Talk:Super Bowl

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)

Patriots' dynasty disagreement

Since it appears from the edit history and the above discussion that "dynasty" in the case of the Patriots is debated, I've just changed the heading discussing the Patriots in the article to "dominance". While whether the Patriots' 2002-2008 period is a "dynasty" or not is certainly up for debate, I'm not sure anyone could argue they haven't been the most dominant team in the NFL during that period, including their Super Bowl wins. Note: I'm not a Patriots fan - in fact I support the Dolphins, one of their AFC East competitors - but if the Cowboys dominated the early 90s then the Patriots easily have dominated recently, although perhaps not any more given the 2007 and 2008 (current) seasons. 74.161.161.182 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Super Bowl XLVII in Charlotte?

Ummm, when did this happen? Has the game already been awarded? I don't recall this ever being announced by the NFL. 99.237.62.225 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Teamless Game History

The game history for this article puts too much emphasis on team performances. Instead, it'll be better to focus on the league and the game itself. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. the team performance is a very important part of the history of the game. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl Games Post game shows

Can we list the shows which have aired after the superbowl? (such as Grey Anatomy, Survivor 2 & 7, and in 2009 THe office)`````. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No table?

Why is there no table listing the teams and score for each Super Bowl? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is at List of Super Bowl champions. Frank Anchor^Talk 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans and the Super Bowl

I was curious as to why Katrina is briefly mentioned in connection with the fact that New Orleans has not hosted a Super Bowl since 2002 (pre-dating Katrina by 3 years....plus at least 3 years, as by 2005, the next 3 Super Bowls would have already been awarded....so really 6 years by the time Katrina struck). Katrina has nothing to do with why New Orleans will not have hosted a Super Bowl in over 10 years (and counting). The real reason is the fact that the Saints viability in New Orleans has been in question for sometime (Katrina didn't start that problem...only made it worse).....and their lease on the Superdome expires in 2010 I believe. The state has been paying something around $20 million a season to the Saints to keep them in New Orleans (since before Katrina.....& even after Katrina....the Saints would not budge on that). Fact of the matter is, the NFL will not put a Super Bowl in New Orleans (or any other city with lease problems & or viability issues haunting the host team) in what will be over 10 seasons because the city, state, and Saints have problems that pre-date Katrina, and the NFL will not award the Super Bowl to New Orleans until they get their messy situation cleaned up on a long term basis. They don't want to award a Super Bowl to a city that might be without a team in a short period of time. To be honest, all that post-Katrina fuzzy feelings don't mean a thing. New Orleans might be without a team in only a few seasons (can anyone say "California here we come?").....and the NFL doesn't want to take the risk. I just find the mention of Katrina (even though it was only briefly) to be a major oversimplification of the problems that have kept New Orleans from being awarded a Super bowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.176 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More info about commercials?

We should perhaps add more depth about the 'commercial culture' that surrounds every year's event? I'm guessing that probably as many as half of viewers each year maybe tune into the game for the primary purpose of watching its commercials. Think of how many TV shows that are something amongst the likes of "Greatest Superbowl Commercials!" I suggest we add a new section in the page for commercials. TheFinalSay (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl Sunday

The fancy bold link to Super Bowl Sunday redirects back to the same Super Bowl page. dachshund2k3 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Venue Comment

The last sentence in the second paragraph under "Venues" states that "No Super Bowl has ever been held in an area which lacks an NFL team; hence Los Angeles would be an unlikely choice as long as it lacks a team." This is not exactly true. Super Bowl XIX was hosted in Palo Alto, CA at Stanford University. Although Palo Alto is near San Francisco and Oakland, it is not an NFL city and is about 27 miles from both, San Francisco and Oakland. Would you consider Annapolis, Maryland or Wilmington, Delaware to be NFL cities if the Super Bowl was ever hosted there? Annapolis is about the same distance from Washington, DC and Baltimore, and Wilmington is about the same distance from Philadelphia. BucsWeb (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilmington lacks a suitable stadium, and both Annapolis and Wilmington are cold weather cities. The Super Bowl is highly unlikely to ever be held at either location. They are both part of the Baltimore-Washington region which has two teams. Palo Alto is clearly part of the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, which also has two teams. BucsWeb's complaint could also be applied to the Rose Bowl Stadium: Pasadena, California is a sizeable city in its own right, even though it is just 10 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Trends

