Talk:Super Bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
November 2004 - February 2006.
March 2006 - December 2007.








American football Portal
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Super Bowl was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}


Contents

[edit] Discussion for Merger with Super Bowl XLIX

Discuss. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge ok to exist as future sporting event, will be refined over time. If deleted, it will just be recreated. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge It will be re-created in the future, and I think the whole Kansas City host stadium situation is relevant enough to have as an article. conman33(. . .talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Status quo. No need to merge, as the article has a fair amount of information (that could not otherwise be summarized into Super Bowl and is sourced (although it could be better cited). This topic could see more development soon. Super Bowl L has nothing yet, and should redirect rather than exist.—Twigboy (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Amended as alternate proposal below.
No Merge. Because a site is decided, it is justified in having its own article. As a future event, its expandability is inevitable. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Blank page and redirect.. "In the wake of the defeat, and opposition by the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and several civic and business groups, Hunt and the Chiefs announced on May 25, 2006 that they are withdrawing the request to host Super Bowl XLIX." Since there is no established site, then it cannot stand as an article for now. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, a question. How does the fact that there is actual, citable activity to plan SB XLIX not qualify, but having an announced site would tip this in favor of an article? As a hypothetical, say the NFL announced that the Pro Bowl would be played in the city of SB XLIX the week prior to the game, wherever it may be. There is no information about the location, but there would be (again, hypothetically) sourced information about the event.—Twigboy (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternate proposal. Rather than merge into Super Bowl, I am proposing an article that collects all the stubs into sections as either Future Super Bowl games or Super Bowl (future games). This is consistent with the redirect 2009 in film → Near future in film, as an article that would be revolving in the future and never seeing any completion. (A football-related example, which is not the best example in many ways, is the oddly capitalized Georgia Bulldogs football team (future Schedules) — although that just seems to be a list dumping ground.) Right now, there is an illogical gap of redirects between Super Bowl XLVI and XLVIII, then an article on XLIX and a redirect on L. These should all redirect to the proposed article, splitting off XLII into its own article, and splitting off XLIII around the time of the formal Countdown to Kickoff.—Twigboy (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl as de Facto holiday

Here's a source item for that: http://archive.seacoastonline.com/1999news/2_1a.htm Google: Super Bowl tradition KyuuA4 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Super Bowl Breakfast item

As you can see, the Super Bowl Breakfast is now listed as a current event leading up to the game. The reason I had it as a former event is that the 2008 Super Bowl website did not list it in any form. I did remember the web address from a previous year, typed it up, and found that it still worked. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding to Stats

Should we add teams are 0-1 when scoring on Opening kickoff? the Bears are the only ones and they lost. 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Something that happened in only one Super Bowl game like that seems more trivial and not that particularly significant IMO. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Game History section

By the looks of it, yes. It is looking like a trivia section. If it cannot be improved, then it shouldn't be reincorporated back into the article. The Conference Dominance by Decade sub-section, that could be used here: List of Super Bowl champions. KyuuA4 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the move. The history section is not trivia. For some time, I have been meaning to improbve the history section, possibly make it similar to that of NBA Finals, using some of this (the trends and stats but not the charts, while describing the other aspects of the games. I do agree about putting the domination by decade into the list you stated above Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the trends section is fine as well as the non-occurrences. Conference domination by decade, though, is pushing it. Useight (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game history

 Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.
The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.
This article or section appears to contain a large number of buzzwords.
Please help rewrite this article to make it more concrete and meaningful.
For a list of Super Bowl games, champions, and appearances, see List of Super Bowl champions.

[edit] Trends and statistics

 This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

right|thumb|The first Super Bowl was played in 1967, as commemorated by this stamp issued in 1999 by the United States Postal Service featuring a ticket for that first game.

The following trends occur regarding Super Bowl games:

  • Teams scoring first are currently 27-15 (.643); 14-7 (.667) with a touchdown, 12-8 (.600) with a field goal and 1-0 with a safety.
  • Teams scoring 30 or more points are currently 21-1 (.955), with only the 1978 Cowboys to score more than 30 and lose. Teams scoring fewer than 20 points are currently 5-32 (.135). More specifically, teams scoring 32 points or more are undefeated (18-0) and teams scoring fewer than 14 points are winless (0-17).
  • Field goals have been made in all but two Super Bowls.
  • Teams scoring the game's first touchdown are currently 30-12 (.714); teams scoring the game's first field goal, 22-18 (.550).
  • Teams leading at halftime are 32-8 (.800). Two Super Bowls have been tied at halftime.
  • Teams shutout in the first half are 0-11; teams shutout in the second half are 1-7 (.125).
  • Higher seeded teams are 13-12 (.520) and NFC teams are 6-2 (.750) in Super Bowls matching same-numbered seeds, which thus far have always been #1 vs. #1. Playoff seedings were first instituted in the 1975 season.
  • When the game matches two teams that played each other during the regular season, the team that lost the regular season meeting is 7-5 in the Super Bowl, including five out of the last six times this has happened.


