Talk:Super Bowl XLII/Archive 1

The 1 billion viewer myth

It is stated in the international television section of the article that the game was broadcast to an estimated 1 billion viewers. While it may be true that 1 billion viewers had the ability to tune in, 98% of those viewers outside the USA chose not to, and even then most of the remaining 2% came from Canada and Mexico. 98 million Americans tuned in and were joined by another 30 million people in other countries for an estimated actual viewing figure of 128 million, setting a new record for a super bowl. One prime example of the global audience is that of the United Kingdom where there were a potential 60 million viewers and yet less than 1 million tuned in. True the game was being broadcast late on a Sunday night UK time but the BBC coverage started directly after the popular Sunday evening soccer highlights programme. Of the viewers who tuned in to watch the soccer, 82% switched off before the football while only 0.03% tuned in after the soccer and in time to watch the football. To date no annual sporting event has ever managed to attract 1 billion actual viewers. The Champions League Final is switching from its Wednesday slot to a weekend position in 2010 in a bid to try and reach this magic figure but even it will have to quadruple its present 250 million global viewing audience {that's not potential, that's actual - the potential is 3 billion} Only the World cup final is big enough to hold the attention of 1 billion people at one time and even then it only happens once every four years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Put it in along with the source Iamhungey (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumors

It's rumored that Eli Manning should have been downed by contact after having no forward progression on the 3rd down completion to David Tyree. In my opinion I think this is true but can anyone find a source for this info and make a section like "Disputes" or something. I think this would be a significant event and good content as it would have definitely been a game changing event. User:nolhay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.106.153 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that won't be necessary. Manning was not even close to being down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.73.215 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the sillier statements I've heard - If this was actually an issue there would be something from a reliable source. All I've seen to support it have been random people complaining on message boards.71.234.131.9 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Non-Perfection Reception?

Proposed name for the best QB escape and receiver catch in Super Bowl history. (Manning to Tyree). Brianosburn (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two that are even better: The Great Escapse or The Immaculate Connection. 35.11.184.153 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Amerifunk

The Slip & Grip Brianosburn (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes unsigned guy, those are definately way better. The Great Escape is a beat-to-DEATH cliche, and The Immaculate Connection doesn't make logical sense...it was an AWFUL play, no where near "immaculate" because if it was, Manning wouldn't have had to hurl the ball and have Tyree catch it with his head. Now, that's not to say it wasn't one of the most badass and awesome things I've ever seen...it takes the #1 spot. but c'mon..."the non-perfection reception" is such a good name we should petition congress to make it official. add that to urban dictionary dude, it needs to be taken to the people, lol. cheers Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Source?

I didn't see any of this in the source article [1] regarding the "meaning" of the logo:

The two horizontal white stripes in the middle represent the vertical lines on the University of Phoenix Stadium. The turquoise Roman numerals represent the Native American culture of Arizona. The red star represents the AFC and the blue star represents the NFC. —Twigboy 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I got it from the press confrece that i watched on the NFL Network.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.124 (talk) 15:49, February 9, 2007

What about the source for the estimated 1 billion viewers? "Outside North America, Super Bowl XLII was distributed by the NFL and NFL International to an estimated one billion viewers within 223 countries and territories.[29]" Read the related source and it had no information about number of viewers. Vivendi. Vivendi14 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Time?

What is the time of the event? Is it known yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.223.48.195 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The kickoff is tentatively scheduled for 6:17 PM EST/4:17 PM Mountain Standard Time on February 3rd. This is according to the NFL.com website and their SuperBowl.com site as well. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:00 PM US EST Jan 17 2008.

That's a great question and the answer should be on the page. I specifically came here looking for the kickoff time and didn't find it. After rooting around Google a little, here's what I found. The Game Broadcast on FOX begins at 6 PM EST. And the actual start time is listed as 6.17 pm EST all over their site The general consensus on the internet seems however to be the 6:18 PM EST time. But according to "AZ Super Bowl: Game Day Information" at http://www.azsuperbowl.com/game_day.aspx the kickoff time is as of today (Jan 24) listed at 6:30 PM, but 4 days ago (on Jan 20) this same page said 6:18 PM EST according to the Google cache (link no longer valid) ( http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:lKJaePStWVAJ:www.azsuperbowl.com/game_day.aspx+super+bowl+XLII+kickoff+pm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us ). Despite this, I think the bottom line is that 6:18 PM EST is most likely the correct answer, but moreover, the kickoff time should definitely be given in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.117.140 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I entered this page to find the time. I will put it on the page. It really ought to be on the page. Dogru144 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The page currently lists 6:18 PM EST. Since the game is being held in Arizona which is in MST, the 4:18PM MST time should at least be listed as well, if not primarily.

