Talk:Super Bowl/Archive 1

The selection criteria

Can anyone post the actual criteria that each stadium must meet to even be considered as Super Bowl venue?

Trivia

• Despite winning just five Super Bowls, the Dallas Cowboys actually have seven Super Bowl MVPs all-time so far; one MVP from a Super Bowl loss and one victory which featured two co-MVPs. Because of this, the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts have only one MVP despite winning both Super Bowl V and Super Bowl XLI.
• In 6 of the last 7 Super Bowls, the team that won the coin toss went on to lose the game.
• The Raiders (Oakland & Los Angeles) and Colts (Baltimore & Indianapolis) are the only teams to win Super Bowls for 2 cities.
• Currently, thirteen defending Super Bowl champions have failed to make the playoffs: The 1968 Packers, 1970 Chiefs, 1980 and 2006 Steelers, 1981 Raiders, 1982 49ers, 1987 and 1991 Giants, 1988 Redskins, 1999 Broncos, 2002 Patriots, and 2003 Buccaneers.
• No team has won three straight Super Bowls. The following teams are the only ones to win two back-to-back: Green Bay (I, II), Miami (VII, VIII), Pittsburgh twice (IX, X) and (XIII, XIV), San Francisco (XXIII, XXIV), Dallas (XXVII, XXVIII), Denver (XXXII, XXXIII), and New England (XXXVIII, XXXIX). Of these teams, none have played in the Super Bowl the following year to even attempt the three-peat.
• The best short term Super Bowl run has been 4 out of 6 years, by Pittsburgh (1975-80> IX, X, XIII and XIV). Dallas (1993-96> XXVII, XXVIII and XXX), and New England (2002-05> XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX) have won 3 out of 4.
• Finishing second: The Buffalo Bills played in 4 straight Super Bowls (XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII), losing them all. The Minnesota Vikings also lost 4 times, but not consecutively (IV, VIII, IX, XI).

*Teams scoring first are currently 26-15 (.634); 14-7 with a touchdown, 11-8 with a field goal and 1-0 with a safety. *Teams scoring the game's first touchdown are currently 30-11 (.732); teams scoring the game's first field goal, 21-18 (.538). *Teams scoring at least 30 points are currently 21-1 (.955) {17-0 since the 1979 season}; teams scoring under 20 points are currently 4-31 (.114) {0-22 since the 1975 season}. More specifically, teams scoring at least 32 points are undefeated (18-0) and teams scoring under 14 points are winless (0-17). *Field goals have been attempted in every Super Bowl to date, and converted in all but two: VII and IX. In VII Miami and Washington were each 0 for 1, likewise with Pittsburgh and Minnesota in IX (not counting an additional Pittsburgh attempt aborted by a fumbled snap).

• To date, there have been at least two touchdowns scored in every Super Bowl.
• Only two post-merger expansion teams have failed to win a conference title: the Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars. The 1999 expansion Cleveland Browns are a continuation of the original franchise.
• Only three Super Bowls have not seen a double digit margin at any point in the game: V, XXIII and XXV. The largest margin incurred in any of those games was 9 points in XXV. Teams trailing by 10 points or more at any point are 1-37 (Washington in XXII being the only team thus far to recover).

Previous

*There has never been a Super Bowl between two wild card teams.

• The famous "I'm Going to Disney World!" Advertising campaign did not take place at Super Bowl XXXIX for the first time since it started at Super Bowl XXI, although Disney did run an ad several times during the game showing several players from both teams practicing the catch-phrase. The campaign has been restarted for Super Bowl XLI.
• The only team to win back-to-back Super Bowls under different head coaches are the San Francisco 49ers. They won Super Bowl XXIII under legendary coach Bill Walsh and the next year returned to victory under George Seifert.
• No Super Bowl game has ever gone into overtime play. The closest instances to overtime play were in Super Bowl V, Super Bowl XXXIV, Super Bowl XXXVI, and Super Bowl XXXVIII. yup...
• No Super Bowl has ever ended in a shutout. Super Bowl VII with Miami Dolphins kicker Garo Yepremian's failed field goal attempt is perhaps the most dramatic example of a near shutout. The lowest number of points scored in a Super Bowl is 3, put up by those same Dolphins in the previous year's Super Bowl, Super Bowl VI.
• Despite winning just five Super Bowls, the Dallas Cowboys actually have seven Super Bowl MVPs all-time so far; one MVP from a Super Bowl loss and one victory which featured two co-MVPs. Because of this, the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts have only one MVP despite winning both Super Bowl V and Super Bowl XLI.
• The original Super Bowl XXXVI logo was re-designed following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
• In 6 of the last 7 Super Bowls, the team that won the coin toss went on to lose the game.
• No team has ever played at a Super Bowl in their home stadium. (Though Super Bowl XIX was played at Stanford Stadium which is a short distance from the 49ers' home stadium, Candlestick Park
• Only 4 stadiums have hosted a Super Bowl, and a World Series: Dolphin Stadium in Miami Gardens, FL; The Los Angeles Coliesum in Los Angeles, CA; Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, CA; and The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, MN. Of those only Qualcomm Stadium hosted both in the same year (1998).
• Currently, twelve defending Super Bowl champions have failed to make the playoffs:the 1968 Packers, 1970 Chiefs, 1980 Steelers, 1981 Raiders, 1982 49ers, 1987 Giants, 1988 Redskins, 1991 Giants, 1999 Broncos, 2002 Patriots, 2003 Buccaneers and 2006 Steelers.
• The Denver Broncos are the only franchise to have played in a Super Bowl televised by each network (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX).

Moved Trivia. Perhaps it would be best to keep this artile under general terms without having any trivia; particularly any trivia mentioning specific games. KyuuA4 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I dunno you guys

Do you really think this is notable? Seems like a pretty pointless article to me that only matters to a cult few. Best put it up for VFD.

What exactly are you talking about? KyuuA4 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This super bowl thing is just a ripoff of Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl but with the puppies replaced with burly running guys. It should just redirect to Puppy Bowl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.49.11 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Obviously the preceeding comments were made by either non-Americans or people who know nothing about sports. Half of all people in the US that have a TV set watch the event. That's more than "a cult few"

I think you'd have a hard time proving it's notable though. I'm not convinced.

Let me get this straight. You are questioning the importance of the Super Bowl? I suppose, to the uninterested, it really should not be. However, this recent Super Bowl drew in 93 million viewers; and over 2 million dollars are spent on a single 30 second commercial. In other words, big numbers are dealt around this game. KyuuA4 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying it's notably bad? I agree, but that's hardly represented in the article. Some editing should be made, perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Number One: I think they're kidding. Anyone with the brain activity of a stapler knows about the Superbowl. Number Two: If he isn't kidding, he isn't well enough informed and we should ignore any further comments. The Superbowl is, without question, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sports events in existance. So there. RAmen, Demosthenes 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good irony from the original poster here. The Super bowl is the largest sporting event in a non-soccer world cup year. MLA 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda dumb though, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Ah, foolish anti-americans. Always funny to hear the crap that they come up with. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad agency astroturfing?

The advertising agency Pavone keeps adding a listing for "Super Bowl Commercial Polls" to promote its SPOTBOWL.com website. It has re-appeared a few times after being deleted. Their Wikipedia page (for SPOTBOWL) has been deleted before as well, and the user who created it has been reprimanded. Please be advised.

