Master Index of Archived Threads
Super Bowl XLIV
| New Orleans Saints | 24 votes |
| Indianapolis Colts | 5 votes |
| Valadius Jan 24 2010 08:39 PM |
|
Who're you rooting for?
|
| Willets Point Jan 24 2010 08:51 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
When I have no connection with either team, I go with the underdog and the Saints have a long career as underdog.
|
| Rockin' Doc Jan 24 2010 09:10 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I will be pulling for the Saints. Their fans have suffered through a lifetime of mediocrity and ineptness.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 24 2010 09:30 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I have no particular preference but think that the team that establishes the run, stays out of third-and-long situations, avoids stupid penalties, and holds onto the ball will win the game. EVERY interview and prediction you'll hear over the next 14 days, whether from so-called experts or some celebrity wannabe, will boil down to some version of the above nonsense. Save your sanity and listen to none of it.
|
| TransMonk Jan 24 2010 09:58 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Saints. I have been hoping for this match-up since about Week 6. I like that the 2 best regular season teams are playing for the championship.
|
| Kong76 Jan 25 2010 05:43 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Who dat? Side note, I'm really more happy that Favre isn't in the Super Bowl because the next two weeks suck enough and being force fed two weeks of MORE Favreahrea would have been intolerable.
|
| Fman99 Jan 25 2010 06:18 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Go Saints.
|
| Ceetar Jan 25 2010 08:12 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Colts myself. I'm not a huge football fan so I'd like to see the possibly best QB ever get another championship.
|
| MFS62 Jan 25 2010 08:51 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The Saints are a heartwarming story. Fuck 'em. When the Jets lost to them, the defense only gave up 10 points. The others were scored by their defense with the help of Sanchez' rookie mistakes. The kind that he hasn't made too many of lately. I am sure the Jets would have beaten the Saints had they met in the SB. Go Colts. (Its also an AFC thingie) Later
|
| metirish Jan 25 2010 08:56 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Frayed Knot"]I have no particular preference but think that the team that establishes the run, stays out of third-and-long situations, avoids stupid penalties, and holds onto the ball will win the game. EVERY interview and prediction you'll hear over the next 14 days, whether from so-called experts or some celebrity wannabe, will boil down to some version of the above nonsense. Save your sanity and listen to none of it. |
| Farmer Ted Jan 25 2010 09:14 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
One of the Saints offensive lineman went to my college. Done deal on that. It was my hope that the media would outlets focus on the team and how Sean Payton built this team up from the dregs, not harping on the whole Katrina thing. Joe Buck, while massaging Aikman's leg, ended that three seconds after the field goal.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 25 2010 09:33 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Farmer Ted"]One of the Saints offensive lineman went to my college. Done deal on that. It was my hope that the media would outlets focus on the team and how Sean Payton built this team up from the dregs, not harping on the whole Katrina thing. Joe Buck, while massaging Aikman's leg, ended that three seconds after the field goal. |
| Edgy DC Jan 25 2010 09:40 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Any pressure on Archie Manning to pick between his team and his son's?
|
| metirish Jan 25 2010 09:42 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
A heckuva job by Payton. Rooting for NO here
|
| MFS62 Jan 25 2010 10:25 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":1bvl1zpe]Any pressure on Archie Manning to pick between his team and his son's?[/quote:1bvl1zpe] Blood is thicker than French Quarter. Later
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 25 2010 10:57 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Edgy DC":wnedf3h8]Any pressure on Archie Manning to pick between his team and his son's?[/quote:wnedf3h8] Pressure, maybe. But if so, it's all external. The Mannings hang exceedingly tight, and generally seem like the kind of ultrasupportive family that made "team" t-shirts when taking family trips and was really fun to watch lose on the old "Family Feud."
|
| Centerfield Jan 25 2010 11:26 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Kong76":1fuoni81]Who dat? Side note, I'm really more happy that Favre isn't in the Super Bowl because the next two weeks suck enough and being force fed two weeks of MORE Favreahrea would have been intolerable.[/quote:1fuoni81] Yes. My only regret is that Favre can't lose the Super Bowl as well. I love the fact that the last pass he threw was a pick. (Until he unretires again)
|
| RealityChuck Jan 25 2010 05:47 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Neither. I haven't watched a Super Bowl in 28 years and see no reason to break my streak.
|
| Kong76 Jan 25 2010 07:47 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
RC: I haven't watched a Super Bowl in 28 years <<< Wow! Not one snap?
