So, anyone watch the Superbowl?
- Thread starter mhendo
- Start date
Ah. Just spotted that Editor's chart goes back to 1888. Would perhaps be illuminative to see a similar chart for, ooh, the last 10 odd years...
editor
hiraethified
Read the link I posted.
Yep, but that link doesn't really deal with the issue that the 'underdog' will vary from year to year far more in (US) football than soccer.
And should it be any surprise that, in a game far easier to measure in statistical terms and with a scoring system that rewards 'progress' (well by field goal position rather than comparatively rare goals) , that the teams with better records tend to defeat those worse statistically over the course of the season.
Football's a more unpredictable game in essence - the nature of the game is that a single goal, often against the run of play, can massively influence the result. However the draft and salary cap systems help to ensure that the teams are far better balanced and competitive than in soccer - there's far more mobility and less chance of being trapped as an 'underdog' team for year after year after year.
And should it be any surprise that, in a game far easier to measure in statistical terms and with a scoring system that rewards 'progress' (well by field goal position rather than comparatively rare goals) , that the teams with better records tend to defeat those worse statistically over the course of the season.
Football's a more unpredictable game in essence - the nature of the game is that a single goal, often against the run of play, can massively influence the result. However the draft and salary cap systems help to ensure that the teams are far better balanced and competitive than in soccer - there's far more mobility and less chance of being trapped as an 'underdog' team for year after year after year.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The Premiership isn't representative of football, and nor are the top leagues in any European country where Champions League money distorts competition - try any other level in the FA pyramid from the Championship to County level.
Ah yes. I hadn't thought of that
The chart is for all levels of FA football rather than just the Prem.A very good point
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Fwiw, I edited my comment to emphasise Chamions League money. Very good of you to agree 
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Getting back to the accusations of commercialism for a moment...I found the Superbowl refreshingly free of:
1. LCD advertising hoardings that change every ten seconds
2. Shirts free from sponsor filth like Vodafone
3. Coaches not sitting in car seats adorned with an Audi logo.
And...it's not called the Coca-Cola Superbowl nor the Superbowl sponsored by Eon.
And the NFL is the NFL not the Barclays NFL.
The MVP is the MVP not the Gillette Fusion Man of the Match or whatever.
Sure its commercial as hell but not in a corporate cock sucker way like soccer.
1. LCD advertising hoardings that change every ten seconds
2. Shirts free from sponsor filth like Vodafone
3. Coaches not sitting in car seats adorned with an Audi logo.
And...it's not called the Coca-Cola Superbowl nor the Superbowl sponsored by Eon.
And the NFL is the NFL not the Barclays NFL.
The MVP is the MVP not the Gillette Fusion Man of the Match or whatever.
Sure its commercial as hell but not in a corporate cock sucker way like soccer.
Yeah also an american friend has complained about football/soccer that one thing he really dislikes are the huge brand / sponsor logos on each shirt (or "suit" as he referred to it )
)
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I also hate the wall of logo's behind every Premiership interviewee.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
You ain't heard nothing yet!
A couple of seasons ago at Bramall Lane, this is what we all had to hear at the end of every match:
"And the referee has signalled there will be a minimum of 3 minutes added time, sponsored by East Midlands Airport"
WTF?!
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
injury time sponsor - that is madness!
editor
hiraethified
LOL. The whole Superbowl Experience is based around how many advertising and sponsorship opportunities they can squeeze into the thing! You can't compare the TV coverage in the two countries.
I fucking hate all the Premiership branding bullshit, but come on: most football games are about 45 mins of shouting at your team, 15 minutes for a beer/tea and then another 45 mins and home. Compare that to the 3 hours of American football with a 'halftime show' of over 35 minutes and then a ton of commercial breaks foisted at TV viewers and the punters in the stadium.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Im glad i watched it on bbc, no ads at all.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
We have shirt sponsors, back of shirt sponsors (different to front of the shirt), match sponsor, match ball sponsor, official beer sponsors, tune of the week (kindly sponsored by HMV - top dog for music), the names of our stands change every season to correspond with the current stand sponsors (I'm actually quite suspicious we built two new corner stands just so we could have two extra stand sponsors!) to the extent that none of the fans actually have any idea of which stand is which whgen they hear it on the loud speaker!