RegulatorOSX 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Jinx Trivia

From Super Bowl XXXV through Super Bowl XXXIX, five consecutive runners-up went on to post losing records the following year. This trend finally ended after Super Bowl XL, when the Seattle Seahawks repeated as division champions and posted a winning record after losing to the Pittsburgh Steelers. The most recent jinx followed the Philadelphia Eagles, who lost Super Bowl XXXIX to the New England Patriots in the 2004 season (played on February 6, 2005), who posted a 6-10 record in the 2005 season. The most glaring example is the Oakland Raiders. Following their 48-21 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2003, the Raiders posted a 4-12 record in the 2003 NFL season (the worst post-Super Bowl record), a 5-11 record in the 2004 NFL season, another 4-12 record in the 2005 NFL season, and a 2-14 record in the 2006 NFL season, with the Raiders still failing to recover.

There are notable exceptions to this pattern, such as the Buffalo Bills who went to the Super Bowl and lost four years in a row, from XXV to XXVIII. Another was the Tennessee Titans. Following their close loss to the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV, the Titans were able to retain the same 13-3 record they had the year before, but they lost in the playoffs to eventual Super Bowl XXXV winner Baltimore Ravens. Also, the Denver Broncos lost Super Bowl XXI to the New York Giants and repeated another loss in Super Bowl XXII to the Washington Redskins.

There have also been teams who, after winning the Super Bowl, have gone on to a losing or dissapointing record the next season. The most recent example is the Pittsburgh Steelers, who won Super Bowl XL against the Seattle Seahawks, but then went on to see starting quarterback Ben Roethlisberger suffer multiple life-threatening off-the-field injuries during the offseason, and eventually lost their division and missed the playoffs. Meanwhile the Seattle Seahawks continued the following season as playoff winners, before losing to the top seeded Chicago Bears in overtime during a hotly contested divisional playoff round 27-24. Other examples include the New England Patriots, who failed to make the post-season following their first championship, in the 2002 season, but have been division champions in every year since. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who beat the Raiders, somewhat joined them in mediocrity. Though they did make a post-season appearance in the 2005 season (where they went "one-and-done"), they have had losing seasons in all their other years.

Text moved here for sorting. Too much triva information in Super Bowl Jinx section. KyuuA4 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not only that, it's almost completely "original research". The probability of repeating in any sport is not all that high, but it's especially difficult in football because there are so many variables. To call it a "jinx" is nothing more than ESPN-style hype. Wahkeenah 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Table of Coin Toss Results

Um... why is that relevant? KyuuA4 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe if someone wants to try to infer a correlation between winning the coin toss and winning (or losing) the game. Wahkeenah 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • That table of coin toss results is looking rather trivial - especially when an entire column indicates that every team winning the coin toss elected to receive first. Maybe a paragraph or two on the coin toss would be enough. However, if a correlation would be made, that'll be a bit more interesting. Yet, that can be summarized in text as well. KyuuA4 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the winner of the coin toss usually defer? LightningOffense 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Typically the winner will choose to receive, hoping they can get the jump on the other team by scoring first. I think they can either decide whether to kick off or not, or which goal to defend first. Taking the second option is rare, but could be important on a windy day. If the winner of the toss chooses which goal to defend, then the loser of the toss chooses whether to kick off or receive, and of course they would likely receive. The situation is reversed at halftime, i.e. the team that kicked off may then choose whether to kick off or receive at the start of the third quarter. That whole process is pretty much automatic. It may be hard-coded in the rules by now. I know in the old days, on rare occasions, there would be an end-zone switch at the start of the third quarter. That's very rare now, if ever. Typically a team will defend the same goal in the first and fourth quarters, and the opposite goal in the second and third quarters. Let me know if this is not clear. :) Wahkeenah 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's a site that describes the rule. It's as I thought. [1] I saw something somewhere else about defering because receiving at second half supposedly has more "value". That's equating it to batting last in baseball instead of first. It's a nice theory, but in the pros, if you win the toss, you elect to receive. It's a given. The only reason not to is if you want to defend a particular goal due to high winds or some such. Rarely does that happen nowadays. I don't recall the last time I saw it. Maybe in the 1960s. It might be more common in colleges, where the offense is assumed to be less potent than in the NFL. Wahkeenah 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• This could be wrong, but I thought that the team that wins the coin toss chooses what they want to do first in the first half. After halftime, the captions come out and then the other team gets their choice. So if the team that wins the toss says they want to kick off, then during the second half the team that lost the coin toss can make that team kick off again. By defer, teams are saying that the other team can decide in the first half and then they will decide in the second half. LightningOffense 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You said the same thing I was trying to say, only more succinctly. As a practical matter, in the NFL anyway, the winner of the coin toss always, or nearly always, elects to receive. Wahkeenah 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• I did a little reseach and it looks like defering is not an option in the NFL, only college and high school. I also read that the loser of the coin toss gets to pick in the second half.LightningOffense 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • If there's going to be a "Coin Toss" table, make it interesting and relevant by adding a column of who the celebrity coin tossing participant was in each year. Doctorindy 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:Delete the table, and put the information on each of the specific Super Bowls' articles. The data is trivial and too specific for this article. --ChaChaFut 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Every Super Bowl article already has a field in the infobox indicating who threw the coin tosses. Best to indicate coss toss results there. KyuuA4 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that's a great idea and it would eliminate the eyesore of an infobox that takes up so much room on the page. RAmen, Demosthenes 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to get the coin toss section out of the article.. it's unencyclopedic trivia. Doesn't really matter whether the individual articles mention coin toss winners, or we move the whole section to a new article. Also, I removed a section about how the law of averages states that the coin toss results "should be" 50-50. While it is interesting to note that the NFC won the coin toss 27 times vs. the AFC's 14, it is not statistically impossible for this to occur. A binomial distribution for 41 trials with p=.5 shows a 1.6% probability of 27 successes. Rhobite 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why on earth is half of this article made up of the coin toss results? Cogswobble 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-Super Bowl loss jinx

This section only describes the recent trend -- OR -- is it relevant? KyuuA4 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's "original research" and is totally irrelevant. There's nothing special about winning the Super Bowl and failing to qualify for the playoffs the next year. It happens in baseball fairly often, and other sports as well. Every season is different, every team's circumstances are different every year. Typically, the more players you have, the more variables you have. That's why football is so tough to repeat. Baseball is easier, and small-squad sports like hockey and basketball are even easier. Not easy, just not as hard. Winning back-to-back in football is extraordinary. Winning three league championships in a row, especially in a game like football, is incredible. Just being in position to win consecutive Super Bowls is the sign of an extraordinary team. Wahkeenah 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Name

"The Super Bowl was first played in January 1967", but lots of the earlier "year in sport" pages link to here [2]. I presume it was a different competition before then? If so, is there anyone with the knowledge and interest to fix this? -- sannse 18:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this has now been fixed. Paul August ☎ 18:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey if you guys are going to lock the page and fix it for the Vandalism you might as well correct the list of super bowl appearances and teams that have not been in it and re-add the Seahawks...or don't. If people editing these pages can respond to a simple edit which ended up being correct but can't fix other glaring problems I don't see why they are editing at all.

Why Bowl

OK. I give in. I can't find anywhere on wiki the reason WHY it is called a BOWL (or why quix bowls and such also use the word bowl). Can anyone put a par in the article explaining the why of it? Moriori 03:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

College football post season games have been called "Bowls" for a very long time. I believe it started with the Rose Bowl Game in the early part of the century being named after the stadium it is played in. Subsequent post season games like the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl cemented the term Bowl. From what I've read, some official of the NFL saw his son playing with a Super Ball and it clicked in his head. Super Ball ---> Super Bowl.