Home Team?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this year the AFC team is "home," no? I seem to remember the NFC being the home team in odd Super Bowls (i.e. XXV) so that means it's the AFC's turn this year. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. New England is the home team. ---CWY2190^TC 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how is New England the "home team" since the Bowl game is being played in Arizona? Pineconn (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is mainly for the coin toss. The AFC team is the "home team" this year and the NFC team will be the "home team" next year. The away team gets to call the toss and the home team gets to pick if they want to wear their dark or light jerseys. Besides that there is no importance. ---CWY2190^TC 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And it is officially recorded as a neutral-site game, so it technically does not count in the Giants' away and Patriots' home winning streaks.—Twigboy (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks, guys. Pineconn (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention which team gets the home team locker room. Useight (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I'm correct, it has something to do with who warms up when. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the Superbowl is being played in a stadium with retractable roof, home team holds the decision to whther the roof will stay open or closed during the game. Truelier (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it really is just the jerseys and the coin toss. The retractable roof is addressed in the article as being league-governed in a neutral-site game.—Twigboy (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The roof thing is correct (that is league governed, just as the procedings of the game is). But the home/away designation also determines where the two teams practice in the week leading up the game. Typically the "home" team practices at the host team's practice facility (i.e., Arizona Cardinals practice facility), whereas the "away" team practices at another location, usually a local college or other nearby stadium. Home/away also determines which locker room, and which sidelines of the field the teams utilize.Doctorindy (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercials

The superbowl commercials are also available on NFL.com videos section and Hulu.com

Just found this cool blog, it has a top 10 list of some great Super Bowl commercials. Here's the link: http://blog.ruckus.com/2008/01/29/380/

I just heard Obama and Hillary bought 8 ads each followed by Romney with 8, Edwards 4, McCain 3, and Paul 1 according to Fox News and MSNBC with altogether with 35 ads outbidding several advertisers i.e. (United Airlines, Fedex, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Apple Computer, Ford, Chevrolet, IBM) that were going to air new commercials. I also heard that Fox News is drawing fire over an Air Canada ad that's going to air showing the good things about Canada during the Superbowl. Anybody else contribute or confirm? 164.107.111.126 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems very unlikely that there would be 32 ads for presidential candidates. Especially three candidates with 8 (that's going to cost $16 million). Wikipedia is not for speculation or rumors, do you have a concrete source? Useight (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox News was talking about it. 164.107.111.126 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything about it at foxnews.com. Useight (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair and balanced, but incorrect—Twigboy (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is false. Fox themselves said there will be no political ads whatsoever. Whoever came up with those numbers is blowing smoke. JMyrleFuller (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of commercials, why is there no mention of the Toshiba HD DVD commercial? This is pretty big because they purchased the 30 second time slot prior to Warner becoming Blu-ray Disc exclusive, which brought the BD market share to 93%.(Myscrnnm (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Family members on opposite teams

Giants DE Justin Tuck and Pats LB Adalius Thomas are cousins. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Referenced at bottom, his personal life. --EndlessDan 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related, Giants long-snapper Zak DeOssie's father, Steve DeOssie, played for both the Giants and the Patriots in his career, and won Super Bowl XXV with the Giants. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2008/02/01/Features/Bear-Fills.Giant.Shoes-3182988.shtml Chaz! (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT TIME IN AUZZIE

at wats the time and wat channell will it be air on in auzzie in the sate of vic coz i wount 2 know coz i HAVE 2 GO 2 skoola and wount 2 know wat time its on at so i might be able 2 take a sicky on that dat so can any1 tell me PLZ--124.181.87.95 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know kid. We can't tell you, but just check you tv guide. Spongefan (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An AUZZIE! I spent 9 years in australia as a missionary with my parents! I'm not sure what time it is cuz I don't watch it. But drop me a line if get a chance, mate. RC-0722 ^communicator _kills 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If kick-off is at 6:18 PM EST on a Sunday, that would be roughly 8 AM Monday morning. Lostinube (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Depending on whether you want AEST, ACST or AWST :P Metao (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Angels to perform Fly Over

03 Super Bowl Flyover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.132.192 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

do you have a reference? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the official site:

http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/index.htm under schedule it says February 03: Super Bowl Flyover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.109.44 (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then add it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I listed it in the "entertainment" section because that's where it seems to fit best. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

semi-protection

I'd like to keep semi-protection off for as much as we can.. we have done this with Super Bowl XL and Super Bowl XLI and it works out okay, several admins will be watching this page all day Sunday. I request that other admins use short semi-protections especially the day of the game, in response to heavy vandalism. Also the page should be semi-protected when the game ends... for some reason vandalism usually becomes utterly unmanageable at that specific point.

