Talk:Super Bowl XLIII

Trivia

I wanted to add a trivia section, but the article is locked for some reason.

The piece of info I have is that this is the first Super Bowl since XVIII to feature two previous Super Bowl winning Quarterbacks (Warner with Super Bowl XXXIV and Rothliesberger with Super Bowl XL). I did my research for this on wikipedia, and I do not know how to site that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be cited. However, I've also heard that on television and I would be willing to bet it is in an article somewhere out there; if someone is willing to find that article then it could be cited. blackngold29 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bowl Move

Is the "Pro Bowl Move" section really notable enough to Super Bowl XLIII to include in this article? I mean, it's an unrelated game, and the section only serves to say it won't be related to this year's SB. --Rividian (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'lldelete it for you ASAP. Also, can we start NFL playoffs, 2008-09 and have no more redirection to Super Bowl XLIII? Three teams are in the playoffs by winning the playoffs, and it is that time of the year. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:17 PM US EST Dec 8 2008.

Headers

I cut out a bunch of headers for the second time. They aren't needed for a single line of text. It's a waste of space and it extends the table of contents far more than needed. Grsz¹¹ 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi prot

I guess something was just won/announced? I have semi'd the page because of the flurry of people who think the decision on the finalists should be theirs. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Controversy surrounding the Steelers last Super Bowl appearance.

Super Bowl XL (February 5th, 2006)was highly controversial due to what many fans and sports journalists considered very poor officiating.

I feel this is an important subtopic of the Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl history. I would like to see someone write a non-partisan paragraph to be included in the Steelers section of this Wiki. I've been registered on Wikipedia since March, 2007, but haven't edited, so I'm locked out. Thank you in advance for any help in this.

Suggested links are referenced on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL

Thanks, again!

Richeee (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with this article. Grsz¹¹ 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that game and anything involved with it (including that POV article) is completely irrelevant to this game and article. The vast majority of this article is uncited and could be improved before we start dragging other stuff into it. blackngold29 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how both of you are Pittsburgh fans!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richeee (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who would've replied the same either way. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll never know... but may the best team win, Grsz11, and that the officiating is accurate. I forgot to sign my comment... Richeee (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Television commercials in Canada

This is a minor point, but I've removed the text under the "international" section regarding the fact that US commercials won't air in Canada during the broadcast. This is not notable, given that it is no different from any other series airing in Canada, but the original poster (User:CrazyInSane) disagrees. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is certainly notable, with this news article ([1]) as an example. I suggest rewording the paragraph about the Canadian commercial/substitution as follows:

“ Canadian English language network CTV will air NBC's feed of the game live throughout Canada. As with its other American programming broadcast throughout the year, CTV is expected to request simultaneous substitution for the game, meaning most Canadians watching NBC (which is available in Canada) will see Canadian commercials during the game rather than the much-hyped American ones. This has become the subject of public controversy over the years. The game will also air on the French cable channel RDS. ”

. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it any more notable than any other broadcast in Canada? More to the point, why does it warrant a mention in this article? We're not making a point about commercial substitution rules for other nations. Please separate your professed dislike for Canadian broadcast regulations (as per your previous talk page comments) from what is important to the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The CRTC has an annual press release informing viewers about the Super Bowl simsub broadcast specifically. It's definitely notable; and it provides useful, relevant information to the reader. Commercial substitution at the Super Bowl is not notable in any other nation because they do not receive US networks directly through domestic cable/satellite subscriptions like Canada does, and are not as culturally tied to the United States and its media. Since my initial inclusion of the information, it has been edited by several other editors adding additional information, but was never removed. I believe you'll see many editors agreeing with me about its worth in this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion It seems to me that this hinges upon the statement "this has become the subject of public controversy over the years". If this controversy is significant, and well supported by reputable sources, it seems a valid thing to mention. If the controversy is minor, and/or not verifiable, then the information is not really notable, and, while I don't think it truly harms the article, it does not seem necessary to include it, either.

