Jump to content

Talk:Super Bowl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mstare88 (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 20 November 2007 (→Non occerences: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconNational Football League B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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.
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Table of Coin Toss Results

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

    • 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)[reply]

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

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

Post-Super Bowl loss jinx

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

  • 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

POV

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) .

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?


Game History/Notable Games.Honorable Mention Section

As a suggestion, the "Game History" section should be completely redone. Instead of having "Notable Super Bowl" games vs. "Honorable Mention" and some not even listed, it perhaps should follow the example of Indianapolis 500 year by year. They took what was once "notable years," created a spinoff page, and instead of listing some, listed all, without an opinion whether it was good or bad. Every single year was listed, with a brief descrption. I think that the Super Bowl, which has half as many entires, could be done very similair. It would eliminate any neutrality issues, disputes, and POV. Doctorindy 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of terminology "football"

Is the term football used as an americanism for Rugby? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.68.216 (talk • contribs) .

Not exactly. Rugby and American football have evolved into completely different games. As Wikipedia's football article currently says that is "is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. By far the most popular of these worldwide is Association football, which also goes by the name of soccer. The English language word football is also applied to Rugby football (Rugby union and Rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football and Canadian football." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I refailed the GA nom on this article as it has a PoV tag in one section, rather sloppy writing, and references need to be fixed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this rant necessary?

There is a popular urban myth regarding the Super Bowl — that the game is watched in 234 countries by 1 billion people [5], 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. While Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005 was available to a potential audience of approximately one billion, i.e. one billion people are in the collective coverage area of the various channels that carried the game, in actual fact it was only watched by 93 million viewers in total, of which 98 percent were in North America [6]. Approximately half of the remaining 2 million worldwide viewers watched from the United Kingdom.

Honestly, is this long diatribe against an NFL press release really necessary? The NFL's official site says, "The game will be broadcast to a potential worldwide audience of 1 billion in more than 225 countries and territories." Misleading? Sure. But don't you all think that the above rant is much ado about nothing? Aplomado talk 00:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would hardly call it a 'long diatribe'. It's three sentences, of which two are viewing-figure facts.

Anyway, this isn't about the press release. This is about the popular urban myth which probably stems from the press release but is perpetuated by many media outlets - and has been for a number of years. John the mackem 12:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just thought the question beared asking. Aplomado talk 21:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone has deleted the second half of the paragraph. If you think the whole thing should go, fine, but at the moment it doesn't even make sense anymore. In any case it was all referenced so I don't see the problem. I realise some Americans may see the inclusion as a little bizarre, but the 1 billion myth is all that many people hear about the Superbowl, so I see nothing wrong with a short para that makes sense. Shane1 15 August 2006

Can the alleged "popularity" of this myth be cited? I've simply never heard this myth before, and just because a few dippy articles are written by some sloppy journalists parroting a misleading press release does not necessarily constitute the existance of an urban myth, much less a popular one. Hell, this myth is not even listed on the Superbowl page [7] of the Urban Legends Reference Pages. --Bletch 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the only coverage of American football is around superbowl time and I have heard variations of this myth several times. Usually claiming that it is the 2nd most viewed sporting event after the football world cup, which is almost certainly erroneous but hard to prove either way. Whether similiar myths exist in non-English speaking countries I have no idea. 8 Feb 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.84.68 (talk • contribs)

The reason that I do not believe that it qualifies as an urban myth is that there doesn't seem to be any traction; googling around shows a great deal of hits, but they are either direct quotes of the press releases or debunking those quotes. OTOH, urban myths generally refer to stories that get passed around without knowledge of the origin; something that doesn't seem to apply here. As for why this story gets passed around the UK media while never being discussed in the US media, I have no idea. --Bletch 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Super Bowls

I didn't put the POV tag on this section, but I can see why it has one. There's a number of problems with it.

  • 15 games are listed as either notable or as an honorable mention. That's about 40 percent of all the Super Bowls. If anything, should this section just list 3 or 4 of the most notable?
  • That brings me to my second point. "Notability" is something that needs to be determined by outside references, of which this section has none.
  • Finally, why is this section necessary? What does it add to the article?

