "upset" in a sports context that do not imply POV. Simishag 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a POV issue that was raised at Talk:National Football League Lore#Honorable Mentions, and it seems like it is here as well: What is the criteria for choosing which notable games to here without making it WP:POV or original research? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does applying certain objective criteria count as OR? If not, here are some suggestions for criteria for "notable" Super Bowls:

  • Establishment of a new record, whether game, team or player
  • First victory after a number of defeats (Broncos, but Bills would qualify here if they ever win)
  • Back to back wins
  • 3+ wins in 5 years (less objective but still notable)
  • Close finish (for some definition of "close")
  • Some well-known... I dunno, element? of the game (Namath); also less objective

These are just the ideas of the top of my head. At the very least, we could set these criteria, winnow down the list, and then decide if the criteria are too strict. I suppose that could be considered OR but I think it would at least get some consensus on which games belong. The discussion on NFL Lore references "cultural literacy" and I think that's what we need to go for here. A reference to ESPN or another major sports source would be helpful. Simishag 02:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In just about every Super Bowl, there is a memorable performance or event or ending, and there is ALWAYS some sort of record broken. This is not limited to the "flashy" records like passing, rushing or receiving yards, or most touchdowns, but also most tackles, most sacks, most punt return yards, most field goals attempted, etc. Furthermore isn't it also true that any time that a team wins for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th time it will be memorable? The point being that every SB is memorable for one reason or another to different people or cities, as memorable is an objective term. Ipso facto, this section should either not exist or should include every super bowl.

Good point; listing every super bowl would take away POV. Deckiller 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
All the same, I agree. I would rather remove that section completely. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television Preservation

I removed the following section

Videos of the complete games of Super Bowl I, Super Bowl II, Super Bowl IV and Super Bowl V are thought to be out of existence. It is thought that NBC and CBS erased these games to record different shows on those tapes.

I haven't been able to find a source. Anyone? —Wrathchild (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I hedged the veracity of this fact by stating that the majority of people think that these tapes are out of existence. There is no authoritative evidence that suggests that these four games do indeed exist as broadcasted by the networks.

  • On a recent NFL Films presentation about the history of NFL on television, Steve Sabol said it was a fact (or presented it as fact) that SB I and II television broadcasts were not preserved. It was stated that the first few minutes of CBS's SB I broadcast was recovered, and some of those minutes were shown on the documentary. It was explained that the networks themselves didn't save the games, however it can never be known if other outlets (local affiliates, etc.) may have kept copies. Since I am not certian of the exact title of that program, I can't cite that specific source, I agree it should be left vague. Doctorindy 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "1 Billion" Urban Myth

I added the following:

  • There is a popular urban myth regarding the Superbowl - that the game is watched in 225 countries by 1 billion people, a fact unlikely to be true considering the time of the event, and the lack of popularity American Football has outside of the United States. In actual fact, The 2005 game was watched by 93 million viewers in total, of which 98% were in North America (Sports Illustrated). Approximately half of the remaining 2 million worldwide viewers watched from the United Kingdom (NFL Europe).

And it got trimmed to exclude references to the myth. Do you not think the "1 billion" myth, which many Americans seem to believe, is worth mentioning? John the mackem 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I trimmed the "225 countries by 1 billion people" primary because you do not cite a reference for that specific stat. I and others have no way to verify that those specific figures are accurate. Other than that, there is no other problem with it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have found a citation for the billion claim, but it;s quite hard to find a citation for the "lack of popularity American Football has outside of the United States" - it's just pretty much a matter of fact, as a quick Google hunt will attest to - does it really need a citation?. How do you think I can validate this, or what do you think it should be reworded to? The basic premise is simple; 1/6th of the world's population aren't going to stay up through the night to watch a game that is virtually ignored outside of the US. John the mackem 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The citation for "1 billion" (and whether it is a myth) is sufficient by itself, and doesn't need any explanation about whether football is or is not popular outside the US. The notion that the NFL is only popular in the US ignores its popularity in Canada and Latin America. Your premise about the time of day may be simple and logical but it's also speculation. There are well over 1 billion people in North and South America, who could easily watch the game with no concerns over the time of day. Also, people in the rest of the world may be willing to stay up late for 1 day a year; they do it all the time for the World Cup, the Olympics, UEFA & Champions League, the World Series, etc. If not, maybe they'll record the game. I don't claim that any of this is necessarily true but your claim that it is "unlikely" is unsupported POV. Simishag 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ESPN's Jim Caple has an interesting take on the billion myth. Using the NFL's estimate of 130 million U.S. viewers, that's still 870 million from outside the U.S. Says Caple, "With a world population of roughly 6.2 billion people outside the U.S., that means 14 percent of the rest of the planet would have to watch the championship game of a sport they don't even play."