The quote above includes a citation for the controversy, but it does not link to anything in this talk page, and I don't see it in the recent edit history for the article, either (though it may well be there somewhere!). Either way, it's that evidence that I would suggest we should be looking at. So, cite please? Anaxial (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the two cited articles are here: [2] and [3]. Here's another one I found as well issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision: [4]. I can find more if necessary. Thanks for your input. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That the Canadian broadcasting commission deems it notable enough to issue a specific press release and FAQ seems like reasonable evidence to me that there is a controversy worth mentioning here. It doesn't need more than a couple of sentences, mind (not that anyone has so far suggested otherwise) - if a longer discussion is needed, it would, IMO, be more fitting for the Super Bowl advertising page. Anaxial (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, that this is not a new development - and also no different from any other series or sports broadcast where a Canadian network purchases the rights. As such, the previously mentioned article on SB advertising is a more appropriate location for this. (Otherwise, one could argue that it should be mentioned in every Super Bowl article.) We have to differentiate between what is a standard practice, and what is truly "controversial"; from my experience, very few people really care about this, especially now that most commercials can be accessed on-line if desired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggest it should be kept small. And it does appear to be different from other sports broadcasts, in that there is no specific press release referring to those, whereas there was one for this particular Super Bowl contest. This implies that, while presumably not a mass public outcry, there is some degree of controversy over the broadcasting of this particular event, over and above that for other, lesser, events. If there were no section on foreign broadcasting at all in this article, I could see no reason for including this fact, but since there is, I see no problem with a (minor) reference to it. Anaxial (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is it always the case that the Canadian broadcaster broadcasts the American broadcast in full w/o interruptions even for commercials? Like for other sporting events that rely on U.S. broadcasters, for example. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are commercials, but Canadian broadcasters are permitted to replace US commercials with Canadian ones during the broadcast. There are a host a regulations that govern this, such as the program content having to be the same and the shows having to air in the same time slots. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the Canadian case is virtually the same with every other broadcaster outside the U.S., so I dunno how this can be notable, unless Canadians had seen the full U.S. broadcast, incl. commercials in the recent past. –Howard the Duck 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Canada receives the US networks directly through cable. In Canada, we can watch the US feeds of NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox. For example, if you're in Eastern Canada you can get the Boston feeds, Detroit feeds or otherwise. In the West, you'd get Spokane. The Canadian broadcaster, however, has the right to ovverride the US network's signal if they broadcast the American show at the exact same time, meaning that regardless of whether Canadians tune into the Canadian network or NBC, they will see the Canadian network's broadcast. This is why the issue is controversial—because we get US networks directly otherwise, unlike any other non-US country. Also, Canada is very strongly tied to the US culturally, so we want to see the famed commercials. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so on cable, the commercials on U.S. channels would be blocked? –Howard the Duck 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not just the commercials are blocked, the entire program is replaced by the Canadian broadcaster's signal. So for example if you tuned into NBC in Canada during the Super Bowl, you would actually be forced to watch the CTV broadcast, with the CTV bug, commercials, and all. This can be a nuisance in many ways, including lesser-quality HD signal, and the Canadian broadcaster coming back late from commercials (since the event is live), resulting in a few seconds of the program being cut off after each commercial break. Find out all about this practice at the simultaneous substitution article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CiS, please don't forget that the broadcaster is required to have an equal or better-quality signal in order to substitute, and that "coming back late" (or any other variations that change the length of content from that of the source) can invalidate the simsub right. Again, this is because NBC does not own the broadcast rights for Canada - CTV does. Other US networks - A&E for one - sometimes have to black out their Canadian feed because they do not have the right to show a certain program in Canada. Per the article you linked, US stations also have situations where they black out non-local or non-US stations airing the same programme. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is fine, and I understand that CTV has every right to have their signal placed overtop NBC's signal, but it's the actual controversy that's the subject of discussion here. Certainly simsubbing in general is not controversial on a wide scale, but I do think it causes enough controversy around the Super Bowl to merit a brief mention of it in the "International broadcasts" under "Canada" at this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reference 17 needs fixed

Reference 17 - the link goes to the wrong page. The website is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/7018632.stm - the current revision has an l at the end (as in stml). Would change it myself, but article is locked. 86.149.200.10 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Liine

I wanted to reference the opening line posted in the Super Bowl pre-game notes section to this source: http://www.point-spreads.com/football/012609-current-super-bowl-odds.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddspub (talk • contribs)

 Done. I added it to that section's third paragraph where it does talk about the spread. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add France 2 to the list of Superbowl 2009 broadcasters in europe

announcement here: http://sport.france2.fr/sports-us/51060773-fr.php (live starting at 00:10h CET)