—Aplomado talk 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wiki articles have sections for "notable" - however, what defines "notable"? FYI, that definition will vary from person to person. KyuuA4 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLVIII

Why is Super Bowl XLVIII set to redirect to this article, when Super Bowl XLIX has an article of its own? If the argument is that XLVIII fails the not a crystal ball guideline, why is XLIX allowed to stand? -- Grinnblade 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after doing a little more research, I see that XLIX was also a redirect for a short period of time. But I still wonder why exactly XLIX has an article and XLVIII doesn't. -- Grinnblade 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Super Bowl XLIX, the league was planning on possibly giving it to Kansas City if they had passed a ballot measure to raise sales taxes to raise funds to improve Arrowhead Stadium. However, the measure failed to pass and the city subsequently withdrew. All of this is cited with references -- which is why that article does not qualify under the "not a crystal ball".
On the other hand, there has not been any specific verifable information yet on the preparation for Super Bowl XLVIII, which is why it is currently a redirect. Also note that Super Bowl XLV barely passes as an article instead of a redirect because there is one cited report on who has expressed interest in bidding for the game. Hope this explanation helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about the Super Bowl

Should the myth that more domestic abuse occurs during the weekend of the Super Bowl be included? It's a pretty prominent myth I've heard most of my life (I'm 24) but that has no evidence of being true, but it spread nonetheless. Throw 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false myth. You could check it on snopes.com

Entertainment

I think a section (chart) should be added listing the National Anthem and Halftime performers. This would help me since I have about a dozen Star Spangled Banners on my iPod, but am not sure which year each one is from.TonyTheTiger 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson hypothesis

I've removed this reference to the Janet Jackson incident:

Some think that this was intentional for publicity, possibly so that Janet could detract attention from her brother Michael Jackson, who was facing child molestation charges.

It's unsourced weaseling ("some think...") and obviously Original research. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that version needed to go. But it was a relatively common opinion publically on the incident. I mean it's almost certainly an untrue theory, but the fact that a lot of people believed it might warrant a mention somewhere, more likely in Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy though. I might see if there is anything approaching mainstream media coverage of this theory... that would add some credibility to it. Of course I'm really not terribly interested in the whole ordeal... just mentioning it here in case other people are. --W.marsh 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were in fact a relatively common opinion, surely it would have been written about. Therefore, we need an actual source cited, or it does sound weaseling and OR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the heck added the completely unsourced and WP:OR "Trends" section? That does not belong in this article. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been a week. I'll be bold. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who added the chart that got whacked of QBs with Multiple Wins. I put a lot of effort into adding hyperlinks so that it all was verifiable, so I don't see how a "completely unsourced" criticism applies. ChrisnHouston 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the bit about the winning streaks by conferences. That's not WP:OR...it's been published. --Dougwalters 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information