|
| Nymr83 Jan 25 2010 11:27 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Rooting for the Colts. I think Manning is the best QB in the league (maybe ever) and another ring helps shut Brady fans up.
|
| metirish Jan 26 2010 06:36 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Nymr83":28ahf8j2]Rooting for the Colts. I think Manning is the best QB in the league (maybe ever) and another ring helps shut Brady fans up.[/quote:28ahf8j2] It's funny, I think it was Gary Myers the other day in talking about Manning and his spotty playoff record saying how he "has only won one SB"....., it's like when he had none he needed one to be considered great but now that's not enough. I think he's as stiff as card board and a personality to match but he's brilliant, simply brilliant.
|
| Willets Point Jan 26 2010 08:29 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Nymr83":27zhr3lm]Rooting for the Colts. I think Manning is the best QB in the league (maybe ever) and another ring helps shut Brady fans up.[/quote:27zhr3lm] Sorry, but from personal experience, there is NOTHING that will shut these people up. New England Patriots are a most arrogant, obnoxious, and whiny group, second only to the Yankees fanbase in my estimation.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 26 2010 09:54 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
On the plus side, when/if this current dynasty subsides, they'll go back to being exclusively Red Sox fans. Did anyone else catch the look on PeyPey's face after the 2nd-quarter TD to Collie, by the way? It was a dead-eyed assassin's stare, and maybe the only time in my life I've ever been frightened by a Manning.
|
| RealityChuck Jan 26 2010 11:48 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Kong76"]RC: I haven't watched a Super Bowl in 28 years <<< Wow! Not one snap? |
| Valadius Jan 26 2010 12:58 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Saints. That city needs it badly.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 26 2010 01:39 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I like them, and I'm rooting for them. But-- no offense, Val, as yours is just one of many, many straws-- "The Saints need to win this because of Katrina" is kind of starting to sound like this year's "Favre looks like a kid out there."
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 26 2010 02:37 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I think having a city and state government that isn't perpetually corrupt would do a helluva lot more for New Orleans than a SB winning football team.
|
| SteveJRogers Jan 26 2010 03:36 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Valadius":lqesrksz]Saints. That city needs it badly.[/quote:lqesrksz] Which though makes you kind of hypocritical for rooting for the Diamondbacks in the 2001 WS when you think about it.
|
| Valadius Jan 26 2010 04:30 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="SteveJRogers":2xk8dsup][quote="Valadius":2xk8dsup]Saints. That city needs it badly.[/quote:2xk8dsup] Which though makes you kind of hypocritical for rooting for the Diamondbacks in the 2001 WS when you think about it.[/quote:2xk8dsup] You finally outed yourself, Rogers. Congratulations.
|
| Valadius Jan 26 2010 04:34 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":271attsn]I like them, and I'm rooting for them. But-- no offense, Val, as yours is just one of many, many straws-- "The Saints need to win this because of Katrina" is kind of starting to sound like this year's "Favre looks like a kid out there."[/quote:271attsn] I'm not talking about Katrina. I'm talking about a city that's been suffering from over a century of being ignored, mismanaged, and dumped on.
|
| SteveJRogers Jan 26 2010 04:39 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Valadius":1gnpq89d][quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":1gnpq89d]I like them, and I'm rooting for them. But-- no offense, Val, as yours is just one of many, many straws-- "The Saints need to win this because of Katrina" is kind of starting to sound like this year's "Favre looks like a kid out there."[/quote:1gnpq89d] I'm not talking about Katrina. I'm talking about a city that's been suffering from over a century of being ignored, mismanaged, and dumped on.[/quote:1gnpq89d] Did you root for the Phillies in the 2008 World Series? Philly ranks right up there with NO in terms of what you're talking about. Or Detroit...well, yeah I can see why YOU would have rooted for Detroit in 2006 and I doubt it had anything to do with how desolate of a city Detroit has become over the past few decades.