Generally this is within the spirit of keeping highly visible pages open for IP editing, which is important to Wikipedia. I am sure there will be some periods where vandalism is too high, but that's why I'm asking for short bursts of protection rather than a month of it straight. --W.marsh 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page because as the super bowl gets close, vandalisim will increase. Following the IAR policy, semi-protecting the page will leave it looking better, which in my opnion, is more valuable than recruting people. At the very least, it should be protected when the game starts. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But isn't this protection a little too early? There hasn't been a whole lot of vandalism today yet. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it's specifically against policy and the spirit of Wikipedia's pillars (WP:5P). Why have protection policy if we're just going to ignore it all the time? There's still a lot of work to be done sprucing this page up and not much vandalism yet, so we should really keep it unprotected... or at least get a consensus here for this preemptive protection. --W.marsh 19:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think we should protect pages unless there is a lot of vandalism going on now; not a lot of expected vandalism. BTW, get a combine and go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what that comment was supposed to mean.... But i think at least during the game and for a few days after, it should be semi. This will be very prone to vandalisim and it would be much easier to have it protected instead of having to revert each fans comments on the game form the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be semi-protected when the vandalism starts, then leave it at semi for about maybe a week. Besides, if an IP wants to add something, they can ask here. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Read my userpage to find out what it means... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we at least get the protection down so all "established users" can edit it. If not, February 3 should be wikilinked in the "Advertisements" section. I just missed being able to edit that I guess, because the "edit" tab was there, then I couldn't submit. I'd like to be able to edit, please. :) -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for the admin who fully protected asking to reduce to semi. The vandalism has already started and is not being removed. While we want to balance access, we also must focus on quality. Wikipedia's coverage will almost certainly be reported on so we should put our best product forward. KnightLago (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A page like this should never be full protected for 4 days... I unprotected. --W.marsh 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Theres a penis on the page -_-". setsuka13

Thank you. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

fr... I meant semi protect, that was a error, vandalisim had already started to pickup since it was unprotected, so ifigured that was the right time, i just choose the wrong protection level. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the page semi'd for 24 hours. Right before full protection was put on editors (including myself) were having a tough time keeping up with the vandals. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but for a few days, people aren't monitoring the article. When I read it there were references to what one team would do to the other teams' mothers. So, I think semi-protection is in order NOW. KnightLago (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who wants page semi-protected can put it on their watchlists, and manually protect it instead. Put your money where your mouth is, people! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, assuming they don't want to actually watch the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, now I get it! Everyone wants to watch the game, so they all want to be lazy and just have an admin semi-protect the page. Ahhhhhhhhh!--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine Kim, remove the protection, and camp here for the rest of the night and watch the article. You revert the vandalism that has already started. Good luuuuccckkkkk! KnightLago (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with KnightLago. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done. While I was attempting to repair one vandalism, two others vandal edits were submitted and my original edit was lost because of an edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that is the whole point. KnightLago (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Have we agreed on anything yet? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be semi-protected, as well it should be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could give you all revert buttons? Then you can kill vandalism in seconds. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have rollback or popups then you already have one. BTW, we need to perform an L shaped ambush on the vandals. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or Twinkle. :-) Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is protected, and since I absolutely refuse to get an account at Wikipedia, can someone please fix the line "... Super Bowl XLI ad, which was one of several fan-created ads that year, the Doritos brand used its spot to air a brief performance by Kina Grannis, winner of an online contest which included an recording ..." to "a recording"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.94.179.64 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! —Neuropedia (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast in Japan

The game will be aired live on NHK's BS-1 (satellite TV station). The broadcast should contain the option of English (Fox's) or Japanese commentary. It will be free for anyone with a BS antenna (not a 100 percent given for all households in Japan). http://www.nfljapan.co.jp/season/feature/superbowl2008/tv/ Lostinube (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Added and noted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched the game on BS-1 (the game was rebroadcast at 6:15PM Japan Time, no doubt to accommodate the fact that most people have to work at 8AM Monday morning) and the English audio was not that of Buck or Aikman, Fox's TV announcers. It was of a different duo, one person being Sterling Sharpe and the other...I didn't catch his name. Perhaps they work for NFL Network? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said FUCK during the pre-game show on FOX? Anyone?

"You finally found a hat that fits your fuckin' head"

Who was it? It was either Terry Bradshaw or Jimmy Johnson when Howie Long was putting on a Boston Red Sox hat.

Is that an FCC violation?