Now I do think that American sports are very commercial, but if anyone thinks our sports are so much superior in that respect they are sorely mistaken! In fact, as others have pointed out, there aren't many "sponsored by" tags in American sports. The difference seems to be that American sports tend to contain numerous gaps in the play that get crammed with adverts. In the UK, the commercial side of the game is more subtle and better hidden, but it is there just as much as in America
Anyway, I do believe this thread was to discuss last night's action. I appreciate some people prefer football (myself included) but ffs, what's the point of coming onto a thread just to say you don't like that sport, no matter what the reason is? Everyone rips into those people that do the same on footy or rugby etc threads, so if you don't like American football, why even bother posting here at all?!
Now I do think that American sports are very commercial, but if anyone thinks our sports are so much superior in that respect they are sorely mistaken! In fact, as others have pointed out, there aren't many "sponsored by" tags in American sports. The difference seems to be that American sports tend to contain numerous gaps in the play that get crammed with adverts. In the UK, the commercial side of the game is more subtle and better hidden, but it is there just as much as in America
Anyway, I do believe this thread was to discuss last night's action. I appreciate some people prefer football (myself included) but ffs, what's the point of coming onto a thread just to say you don't like that sport, no matter what the reason is? Everyone rips into those people that do the same on footy or rugby etc threads, so if you don't like American football, why even bother posting here at all?!
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
You don't seem to be comparing like with like.
We're talking about the tv-sports experience.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Don't watch it then!!!!!!!!!!!
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
mate. hate to break it to you, but I think that's just you lot. We've got a shirt sponsor and the Doctor marten's stand but, AFAIK, that's about it.
I remember reading the programme in the early 80s and local businesses sponsored ray stewart or geoff pike. Or it could be a couple, "reg and marlene trott - proud sponsors of trevor brooking's boots."
I always thought that was quite sweet.
That's a bit of a misrepresentation - a document aimed at encouraging South Florida businesses to capitalise on the Super bowl nearby is not indication that the 'whole superbowl experience' is all about sponsoship and advertising opportunities. No more than the Olympics is all about regenerating Stratford in conjunction with London 2012's chosen synergistic commercial partners, or whatever similar guff the ODA is coming out with at the moment.
As for the hours of football coverage, it's a different type of sport. One to watch with plenty of beers and a giant buffet; far more of a family and social occasion for big groups than the confrontation/tribal nature of soccer.
Yep, the advertising is grandiose - with some of the best creative work being saved up with the year's big event, the breaks almost become events in themselves. But, it's arguably more possible to watch an American football game and ignore the commercialism than a soccer game - the teams all wear classic, largely unchanging and unbranded strips, there are no horrible rotating sponsor's signs and competition names.
Compare that to soccer and its sponsor's dream nylon shirts, changing every year to milk every last penny out of fans, festooned with large logos and played in front of blinking, flashing sponsors signage.
alsoknownas
some bloke
Fanatastic game, hugely enjoyable, gripping stuff. Giants have been playing with belief and determination throughout the play-offs and they refused to be intimidated by the 'perfect' Pats. I didn't think they'd do it, but fair play to them indeed 
. (Bit gutted for Junior Seau though 
)
As for the 'is gridiron any good' debate - well I love it, but in a very different way to how I love footy or rugby. I agree that it is very razzmatazz, but I enjoy that aspect of it. I would hate it in gritty British sports, and like a previous poster said it's crap when Americanisms creep into football (like rock music after a goal, etc.). But america is all about the razzmatazz, the overblown sense of excitement - Disneyland, Hollywood, etc. Gridiron is an extention of that for me. I find it exciting, even though it's occasionally very silly.
If all of that appals you (and I would honestly understand why) then perhaps American Football isn't for you. But I think people very often miss the point by trying to compare it with (soccer) or rugby because it has a very different cultural centre.