This is close to what happened...The actual event was Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt seeing his DAUGHTER playing with a Super Ball...The rest, as they say, is history  :)

Why Two Weeks vs. One Week Break

Why is it, that some years there is a two week break between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl, and some years it's just the week after the NFC/AFC Championship. KwikStah

• NFL executives changed it to two weeks to give teams more time to prepare and to give more time to promote the event. All scheduling is determined by the executive office. Kingturtle 01:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So will it always be two weeks from now on? It seems to change arbitrarily. KwikStah

• Historically (meaning in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s), there was always a 2-week break before the Super Bowl. In the late 90s, the league replaced the 2-week break with the 1-week break and the "bye week"—giving each team 1 off-week during the season; thus, the Super Bowl was always played near the end of January. In 01-02, the league reverted back to the 2-week break before the Super Bowl—and left in place each team's floating bye week—so now the Super Bowl occurs in the first week of February.

OK, this is not true. There is no "historical" basis for there being a 1- or 2-week break between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. Nor was it "always" a 2-week break. Super Bowl I featured a two week break. Super Bowl IV had a one week break. Super Bowls XXV and XXVII had a one week break, Super Bowls XXVI and XXVII had a two week break. XXXIII: two weeks. XXXIV: one week.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/7035457

Now, the NFL would like to have it after a two-week break, and in fact, moving forward, it will be: "In the past, aberrations have occurred to make it one week," NFL spokesman Steve Alic said. "It will be two weeks exclusively every year. Two weeks is natural."

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/SPT0201/601290413/1067/SPT

That same article claims that only 15 Super Bowls have been played after two weeks off. I wouldn't necessarily accept that as fact without some sort of verification.

Super Bowl XXXVI (Patriots-Rams) was the first February Super Bowl:

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps

I get the following information from the official 2005 NFL record and Fact book.

there have been 7 Super Bowls played with a one week break, they were IV, XVII, XXV, XVIII, XXXIV, XXXVI, XXXVII, That means that 33 Super Bowls have had a two week break.

Superbowl prophecy

I have posted a Superbowl prophecy on my TalkPage. The prophecy is made by Sollog. You may care to read the Wiki pages (which are biased as they delete pro-Sollog posts) and elsewhere about him. More importantly, you may care to look at the prophecy, decipher it correctly and then you'll know the winner before the game is played!

The Number 13:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This prophecy is correct - it will tell you who the winner is if you interpret it correctly. Sollogfan 13:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't bet on it - but I know people in USA who did - and won. Yes this 'prophecy' is correct and 'yes' it could be twisted to reflect either side so 'yes' it proves absolutely nothing The Number 22:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not always played in a "southern region".

There is a statement in the article (see below) where it states that the Superbowl is always played in southern regions. This is not correct. It has been played in Detroit (actually the Pontiac Silver Dome) and will be played at Ford Field in Detroit in February 2006. Both facilities are domed.

Excerpt from the article:

The chosen venues have always been located in southern regions of the United States where the wintertime weather is expected to be mild, or in domed stadiums where weather is not an issue.

The word "always" was changed to "either" so it now reads, "The chosen venues have either been located...". Does that work for you? (Zzyzx11 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

This part has been edited bc whether it includes always, either or anything else, it is inaccurate. Many SB's have been played in California, which last time I checked was not a "southern locale".

Your last comment fails to distinguish between a "Southern locale" in the US, which would be someplace within the political region roughly equal with the former Confederate States of America, and a "southern locale" in the US, which refers to a locale in its more southerly regions. The point of the Superbowl's locale is to take advantage of felicitious weather in the middle of winter; while northern Virginia (a Southern locale) would not be suitable, Pasadena (a southern locale) is eminently so. The article at present correctly uses the lower case, and is indeed accurate. All Superbowls past and scheduled for the future are in either a domed stadium or a locale which enjoys temperate weather in the winter. The nearest exceptions are XVI (in Pontiac, MI, in a dome); XIX (in Stanford, CA, which can get a bit rainy in the winter but not overly cold); XXVI (in the Metrodome in Minneapolis); and XL (in Detroit, in a dome). The other locales are manifestly warm and southerly. (Citizen Sunshine 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Very insightful and very well put but I am not sure that Pasadena would be considered a southern city or locale, (more likely a western one), It is for the same reason that Palo Alto iwould not be considered a northern locale. California is The West.

Perhaps the perception of 'southerliness' is variable depending on where you are from? As an Englishman I look at Pasedena and it looks to me as if it is in the south of the country, geographically speaking. For instance, it's at roughly the same Latitude as Atlanta. (TimTim 14:00, 1 February 2006 (GMT))

Suggested edit: Instead of "Southern locale", how about "more temperate climate" or similar wording to indicate that unless it's in a dome, the NFL would like the location to be somewhere warm. (06-Feb-2K6)

Game history

Your edit summary about "duplicate content" is incorrect. I wrote this copy myself, and in fact some of the games I included are not even mentioned on NFL lore, which is a far broader topic than simply historically important Super Bowls. Your revert also runs afoul of rule 9 in the Wiki simplified ruleset (don't revert good faith edits). Why is it not appropriate to mention, briefly, some of the more historic games here? Simply sending people to a long list of games provides no context and gives the reader no idea which games are considered historically important. Simishag 03:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• On second thought, you might be right. I'll restore it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I can see now why you removed it, although I still like it. We're at 10 games in this section, which is 25% of all the games (including XL in a few weeks). I think all these games are notable, and I think we've done well at leaving out the boring ones. How many games would be appropriate to mention here? I don't want everyone to add their "favorite" game, but I'm not sure how to avoid that. Simishag 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Super bowl 40 was in no way notable

Las Vegas

The statements in the Advertisement section concerning Las Vegas are not clear. Is it saying that the City of Las Vegas itself is not allowed to buy commercial slots (like "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"), or is it saying that when the SuperBowl is broadcast in the city, no commericals are shown? The reference to the TV show "Las Vegas" makes it even more confusing... is there a ban on all commericals that mention Las Vegas?

nature of ban clarified. Simishag 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the paragraph is much better. I did do some Google research though, and all I could find were articles about the ban on the ad for Wynn Las Vegas last year, and about the NFL's crackdown on paid admission Super Bowl parties. That's why I removed the paragraph. I guess I didn't use the right search terms. Rhobite 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Table

Would Super Bowl appearances be better put as a table? Especially considering the Super Bowl winners list directly below it and the two bulleted lists directly above it (Trivia and Notable Super Bowl Games). It lends itself quite well to a four column table (team, apperances, wins, and losses) and i just think it would do well to break up a long sucession of lists. Contrarily, the two bulleted lists above it are, both bulleted and contain longer notes (all at least two lines long), and it might seem arbitrary to have a random table floating in the middle of the article. I'm not really sure.jfg284 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and did it. Tablefied the list of winners, too. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl Rings

What's the matter with them? They are referred to in various American sit-coms and tv series', usually to signify that their owner is rich or otherwise admirable, but as one of the billions of people who are not interested in American sport events ([/anti-americanism]), I have no idea what they are and wasn't able to find any information on them either.

Could someone shed some light on the mystary (sic) and maybe add a line to this article (or link to something other than a gallery of these rings)? -- Ashmodai 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As of now, the only picture of a Super Bowl ring that has been uploaded onto Wikipedia right now is Image:Super bowl XI ticket and ring.jpg. So I attached it to the "Super Bowl winners" section of this article. The short answer is that a Super Bowl ring is in some way similar to a class ring. Members of the winning Super Bowl team get a specially designed ring to commemorate their championship game win. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Championship rings are common in other sports as well, not just football, so it might be appropriate for its own article. Simishag 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we even use those Super Bowl rings images at SuperBowl.com and NFL.com? I'm no lawyer or into law but by reading their Website Terms and Conditions. It seems they don't like any of their media posted on outside websites such as Wikipedia. Read the first paragraph of their "Copyright Rights."