[edit] Conference dominance by decade

Decade Leader Conference & years won Winners by conference
1967-1976 AFL/AFC, 7-3 AFL/AFC: 1969-71 and 1973-76. NFL/NFC: 1967-68 and 1972. AFC: N.Y. Jets, Kansas City, Baltimore, Miami (2) and Pittsburgh (2); NFC: Green Bay (2) and Dallas.
1977-1986 tied, 5-5 AFC: 1977, 1979-81, and 1984. NFC: 1978, 1982-83, and 1985-86. AFC: Oakland/L.A. Raiders (3) and Pittsburgh (2); NFC: Dallas, San Francisco (2), Washington and Chicago.
1987-1996 NFC, 10-0 NFC: 1987-96. NFC: San Francisco (3), Dallas (3), N.Y. Giants (2), and Washington (2).
1997-2006 AFC, 7-3 AFC: 1998-99, 2001-02, and 2004-06. NFC: 1997, 2000, and 2003. AFC: Denver (2), Baltimore, New England (3) and Pittsburgh; NFC: Green Bay, St. Louis and Tampa Bay.
2007-2016 tied, 1-1 AFC: 2007. NFC: 2008. AFC: Indianapolis; NFC: New York Giants
Notable stretches
  • 1969-81: AFL/AFC, 11-2
  • 1982-97: NFC, 15-1
  • 1998-Present: AFC, 8-3
Longest winning streak
  • 13: NFC, 1985-97 (AFC's longest is 5, 1973-77)
By regular decades (based on regular season year, not Super Bowl calendar year)
  • 1960s (I-IV): tied, 2-2
  • 1970s (V-XIV): AFC, 8-2
  • 1980s (XV-XXIV): NFC, 8-2
  • 1990s (XXV-XXXIV): NFC, 8-2
  • 2000s (XXXV-XLII): AFC, 6-2

[edit] Non-occurrences

In the history of the Super Bowl, the following "firsts" have yet to occur:

  • Snowy weather. - While Super Bowl XLI was the first to feature rain, snow has yet to fall during the game. This is highly unlikely (barring a freak occurrence in Arizona, Florida, Southern California, or Texas, and/or a malfunctioning retractable roof) since the NFL only schedules the game in warm weather climates and/or indoor stadiums.
  • An all-wild card matchup (teams who failed to win their divisions). - Nine wild card teams (since the 1970 merger) have won conference titles, but never two in the same season.
  • A shutout. - Every Super Bowl participant to date has scored. In three cases the offenses have been shut out while the special teams scored a single touchdown:
    • Super Bowl VI: The Miami Dolphins finished with 3 points, the fewest in a Super Bowl to date (and the only losing team to date to fail to score a touchdown).
    • Super Bowl VII: The Washington Redskins returned a fumble for a touchdown after blocking a field goal attempt.
    • Super Bowl IX: The Minnesota Vikings recovered a blocked punt in the end zone but missed the extra point.
    • Super Bowl XXXV: The New York Giants scored a 97-yard kickoff return.
  • A punt return touchdown. - While many kickoffs have been returned for a touchdown, a punt has yet to be returned for one.
  • Home field advantage (playing in one's own home stadium). - The closest instances to this have been Super Bowls XI (featuring the Raiders playing down the coast) and XIV (featuring the Rams from nearby Los Angeles) both being played at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena; XIX (featuring the 49ers from nearby San Francisco) being played at Stanford Stadium which is about 25 miles south of the 49ers' home stadium, Candlestick Park; and XXXVII (featuring the Raiders again playing downcoast) being played in San Diego.
  • Two teams from the same metropolitan area: one city currently has two franchises: New York City has the Giants and the Jets. (In the past Los Angeles was home to the Raiders and the Rams, but both teams left town in 1996.) Also two pairs of teams share a common metropolitan area, although they are based in different cities: the Baltimore Ravens and the Washington Redskins; as well as the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders. Every team mentioned above has won a Super Bowl, but never against its neighbor.
  • Overtime. - The narrowest margin of victory in a Super Bowl is one point, in Super Bowl XXV (1991). The closest instances to overtime, in which the result of the last play of the game could have realistically led to a tie and thus an overtime, have been:
  • An appearance by every team. - Six teams have yet to reach their first Super Bowl: Arizona, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, and New Orleans.
  • A team winning without a touchdown. - Every Super Bowl champion to date has scored at least one touchdown in their efforts (New York Jets scored only one touchdown in their Super Bowl III triumph).
  • No touchdowns scored. - In every Super Bowl to date, there have been at least two touchdowns scored (Fewest combined - 2, in Super Bowl III).