|
| SteveJRogers Jan 26 2010 04:49 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Valadius":9upu63bo][quote="SteveJRogers":9upu63bo][quote="Valadius":9upu63bo]Saints. That city needs it badly.[/quote:9upu63bo] Which though makes you kind of hypocritical for rooting for the Diamondbacks in the 2001 WS when you think about it.[/quote:9upu63bo] You finally outed yourself, Rogers. Congratulations.[/quote:9upu63bo] The fuck are you talking about? The two situations are completely comparable. Both are instances where the national media are trying to be heavy handed to get people to "root" for a team just because they play for a city that went through a major tragedy. Hence your picking of the Saints shows that you are being a "sheep" of sorts, especially since its been a few years since Katrina, when you, like me, didn't give a hoot about how the national media was trying to get anyone who wasn't a Diamondback fan to root for the Yankees (We are all New Yorkers sort of shit). That's fine, and yes you can say NO was a worse tragedy because of the shit NO was in BEFORE Katrina ever hit, while 9/11 was a slight dip in terms of the progression of New York's rebound from the depths of the 1970s and 1980s, but you are falling for the same smoke and mirror set up that was presented in 2001 with the Saints this year. I'm just saying, whats good for the goose, should be good for the gander, you my friend are coming off slightly hypocritical. I rooted for the D'Backs in 2001, and I'm rooting for Big Brother to further cement his legacy among the best to ever take a snap behind center.
|
| SteveJRogers Jan 26 2010 05:01 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Frayed Knot":1krf6veb]I think having a city and state government that isn't perpetually corrupt would do a helluva lot more for New Orleans than a SB winning football team.[/quote:1krf6veb] Sadly I think the opposite might truly be the case. IIRC, wasn't there some sort of local referendum to get the Saints to pick Vince Young instead of Reggie Bush? As well as something where they made a push for the Saints to hire Doug Williams as coach? As much as I agree with you, and disagree with Val's assertion about rooting interests, I would not be shocked if local leaders did try to correlate a SB victory with "being back" in the way a city comes back. 1984 Tigers, 1980 Phillies, 1983 76ers, 1977-1978 Yankees, winning championships might be good for some sort of civic pride, and a slight economic boost during the run if there are home games involved, but we are talking about games here. Not something tangible that really would help the economy and soul of a city rebound from bad economic times.
|
| metirish Jan 26 2010 05:21 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Raise your hand if you believe that Steveo was rooting for the D-Backs .
|
| cooby Jan 26 2010 05:25 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Colts
|
| cooby Jan 26 2010 05:27 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Kong76":fm7d56ju]Who dat? Side note, I'm really more happy that Favre isn't in the Super Bowl because the next two weeks suck enough and being force fed two weeks of MORE Favreahrea would have been intolerable.[/quote:fm7d56ju] Yeah, me too!
|
| Kong76 Jan 26 2010 05:31 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Do SJR and Valad have a score to settle from 2001? A long bop 'til they drop in The Red Light Forum for two weeks could get us through until pitchers and catchers! Have at it, boys!
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 26 2010 05:39 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
I have no idea where you (SJR) are going with this. My point is that New Orleans as a city is in terrible shape not just because of the hurricane but also because those problems were exacerbated by the fact that Louisiana and the city itself don't merely tolerate corruption in their politics they celebrate it and - surprise, surprise - it came up to bite them. Tourism based on its colorful traditions is what kept the city above water (partial pun intended) despite its barely functioning services and absurd crime rates. And whether local pols or talk show idiots demand a draft pick that's different than the one the team eventually went with makes them no different than any other group of fans.
|
| metirish Jan 26 2010 05:47 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I never knew that FK, good stuff.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 26 2010 10:16 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Obama, interviewed by espnnews, is giving the same "new orleans needs this because of katrina" crap.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 26 2010 10:41 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
That's because while it is true, "Indianapolis residents need this because they live in Indianapolis" is much less compelling.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 27 2010 07:16 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]That's because while it is true, "Indianapolis residents need this because they live in Indianapolis" is much less compelling. |
| metirish Jan 29 2010 11:13 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
So , the Pro-Bowl is now this Sunday , a week before the Super Bowl and the players playing in that game are expected to show up in Miami for thr Pro-Bowl. How stoopid is that?, not that they'll be doing much of anything but it's just a silly attempt to generate more viewers.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 29 2010 12:00 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
It's the TV equivalent of tying a steak around the game's neck so that the big, stupid beer-commercial-ogling dog will play with it.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 29 2010 12:08 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
It's basically the NFL reminding everyone - especially the players - of how controlling they can be. It also throws a bone to the network doing the game (in this case ESPN) by giving them the chance to interview those guys with some degree of exclusivity prior to the barely organized mayhem that is media day on Tuesday where everyone up to and including 'Good Housekeeping' magazine will probably be vying for access. Besides, it could be worse. The original plan called for those Saints & Colts players who are selected for the Pro Bowl team to not only show up for the game in Florida (and stay until at least half-time) but to then fly back to their home cities so that they could then fly back in to Miami the following day - a move which I can only imagine was so that those inevitable 'team walking off the plane' video wouldn't be minus the stars, especially the likes of Manning & Brees. Apparently they've backed off of this and the dozen or so Pro-Bowlers (as opposed to pro bowlers) will be permitted to stay in south Florida Sunday night. Who says the league doesn't have a soft side? The other NFL 'Hand of God' news is that they're cracking down on vendors selling unauthorized 'Who Dat' merchandise, those shirts and banners using the phrase with the New Orleans patois that became popular with Saints fans several decades ago - 'Who Dat think they can beat the Saints?' - but was later copyrighted by the NFL so as to make money from anyone trying to use that phrase commercially.