. (Bit gutted for Junior Seau though )As for the 'is gridiron any good' debate - well I love it, but in a very different way to how I love footy or rugby. I agree that it is very razzmatazz, but I enjoy that aspect of it. I would hate it in gritty British sports, and like a previous poster said it's crap when Americanisms creep into football (like rock music after a goal, etc.). But america is all about the razzmatazz, the overblown sense of excitement - Disneyland, Hollywood, etc. Gridiron is an extention of that for me. I find it exciting, even though it's occasionally very silly.
If all of that appals you (and I would honestly understand why) then perhaps American Football isn't for you. But I think people very often miss the point by trying to compare it with (soccer) or rugby because it has a very different cultural centre.
How much of that effects the game itself though? Imagine a football match being divided into quarters to allow more time for advertising? An advertisement every time the ball goes out for a goalkick? A 30 minute rock concert during the middle of the FA cup final? (This probably would have made last year's more entertaining)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well I'm not sure that you have that the right way round. Do American sports get played in quarters and have lots of breaks that get filled with adverts, or are they played like that because they want the adverts there?
I'm no expert on the history and development of American sports so maybe someone who is could shed some light? Has American football always been played in quarters or was this done to fit in more adverts?
Also, I see plenty of crap half time entertainment at football matches. There seems to be an increase in appearances of Pop Idol rejects singing songs at half time and when we played Man City years ago at Maine Road, we were treated to Cleopatra ("Comin' at Ya") singing some Michael Jackson song so be careful before you criticise!!!
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Oh dear. If i could be bothered I'd Google and find something very similar being offered to companies for Citeh playing at home to Reading.
NFL is no different to the Premiership in terms of hosapitlaity/corporate sponsorship packages.
stupid kid
...
I was pleased with the BBCs coverage last night. No ad breaks, plus Carlson and Woodson are both great analysts. I thought it'd be shit tbh. As for the game itself, I've watched hundreds of NFL games, plus collegiate level, and that was one of the best I've yet seen.
Unfortunately for me as an ardent NFL I now have to endure the longest offseason in professional sports. Ho hum.
Unfortunately for me as an ardent NFL I now have to endure the longest offseason in professional sports. Ho hum.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
I like those flashbacks to classic matches, though its better the way bbc do it. Just cause you know, its the bbc!
The commentators spoil it for me with their constant reference to "Superbowl history", bloody Yanks & their soddin' history !!
The superbowl in 1991 was the best one. It was the NY Giants vs. Buffalo Bills and the Giants won cause Buffalo missed a field goal in the final 2 seconds of the game. What an ending!
Great shit man....but i'll be the first to admit the the Superbowl is usually not worth watching. You may have one or two decent games every decade
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
The superbowl in 1991 was the best one. It was the NY Giants vs. Buffalo Bills and the Giants won cause Buffalo missed a field goal in the final 2 seconds of the game. What an ending!
Great shit man....but i'll be the first to admit the the Superbowl is usually not worth watching. You may have one or two decent games every decade
Yeah that was a good one. So wanted the Bills to win that one. In US sport I tend to be an ABNY (Anyone But New York).
mhendo
Aussie in San Francisco
Part 1
When i started this thread last night, most of the UK was asleep, and i've been at work today so i've had no chance to return before now. A few observations:
The game of American football itself has really developed as a television game. While it's been around longer than TV, it's really only reached the height of its popularity in the television age, and it's a game that is, in many ways, just as rewarding to watch on TV as at the ground. You can't say that about English football, which is (IMO) much better to see live than on TV.
The rhythm and flow (such as it is) of NFL is also perfectly geared for commercial television. The game is split into quarters, so there are three breaks in play right there. Each team gets three timeouts per half, adding another possible 12 (!!!) breaks in play per game. Then, at the end of each half there is the 2-minute warning, an absolutely ridiculous and indefensible aspect of the game that serves no purpose except to allow more commercial breaks. Then, every time a touchdown is scored, there's a break after the kick, then another break after the kickoff. In three plus hours, there's probably abut 10-12 minutes of actual action, sometimes less.
I get very frustrated with the slowness of the game, but after a while you learn to live with it. As for the commercialism: hell, it's America. The commercialism is part of what makes it attractive to some people. Also, as others have pointed out, English football is also pretty commercial, just in different ways. Brits laugh at all the TV ads and other stuff in America sport; Americans laugh at the fact that British football players have corporate logos on their jerseys.