Who cares, I certainly is not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Krm500 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if somebody makes a big deal out of it tomorrow. Then it's notable. If Janet Jackson had immediately covered up instead of letting the camera linger, that wouldn't have been notable either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he said that. I think he said "you finally found a hat that fits your bucket head"

Potus lies (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he said "bucket head," although I thought it was "fuckin' head" at first too. 70.230.254.12 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Penis solution

As someone else noted on the top of the discussion page; There was a big picture of a penis in the article, I tried to remove it with an edit but I couldn't find the image. I replaced the image on commons with a 1x1 px size jpeg, so it's probably an image on this page, but instead of a penis it's a white pixel hiding somewhere behind the Wikipedia logo. I didn't take a screenshot of it, but check with more users and they can confirm it was there. --Krm500 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep reloading and the picture's still there for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.104.172 (talk • contribs)

Probably in some template. Evercat (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, its gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.104.172 (talk • contribs)

(3x edit conflict) The vandalism was on {{NFL on FOX}}. I've fixed it now. This kind of template-inclusion vandalism occured on 2008 before, so I knew where to look for it. -- RattleMan 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was (also?) in Template:2007 NFL season by team. Evercat (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a second hit of vandalism a few minutes later. One occured at 23:25, the other at 23:36. I recommend sprotection for all templates included on this page. -- RattleMan 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected all included templates for 24 hours. Evercat (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol at the title of this talk.LifeStroke420 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Score

Should we have the score before the game is over? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if I don't get a response I'm removing the score. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but that falls into the category of a losing battle. --B (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then is it OK if I revert? Following the three revert rule of course... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think having scores in the middle of the game is pointless and only causes problems with potential downstream uses (ie, answers.com picks up their copy in the middle of the game) but I'm in the minority on that. If you remove it, someone will put it back in exactly 22.8 seconds. --B (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

People often do this... if they want to, I say let them. It would be a ton of reverts to stop this... --W.marsh 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

too bad. If they don't like it; Put a Helmet On. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a online scoreboard, I personally don't think it should be here before the game is over but as B said, removing it will be a fighting losing battle. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in posting the progress of the game's score. Play-by-play would be too much, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But scores aren't official until the game is over... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Were not posting the final scores, who says people shouldn't get an update from wikipedia, what harm does it cause, it has more potential to provide information than hurt with mis-information. --Jacksong (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Once the next play has started, there's no way a score is going to be erased. We have to record these eventually so why not let people do it now if they want to? --W.marsh 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus for removing the score, so please stop doing it... it's just confusing everyone. --W.marsh 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it up but what about leaving the total blank until it is final?--Jacksong (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd quarter has not started yet why don't we revert the zero's to hyphens?--Jacksong (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Didn't see the "clear" consensus here; but I still don't like it... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Half time score yes, other scores no. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

templates

could we maybe do something about the templates at the bottom of the page? they seem to be hogging up a lot a room, and are not exactly visually appealling.

agreed. they're useful, but ugly. give it a show/hide toggle button.-Pitchtold12039 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this the standard template setup for all Superbowl articles. --W.marsh 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

game summary

the game summary shouldn't be added until after the game is over. Thoughts? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it's not like the scoring drives are going to be undone... if people want to document them now, why not? It will help the article improve faster. Again, please stop removing content from the article... it's counterproductive. --W.marsh 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But the whole game could be struck out on a technicality. There could be an earthquake and they could postpone the game; then where are we? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since that can't possibly be a serious objection... I guess you consent to including the scoring drive summary? --W.marsh 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. In the .00001% chance that that happens, the article can say that each drive happened until the "disaster" and then the game was postponed. I don't think this is an issue. If people add something that is not inaccurate and is well-written and sourced, it should stay until a detailed game summary can be drawn up after the game is over. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

that's so unlikely that if it happens removing the game summary would be the least of our problems. I think we should add to the scoring summary throughout the game. portions or the whole section can always be removed later should something catastrophic happen.GregX102 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Somebody's been watching Black Sunday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that that would happen; I'm just saying that something "like" it could happen and they could postpone the game. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've never even heard of black sunday. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a source that confirms the game would be postponed and replayed in its entirety in the event of a disaster? As opposed to picking up where it left off, that is. Instead of an earthquake, how about, for example, a power outage that lasts for 3 days or something. That's a bit more likely of a scenario. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am being serious, for once. I don't know what the rules are in the event of a lengthy game interruption due to technical problems. But I might be able to find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, from the book Official Rules of the NFL, 2007 edition, Rule 17 (Emergencies and Unfair Acts), Section 1 (Emergencies), Article 8: "If, under emergency circumstances, an interrupted regular-season or post-season game cannot be completed on the same day, such game will be rescheduled by the Commissioner and resumed at that point." (Italics mine.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with updating the score infobox is that a downstream use (like answers.com) could pick it up in the middle of the 4th quarter and then it looks like we are publishing incorrect information. That same problem doesn't exist with a partial recap as the context would make it clear that it is merely incomplete, not incorrect. --B (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesky tesky shatzkabini putchi on the beatnica with knifis (to find out what this means, visit my userpage). BTW, an earthquake is more feasible than a power outage due to the many backup generators. Furthermore, I am sorry that some of you think that I am only good for a few laughs and that my ideas are not taken seriously. I would also like to point out that and earthquake was just an example, it was not supposed to imply that that would happen during the game. I will, however, admit that I am wrong in this case, as I did not know that they would resume from the point where the accident happened, for I was under the impression that they would "restart" the game. I still believe that we should not have this section on the article until the game is over, but I can see that I am beaten. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Last year's article was quiet until the game was played, other than some joker posting a Bears win. That does not mean that that's the only way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a 4-point game at the 2-minute warning, so the issue will soon be moot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