|
| dgwphotography Jan 29 2010 02:42 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
All the more reason I'm rooting for the Colts.
|
| MFS62 Jan 30 2010 08:21 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Frayed Knot":1xfp86hj] The other NFL 'Hand of God' news is that they're cracking down on vendors selling unauthorized ... merchandise, [/quote:1xfp86hj] Good point. If you buy ANY merchandise like that, be sure it has official league logos or authorization. I've heard the NFL is producing 10,000 coins, like the ref tosses before the game, They have the logos of the teams around the Lombardi trophy, clad in gold and sterling silver. They should come with a certificate of authorization if you buy one. The price will be under $100. Later
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 30 2010 09:19 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
My point wasn't to warn folks about buying unauthorized merchandise. If someone is so hard up for some instant "collectable" they're on their own as far as I'm concerned and if I'm going to buy some cheap t-shirt that says 'WHO DAT' on it I really don't care whether it's commissioner Goodel has pronounced it kosher or not. Also, maybe it's just me but how does a "certificate of authenticity" help? If the dealer is honest I wouldn't need one and if the dealer is selling fake stuff what's to stop him from providing fake certificates to go with them? Anyway, I only brought up that subject to point out how the NFL is so controlling of everything in their sphere that they've taken to copyrighting fan-invented cheers and slogans and are willing to prosecute anyone using them. Fireman Ed, for instance, can't be invited to do his J-E-T-S cheer at an outside event because the NFL owns it. I realize it's their right to do this but I also think they go way overboard. Even Francesa - who will shill for the NFL as much as anyone - jokes about how the league is so rigid about this stuff that somewhere their lawyers are taking legal action against some 8 year old scribbling helmet logos on his school notebooks during lunch time without express written consent.
|
| MFS62 Jan 30 2010 11:41 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Got that. What I was also pointing out is that the NFL will merchandize anything that they think will make money, like those flip coins. I only happened to use that as an example because I'm in the business. I wouldn't be surprised if some fans are waiting breathlessly for "official" NFL logo jockstraps. Later
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 30 2010 01:16 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Yeah, it's just that it's one thing to create - and create a market for - little nicknacks like those coins with official NFL logos that wouldn't exist except for the existence of the Supe Bone and for the league to actively clamp down on someone trying to horn in on that part of the business. It's another to try to slap a copyright on some chant that becomes popular as a result of being uttered in one of the stadiums and then go after small-time entrepreneurs (in a ravaged city) that aren't using the league emblem, a team name, or any kind of intellectual property that the NFL actually concocted by themselves.
|
| MFS62 Jan 30 2010 01:36 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
True. But I'd bet that if you put a whole bunch of lawyers in a room, they would have to agree that the first one to copyright something owns the rights to it. Whether that extends to a stadium chant (hey, does anyone "own" Let's Go Mets? Would/ did someone try?) is another question. You're right. Its a shame that all the money made off those shirts won't stay in the economy of New Orleans. BTW- I noticed that ads, and radio and tv stations that do not pay the NFL for the rights, or will not be carrying the game, can't use the term "Super Bowl" in promotions. They have to call it "The Big Game". This is silly. But I guess its part of the same thing. Later
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 30 2010 01:49 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
It's not just TV stations, your corner deli can't have a 'Super Bowl Special' on their heroes and the electronics store can't suggest that you buy a big-screen in time for the Super Bowl because of copyright infringement - but, again, that's a bit of a different story as both the game and the name itself were NFL-invented, even if they do carry it to extremes at times. btw, I heard last year that the NFL was trying to copyright the phrase 'The Big Game' too.
|
| MFS62 Jan 30 2010 02:00 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Frayed Knot":3dh1b7cq]btw, I heard last year that the NFL was trying to copyright the phrase 'The Big Game' too.[/quote:3dh1b7cq] That's going to be a toughie. While the term Super Bowl refers to a specific offering of a particular league, "Big Game" can refer to any sport, amateur or professional. That should be as generic as aspirin. That attempt will be worth watching. Hadn't seen that. Thanks. Later
|
| Farmer Ted Feb 02 2010 04:27 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I'm rooting for the Saints. Check out the YLDB in pinstripes. http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/p ... seball.jpg
|
| Rockin' Doc Feb 02 2010 07:47 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Making a kid wear that outfit qualifies as child abuse in my opinion.
