Superbowl

suzyb

Wont spoil it yet in case anyone hasn't seen it, but I will just say...what a game. Was well worth staying up, well worth it.

jds_1981

I tried to watch a bit & it was worse than tennis. All stop, start.
:P

kelsen

Awesome game! Right down to the wire and loads of drama at the end. Welker's dropped pass. Manningham's catch. Bradshaw falling on his arse for the TD. Brady's failed Hail Mary.

And my team won!

Worth staying up for but I'm paying the price now...

kelsen

jds_1981 wrote:

I tried to watch a bit & it was worse than tennis. All stop, start.
:P

I only got into it the last 3 years. You really need to understand the team structure and tactics to appreciate it fully, otherwise you're right, the stoppages combined are longer than the plays themselves. 30 mins for half-time is a joke though, especially when you have to watch Madonna prance around for 20 mins!

rick_chasey

Anyone else pause when they lined up to check out how it might work, watch it, and then FF through the faff to the next play?

spasypaddy

it was brilliant. one of the best games ive watched. so glad i stayed up.

EKE_38BPM

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

Paulie W

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

I think the stop-start nature is much less of a problem if you're at the game than if you're watching on TV - you get drawn into the atmosphere, there's stuff going on around the pitch.

The Super Bowl is worse than most games - because the ad time is worth that much more there seem to be more breaks and I just cant stand the half time show! That's where they lost me last night.

The breaks also seem more jarring when watching on the BBC - heading back to the empty studio every few minutes (or less) completely kills the atmosphere. Not going to happen, but if the BBC crew were at the game, in the stadium that would improve things, like when they send a crew to Augusta for the Masters golf, for example.

Kieran_Burns

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

Exactly what I did, and thank God it allowed me to skip past that old tart prancing around.

Incidentally - the BBC HD coverage had way better sound than the Sky one. The BBC had more crowd noise as ambient to the commentary and it really added to the atmosphere... AND the BBC crew were very interesting to listen to - unlike them bloody Sky shouty types.

EKE_38BPM

Paulie W wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

I think the stop-start nature is much less of a problem if you're at the game than if you're watching on TV - you get drawn into the atmosphere, there's stuff going on around the pitch.

The Super Bowl is worse than most games - because the ad time is worth that much more there seem to be more breaks and I just cant stand the half time show! That's where they lost me last night.

The breaks also seem more jarring when watching on the BBC - heading back to the empty studio every few minutes (or less) completely kills the atmosphere. Not going to happen, but if the BBC crew were at the game, in the stadium that would improve things, like when they send a crew to Augusta for the Masters golf, for example.

I assume you mean cheerleaders. They need the cheerleaders to give the crowd something to watch during the stops that they put in to keep TV happy.
Less stops, less need for cheerleaders.

Paulie W

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

I think the stop-start nature is much less of a problem if you're at the game than if you're watching on TV - you get drawn into the atmosphere, there's stuff going on around the pitch.

The Super Bowl is worse than most games - because the ad time is worth that much more there seem to be more breaks and I just cant stand the half time show! That's where they lost me last night.

The breaks also seem more jarring when watching on the BBC - heading back to the empty studio every few minutes (or less) completely kills the atmosphere. Not going to happen, but if the BBC crew were at the game, in the stadium that would improve things, like when they send a crew to Augusta for the Masters golf, for example.

I assume you mean cheerleaders. They need the cheerleaders to give the crowd something to watch during the stops that they put in to keep TV happy.
Less stops, less need for cheerleaders.

Well, yes cheerleaders (cough) but er (cough) I also meant the stuff happening on the benches. I havent been to that many games but sat near the team benches for one game and got drawn into the mini dramas that were going on.

kelsen

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I assume you mean cheerleaders. They need the cheerleaders to give the crowd something to watch during the stops that they put in to keep TV happy.
Less stops, less need for cheerleaders.

WHAT??! What kind of crazy talk is this? That's like saying F1 without the need for pit girls, MotoGP without the need for umbrella girls and TdF without the need for podium girls! All important in ensuring the smooth running of their respective sport!

EKE_38BPM

kelsen wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I assume you mean cheerleaders. They need the cheerleaders to give the crowd something to watch during the stops that they put in to keep TV happy.
Less stops, less need for cheerleaders.

WHAT??! What kind of crazy talk is this? That's like saying F1 without the need for pit girls, MotoGP without the need for umbrella girls and TdF without the need for podium girls! All important in ensuring the smooth running of their respective sport!

They are for before and after the race/stage. Cheerleaders are there to entertain during the game. Big difference.

suzyb

Kieran_Burns wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I watched the first half live, Sky+'d the 2nd half and watched it a more reasonable hour.
Good game, but I don't think I could watch a game live (i.e. actually at a game) far too stoppy starty. Apparently it never used to be like this, the game was changed to make it more TV friendly back in the 60s (something my Grandad told me once).

Exactly what I did, and thank God it allowed me to skip past that old tart prancing around.

Incidentally - the BBC HD coverage had way better sound than the Sky one. The BBC had more crowd noise as ambient to the commentary and it really added to the atmosphere... AND the BBC crew were very interesting to listen to - unlike them bloody Sky shouty types.

The Beeb commentary was from the NBC feed.