The reasons that American and British sports developed in the ways they did is quite well traced in the book National Pastime: How Americans Play Baseball and the Rest of the World Plays Soccer, by Stefan Szymanski and Andrew Zimbalist. The differences are cultural, but are also related to the particular economic models used by the founders of the sports. Revenue sharing and television contracts have also developed differently in each country.
One thing that makes American football different is that they've made a determined effort at what they call "parity" by also adding on a fairly strictly-enforced salary cap, limiting the amount of money each team can spend on its players. Unlike baseball, where wealthy teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can dramatically outspend teams like the Marlins or the Royals, it's harder for a football team to simply go out and buy a whole bunch of awesome players.
If you spend $20 million a year on a star quarterback, you'll probably have to fid some place in your team for some lower-paid journeyman players. And if you get a bunch of good young players who turn into stars, you won't be able to keep them all without going over the salary cap.
Having said that, it is still possible to put together a dominant team. This was New England's fourth Superbowl appearance in the last seven years, and they won the three other ones. I've been in the US for eight Superbowls, and 12 different teams have appeared in the big game. The only teams to appear more than once have been this year's teams; the Patriots appeared four times in total, and the Giants appeared twice.
When i started this thread last night, most of the UK was asleep, and i've been at work today so i've had no chance to return before now. A few observations:
Well, there's no doubt that the Superbowl is probably the most relentlessly and absolutely commercialized event in America. That is both a product of, and an explanation for, that fact that it gets such a massive viewing audience in the United States. The baseball World Series and the basketball finals just can't compare, partly because the Superbowl is a single event, not a seven-game series, and partly because the audience for football (on a per-game basis) is just so goddamn huge in this country.
The game of American football itself has really developed as a television game. While it's been around longer than TV, it's really only reached the height of its popularity in the television age, and it's a game that is, in many ways, just as rewarding to watch on TV as at the ground. You can't say that about English football, which is (IMO) much better to see live than on TV.
The rhythm and flow (such as it is) of NFL is also perfectly geared for commercial television. The game is split into quarters, so there are three breaks in play right there. Each team gets three timeouts per half, adding another possible 12 (!!!) breaks in play per game. Then, at the end of each half there is the 2-minute warning, an absolutely ridiculous and indefensible aspect of the game that serves no purpose except to allow more commercial breaks. Then, every time a touchdown is scored, there's a break after the kick, then another break after the kickoff. In three plus hours, there's probably abut 10-12 minutes of actual action, sometimes less.
I get very frustrated with the slowness of the game, but after a while you learn to live with it. As for the commercialism: hell, it's America. The commercialism is part of what makes it attractive to some people. Also, as others have pointed out, English football is also pretty commercial, just in different ways. Brits laugh at all the TV ads and other stuff in America sport; Americans laugh at the fact that British football players have corporate logos on their jerseys.
The reasons that American and British sports developed in the ways they did is quite well traced in the book National Pastime: How Americans Play Baseball and the Rest of the World Plays Soccer, by Stefan Szymanski and Andrew Zimbalist. The differences are cultural, but are also related to the particular economic models used by the founders of the sports. Revenue sharing and television contracts have also developed differently in each country.
That's correct. It works the same in baseball and basketball and ice hockey, with the worst teams getting first pick of all the new talent.
One thing that makes American football different is that they've made a determined effort at what they call "parity" by also adding on a fairly strictly-enforced salary cap, limiting the amount of money each team can spend on its players. Unlike baseball, where wealthy teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can dramatically outspend teams like the Marlins or the Royals, it's harder for a football team to simply go out and buy a whole bunch of awesome players.
If you spend $20 million a year on a star quarterback, you'll probably have to fid some place in your team for some lower-paid journeyman players. And if you get a bunch of good young players who turn into stars, you won't be able to keep them all without going over the salary cap.
Having said that, it is still possible to put together a dominant team. This was New England's fourth Superbowl appearance in the last seven years, and they won the three other ones. I've been in the US for eight Superbowls, and 12 different teams have appeared in the big game. The only teams to appear more than once have been this year's teams; the Patriots appeared four times in total, and the Giants appeared twice.
Similar threads