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2010 08:42 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Jeremy Shockey prolly evens the scales. What a complete doucheknuckle
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 03 2010 07:14 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Jeremy Shockey prolly evens the scales. What a complete doucheknuckle |
| Do athletes generally expect to get comped? Not all of them, but some of them do. Like Jeremy Shockey, when he was on the Giants. I've known Jeremy a long time. Back when I was at another club, he used to come in with Tony Siragusa, who I love to death. Tony was one of my go-to guys in the NFL. I had a few of them. After he retired, he'd always bring in a lot of athletes. And every time he'd come in with Jeremy, Jeremy would be like, "Okay, I want VIP in the champagne area, I want this, I want that." I would tell him the prices, and I would ask for his credit card, and he'd say, "I don't pay. I'll go somewhere else, they won't charge me." Which I know is a joke, because if he goes to another club, they're gonna charge him. All clubs charge. So if at the end of the night, a player gets handed a bill... They'll pay. Somebody ends up paying. I mean, we have to pay our rent. They understand that. We'll do what we can to make them comfortable and have a great time, we'll buy them dinner, something like that. But the only one who would ever be up in my face, like, "I'll go to another club, they won't charge me" and start throwing names around was Shockey. |
| metirish Feb 03 2010 07:19 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Farmer Ted":1lx8rgb5]I'm rooting for the Saints. Check out the YLDB in pinstripes. http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/p ... seball.jpg[/quote:1lx8rgb5] Is that Archie? , could he please pull his trousers up higher..... agree with JCL....Shockey is a complete wanker.
|
| MFS62 Feb 05 2010 09:00 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
When I see the Saints in the game, I can't help but think about how the Jets held that league leading scoring offense to 10 points, and wonder what might have been if the Jets were playing them this Sunday. (The Saints defense scored 14 on turnovers that day) I don't know if the Colts can put the same kind of pressure on Brees if Freeney isn't at full speed. The Jets led the league in blitzing (percent of plays in which they blitzed). The Saints were second. Manning ate them alive. I think he'll have a very good game. This should be fun. Also- there are under/over bets on how many times the tv will show us Archie Manning and Kim Kardashian. Bet the over on both. Later
|
| Valadius Feb 06 2010 10:24 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The logo for Super Bowl XLV has been unveiled, and it's awful:
|
| themetfairy Feb 07 2010 06:44 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Jason's FAFIF article on the Saints is a must-read!
|
| MFS62 Feb 07 2010 08:24 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
OK. I read it. I must be one of those fans he wrote about who thought "here come the Katrina stories" when the Saints won. And, y'know what? The result of a sporting event is only heart-warming to me if my team wins. And I have a feeling that Peyton and the Colts are going to leave the Saints in the same kind of condition that Katrina and FEMA left the city they represent. Later
|
| Methead Feb 07 2010 08:33 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I've always sorta kept tabs on the Colts because it seems like they've always had a couple Syracuse players on the roster... James Mungro and Marvin Harrison come to mind as well as Dwight Freeney. Here's a fun story about a couple kids playing in the game this year who should have played for SU but went elsewhere. Mike Hart and Jo-Lonn Dunbar
|
| Ceetar Feb 07 2010 08:51 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I've always wondered about the whole corner deli can't use the words "Super Bowl" crap. Does the NFL have snitches in every town in America that report this stuff? Are they routinely doing Google searches on line and making sure things are authorized? Would a business be better off doing it anyway, because of the free advertising/name recognition associated with the NFL going after them? I don't even understand why they have a problem with it. Aren't these places basically advertising their show for them, and teling people to watch it?