An anon user has been continually removing information without giving a reason why: [8]. I have asked him a lot to clarify why, but he has not, and has used multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR; I suspect it's more a vandalism kind of thing. Do you guys think the information is relevant? If so, I encourage you to add it back in; if not, please explain here; thanks! Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that particular "might have been" is appropriate for the article either. No, I'm not the anon who has been removing it. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He he, if you could explain why, please do. This user became involved in a ridiculous edit war, if you look at the page history, over this information, and alienated about 6 people in the process. I don't believe you're that IP (you wouldn't bother coming to the talk page) - but please explain how this information doesn't help. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "what if" scenario is so trivial it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Where does one draw the line? "If it weren't for a kickoff return for a touchdown, the Ravens would have completed the first Super Bowl shutout over the Giants." "If Kevin Dyson hadn't come up a yard short in Super Bowl XXXIV the Tennessee Titans' cinderella season would have been complete." —Wrathchild (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Wrathchild's notion. Other than an interesting sidenote exclusive to Seahawks fans, does the "whatif" situation contribute anything to the article? As stated before, the number of whatif scenarios in professional football is simply too numerous to include. No, I'm not the jack-ass that keeps on deleting. Djma12 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He guys. To be straightforward, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against using what-if scenarios, especially when they're relevant to the context of the article. Just because we can't include every scenario doesn't mean we shouldn't include any. In this context, how can you possibly assert that the text isn't relevant? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there is no wiki policy against using what-if scenarios. The question is whether the statement contributes anything to the article. I know you seem to like this piece of trivia, but whether it contributes to the article is a consensus decision, not one of personal preference.
In my opinion, there is no need to lengthen a trivia section that already takes up one third of the entire article with historical what-ifs -- especially since the Super Bowl's long history has plenty of trivia about events that actually happened.
Then again, I don't claim to speak for the consensus opinion. The only real way to settle this is through a poll.Djma12 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay down my opinion on the matter: the information is interesting, and it's only one sentence, and makes very little difference in the length of the article. That being said, trivia sections aren't supposed to exist on Wikipedia, per the WP:AVTRIV guideline. That being said, it is only a guideline (guidelines are not requirements), and one that didn't pass by that much anyway. I find the trivia section to be interesting; but if anyone objects, we can remove the whole thing (though it's preferrable to integrate it). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's enough Super Bowl trivia to make its own article. Why don't we just do that? It seem win-win to me. Djma12 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would whole-heartedly support it. But it'd have to be written in prose, not in list format. You'd have to be up to the task of writing it, then. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really looks bad that in the trivia section and the never happened section the article has the same exact information and so close together. This is very noticable and it does not need to be repeated (the info about teams playing in their home stadium). If it appears in the never happened, it really doesn't need to appear in the trivia section too, because never happened is basically triva in its own right! 198.133.139.5

Trivia Section

Items listed referring to a SINGLE Super Bowl game should be transferred over to its own entry. However, items listing multiple Super Bowls should remain. If anything, some of the items should cover trends. KyuuA4 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some:

Trivia

  • In 1994, the 49ers became the first team to wear a throwback jersey during the Super Bowl. Since it was the league's 75th season, every team wore a throwback jersey during the season and San Francisco decided to continue to wear their jerseys all the way through the playoffs and into Super Bowl XXIX. The jerseys they wore paid tribute to the 1957 team.
  • In the months leading up to Super Bowl XXX (or Super Bowl Thirty), some Internet proxy servers were blocking the web site for the upcoming event. Many proxy servers' filters were configured to block the text string "XXX" whenever occurring to prevent access to pornography. As a result, additional settings were necessary to grant exceptions for other uses of "XXX".
  • In 1999, the St. Louis Rams were the first NFL team who plays their home games in a fully enclosed stadium, the TWA Dome (now called the Edward Jones Dome), to win the Super Bowl. No domed-stadium team has ever done it before, or since.
  • Super Bowl XXXIX was the first such game to be tied after three quarters of play.
  • Super Bowl Indicator, an indicator based on the belief that a Super Bowl win for a team from the old AFL (AFC division) foretells a decline in the stock market for the coming year, and that a win for a team from the old NFL (NFC division) means the stock market will be up for the year. This indicator has been surprisingly accurate (around 85% correct) over the past years

A Question With An Answer That Should Go In Trivia

Has anyone played the Super Bowl in their own Stadium? (I'm hoping it'll happen this season.)

Looking through List of Super Bowl champions, that had never been the case. KyuuA4 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Trivia Policy

What's the policy for trivial information in Wiki articles? KyuuA4 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIV John Reaves (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Trivia

Cartoon Network Parody

Does anyone remember the few years that Cartoon Network put on marathons featuring one character vs another? They had play-by-play recaps and montages... I think it was called The Big Game or something... I searched WP but failed in finding any mention of it, and googling doesn't bring that many results... I was wondering if anyone here could help me find material and decide what to do with it. Blueaster 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep i remember that it was pretty cool think it was called the cartoon brawl or something like that but i doubt there is any information on it since it happened before wikipedia was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.43.78 (talk • contribs)

Shoes?