could someone put more details in the exciting moments like the hail mary in the end of the second and the importancce of THE PLAY on the superbowl and what place it has in history. youtube should have game clips by now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.37.241 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that on the Plaxico Burress touchdown to win the game, the defender he beat on the play was not Randall Gay, but was Ellis Hobbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.189.218 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fox sports robot (cletis) and the Terminator

Has anyone other than me noticed the battle going on between Cletis and the Terminator on the screens before the game resumes after commercial breaks?J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Winner

The Giants won 17-14, I'd add that but for one it's protected, and for two I have no idea how the article's organized. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 03:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Worst Vandalism Ever

I've seen the worse vandalism here ever. Some idiot keeps trying to make it hard for us to keep this page updated by messing up or deleting the page. Number two, The first time I did "it", you can look at it sometime later, it was my fault. But once the game was over, someone keeps taking off the winner. WHAT THE *!@# are people doing. Leave that stupid sentence up. I don't see anything wrong with the sentence! The New York Giants Wins Super Bowl XLII with the game winning touchdown only 35 seconds left in the game with 17-14 over the Patriots.

And some Mod is trying to get me banned sending me warning of vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playhacker (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Giants won was already mentioned in the first paragraph, there was no need to duplicate or keep duplicating the same information. —Neuropedia (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's been changed to that since then. But I added the information once the game was officially over, when I mean over, I mean when that FINAL 1 second elapsed. Some unhappy person stil sent me a warning and reverted the change. Where's the justice in that?Playhacker (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You think that's bad? You should have seen the image vandalism they tried to pull on the page. Definitely NSFW. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on Gwernol and Compwhizii's talk pages about the warnings. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw it, I was stupid. I couldn't undo the damage because the picture was so large. There was that other vandalism where there were so many tables filling up the whole page making 4MB page into a 20MB. It would of taken me like 25 seconds for the whole thing to load so I can get to the bottom to undo the change.

But still, I don't like the feeling that a mod didn't know what they were doing or saying.Playhacker (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You added this about ten minutes before the game finished. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The warning was valid, and I would ask that you avoid personal attacks here or elsewhere. Thanks, Gwernol 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gwernol, how could he have wrote about a fact that happened with 35 seconds left with 10 minutes left in the game...--74.138.83.10 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

35 seconds of game time takes longer in real time due to frequent clock stoppage in American football

I propose Full Protection, not Semi-Protection

The game is over for about 30 minutes. The page has to be fully protected to protect from a huge storm of vandalism. I know, it's upsetting game. But since I have no affiliation to either game, I best believe the page should be Fully Protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playhacker (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Na, just watchlist it, just like what I did. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

controversy

You know, you guys can have the page anyway you like. Why? Because no matter how you arrange this page; the outcome is still the same. You know I hate to tell you this, buuuut I told you so. BTW, I apologize... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Playhacker (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was rooting for the Giants, some admins and other users told me they'd lose. And I got into an edit conflict above. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lol. Good luck with that then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playhacker (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Channel listing?

Wth is with the listing of channels showing the Super Bowl in various countries? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV directory. Had I seen it before, I would have suggested it be removed from the article for not being notable. Now that the game is over, I feel even more strongly so, as it definitely serves no purpose. People years from now will not care what channel carried the game. -- RealGrouchy (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe to you it is not a big deal, but I think this is the first time the superbowl has been telecast to so many countries live. It is a mark of the growing popularity of the NFL abroad that so many channels carried this game, and years from now when people from other countries look at this article, they will be able to realize that the game was being shown on TV in their countries as far back as 2008. Zaindy87 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did this intially to prevent the single paragraph listing countries and channels with some awful grammar from increasing in size and unreadability. There is a similar list in Super Bowl XLI, so this idea is not without precedent. —Neuropedia (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The first guy is right. Yes it was broadcast in 223 countries but lets be honest, nobody outside North America was watching. More Brits watched the Giants inside Wembley Stadium against the Dolphins then tuned in to watch the superbowl on Sunday night That just about sums it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're having a laugh! I reckon at least a million people tuned in to watch it here in the UK as it was on two channels, they've been advertising about it for ages and was the main headline on sports news channels the day later. Wembley stadium isn't that big! Fahima07 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fahima, sorry but you're wrong. Maybe you see and hear what you want to see and hear. Super Bowl, in the middle of the night, created no ripples whatsoever. A million? You're avin a larf, mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.65.145 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in "game summary"

How is the section now? I don't think it is POV, but I wanted to ask here before I remove the tag. Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks sparse compared to more mature SB pages, but I see no POV problems. The repeating of some data in multiple sections could be cleaned up, but that happens on many pages. Great work all around.