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 07 2010 10:55 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Methead"]I've always sorta kept tabs on the Colts because it seems like they've always had a couple Syracuse players on the roster... James Mungro and Marvin Harrison come to mind as well as Dwight Freeney. |
| John Mackey (born September 24, 1941, New York City, New York) is a former American Football tight end who played for the Baltimore Colts (1963-1971) and the San Diego Chargers (1972). He played collegiately at Syracuse University.... In 1992, Mackey became the second pure tight end to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.... On an October 2008 airing of the NFL Network's 'Top 10 Tight Ends' Mackey was named the #1 tight end by virtually every football figure commenting on the show. |
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 11:17 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 07 2010 11:37 AM |
|
[quote="Ceetar":1a5esb8a]I've always wondered about the whole corner deli can't use the words "Super Bowl" crap. Does the NFL have snitches in every town in America that report this stuff? Are they routinely doing Google searches on line and making sure things are authorized? Would a business be better off doing it anyway, because of the free advertising/name recognition associated with the NFL going after them? I don't even understand why they have a problem with it. Aren't these places basically advertising their show for them, and teling people to watch it?[/quote:1a5esb8a] I think that if their lawyers get wind of someone using the phrase 'Super Bowl' in the process of advertising their product then, yes, they'll take action to stop it. The view is that not doing so would not only be a slap in the face to the companies who DO pay for the privilege of being 'The Official _____ of the Super Bowl' but will limit their ability to sell the name in the future. And, at least to an extent, I don't really have a problem with that. The phrase 'Super Bowl' was something the NFL concocted, copyrighted and is connected directly to them. Sure they probably take it too far sometimes; I think I mentioned earlier about Francesa joking about their lawyers swooping in on some kid who's scribbling helmet logos on his notebook during lunch period. It was the part about them claiming dominion over fan-invented cheers to the point of threatening to come down on small-time t-shirt makers who thought of using such chants that I found so over the top. They since backed off that, btw, and as long as independently sold 'WHO DAT' shirts don't also have trademarked property like 'Saints' or their logo on it they won't sic the briefcases on them. It all reminds me a bit of the time Donald Trump tried to put some mom & pop travel agency out of business because they called themselves 'Trump Travel' or something like that. OF course the fact that the word 'Trump' exists in the dictionary or that they had used that name for years and clearly weren't associating themselves with him didn't seem to deter him from trying to claim he owned any use of that word. The IOC is similarly anal over any use of the word Olympics sans their approval.
|
| Ceetar Feb 07 2010 11:23 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
True. Just always seems so silly and/or arbitrary sometimes. I know supposedly Budweiser sued a brewery in Czech over the name. Of course, Budweiser means the beer of the Budweis region ...and they'd been making it for centuries.. I'm sure how exactly it was ever resolved but still seems silly.
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 07 2010 11:35 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The beer is called Czechvar here, I think A-B paid them a lot of money to do that.
|
| metirish Feb 07 2010 03:35 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Why do I watch this crap?, CBS ought to be ashamed with the tripe they are putting out today. It's not enough to spend the day hanging Katrina all over the NO Saints but they go there to interview some old guy who's got no help from the City five years later. Standing in the spot where his house used to be JB asks him what if given the chance would he say to a city officail, poor guys crying about all his years working and paying taxes....horrible Bill Cohwer then interviews Plax in prison, OMFG what a load of old bollox that was, yeah he's sorry and prays to God everyday, jeez I thought "Coach" was going to cry too.
|
| Fman99 Feb 07 2010 03:41 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Predicting the upset here... Saints 33, Colts 30
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 04:34 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
So, any good commercials yet?
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 04:53 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Was that the prolife tebow commercial people were up in arms about? It was pretty tame and circumspect at best, no? Personally, tho, I'm offended because it's dumb - why is the quarterback tackling his mom? Quarterbacks don't tackle. That's just dumb. I think the doritos dog collar was a little amusing. The boost mobile sb shuffle ad was lame and horrifying. And the sonata isn't too bad looking a car.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 04:58 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The play nice doritos ad sucked. And the only redeeming feature of either bud light commercial was getting to ask 'was that marvin candle?'
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 05:09 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Bridgestone commercial = LAME
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 05:13 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Yup. And the cars.com commercial was better last year when it was basically the same exact thing.
|
| Swan Swan H Feb 07 2010 05:21 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
If trends follow next year's halftime entertainment will be The Five Satins.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 05:23 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Interesting that the two pantsless ads were back to back like that. Oh, and I'm so very tired of Brett favre.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 05:25 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Swan Swan H":r5v0wwg9]If trends follow next year's halftime entertainment will be The Five Satins.[/quote:r5v0wwg9] if the trend follows, next years half time entertainment will be buddy holly.
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 05:38 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I liked that Dodge Charger ad.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 05:42 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
As a man, I'd rather use dove for men than drive a charger. And Tim burton's Alice in wonderland looks cool. That might affect me credibility wrt the prior statement...
|
| metirish Feb 07 2010 05:50 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Yeah the Tebow ad was much ado about nothing.....the Betty White ad was funny....