What's with the red shoes reflected in the Lombardi trophy? Is that the best anybody can do for a picture? Did Dorothy Gale take the photo? At least they don't "reflect up", and the picture taker apparently wasn't "dressed" the same way as that infamous eBay teapot pic... but the trophy certainly "reflects down". Wahkeenah 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it is a red hat that the photographer was wearing. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. If you flip the photo upside down, it turns the reflections right side up. It's several different reflected images of the photographer, a guy in a red baseball cap and a tan shirt, holding the camera up and looking through the viewfinder. It's still weird-looking, though. Wahkeenah 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the angle that the shot was taken is a problem, you can either find another free image or try to crop Commons:Image:Patriots Superbowl Trophies.jpg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl champions

I think the list of previous winners, losers, and game scores should be merged with the main article. A lot of people will come to the page looking for this information (at least I was). Maybe we could replace the useless "List of coin toss winners." 18.172.5.109 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is already 45kb - adding the list will add significant bloat to the article. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree it could probably be in here somewhere, or the link should be more prominent (as in a see also link at the top of the page). Heck, we even have a list on this page of who won the coin toss in each Super Bowl. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of it was moved to List of Super Bowl champions because the Super Bowl article is already long. I also agree that the "Super Bowl appearances" and "Super Bowl winners" tables should also be removed here because they are also on List of Super Bowl champions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Holiday?

Super Bowl Sunday does not bear any resemblance to a US national holiday. National holidays are holidays from work, and even when a national holiday falls on a weekend, another day is usually granted off from work. Super Bowl Sunday may be an entertainment and television mega-blowout, but not a holiday. –Shoaler (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you ever been out in the world while the game is on? Streets and stores are quite empty (in the U.S. at least). Everybody asks if you're having or going to a Super Bowl party. People who don't even like football go to Super Bowl parties, not unlike all those unfamiliar faces in the pews on Christmas and Easter. It is a bigger "event" than most official U.S. Holidays. Presidents' Day party anyone? —Wrathchild (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Facto Holiday

This is really what the Super Bowl has become. A de facto holiday. Not an official holiday, but many Americans treat it as such. KyuuA4 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venue problem

Would someone care to correct this bit from the Venue information. The counts for New Orleans and Greater Miami don't match the per-stadium counts for those cities.

Over half of the Super Bowls have been played in one of three cities: New Orleans, Louisiana (nine times, six times at the Louisiana Superdome and four times at now-demolished Tulane Stadium), the Greater Miami Area (nine total, five times at Miami's Orange Bowl and three times at Miami's Dolphin Stadium), ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.246.40.54 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Counts can be verified from this table: List of Super Bowl champions. As a featured list, it should be accurate; and regarding venues, that can be counted. I'll do some checking on that in a bit. KyuuA4 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the lead in sentence speaks of city/metro area, cutting out the stadium info. from the sentence. That data can be found on the venue table below it. Also, that table can be cleaned up a bit. KyuuA4 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count check

  • New Orleans, Louisiana -- 9 times; 6 at the Superdome, 3 at Tulane
  • Greater Miami Area -- 9 times (Miami-S.Florida); 4 at Dolphin Stadium, 5 at the Orange Bowl

Checked the list. KyuuA4 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums to host both a Super Bowl and a World Series

Does any mention of the World Series have any relevance to this article? KyuuA4 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

A pet peeve of mine is the frequent misspelling of the name of this event as "Superbowl" by many fans. I've been wondering whether something belongs in this article, perhaps a footnote after the first reference to the name stating something like, "The name of this event is frequently misspelled as 'Superbowl.' The official name consists of two words." But I don't have a good citation to support it aside from the NFL's universal practice of using two words (except in the URL superbowl.com, of course). 1995hoo 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL holds copyright to the term "Super bowl". As far as I know, it is two words. KyuuA4 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically enough, the copyright might explain why the single word version is also popular. In any case, it's not the wiki's job to say people are spelling something wrong. Jon 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non occerences

In the non-ocerences section about home field advantage. I think a note for Pitrtsburgh should be added. Super bowl XL was in Jerome Bettis's home city and 99.9 percent of the fans there were Steeler fans. YOu could tell from theg terrible towels and from the statistics about the attendence. I fthat isnst home field advantage then i dont know what is.Mstare88 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl&oldid=172717032"