CodeCarpenter (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref to Eels

Needs disambiguation: "Eels (band)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.200.143 (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am removing the reference to the Eels' band attempt to air a one-second commercial as an uncited advertisement, for the following reasons:
  • It is not verifiable. I have tried several times to open the first link and all I get is a blank page. The other links in the sentence are to Youtube videos that say nothing about an attempt to air the commercial.
  • It describes an event that did not happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that describes real events.
  • It is not pertinent to the SuperBowl topic of this article.
  • It is an advertisement for the band and their new CD, which violates Wikipedia policy about advertising. If the sentence were included in a new article about the band, it would be speedy-deleted. See WP:ADVERT.

If someone wishes to dispute this and restore the removed text, please provide verifiable sources and a justification of what this has to do with a football game. Truthanado (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Links

• It is verifiable; the first link a news story from NME, a verifiable news source. I have no idea why you cannot view it, but it is there, and it is open in another tab in my browser at this moment.
• By your reasoning, assassination attempts wouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia because the person wasn't killed. This did happen: Eels tried to run a commercial during the Super Bowl. What did not happen was that the commercial aired.
• It is pertinent to the advertisement policies of the Super Bowl, which is why it is in this section.
• By your reasoning, all references to all commercials would be deleted from Wikipedia. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Let me comment on each of the points above.

• Using Firefox, the link does not work; it just times out (so much for web pages following standards). I was able to find it using Internet Explorer. It is a page titled "Eels plan to gatecrash Super Bowl", not a very appropriate title for an attempt to buy commercial time. A portion of the text reads "The band hope to bag some air ...". That (especially the word "hope") is hardly a verifiable source that they actually tried to purchase airtime and were turned down, as the article stated. NME, by itself, may not be a verifiable source; perhaps if another source (NY Times, Fox News, CNN) said the same thing, it might be considered verifiable.
• If someone thought of assassinating another and didn't do anything about it, you are correct, that would not be mentioned in Wikipedia. Attempts that fail (like the attempts on President Gerald Ford are included ... something actually happened, even if it wasn't what was intended.
• Someone trying to air a commercial is not pertinent. This section talks about commercials that actually aired, in a concise encyclopedic way, without trying to include the video(s) that were not aired.
• Non sequitor ... no comment.

Truthanado (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay

• I'm using Firefox as well and it worked. That having been said, NME doesn't write in the Queen's English, but it's verifiable, especially considering the subject matter. Their use of the vernacular and slang has no bearing on that. I would like a more reputable source, but I don't have one.
• This is an attempt that failed; that's the point.
• It talks about commercials that aired only to the extent that you delete references to commercials that did not air; this is circular reasoning.
• Whatever. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Belichick

Did anybody see him just walked off the field at the end of 4th quarter? Heres a link to an article about it. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/nfl_experts/post/If-he-s-going-to-lose-Bill-Belichick-would-rath?urn=nfl,64971

68.198.203.250 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the blog in question seems more of a rant than news, the fact that the article does not mention Belichick leaving early at all. That is surprising, but the most famous playoff early exit that I could think of, the Detroit Pistons exiting the court early in the 1991 Eastern Finals, is also not mentioned, so perhaps most folks do not consider classlessness to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do. Especially in light of Spygate. So I added a sentence with three of the first references I could find at Google News. [I'm sure there are better ones.] Let's see how it holds up. Ribonucleic (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that has since been edited out, so I put it back in. I think it's definitely notable, and so does Eli Manning, who made a joke about Belichick's leaving early when Manning went on Letterman[2] SixFourThree (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Magnitude of Upset

While there are a lot of subjective ways to measure the upset factor, surely the Giants' win over the Patriots (12 point favorites) scores quite high on the list of all-time Super Bowl upsets. Do we have a list of that sort? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep hearing the game described as one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history, though the article says it's one of the biggest upsets in NFL history, which strikes me as a bit superlative and difficult to verify (it is sourced, but it's still the view of a journalist). Can we change it to "Super Bowl history"? -R. fiend (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The only objective measure I see is the point spread. On that basis, it's only 3 out of 42 for the Super Bowl and who knows how low on the list for the NFL as a whole. So I think "most memorable" would be preferable to "biggest". Ribonucleic (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to say how "memorable" something is the day after it happened. But you're right about the numbers; 3rd biggest upset out of 42 hardly speaking for its ranking out of however many thousands of NFL games that have ever been played. I'll change it to "In one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history..." as it's pretty easily verified and not conjecture. -R. fiend (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes an upset "big"? It is clearly not just the point spread, and given the adage, "Any given team on any given Sunday . . . ", it is clear that if on Week 2 of the regular season the Browns were 18 point underdogs to the Colts, but won anyway, that game would NOT be talked about over the years as one of the biggest upsets in NFL history, except perhaps in Cleveland.