Why was my comment about the NFC winning twelve straight coin tosses removed from the Trends section? If twelve straight coin tosses isn't a trend, I don't know what is. Let's see you correctly call twelve in a row. Frank Anchor claims the info was unnecessary. It's just as unnecessary as a lot of other miscellaneous information in that section. It's an interesting statistic, and it should be on that page somewhere! BucsWeb (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted some version of this statistic before reading this. Not only is the statistic totally meaningless (telling us nothing whatsoever about future games, which a "trend" should arguably do), but looking back over the last x years and choosing an arbitrary cutoff point that makes for the most unusual-sounding percentage has nothing to do with serious statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.70 (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Patriot dominance in early 2000s

The Patriots won three of four, not three of five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldhankey (talk • contribs) 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they won three of the five SB's to start the decade. They did not win 2000, they won 2001, they did not win 2002, they won 2003 and 2004. Frank Anchor^Talk 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pats won 3 betwen 2000 and 2009 and lost a 4th; and they also lost a Super Bowl in the 1990s. This is a very good showing, but "domination" may be too strong a word. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the decade started in 2001, not 2000...and second, trends like this start with the first year that they win; so three out of FOUR is correct. 71.115.91.9 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence is the name designating the first sentence of an article

Consider the current opening sentence: The Super Bowl is name designating the championship game of the National Football League. Sounds okay? Well, couldn't this opening be used for just about any article? Consider if these articles started with the following opening sentences:

• The President of the United States is name designating the head of state and head of government of the United States
• An automobile or motor car is the name designating a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.
• Alaska is the name designating the largest state of the United States of America by area
• Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (born March 26, 1940) is the name designating the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Sure, it works, sorta. But if every article can open with the same phrase, that phrase must not be adding anything of substance to the article, right? It's just what my old English teacher back in the 1970s called "pretentious diction", a desire to use more words where less work better. While I know that the editor had the best of intentions, I'll be changing it, if y'all don't mind. Unschool 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

London Super Bowl

I tried to clean up the references to a possible London Super Bowl. This is a wild idea which is actually being considered. I took out a statement that a bid was turned down because of fan outcry. The cited sources mention no fan outcry; there was no reason for fan outcry and in fact there was no fan outcry. ( By the way, regular season games have been scheduled for London with no fan outcry.) The big problem with a London Super Bowl (aside from the travel distance) would be the timing: if the game kicked off at the usual time, it would run from about 11:30pm to 3:00am local time. But, the scheduling is not an unmanageable problem. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of a London Super Bowl was speculated about when Tampa Bay and New England played a regular season game at Wembley Stadium in October 2009. It would be less unlikely if London had a team: placing an NFL franchise in London is another wild idea which is actually being considered. An NFL franchise in London would be a topic for a different article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning individual players in this article

I think that this needs to be minimized, but there are certainly times when it can be justified. To my way of thinking, if one player embodies the greatness of the team largely by himself, as seen by the public, then they merit mention. So, even though he was surrounded by many great players, Michael Jordan would qualify (if he played football). What football players are like this? Troy Aikman? I don't personally think so. Joe Montana? Hmmm, in the first 49ers win, for sure. Later on, many (including Jerry Rice, who whined his way to an MVP in their third SB win), would say no. Brett Favre? I can't stand the guy, but he was the Packers. Tom Brady? I think so. Payton Manning, John Elway? Definitely. Bart Starr? My favorite from my youth, but, sadly, no. So what I'm saying is that this article is about the game, and few players merit mention. Being an MVP is probably a minimum standard, but even then, not all MVPs need to be mentioned in this article, as they are easily found in their respective Super Bowl articles and there's probably a list somewhere as well. Just some thoughts. Unschool 06:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Neveralities?

Can we come up with a better title for this section considering "neveralities" is not a word? 68.33.57.206 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Patriots dominate the early 2000s

This is something of a semantic argument, I admit, but there is an important difference between these two statements:

Additionally, the Patriots in 2007 made history with a feat that some consider more impressive than winning the Super Bowl: completing an undefeated regular season (though they lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants that year).

Additionally, despite losing Super Bowl XLII to the New York Giants in 2008, the Patriots continued their dominance by completing an undefeated regular season.