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 05:53 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I liked the appearance of Abe Vigoda.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:02 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 06:03 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Is this the first wave of the coming zombie apocalypse?
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 06:03 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I've gotta give the halftime show MAJOR props on the stage design.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:04 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="metsmarathon":78bgul4q]Was that the prolife tebow commercial people were up in arms about? It was pretty tame and circumspect at best, no? [/quote:78bgul4q] I think NOW's description of it was "hateful and extreme".
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 07 2010 06:07 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Valadius":tazoz0fo]I've gotta give the halftime show MAJOR props on the stage design.[/quote:tazoz0fo] Yeah, excellent. It's a shame Roger can't sing anymore and half his band is dead.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:08 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I knew it wasn't going to happen ... but who didn't want to hear Roger scream out 'WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?!?'
|
| Swan Swan H Feb 07 2010 06:09 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":lwn1z0je][quote="Valadius":lwn1z0je]I've gotta give the halftime show MAJOR props on the stage design.[/quote:lwn1z0je] Yeah, excellent. It's a shame Roger can't sing anymore and half his band is dead.[/quote:lwn1z0je] I think I saw ELO use this stage when they played Madison Square Garden in 1979. BINGO! There's the third C.S.I theme song.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 07 2010 06:11 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Was Zack Starkey on drooms?
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:12 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Daltrey 66 next month, Townshend 65 in May - for those of you keeping track.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:14 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
|
| metirish Feb 07 2010 06:15 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I enjoyed the stage and lighting....I was actually wondering before how they were going to trot all the kiddies out to the stage like they usually do for The Who and have them fake enthusiasm.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 07 2010 06:17 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I'm not watching, so I went looking to see if anybody had uploaded it. Instead I find this.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:18 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Notice how Daltrey wasn't on camera during the signature 'Won't get Fooled' scream? Me suspects that one was on tape.
|
| Swan Swan H Feb 07 2010 06:18 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
[quote="Frayed Knot"]
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 07 2010 06:19 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
[quote="Swan Swan H"][quote="Frayed Knot"]
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 06:24 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Onside kick to start the second half, recovered by the kicking team, New Orleans. Wow.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 06:25 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Wow! Gutsy call on the onside kick!
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 06:30 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Peyton looks ridiculously pissed on the sidelines, and the Saints romp down the field.
|
| metsmarathon Feb 07 2010 06:31 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Finally an ad I like - punchbuggy
|
| seawolf17 Feb 07 2010 06:32 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
I've enjoyed a handful of the ads. Betty & Abe, Punchbuggy... mostly I enjoyed the hell out of that onside kick.
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 07 2010 07:08 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The best ad was the guys talking with the boy-band effects.
|
| Valadius Feb 07 2010 07:31 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Saints pick off Manning, two-score game. I nominate Kevin Costner to play Sean Payton in the forthcoming feature film.
|
| Fman99 Feb 07 2010 07:40 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Maybe this is the gin talking, but if the GoDaddy girls aren't going to actually boink each other on TV then their commercials are a big waste of handkerchiefs.
|
| Fman99 Feb 07 2010 07:47 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Fman99":9grcmwar]Predicting the upset here... Saints 33, Colts 30[/quote:9grcmwar] Had the right outcome, anyway.
|
| metirish Feb 07 2010 07:51 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
It was just an OK game....boring except for a few plays. The ads for the most part were utter shite.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 07 2010 07:57 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Ads are, for the most part, utter shite. The notion that the commercials are an event in themselves for us to get excited about is malarkey. That's right. I said it. Malarkey.
|
| metsguyinmichigan Feb 07 2010 07:59 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The Gatorade dump is really stupid.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 07 2010 08:07 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
That was fun. Did Elvis Costello dress Pete?
|
| G-Fafif Feb 07 2010 08:55 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Along with the onside kick, the play of the game diagrammed here.
|
| metirish Feb 07 2010 09:03 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="G-Fafif"]Along with the onside kick, the play of the game diagrammed here. |
| Nymr83 Feb 07 2010 10:55 PM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
glad i didnt bet the game this year because the outcome was a shocker!