Adds Caple, "The NFL's Brian McCarthy says the NFL doesn't claim the Super Bowl has 1 billion viewers, only that there are between 750 million and 1 billion "potential" viewers."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/060124


To support the anti side, there are only 192 nations in the world, most of which don't have television in almost all homes.

I'm from Argentina, South America. About the discussion that is going on here I just will say that, personally, I've never seen a superbowl match. I get to know about its existence by american series that sometimes mention it. In the last few years we have known about the spectacle mostly because of the scandal involving one american music star. To illustrate my point I will cite to examples: while I was working in a hotel in the southernmost argentine city, Ushuaia, I was asked by a very polite fellow citizen of yours about where he would be able to see the 2006 super bowl match. I answered him that most likely he would be able to see it in his room or in the lobby TV. But he asked me again for a more crowded venue with lots of people and a big screen. Unfortunately I had no way to point a place. In my entire life, as long as I recall, I have never seen two of my compatriots talking about the last super bowl, here football (soccer) rules. The second one is even more domestic, in several blogs, looking for opinions -from common people outside my country- about Germany 2006 FIFA world cup’s favorite I’ve read about the one billion discussions. When I went to my father to tell him about the superbowl one million viewers theory, the first thing he asked me about was: “¿Qué es el superbowl?” (Spanish for “what is the superbowl?”). May be my father is an ignorant but I’m sure there’s plenty of people like him in this portion of the world. We instead have seen many Manu Ginobilli’s games in San Antonio. Basketball is relatively popular game in Argentina and the NBA finals are for far more viewed than the superbowl, especially among the basketball lovers but not only amidst them. To finish I will say that FIFA claims to have had 1.3 billion viewers in the final match of France 1998 World Cup (which I saw). I consider it to be possible, for me and my friends that period of 1998 was crucial. There were massive celebrations in the streets when we knockout England, and when our team was eliminated (I saw the match in a cinema) I couldn’t believe that the sun was still shining. Me and my father asked each other “and now what?”. It, truly, took me a few days to find again the meaning of this whole existence. And what to say about 1986 and 1990 world cups, they are major landmarks in everyone’s life here.--201.212.158.2 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's unbelievable, that such a myth could actually make official news for Voice of America (although someone else could make a political statement about this organizaiton, surely). But seriously, there aren't even that many countries in the world. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that this myth is being used to support the super bowl's ITN notability, right here on wikipedia. --Theshadow89 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hacked a code"

Childish "messing it up because I can" hacker should be dealt with. --4.224.201.199 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

The latest addition to the trivia section needs additional work. It looks like Original Research in which case it may need to be removed. If it can stay then it needs to be better explained as currently it talks about rematches within a "handfull" (sic) of years. That is not a quantified amount so it can't be a fact. MLA 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If it is at all questionable, then I don't mind just yanking it. Doctorindy 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links in the Super Bowl link box doesn't change cursor

Minor UI glitch. When you hover over the links the cursor doesn't change to an arrow like the other links do. The links don't appear clickable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.144.242 (talk • contribs) .

  • I have temporarily reverted it back before that modification. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When reaching Superbowl

I was interested when a team achieved to be a superbowl team. But I can't find anything about that in the lines. How is the compition system in NFL?

  • I do not fully understand your question, but it appears we need more references to NFL playoffs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)