Under applicable copyright laws, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Service for any purposes. Which might means non-commerical is out of the question. Anybody a lawyer or into business law? I'm cracking down on people uploading copyright images and claim to be "fair use." --J. Nguyen 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

While there are certainly valid criticisms of the game and festivities, these are remarkably poor criticisms to use. The point about obesity is ridiculous. Neither of the sentences are supported by the referenced link. In fact, the reference is arguing the opposite position by pointing out how government standards classify athletes as "obese!" Also, how exactly does one compute the "obesity rate" and state categorically that it increases around Super Bowl Sunday? I don't believe there is a scientific way to compute it. It's not a statistic like traffic accidents or Nielsen ratings that can be computed instantly or within a short time period. Simishag 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference to alcohol fatalities is for the NEJM site, which has restricted access. Registration appears to be free for articles older than 6 months, but shouldn't this link point to an freely available source document? If that's not possible, shouldn't the reference be properly cited rather than linked? Simishag 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• This section was added by a anonymous user [3], but I had to comment out the last two because no sources were given [4], and I too am unsure about the addition. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I too agree that the criticisms are stupid and have no business in the article. Obesity isn't something that spike on a given day of the year. The alcohol and church stuff is also silly. Why don't we put the obesity and alcohol claims on a criticisms of Christmas section of that page? Captain Jackson 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, most of the stuff in the Criticism (should be singular) should be removed. Deckiller 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've cut the one line of criticism line remaining - it was a reference to alcohol deaths and prefaced with 'some people point to' - the reference it supplied was not easily verifible as it was a teaser to a larger members-only article. MLA 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Networks?

The article curently states that:

In the United States it is currently shared among three of the four major television networks: ABC, CBS, and FOX.

Yet the chart above it show that NBC has show 17 Superbowl games, I was going to change it but then I thought it might be a contract thing, so I left it in but regardless NBC should be mentioned somewhere in the sentence as it currently sounds like NBC never televised a Superbowl which is untrue.Deathawk 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

I removed some POV in the notable super bowl games section. Deckiller 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of that copy so maybe I'm biased, but I think your changes made the copy rather bland in places. Namath's quote was certainly "famous"; it's probably the single thing he is most known for. The Titans-Rams game was more than simply "close"; a link to The Tackle might be in order. Also, "upset" and "favored" are not POV; they are uncited but I don't think it would be hard to find historical betting lines on the game, which would show that the "favored" teams were, in fact, favored to win, not only by oddsmakers but by the vast majority of people who bet on the game. There are well-established uses of "favorite" and "upset" in a sports context that do not imply POV. Simishag 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a POV issue that was raised at Talk:National Football League Lore#Honorable Mentions, and it seems like it is here as well: What is the criteria for choosing which notable games to here without making it WP:POV or original research? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does applying certain objective criteria count as OR? If not, here are some suggestions for criteria for "notable" Super Bowls:

• Establishment of a new record, whether game, team or player
• First victory after a number of defeats (Broncos, but Bills would qualify here if they ever win)
• Back to back wins
• 3+ wins in 5 years (less objective but still notable)
• Close finish (for some definition of "close")
• Some well-known... I dunno, element? of the game (Namath); also less objective

These are just the ideas of the top of my head. At the very least, we could set these criteria, winnow down the list, and then decide if the criteria are too strict. I suppose that could be considered OR but I think it would at least get some consensus on which games belong. The discussion on NFL Lore references "cultural literacy" and I think that's what we need to go for here. A reference to ESPN or another major sports source would be helpful. Simishag 02:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In just about every Super Bowl, there is a memorable performance or event or ending, and there is ALWAYS some sort of record broken. This is not limited to the "flashy" records like passing, rushing or receiving yards, or most touchdowns, but also most tackles, most sacks, most punt return yards, most field goals attempted, etc. Furthermore isn't it also true that any time that a team wins for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th time it will be memorable? The point being that every SB is memorable for one reason or another to different people or cities, as memorable is an objective term. Ipso facto, this section should either not exist or should include every super bowl.

Good point; listing every super bowl would take away POV. Deckiller 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All the same, I agree. I would rather remove that section completely. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Television Preservation

I removed the following section

Videos of the complete games of Super Bowl I, Super Bowl II, Super Bowl IV and Super Bowl V are thought to be out of existence. It is thought that NBC and CBS erased these games to record different shows on those tapes.

I haven't been able to find a source. Anyone? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I hedged the veracity of this fact by stating that the majority of people think that these tapes are out of existence. There is no authoritative evidence that suggests that these four games do indeed exist as broadcasted by the networks.

• On a recent NFL Films presentation about the history of NFL on television, Steve Sabol said it was a fact (or presented it as fact) that SB I and II television broadcasts were not preserved. It was stated that the first few minutes of CBS's SB I broadcast was recovered, and some of those minutes were shown on the documentary. It was explained that the networks themselves didn't save the games, however it can never be known if other outlets (local affiliates, etc.) may have kept copies. Since I am not certian of the exact title of that program, I can't cite that specific source, I agree it should be left vague. Doctorindy 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"1 Billion" Urban Myth

I added the following:

• There is a popular urban myth regarding the Superbowl - that the game is watched in 225 countries by 1 billion people, a fact unlikely to be true considering the time of the event, and the lack of popularity American Football has outside of the United States. In actual fact, The 2005 game was watched by 93 million viewers in total, of which 98% were in North America (Sports Illustrated). Approximately half of the remaining 2 million worldwide viewers watched from the United Kingdom (NFL Europe).

And it got trimmed to exclude references to the myth. Do you not think the "1 billion" myth, which many Americans seem to believe, is worth mentioning? John the mackem 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I trimmed the "225 countries by 1 billion people" primary because you do not cite a reference for that specific stat. I and others have no way to verify that those specific figures are accurate. Other than that, there is no other problem with it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have found a citation for the billion claim, but it;s quite hard to find a citation for the "lack of popularity American Football has outside of the United States" - it's just pretty much a matter of fact, as a quick Google hunt will attest to - does it really need a citation?. How do you think I can validate this, or what do you think it should be reworded to? The basic premise is simple; 1/6th of the world's population aren't going to stay up through the night to watch a game that is virtually ignored outside of the US. John the mackem 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation for "1 billion" (and whether it is a myth) is sufficient by itself, and doesn't need any explanation about whether football is or is not popular outside the US. The notion that the NFL is only popular in the US ignores its popularity in Canada and Latin America. Your premise about the time of day may be simple and logical but it's also speculation. There are well over 1 billion people in North and South America, who could easily watch the game with no concerns over the time of day. Also, people in the rest of the world may be willing to stay up late for 1 day a year; they do it all the time for the World Cup, the Olympics, UEFA & Champions League, the World Series, etc. If not, maybe they'll record the game. I don't claim that any of this is necessarily true but your claim that it is "unlikely" is unsupported POV. Simishag 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ESPN's Jim Caple has an interesting take on the billion myth. Using the NFL's estimate of 130 million U.S. viewers, that's still 870 million from outside the U.S. Says Caple, "With a world population of roughly 6.2 billion people outside the U.S., that means 14 percent of the rest of the planet would have to watch the championship game of a sport they don't even play."

