So, anyone watch the Superbowl?
- Thread starter mhendo
- Start date
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I was surprised about how a game with four 15 minute quarters lasted about four hours.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Of course you're right, like any American sporting event (or political event as I'm sure we'll see tomorrow!), it's highly commercial. But if that's something that puts you off then this year it was on BBC for the first time, which I thought was excellent as previously, when they stop for all these time outs etc, the UK TV company will most likely try and cash in and go to commercials too (including the actual corporate sponsors). There was none of that on the BBC, just analysis after each play.
As for the game itself...
I've watched a few American Football matches now and just about got my head round it. I seem to be cursed as I've never seen a high scoring game but last night's match was fairly entertaining - especially the way it was won by the underdogs right at the end. I wanted the Patriots to win because I wanted them to break the record, but fair play to the Giants they were the better team. I'd actually been to see the Giants on their way to the Super Bowl at Wembley when they played the Dolphins which now seems a bit more significant! I'm gonna try and go again this year as my team, the New Orleans Saints, are playing (they're my favourite team solely for the reason that I like Cajun food!
)But at least when you get to it, there's still 90 minutes of the pure, eye watering, beautiful game and a brief interruption in the middle which is the right amount of time to get more lager in and have a smoke outside
I wouldn't mind that if the game itself wasn't so difficult to watch.
That's not commercialism though is it? It's just outlandish spectacleAs others have said, by many objective measures, british soccer is far more commercialised than american football.
One thing I will say for American football is that the equality of it is quite commendable compared with the tedious domination of the premiership by the Big Snore. The superbowl appears to be contested by two completely random teams every year. There's something to be said for that.
Silva
This went well.
I've found the game more emotional than well played or exciting. Too much punting for my tastes and lacking on forced turn-overs and "big plays" - only that where Eli scrambled like crazy and made a 30-something pass that set them up for the winning touchdown was remotely memorable.
As for the non-sport stuff - bollocks to them.
As for the non-sport stuff - bollocks to them.
Dr. Furface
One small step for me
I watched it till half time - well, sort of, I had it on but wasn't watching it that closely, as I have no feelings for either team, and couldn't care less who won/lost (I shoulda put a bet on it, as that would have made me more interested). I simply couldn't have watched it to the end as I had to get to bed, and that's the worst thing about American football (more than any other sport) because it usually all comes down to what happens in the last quarter - or even the last 2 mins - so if you can't see it through it's not worth starting with. Actually I think they could cut the game time in half and it wouldn't make much difference, except that, as others have said, it's so geared to corporate America that there wouldn't be anything like as much money made out of it if it didn't last so long.
That last quarter thing is the same in basketball isn't it. Yanks always moan that football is low scoring, yet basketball always appears to consist of a score at one end, then the other, then the other, then the other, and so on, til it's like 310-308, and the last score decides it anyway.
Think this is down to the fact that the shittest team each year gets first pick in the draft the following season, which they can take, or trade if they like.
This of course is what someone in the pub told me so could be utterly horseshit, but if it is true then its an awesome idea and something that would go down a treat in the premiership.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
It seems to me like rugby without the open play or the physicality. Shit in other words
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
^(gabi) No its true. But i dont think it should be in english football.
Anyhow yeah i watched it, amazing finish to the game, but the game through out was pretty entertaining despite the low scoring until the end. Good tactical game.
Anyhow yeah i watched it, amazing finish to the game, but the game through out was pretty entertaining despite the low scoring until the end. Good tactical game.
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Not really any more commercial than Nike vs Adidas in the World Cup or the Champions League or anything else in the higher echelons of that non contact sport called soccer these days.
I'd have liked to have seen the Pats go 19 and 0 but nonetheless it was a great game. I got home from work when it was 7-3 Pats and particularly liked the long period of attrittion when the defences were on top and there was no scoring - you just knew the shit had to hit the fan all of a sudden and it did!
Also the half-time show was superb. Tom Petty = legend.
not me, i was tellin' everyone for the past 2 wks that the NY Giants would win. The Patriots have been there before and already won a few times so they have less motivation to win. In addition, its only one game so anything can happen
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Basketball is just shit though - was invented in 1906 (i think) at the U of Kansas as a way to keep college football players fit in the off-season. Non-contact sports are rubbish.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Yeah basketball sucks i agree. Too much scoring there, its like theyve gone from one extreme to the other.
Baseketball is not a "non-contact" sport...you're thinking of Tennis and Golf
Found this... very cool concept...
Would love to see something similar in the prem. The likes of wigan having a shot at signing someone like rooney would be well cool.
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Fuck em all...i prefer hockey...and the Red Wings!
editor
hiraethified
Football is overall still far less predictable than all the major US sports:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512143v1.pdf (PDF file)
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
I can see them logic in it for sure, but i just can't help but see it as failure being rewarded. Which i aint a fan of.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
And thats why english football is so great. Its not over complicated with loads and loads of stats.
which is why your football (soccer) has not caught on here, there is no time to get all the bleedin' commercials in so none of the networks can make $$$ off of it
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
And that's why those Opta Stats make crap players appear better than who we all know are the real better players!
Yeah - I don't really understand the ins and outs of it - but it seems like a good system. I certainly think it's most ironic that it's one of the best examples of socialism in practice, in one of the world's least socialist countries...
Did you know that baseball was deliberately partly backed by the British in the US to prevent cricket becoming popular? Up til the late 1800s (I think) cricket was widely played all over the US. The british empire greatly feared that the US would be the ever-dominant cricket force, so they backed baseball, which was originally called townball.
It's not at all inconceivable to imagine that, in the instance that cricket had gone on to be one of the US's national sports, they would have a dominance over it that would make australia's look like nothing...
Football is overall still far less predictable than all the major US sports:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512143v1.pdf (PDF file)
Cheers for that - but why then is the superbowl won by so many different teams, compared with the Premiership's (and FA Cup's) domination by a few. Just one FA cup from a team outside the big 4 since 1992, and one prem title.
It is an interesting contradiction.
Similar threads