Where the first statement is focused on the success of the Patriots, the second is focused on their appearance in the Super Bowl. Even if it is subjectively more impressive than winning the Super Bowl (I actually happen to agree), this remains an article about the (objective) Super Bowl. The Patriot's continued dominance is perfectly illustrated by their Super Bowl appearance tied to their perfect regular season. The added reference to it being "impressive" is unnecessary and a bit inappropriate for this article. The reference is perfectly appropriate in the article about the Patriots, but is out of place here. ∅BRIT 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point now, about this being not directly germane to the SB article. But I don't draw the same conclusion as you. First of all, your version of the sentence, by being chronologically backward, to me is confusing. More importantly, as you have made clear, this is about the Super Bowl. I'm going to have another wack at it. Unschool 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is with great regret that I must acknowledge that NotBrit's arguments have convinced me that a nicely sourced comment has to be removed entirely from this article. Crud. Unschool 04:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fiftieth anniversary"

Someone needs to sharpen up on their math. The 50th anniversary of Super Bowl I will be SB LI, not SB L. 71.115.91.9 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to remember, most people also thought that the year 2000 was the beginning of the 3rd Millennium, as opposed to the correct year of 2001. Grizzwald (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Browns

The first section of the article says that the Lions and Browns won NFL Championships in the pre-Super Bowl era; this is technically not true. The current Browns franchise is not the same as the one that won an NFL Championship - it is a completely new franchise. The old Cleveland Browns franchise is now the Baltimore Ravens. I know it's a minor point, but in my opinion this should be changed to reflect the fact that the Lions are the only pre-Super Bowl team not to have appeared in a Super Bowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.15.5 (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The current consensus of the majority of Wikipedia editors is to follow the conventions of the official Browns records, the official NFL records, and the legal settlement that resolved the Cleveland Browns relocation controversy: All the Browns' name, colors, history, records, awards and archives from 1940s to 1995 remain in Cleveland. That includes the records of Super Bowls and championship appearances. There is also a related discussion at Talk:Cleveland Browns#Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The current Browns are those Browns the Ravens are considered a new franchise and the current Browns retain all the records and history of the original Browns!Look at it this way the Browns just took abreak from the league for a couple of years--757DenverBroncos (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Viewing outside the US

The Super Bowl#Television coverage and ratings section begins by stating that "For many years, the Super Bowl has had a very large television audience world wide". It later goes on to talk about the global audience, but goes on to tell us nothing about coverage or popularity outside the States.

So the "vast majority" of viewers are in the US. Does "vast majority" mean 80%, 99%, 99.95% or what? We really could do with some information on:

• how many people outside the US watch Super Bowl
• in which countries these are concentrated (the first paragraph's passing mention of Canada is where this info begins and ends at the mo)
• which notable non-US television networks broadcast coverage of the Super Bowl

-- Smjg (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

- The figures of recent audiences show that the average US audience is 85 millions while the overall global figure is 104 millions. Therefore by deduction 19 millions outside the US tune in. The Superbowl was bested by the Champions League final for the first time in the global viewing figures in 2009. For many years the difference between the two global annual sporting event giants has been less than 10 million. The Champions League is switching from a Wednesday night to a Saturday night with UEFA hoping that it becomes the same defacto European holiday that Superbowl Sunday is in the States. It also hopes to add an additional 25 million viewers by making the move. Norniron (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Double Digit Leads

A minor question concerning this record,

"Teams gaining a double-digit lead (10 points or more) during the game are 38–2 (.950). Four Super Bowls haven't had such a point difference."

It seems to make sense, 44 Super Bowls, 4 without a 10-point lead so 40 combined wins/losses. But I think this doesn't take into account that both the teams who overcame 10 point-leads (Saints in XLIV, Redskins in XXII) gained 10 point-leads of their own later in the game. So those two Super Bowls have both a winner and a loser who had double digit leads, and there should be 42 combined wins/losses, so isn't the record actually 40-2? Pizza Pops (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

makes a lot of senseThe Kommunist from kenya (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense statement about world viewership

Under the heading "Television coverage and ratings" is the sentence: "[the game is watched by] 78 percent of all homes around the world tuned into television during the game".

That is utterly absurd. The Superbowl is hardly watched at all outside of the USA, particularly as it takes place at 2AM in Europe, where people aren't really very interested anyway. It would also mean that more of the world watch the Superbowl than the FIFA World Cup final, which is nonsense. Can someone either insert a correct figure or remove this unsubstantiated absurdity. 59.101.23.102 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

the dallas cowboys

the dallas cowboys are the richest team in the nfl they been to 8 super bowls the Cowboys won 5 and lost 3. That makes them 5-3 in history of the super bowl the Dallas Cowboys need troy akman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.185.229 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

THE Dallas Cowboys

 The Cowboys have the are have a good history have in the super bowl they whent to the super bowl twice in the 70's and 90's as the whent agienst the bills 2 times in 1993 & 1994.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.185.229 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 

the redskins

the redskins suck.