Adds Caple, "The NFL's Brian McCarthy says the NFL doesn't claim the Super Bowl has 1 billion viewers, only that there are between 750 million and 1 billion "potential" viewers."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/060124

To support the anti side, there are only 192 nations in the world, most of which don't have television in almost all homes.

I'm from Argentina, South America. About the discussion that is going on here I just will say that, personally, I've never seen a superbowl match. I get to know about its existence by american series that sometimes mention it. In the last few years we have known about the spectacle mostly because of the scandal involving one american music star. To illustrate my point I will cite to examples: while I was working in a hotel in the southernmost argentine city, Ushuaia, I was asked by a very polite fellow citizen of yours about where he would be able to see the 2006 super bowl match. I answered him that most likely he would be able to see it in his room or in the lobby TV. But he asked me again for a more crowded venue with lots of people and a big screen. Unfortunately I had no way to point a place. In my entire life, as long as I recall, I have never seen two of my compatriots talking about the last super bowl, here football (soccer) rules. The second one is even more domestic, in several blogs, looking for opinions -from common people outside my country- about Germany 2006 FIFA world cup’s favorite I’ve read about the one billion discussions. When I went to my father to tell him about the superbowl one million viewers theory, the first thing he asked me about was: “¿Qué es el superbowl?” (Spanish for “what is the superbowl?”). May be my father is an ignorant but I’m sure there’s plenty of people like him in this portion of the world. We instead have seen many Manu Ginobilli’s games in San Antonio. Basketball is relatively popular game in Argentina and the NBA finals are for far more viewed than the superbowl, especially among the basketball lovers but not only amidst them. To finish I will say that FIFA claims to have had 1.3 billion viewers in the final match of France 1998 World Cup (which I saw). I consider it to be possible, for me and my friends that period of 1998 was crucial. There were massive celebrations in the streets when we knockout England, and when our team was eliminated (I saw the match in a cinema) I couldn’t believe that the sun was still shining. Me and my father asked each other “and now what?”. It, truly, took me a few days to find again the meaning of this whole existence. And what to say about 1986 and 1990 world cups, they are major landmarks in everyone’s life here.--201.212.158.2 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's unbelievable, that such a myth could actually make official news for Voice of America (although someone else could make a political statement about this organizaiton, surely). But seriously, there aren't even that many countries in the world. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that this myth is being used to support the super bowl's ITN notability, right here on wikipedia. --Theshadow89 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hacked a code"

Childish "messing it up because I can" hacker should be dealt with. --4.224.201.199 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The latest addition to the trivia section needs additional work. It looks like Original Research in which case it may need to be removed. If it can stay then it needs to be better explained as currently it talks about rematches within a "handfull" (sic) of years. That is not a quantified amount so it can't be a fact. MLA 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• If it is at all questionable, then I don't mind just yanking it. Doctorindy 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Links in the Super Bowl link box doesn't change cursor

Minor UI glitch. When you hover over the links the cursor doesn't change to an arrow like the other links do. The links don't appear clickable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.144.242 (talk • contribs) .

• I have temporarily reverted it back before that modification. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

When reaching Superbowl

I was interested when a team achieved to be a superbowl team. But I can't find anything about that in the lines. How is the compition system in NFL?

• I do not fully understand your question, but it appears we need more references to NFL playoffs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Super Bowl/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article gives a good brief summary on the history of the Super Bowl as well as what the game is. People who didn't have any idea to what the Super Bowl was wouldn't be clueless after reading this little article.

Last edited at 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request on February 7, 2013

After the Seahawks' victory, the NFC-AFC total in the opening should read 26 for the NFC/NFL and 22 for AFC/AFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.73.37 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose a change to the list of Superbowl winning teams. The list uses the location of organizations WHEN they won the Superbowl. The Raiders won both as the Oakland and Los Angeles Raiders for example and are correctly listed. It does not mention the name "Dallas Texans" when referring to the Chiefs even though they played in Dallas. Also it does not mention "Cleveland Rams" even though the team played in Cleveland.

So for consistency's sake IMO until the Rams win a Superbowl while playing in Los Angeles the list should only refer to them as the St Louis Rams. Thank you, Toronado3800.

Edit Request on February 4, 2013

I wanted to show where the "Super" part of the Super Bowl came from, but the page is locked. This is what I want to put in: [Hunt], owner of the [[5]]in the 1960's , supposedly thought up of the name of the Super Bowl while playing with a bouncy ball called the Super Ball.

talk to me at ["Talk"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirby6236 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The information exists in the article in the second paragraph of the Origins section. Ryan Vesey 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

copyright violation

I was just compelled to stop watching the 2012 superbowl, and I feel this article should be deleted for the same reason:

according to their aural copyright disclaimer (just after halftime), unless they have given specific permission, we, the viewers, are not allowed to even discuss the superbowl. I see no authorization, therefore, I believe to be safe, the article should go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.93.114 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Game history POV??

"NFL Parity

...In Super Bowl XXXVI, the New England Patriots upset the 14-point favorite Rams behind the strong play of first-year starting quarterback Tom Brady and a game-winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri. The Patriots added two more Super Bowls (XXXVIII and XXXIX), and many people argue they had a chance to be the first dynasty of the 21st century. The Patriots had a chance to create a dynasty in Super Bowl XLII, but were defeated by the New York Giants, which ended an otherwise undefeated season..."

I'm not so sure this paragraph needs to be worded this way, or even included at all. There is a Dynasty (sports) page on wikipedia, besides what constitutes a dynasty or not is clearly a matter of opinion. Some people belive that the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots are both dynastys despite winning only 3 Super Bowls in a decade. I don't think this article should matter-of-factly state that the Patriots are not a dynasty when clearly there are people who disagree.

It was sure great to see the Giants win though :-P Thoughts anyone? Smackalot (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I think most people regard the Pats as having been a dynasty—how many teams have won three Super Bowls in a four-year span? Unschool (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the Pats -- what they did this decade constitutes them as a dynasty - comparative of previous ones. See this table. Having said that, if the text in the paragraph does have an WP:NPOV problem, feel free to fix it. KyuuA4 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting chart. If I find time, I may take issue with it. Though the definition of dynasty may vary from person to person, I don't think that anyone who thinks about it for a more than a moment can believe that dynasties can overlap. Dynasty means more than greatness, it means holding a singular dominance over all others at that moment. I'd be more inclined to label the Miami Dolphins (whom I hate, by the way) of the early 70s a dynasty for their consecutive SB wins than the Raiders who won three SBs over an eight year period. Unschool (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Overlaps? Well, y'gotta hand it to the Redskins managing to get 3 Super Bowls in a span dominated by the Niners, and eventually Cowboys. As for the 70's Dolphins, that's 3 straight Super Bowls, winning the latter 2. Anyways, Championships label dynasties -- which explains why the Bills of the 90's won't even be considered. By the looks of that table, 3 in a given time span looks like the litmus test. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Three probably is the common litmus, but over how many years? And while Joe Gibbs is the greatest, the Redskins will never get the respect of the 49ers, not only for the fact that the Niners won more, but the fact that two of Washington's SB wins came in strike-shortened seasons. Anyway, I never hear of anyone talking about an Oakland Raiders dynasty—it's just two far spread out, and there were other teams perceived as more dominant. Which brings me to my point: Only one dynasty can exist at a time. I would see the following dynasties over the Super Bowl era:

• Green Bay
• Miami (maybe, if only because of the 17-0 record)
• Pittsburgh
• San Francisco
• Dallas
• Denver (maybe—probably not; Jaguars spoiled that one)
• New England

And none of these would involve any overlaps. Again, how can there be overlaps? The very definition of a dynasty is imbued with the notion of solitary reign. Only one dynast at a time, m'lord. (Just my 2¢.) Unschool (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, how can there be overlaps? Try the domination/success of the Niners-Cowboys in the 80's-90's. While the dynasty of the Niners were tapering off into the 1990's, they still managed to get one last Super Bowl win - within the Cowboy's string of Super Bowls. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the section reads pretty good now, I just made some minor changes, correcting some spelling (interrupting, ascendant) and added a link to Dynasty (sports).