No, the "bigness", if you will, of the upset, is predicated as much on the background story as it is the point spread. There have been games with bigger upsets in terms of the point spread than Super Bowl III, that never get talked about because they just weren't historically significant. This game's "bigness" comes from

1. The point spread
2. The fact that it was a Super Bowl
3. The fact that the losing team was the leading dynasty of this decade, and,
4. The fact that it was the first time ever that a team entered the Super Bowl with an 18-0 record, and they lost

People just discussing the point spread are actually missing the point.

The biggest argument against this claim is the lack of historical context. I think that the fact that this just happened yesterday makes it unwise for anyone to call this the biggest upset (either in NFL or just Super Bowl history). But I have no problem with calling this one of the greatest upsets in NFL history, for the reasons listed above. Respectfully, Unschool (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting case, but that doesn't come across in the article. As it's phrased, it makes it sound like this was one of the most unbelievably unexpected outcomes, when it was merely statistically improbable. A "bigger" upset, in at least one sense, would be if the undefeated Pats had lost to the unwinning Dolphins. So "biggest" in terms significance is perhaps appropriate, but "biggest" in terms of most unlikely is not. Maybe it should be called "one of the most significant upsets"? -R. fiend (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with this phrasing, but you know, it hardly matters, because this article is going to be very heavily edited for quite a while. And I concur with your point; if an 0-16 Dolphins team had met a 16-0 Pats team in Week 17, it would have been arguably bigger, using other criteria. The term is somewhat nebulous, but I think that, short of something uniquely historic, people will generally remember a championship upset above all others. (I remember how, in 1996, writers across the country heralded the Jacksonville Jaguars victory over the Super Bowl champions-in-waiting Denver Broncos "the second greatest upset in NFL history", but it has certainly faded from our collective memories now, hasn't it?.) Unschool (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Accomplishments

just to add to the accomplishments, i believe that the giants 9:59 drive, from the first play in the first quarter is the longest drive time wise in superbowl history, would someone mind verifying this? is it worth mentioning? that's true. they even said it on tv.

i have another fact about superbowl 42 and it had to do with superbowl 41 and that fact is this was the first time 2 brothers won diffrent superbowls one after another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.150.4 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The article requires an extensive copy-edit (contractions, flabby wording, etc.) and careful pruning for serious neutrality issues. The spin is pro-Giants, as Belichick is portrayed as a sore loser who abandoned his team when in reality BOTH TEAMS poured onto the field, not knowing there was one second left. There is no mention of the press' reaction to the postgame interviews and how both teams reacted to the game (probably because it would show that the Patriots actually took the loss well, thereby ruining the pro-Giants spin). To avoid this common and sometimes subconcious Wikipedia sports bias, an extensive research campaign is required to establish a neutral point of view. — Deckiller 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking just for my own edit, I simply added that Belichick's act was criticized as poor sportsmanship and supported it with three references in which people did just that. [One of which was from Jaguars.com - which would seem an odd source for "pro-Giants spin".] If you think that the press reaction disproves this where-would-anyone-get-the-idea-that-Belichick-is-a-poor-sportsman? slander, feel free to document it in the article. Though I suspect it would require you to research very extensively. :-) Ribonucleic (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo mouse-over text (alt text) is incorrect

Just an FYI to whomever has access, if you mouse-over the Super Bowl XLII logo, the alt text that pops up reads "Super Bowl XLI", instead of "Super Bowl XLII". Not a big deal, just thought I'd share it in case someone wants to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmorgan (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

This just happened and is far from stable. Give it a few weeks until things calm down and you can actually work on the article. There is a lot of work to be done still. KnightLago (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, note the section a few posts above with more detailed analysis of a few problems in this article. KnightLago (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the catch is called "the great escape" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClintakaCT (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Trademark

I heard that the Patriots applied to trademark "Nineteen and oh" and "Nineteen and oh, the perfect season" before the game was played. Has anyone else heard this, and if yes, would it be worth mentioning? --66.67.187.203 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard that. Can you give us a reference? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My brother told me about it, but a quick search with Yahoo news gave this --66.67.187.203 (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to the multitude of wrong sportswriters?

I'd love to see links to the articles talking about how the Pats would win hands-down. What a great game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.12.6.224 (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotations?