[edit] Game history POV??

"NFL Parity

...In Super Bowl XXXVI, the New England Patriots upset the 14-point favorite Rams behind the strong play of first-year starting quarterback Tom Brady and a game-winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri. The Patriots added two more Super Bowls (XXXVIII and XXXIX), and many people argue they had a chance to be the first dynasty of the 21st century. The Patriots had a chance to create a dynasty in Super Bowl XLII, but were defeated by the New York Giants, which ended an otherwise undefeated season..."

I'm not so sure this paragraph needs to be worded this way, or even included at all. There is a Dynasty (sports) page on wikipedia, besides what constitutes a dynasty or not is clearly a matter of opinion. Some people belive that the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots are both dynastys despite winning only 3 Super Bowls in a decade. I don't think this article should matter-of-factly state that the Patriots are not a dynasty when clearly there are people who disagree.

It was sure great to see the Giants win though :-P Thoughts anyone? Smackalot (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I think most people regard the Pats as having been a dynasty—how many teams have won three Super Bowls in a four-year span? Unschool (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As much as I dislike the Pats -- what they did this decade constitutes them as a dynasty - comparative of previous ones. See this table. Having said that, if the text in the paragraph does have an WP:NPOV problem, feel free to fix it. KyuuA4 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting chart. If I find time, I may take issue with it. Though the definition of dynasty may vary from person to person, I don't think that anyone who thinks about it for a more than a moment can believe that dynasties can overlap. Dynasty means more than greatness, it means holding a singular dominance over all others at that moment. I'd be more inclined to label the Miami Dolphins (whom I hate, by the way) of the early 70s a dynasty for their consecutive SB wins than the Raiders who won three SBs over an eight year period. Unschool (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Overlaps? Well, y'gotta hand it to the Redskins managing to get 3 Super Bowls in a span dominated by the Niners, and eventually Cowboys. As for the 70's Dolphins, that's 3 straight Super Bowls, winning the latter 2. Anyways, Championships label dynasties -- which explains why the Bills of the 90's won't even be considered. By the looks of that table, 3 in a given time span looks like the litmus test. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Three probably is the common litmus, but over how many years? And while Joe Gibbs is the greatest, the Redskins will never get the respect of the 49ers, not only for the fact that the Niners won more, but the fact that two of Washington's SB wins came in strike-shortened seasons. Anyway, I never hear of anyone talking about an Oakland Raiders dynasty—it's just two far spread out, and there were other teams perceived as more dominant. Which brings me to my point: Only one dynasty can exist at a time. I would see the following dynasties over the Super Bowl era:
  • Green Bay
  • Miami (maybe, if only because of the 17-0 record)
  • Pittsburgh
  • San Francisco
  • Dallas
  • Denver (maybe—probably not; Jaguars spoiled that one)
  • New England
And none of these would involve any overlaps. Again, how can there be overlaps? The very definition of a dynasty is imbued with the notion of solitary reign. Only one dynast at a time, m'lord. (Just my 2¢.) Unschool (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, how can there be overlaps? Try the domination/success of the Niners-Cowboys in the 80's-90's. While the dynasty of the Niners were tapering off into the 1990's, they still managed to get one last Super Bowl win - within the Cowboy's string of Super Bowls. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the section reads pretty good now, I just made some minor changes, correcting some spelling (interrupting, ascendant) and added a link to Dynasty (sports).

By the way Unschool, I thought that was a great list! Smackalot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unschool (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Sentence

The start of the second sentence of the article is missing and it doesn't seem to be in the history so someone might want to type it out a new one...I dunno what to put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.228.184 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing divisions

I'm not sure that the article should include this comparison of the winning records of the various divisions. When you consider that we have gone during the Super Bowl era from four total divisions (pre 1970) to six total divisions (1970-2002) to the current eight divisions, I just think that this renders these comparisons meaningless. This meaningless is further made clear when you consider that even during times of divisional stability, teams have switched divisions. Indeed, teams have switched conferences. I just would get rid of it. Unschool (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I see that Frank Anchor already took care of this—eighteen minutes before I suggested it. On the one hand, I'm embarassed, on the other, I'm glad to see that Great Minds continue to think alike. Unschool (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I still see a pared-down comparison. I'd really get rid of that as well. Unschool (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Frank Anchor's edits are an improvement over the old version, but I dont see that section being at all necessary. In my opinion, The only relevant nugget of information is the fact tha the NFC East has the most appearances and championships, and even that is possibly trivia and has nowhere to be put. NewYork483 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NY, that info belongs (and already is) on the NFC East page. It doesnt really serve a purpose on this article. Neither does any information in that section. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like consensus, albeit for different reasons. Unschool (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)