By the way Unschool, I thought that was a great list! Smackalot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unschool (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Patriots' dynasty disagreement

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

Missing Sentence

The start of the second sentence of the article is missing and it doesn't seem to be in the history so someone might want to type it out a new one...I dunno what to put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.228.184 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparing divisions

I'm not sure that the article should include this comparison of the winning records of the various divisions. When you consider that we have gone during the Super Bowl era from four total divisions (pre 1970) to six total divisions (1970-2002) to the current eight divisions, I just think that this renders these comparisons meaningless. This meaningless is further made clear when you consider that even during times of divisional stability, teams have switched divisions. Indeed, teams have switched conferences. I just would get rid of it. Unschool (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I see that Frank Anchor already took care of this—eighteen minutes before I suggested it. On the one hand, I'm embarassed, on the other, I'm glad to see that Great Minds continue to think alike. Unschool (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I still see a pared-down comparison. I'd really get rid of that as well. Unschool (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank Anchor's edits are an improvement over the old version, but I dont see that section being at all necessary. In my opinion, The only relevant nugget of information is the fact tha the NFC East has the most appearances and championships, and even that is possibly trivia and has nowhere to be put. NewYork483 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NY, that info belongs (and already is) on the NFC East page. It doesnt really serve a purpose on this article. Neither does any information in that section. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus, albeit for different reasons. Unschool (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVII in Charlotte?

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

Teamless Game History

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

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

Super Bowl Games Post game shows

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

That would be partially irrelevant to the article. hic-haaaaaack (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No table?

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

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

New Orleans and the Super Bowl

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

More info about commercials?

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

Super Bowl Sunday

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

Venue Comment

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

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

Wilmington, Delaware is most definitely not in the Baltimore or DC region (they are not the same region, no matter how much DC tries to make them out to be that). It is solidly entrenched as a part of the Philadelphia region. It's also a much larger city than Annapolis by far, and definitely larger than Pasadena or Palo Alto. Pasadena is also most definitely not a sizable city in its own right. It's an overgrown suburb, unlike Wilmington which was one of the first major cities in this country and only has the small population numbers due to decline and the fact that it's about 10 square miles in area. I could never see a SuperBowl being held there though, as it's a mid-sized city that is only an hour or so drive away from the 5th largest city in the country. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Trends

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

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

Patriot dominance in early 2000s

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

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

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

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

You are correct that the proper term is three out of four, to determine that the Pats won 3 SB in 4 years, but you are incorrect about the decades. Although it may be recognized in daily life and on a calendar or whatever that 2001 starts the decade, in the NFL, that is not the case. For example, the Decade in the NFL for the 90's does not include the 2000-2001 season. It is from 1990-1991 season to 1999-2000 season. The exact same goes for the 2000's decade. The patriots did not win the first three out of four in that decade - but nevertheless it should be worded that they won three out of four early in the decade because saying it the other way may confuse people. And besides, you should never count before/after years to a statistic like that. Other wise I could say that instead of the Bills going to 4 superbowls in 4 years, they went to 4 superbowls in 30 years.

For the issue of the Dynasty, I can't say. I would normally feel that their accomplishments over the decades of 4 SB appearences, 3 wins, and one undefeated reg. season would apply. But I also take everything into account - so the Raiders game was iffy, the cheating with the Videotapes ect... Then again, that is my opinion and it is pure speculation, hence why no team should be called a dynasty unless it is unanimously agreed upon. Like for Dallas in the 90's, they were ok in the 1st half, but how can they be called the Dynasty of the 90's when they weren't around for the second half? The Steelers and the 49ers, they WERE a dynasty. They went to and won 4 Superbowls in their respective decades AND spread it around through a large chunk of the span. 108.2.103.208 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

London Super Bowl

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

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

Mentioning individual players in this article

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

Neveralities?

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

The Patriots dominate the early 2000s

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fiftieth anniversary"

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

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

Browns

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

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

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

Viewing outside the US

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

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

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

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

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

The Non-US viewing section that's just been added doesn't do it justice at all:

"For example, the US viewing figure for 2011 is 111 million - the worldwide viewing figure for 2011 is also 111 million."

Presumably what was meant is that both figures are 111m to the nearest million, so that the number of viewers outside the US is less than 1,000,000. But the way it's written, it reads as if the difference is zero. Still, less than a million could be around 5, around 1000 or around 999,999. There's no indication.

A BBC news report on the evening of the Champions league final covered off the five highest annual event vieweing figures for sporting events 2010/11 and reported global vieweing figures for January's Superbowl was 121 million, which would suggest that a rounded figure of 10 million viewers from outside the United States tuned in. Having lost its top spot to the Champions League, whose viewing figures have tripled to over 300 million since switching to a Saturday evening in 2010, The Superbowl's second spot is now under threat from the final of Cricket's Indian Premier League which has come in just 4 million viewers short in third place. Captainbeecher (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How has somebody reached the conclusion from that article that 111m is the worldwide figure, anyway? How are worldwide viewing figures worked out, anyway?

We still need the pieces of information I've already listed. And to find data beyond that which relates to this year's event. Somebody ought to know where to start looking.... -- Smjg (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some vandal just deleted the "Non-US viewing" section. But since it was practically useless anyway, I'm just going to reinstate the globalize request, with a date of February 2010 since that's when this discussion started and it has not been resolved to any real extent ever since that time. — Smjg (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Double Digit Leads

A minor question concerning this record,

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

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

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

Complete nonsense statement about world viewership

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

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

It's really quite sad how hard you Europeans need to try to get the rest of the world to agree with you just because you want to think you're more important. I will agree that 78% of all homes around the world is a ridiculous figure but you're equally as ridiculous with your pretending that the NFL isn't extremely popular in parts of Europe or that the UK doesn't have SuperBowl viewing parties at the 02 arena. People like you give Europeans a bad name. Get over yourselves.

Also, I'd love to see the viewership for the FIFA World Cup final if it were held annually and not every four years during a time of year when major sports like American football, basketball, hockey, and others aren't playing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24rhhtr7 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what Piers Morgan thinks about the Super Bowl?