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 08 2010 06:44 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Best thing(s) about the game: 1) the more daring team wound up being rewarded -- the on-side kick, two-point conversion try, 4th down go-for-it-er The NFL for years seemed to embrace and celebrate the conservative and the boring 2) a combination of the Colts frequent use of the hurry-up/no-huddle, the small number of penalties, plus only one replay review, made for what was actually a quick game. Clocked in at about 3:15 from kick-off to final gun which is barely longer than the reg season average and that's with being burdened by a double-length (maybe more) half-time show. Many past Supes ran towards the 4-hour mark only 60 minutes worth (by definition) is actual game time and a good chunk of that is down time too. 3) As always, the SB being over signals that it's time for some baseball
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 08 2010 07:23 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
4) and the Daytona 500 next Sunday! THEN it's time for baseball, literally, as Nascar Nation exits the sunshine State just as pitchers and catchers arrive.
|
| MFS62 Feb 08 2010 08:03 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
The problem with having an act like the Who as the half time act is that their fans probably had to go to the bathroon while they were performing. Later
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 08 2010 08:36 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Frayed Knot":31sl95mh]Best thing(s) about the game: 1) the more daring team wound up being rewarded -- the on-side kick, two-point conversion try, 4th down go-for-it-er The NFL for years seemed to embrace and celebrate the conservative and the boring 2) a combination of the Colts frequent use of the hurry-up/no-huddle, the small number of penalties, plus only one replay review, made for what was actually a quick game. Clocked in at about 3:15 from kick-off to final gun which is barely longer than the reg season average and that's with being burdened by a double-length (maybe more) half-time show. Many past Supes ran towards the 4-hour mark only 60 minutes worth (by definition) is actual game time and a good chunk of that is down time too. 3) As always, the SB being over signals that it's time for some baseball[/quote:31sl95mh] A little call-and-response, there: 1) This being a copycat league (see: 3-4 vs. 4-3 defenses, college offensive gurus as head coaches, 'West Coast' variants), with bold, play-to-win coaching calls being rewarded prominently (see: Rex Ryan, Sean Payton) I wonder if misplaced ballsiness becomes next year's 'Wildcat'. 2) And yet... the pacing sucked. On at least five occasions, they went long-ad-break-after-score, then kickoff, then medium-ad-break-before-first-snap-from-scrimmage. Though the game clock kept moving, the game was sapped of any real sense of urgency, or even competive rhythm, until the early fourth quarter, really. 3) For better or worse. (Kidding. Looking very much forward to it.)
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 08 2010 09:56 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
|
|
| Gwreck Feb 08 2010 10:03 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Good game. Halftime: I thought the Who actually pulled things off pretty well, after a shaky start. Staging was cool and I was very glad to see they didn't bother with the audience plants around the stage (which was the big problem last year with Bruce). Reasonable choice of songs. Thought their energy was slightly lacking. Recent half-time shows ranked: 1. U2 (2002) 2. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band (2009) 3. Prince (2007) 4. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (2008) 5. The Who (2010) 6. Paul McCartney (2005) 7. Rolling Stones (2006)
|
| MFS62 Feb 08 2010 10:14 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="Gwreck":1pq1gne5] Recent half-time shows ranked: 1. U2 (2002) 2. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band (2009) 3. Prince (2007) 4. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (2008) 5. The Who (2010) 6. Paul McCartney (2005) 7. Rolling Stones (2006)[/quote:1pq1gne5] Whoever did the ranking obviously has forgotten the famous "wardrobe malfunction". Guess it depends on your ranking criteria. Later
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 08 2010 10:39 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Whoever?
|
| Gwreck Feb 08 2010 11:00 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
[quote="MFS62":1mcytolr][quote="Gwreck":1mcytolr] Recent half-time shows ranked: 1. U2 (2002) 2. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band (2009) 3. Prince (2007) 4. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (2008) 5. The Who (2010) 6. Paul McCartney (2005) 7. Rolling Stones (2006)[/quote:1mcytolr] Whoever did the ranking obviously has forgotten the famous "wardrobe malfunction". Guess it depends on your ranking criteria.[/quote:1mcytolr] They're my rankings. My criteria are "was it good," "did it suck" or "somewhere in between." The "wardrobe malfunction" show isn't ranked here but if a full list was provided, it would be pretty far down. That antic simply overshadowed the fact that that halftime show was pretty terrible.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 08 2010 11:04 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
Does fidelity to one's word count for nothing in your rankings? He sang that he'd have her naked by the end of this song... and then he did!
|
| MFS62 Feb 09 2010 07:29 AM Re: Super Bowl XLIV |
|
So, I guess this means that Buffalo will win the Super Bowl when the Mets move their AAA team out of there. Later
|
It looks like the reanimated corpse of RoboCop.
Word from the NFL is that this is the permanent Super Bowl logo going forward, with year-to-year changes being only the roman numerals and the stadium depicted in the background.
"My favorite player is Austin Collie"