Did Tisch or Mara say the bit about "greatest win in the franchise". I am pretty sure it was Mara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.114.110 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely John K. Mara. Someone please edit it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.176.201 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Winning Touchdown

Article states that Plaxico Buress beat a slipping Randal Gay for the winning touchdown. I thought that Burress beat Ellis Hobbs cleanly on a deaked slant & fade route? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.3.146 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct and the change has been made. Thanks for your help. --Rajah (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo

The last sentence in the third paragraph needs a comma before "and" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.150.214 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

images

There are a bunch of images on Flickr, 300+ apparently, from the Giants Rally. The ones in this link should all have a license compatible with Wikipedia.--W.marsh 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I dont know anything about Football, so if this is nonsense I apologize, but I thought id post it and get a decent answer about it. http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=27384 Its a video of a guy that claims the clock should have been running for I dont know how many seconds during the last plays and basically the Giants made the winning touchdown and that key pass when the game should have been over —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldanito (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the guy is wrong. He says the clock should've been running when the refs were checking if the Giants got the first down, but it was stopped due to the refs taking so long to figure it out. As for the 6 seconds that were added back on, I don't think that was right, but it didn't matter because the Giants scored with 35 seconds left. He's just biased (he called Manning a "Buckwheat" during his commentary) and is bitter the Patriots lost. Useight (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wackadoodle conspiracy theorists aren't exactly known for reliability71.234.131.9 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean those who claim that this was really a fumble, this was an illegal forward pass, this was pass interference, and this was an illegal pass reception aren't reliable? ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, like I said I dont know much and I thought Id ask to make sure ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldanito (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast in Argentina

Perhaps someone could add Fox_Sports_en_Latinoamérica as argentinian Super Bowl XLII broadcast network.... --190.30.187.49 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast in Russia

NTV+ is not free-to-air. It is satellite station that requires a subscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.138.42 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Game summary

Shouldn't the game summary be before the section on which channels in every country carried the game? That section seems like much more trivial stuff that should be tacked on at the end. -R. fiend (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Clock run down at the end

I copy edited that part about the end of the game. If the game clock hadn't run down to zero and everybody charged the field the way they did, I doubt Belicheck would have run onto the field like that. I also removed a few blogs. --nyc171 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed all references to the clock running down. Rationale:

• While you and I may remember what happened, Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. If we want to get into these sorts of details on a subject that is controversial, then we need references.
• I saw it happen as well, but the sequence was actually the clock clearly stopping at one, then folks rushing the field as the clock briefly flickered to zero, and then quickly back to one. The clock was not at zero when anyone who left the field before the last play left.
• The way the section was written implies that Belichick and others left the field while the clock read zero. This is simply not the case. (i.e. in addition to being unverifiable, it is untrue.)

In short, if you want to include these details, then find a reputable source, and then we can reorganize the section to be more clear. Otherwise, just leave it out. It is not particularly notable or significant in my opinion. - Atarr (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will work on added sources. Since it isn't that notable, I have reverted it. The entire summary is lacking sources for that matter. I agree that Belichick left the field with time remaining but it is probably best explained why everybody rushed the field. The clock did reach zero and people thought the game was over. The league or whoever reset the clock back to 1 second was correct. It should have never run down. Also is there mention of why the clock stopped at 8:24 after a clear first down in bounds? The clock then "skipped" to under 7 minutes and the play clock was reset, that was really weird. --nyc171 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the game summary can be looked up in the referenced gamebook. By and large, only small uncontroversial details cannot.

We don't just put in unsourced stuff because "it isn't that notable". That's an argument to leave the material out.

I'll edit the section again, making it less misleading but including the bit about the play clock flicker. I'll add a citation needed tag to what I see as needing one.

I know nothing about the other clock stoppage, but it's even less notable. - Atarr (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation about the play clock reaching zero. This is notable since alot has been made of the Pats coaches behavior. --nyc171 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable, just as it is notable that Belichick eventually left the field with a play yet to run. There are adequate citations for both. SixFourThree (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Man Planned Super Bowl Attack

This is a bit interesting. Should this be added? [3] Rvk41 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Junior Seau

The article mentions XLII is Junior Seau's first try for a SuperBowl ring, which is incorrect. Junior also played in SuperBowl XXIX.

"Junior Seau, a 12-time Pro Bowler, returned for his 18th season and a chance at his first Super Bowl ring,..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjensen1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he was in Super Bowl XXIX but San Diego didn't win it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sports books lost $2.6 million on Super Bowl bets

I think this is relevant and should be added to the article in some capacity. I just don't know where to add it. Anybody have any ideas/opinions on inclusion? Here's a source about the fact itself: [4]. Greggreggreg (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)