Seriously, why do we even have to include the nonsense about what people in the UK think of us using the term "World Champions"? I don't see them inviting MLS to play in their championships? If they want to put their best American football (honestly why do I even need to say that? To us it's football, not American football) teams against ours then they can feel free, but the only way to genuinely have a World Championship is something that is many years away and would require a complete overhaul of US sports. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Math error

in the "Relationships between leads and winning" section - it says [quote]Teams gaining a double-digit lead (10 points or more) during the game are 40–2 (.952). Four Super Bowls haven't had such a point difference.[/quote] - how does that work? there have been 44 super bowls 40+2+4 = 46. I suppose it could be the case that both teams has such a lead, so shouldn't that be noted separately if this is the case? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That whole section seems a little heavy with trivia and should really be trimmed. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(Also, have a look at Double Digit Leads above.)

hmm - maybe re-word it then. Something like "The lagest deficit overcome is ten points. first team (losing by score , won by score) and Saints, (losing 10-0, and going on to win 31-17) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington is the team of the '80s, not San Francisco

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1235641.html

The article needs to be purchased, but given that Washington would have been the second team to win back-to-back Super Bowls had they won Super Bowl XVIII, the fact that the 1983 Redskins held the record for most points scored in a season (541) until the 1998 Vikings (556), the statement made in that Article still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.240.73 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington won two Super Bowls in the decade, SF won four.Frank Anchor^Talk

Use of name "Super Bowl"

I'm removing this sentence - Contrary to popular belief and NFL promotion, however, there was no Super Bowl prior to what is now called "Super Bowl IV". It's poorly written and demonstrably untrue (by the third game, the programs were being labeled "Super Bowl III").[6] While it is true that the first two games were known officially as simply the "World Championship Game", the terms "Super Bowl" and "Super Sunday" were already in use by the time the first game was played.[7] SixFourThree (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Removal of cite tags

I have removed a number of cite tags which were IMHO gratuitous and unnecessary. I understand the importance of citations, but in many cases the statements were supported by information found elsewhere in the article, or are plainly obvious from reading a list of past and/or future Super Bowls. Some of the TV info was even already cited in the lead. Simishag (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AFC reign over?

With the Packers winning yesterday, NFC teams have now won three of the last four Super Bowls. I'm not sure what I would call call any new section because there really has not been any dominant team (or conference) over the past several years. I'm thinking something to do with parity (with five different champions and nine different Super Bowl Participants in the six years since the Pats' dynasty in the early 2000s). One common theme I can find among most of the champions is dominant QB play with both Mannings, Brees, and Rodgers. Maybe Roethlisberger too but his Super Bowl performances have never been that great, except maybe the TD pass to Holmes in SB 43. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Playing for the Super Bowl

All over the world, it is a fact the people from all walks of life either enjoys playing or watching sports games. The sports culture in already plastered in the hearts and minds of the people; because no matter how you hate sports, once you start to watch a game, you will surely be glued to your seat until the winner is announced. Among the many sports which are now being followed by many is the football. Football is a game which involves two teams which consists of eleven players each. In order for a football team to win, you are supposed to advance the ball by carrying, passing, or kicking it and into your opponent’s goal line. On the professional side of things, every football team’s goal is to be qualified for the Super Bowl. But in this case only teams who play in the National Football League (NFL) get the chance to play for this once every season event. For a team to be able to qualify for the Super Bowl or commonly known as the championship game, your team should be able to play in the playoffs for the NFL which is usually done every end of a regular football season. Furthermore, the Super Bowl was founded because of the agreement between the National Football League (NFL) and the America Football League (AFL) on merging. Then, after a few years when the merger was finally decided on, the leagues involved were then termed as a conference, thus, leading to the term conference champions. The Super Bowl at present is scheduled on Sundays which is why it is called the Super Bowl Sunday. Up to date, this event is always very remarkable because many people miss work and travel to the stadium where the event it to be held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetseo (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Packers early success amendment for consideration

Please consider how I've re-worded this section and added a reference, so as to reflect an arguable phrase, not just hearsay.

1966-1967: Packers early success

The Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls, defeating the AFL Kansas City Chiefs and the AFL Oakland Raiders following the 1966 and 1967 seasons, respectively. The Packers were led by quarterback Bart Starr, who was named the Most Valuable Player (MVP) for both games. These two championships, coupled with the their NFL championships in 1961, 1962, and 1965 are why the the Packers are considered, arguably, the "Team of the '60s."

Venues tables

In the "Venues" section, the tables "Stadiums that have hosted or are scheduled to host the Super Bowl" and "Cities and regions that have hosted the Super Bowl" display nearly identical information. If there are to be two tables, would it not make sense for the first one to have separate rows for each stadium, even those in the same city. For example, the second table indicates that there were/will be 10 Super Bowls in New Orleans. The first table should not say that 10 Super Bowls were/will be held in either Tulane Stadium or the Superdome. Rather, it should indicate 3 for Tulane Stadium and 7 for the Superdome. (I can make the changes, but I wanted to get other opinions first.) — Michael J 03:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there should be two different tables: one for stadiums only, and the other table for cities/regions only.[8] Apparently within the past month or two, a few people got confused and started to combine the two. I have reverted the table back to how it was back August (notwithstanding the recent announcement of the 2015 game being played in Arizona, and recent renaming of the New Meadowlands Stadium to MetLife). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change. It makes sense now. ... I adjusted the labels on the adjacent map for a better appearance. (For example, Los Angeles was falling off the left edge.) — Michael J 11:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a couple of users are still confused, which means a bunch hidden comment reminders... Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence needs fixing.

Under Game History>2007-Present, there is a sentence "Two years later the Steelers winning an NFL record sixth Super Bowl championship in Super Bowl XLIII."

"winning" should be replaced to "won" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottogog (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Patriots Dynasty section under History

OK. Somehow, the period between 2002 to the present has to have a single theme; by which, in this period, the AFC has been dominated by only 3 teams: Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. Of course, there was the Raiders in 2003, but it's been really those top 3 teams dominating the AFC. If anything, that section needs a rewrite. If you look back, the Cowboys did a similar feat: 3 Super Bowl wins in 4 years. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does it need a single theme? The early 2000s were dominated by the Patriots, winning three of four Championships, while the late 2000s really weren't dominated by anyone, as shown by the large number of SB winners and participants. Frank Anchor^Talk 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I agree that the Cowboys had the same feat in the and 90s and should also have their own section. This section and one about the 49ers were separate, but eventually lumped into the "NFC's Winning Streak" section. I personally believe these subsections should be about teams, rather than conferences and the entire section needs to be expanded. Eventually I plan to make it look similar to the history section in NBA Finals. Frank Anchor^Talk 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Under that same logic, the Patriots' feat can be lumped under a similar theme. Likewise, I'm trying to push WP:neutral. Under a general Super Bowl history, it completely lacks any sort of neutrality featuring any specific team in a whole section or sub-section, rather than as a part of prose. Therefore, the pattern under the AFC the past 10 years or so should focus on the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts, who have been collectively dominating Super Bowl appearances on the AFC side. And I just noticed the subsection on the 66-67 Packers as well. Gotta figure out how to work those as well. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

Please change: The Super Bowl XLVI was be played at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, on February 5, 2012, to determine the champion of the 2011 season between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. To: The Super Bowl XLVI was played at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, on February 5, 2012, between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. The New York Giants were the victors.

Gabesteinberg (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

The citation of the NFL's own site as justification for the statement that the Super Bowl is a "de facto national holiday" needs to be dropped. Unless we're allowing advertising claims to be used to support WP at this point, in which case I will adjust the Coco-Cola page to clearly state that Coke "is it". 66.75.246.252 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Super Bowl created as "Marketing Gimmick"

According to this article the SB was created (and is?) a "marketing gimmick". Shouldn't this be added to the encyclopedia article? Marketdiamond (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, that entire article has the obvious tone of a sarcastic opinion piece -- just the title of the article alone, "Stupid Things Steelers Fans Will Say", gives that away. If anything, it's a newspaper blog, and should be treated per WP:NEWSBLOG. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's odd...

Anyone else think it's odd that this article goes into great lengths to discuss the channel the Super Bowl is broadcast on, the half-time entertainment, the advertising... but doesn't mention who actually contested any of the games, other than in passing in the "History" section? Surely a list of winners somewhere on the page would be a sensible idea... Grutness...wha? 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No. That list was moved to List of Super Bowl Champions (a hatnote linking to that page appears at the start of the Game history section). I believe it was originally split in mid-2005 with the intention of promoting it to a Wikipedia featured list, free from all the content about the halftime, advertising, etc. I'm not sure what the proper course of action would be to address your concern, but I would not recommend anything that eventually leads to merging it back in to the main Super Bowl article -- especially a current featured list that has not appeared on the today's featured list section of the Main page yet -- knowing how consensus goes with the treatment of featured content. Because this was part of a trend during those years to create similar featured lists regarding other sports championship matches, among others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, a full list with details on a separate page is logical and desirable IMO, but surely more prominent mention of the winners makes perfect sense here. Compare how it's done on a page like FA Cup, or NBA Finals - these both have far more information on finals appearances, without denying the need of separate pages for fill lists of the winners. As it stands this page makes it look as thought he game itself is only a minor incidental part of an advertising and marketing extravaganza. Which, come to think of it, is probably accurate. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misunderstood your question. If you want to do something similar like the organization between FA Cup and the Featured list List of FA Cup finals, or NBA Finals and the Featured List of NBA champions, then by all means, be bold and go for it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If I knew anything at all about American football, I would. But given that this article is protected and within the scope of a WikiProject which specialises in the subject, it's far better if someone from that WikiProjects does it. Which is why I mentioned it here in the first pace rather than simply doing it. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. I could do the modifications myself, but I was really hoping for suggestions on what to model it after since I'm not really sure what you are specifically looking for. I was looking at FA Cup#FA Cup winners and finalists but that section seems to only list the most significant winners in a fashion similar to the already existing first paragraph of Super Bowl#Game history (which I could improve to name the specific teams). Or are you looking for a table similar to NBA Finals#Finals appearances? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably somewhere between the two... maybe a simpler article like in the article Chatham Cup might provide some idea - it has a simple list of winners, plus a small records section. Since there's a separate featured list, perhaps the records section is unnecessary, but - as I said - NFL is not a subject I know much about, so whatever seems most suitable for the subject. Grutness...wha? 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Year

The two tables at the bottom that say what year a city and stadium hosted the Super Bowl is rather unclear. It is listing the year the game was played as opposed to which NFL season it was considered to be. 2012 season = 2013 Super Bowl, so I added a note on the bottom of each table clarifying this to make it clear for a reader.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

It states in the article "The Super Bowl is one of the most watched annual sporting events in the world. The only other annual event that gathers more viewers is the UEFA Champions League final, which surpassed the Super Bowl XLIII in 2009 to become the most watched that year." but the average Formula1 Race Dwarfs both these events getting an average global audience of 305 million viewers globally per race and as high as 507 million viewers has been seen on big races. I think Formula1 should be mentioned instead of the champions league final or alongside it as another event with a larger global audience. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the olympics get a lot of views. --24.89.95.149 (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily doubt that events like F1 races get more global viewers than the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is huge in the US, maybe in Canada and Mexico, but really not a big deal elsewhere. However, global viewing audience is a much more nebulous concept than US viewing audience, which has been tracked for many years by professionals (Nielsen et al) with a high degree of confidence. The Olympic Games are fairly noted, but both the Summer and Winter games take place over 2-3 weeks, and I don't think they are directly comparable to single day events. Simishag (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop pretending that your own continent doesn't care about the Super Bowl when even the 02 in London has a Super Bowl viewing party. Honestly it's sad how hard you have to try to get the rest of the world to agree with you. I'd also love to see proof that almost as many people as currently live in the entire United States on average watch an F1 race. I also wonder if those numbers might be just a tad bit inflated by the fact that NBCSports bought the US rights and broadcasts them to a large US audience. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against the superbowl :S anyway here are some sources http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/144365.html "TV figures released in Formula One's Global Media Report showed overall viewers had dropped by over 50 million last year to a total of 450 million." http://www.sportbusiness.com/tv-sports-markets/formula-one-suffers-drop-global-audience "Formula One’s global television audience for its 2013 season dropped by 50 million to 450 million viewers due to changes in broadcast partners in the Chinese and French markets" Even with the drop of 50 million viewers it still dwarfs the superbowl and champions league final. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had nothing against the SuperBowl you wouldn't say absolute falsehoods like "The Superbowl is huge in the US, maybe in Canada and Mexico, but really not a big deal elsewhere". You have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about and ignorant people like you have been proven wrong time and time again yet you continue with this nonexistent idea of "European Exceptionalism". Sorry to break it to you but the majority of your sports aren't as big as you think they are, and US sports are much bigger than you want to pretend. The O2 has a Superbowl viewing party, something the US doesn't even have at its stadiums, yet it's not a big deal? Media from every country swarms the press day, yet it's not a big deal? It's broadcast in hundreds of languages and hundreds of countries worldwide, yet that's not a big deal? The Superbowl has been a worldwide event for a long time, whether you like it or not. You could probably go to any country and ask them about the bigger names of the NFL, MLB, or NBA and you'd get a lot of people who both know who they are and are fans. Other than Pele, Beckham, or Cristiano Ronaldo, and possibly some F1 drivers, can you honestly say the same about the stars of any of your European sports? If you want to argue over the most played sports in the world or the most watched sports or sporting events then go ahead but to claim that the Superbowl really isn't "a big deal outside of the US or Canada or maybe Mexico" is absurd. If your F1 races weren't held in those countries that provide such viewership, do you honestly think that many people outside of Europe would watch it? Not likely. The Superbowl has never been held outside of the US, yet it's still by far the biggest club sporting event in the world. Other sporting events might have more viewers but they are nowhere near as big an event as the Superbowl, which plenty of people who don't even like sports watch, and which every country talks about for at least a week beforehand. The fact that the Superbowl alone is compared to the World Cup or other international sporting events makes that clear.

Do you see people from the US going onto pages about your sporting events and dismissing their importance or speaking ignorant falsehoods about them? No, so return the favor and don't do it to ours. Also, your source never actually said that the F1 averaged 400 million plus viewers per race. It said that was the total for the entire season. I'd also like to see the percentage of those viewers who watched via NBCSports Network in the US. Even a fraction of the third largest country in the world is still a huge boost to viewership numbers, and NBC Sports has been promoting F1 hard ever since they acquired the US rights. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Febuary 2, 2014

TEAMS	SCORES
SEA	36
DEN	8

That's not true, score for XLVIII was 46-8. School | iz | Uncool (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

edit reguest may 24 2014

"In the 2007 season, the Patriots became the second team in NFL history to have a perfect regular season record, after the 1972 Miami Dolphins, and the first to finish 16–0. They easily marched through the AFC playoffs and were heavy favorites in Super Bowl XLII. However, they lost that game to the New York Giants 17–14." The Bears had perfect regular seasons records twice only to lose the nfl championship games in the 1934 and 42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_season#NFL_undefeated_seasons_.28with_ties.29_prior_to_1932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to a Sports Illustrated article that has a list of some of the requirements of cities to host a Super Bowl if anyone wants to add some of these in the article somewhere.Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2014/06/09/super-bowl-2018-requirements-minnesota-vikings

Non-nfl markets are now officially ineligible?

JMyrleFuller added this edit twice to the article, which I have twice removed as being original reseach/synthesis. The cited source states:

"NFL owners voted last month to require that teams aspiring to host a Super Bowl play a home game in London within five years of their successful bid process."

While it might be logical to assume that this means "non-nfl markets are now officially ineligible", that isn't what the source states. Please do not readd this conclusion without provided a specific source that clearly supports this claim. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)