The real reason the power went out @ Superbowl.

[JuliusSeizure]

I think that is completely plausible, actually. In both the NFL and NBA. In Michael Jordan's "last" NBA finals before he "retired", it sure seemed like a LOT of calls went the Bulls' way.

 

It could be a subconscious thing rather than a directive from the league office. I dunno. But yes, millions of dollars are at stake, so...reputations have been risked for far less.

[joe_collector]

I think that is completely plausible, actually. In both the NFL and NBA. In Michael Jordan's "last" NBA finals before he "retired", it sure seemed like a LOT of calls went the Bulls' way.

 

It could be a subconscious thing rather than a directive from the league office. I dunno. But yes, millions of dollars are at stake, so...reputations have been risked for far less.

 

Actually, the NFL loses BILLIONS in TV revenue when there is a blowout Super Bowl, and prior to this rash of "advantageous calls" used to whine and complain about it every single year. Stuff like "NFL Needs Closer Super Bowls" was commonplace in sports mags of the day.

 

I can remember in the 80's and into the 90's, there were articles on how much money the NFL lost in XXX blowout throughout the off-season. It was a HUGE deal back then and took up a lot of their time.

[sckao]

The simplest solution is probably the correct one.

 

So by your logic, the refs in the Green Bay - NY Giants game were legally blind, as the replays clearly showed him fumbling several feet from the ground.

 

There is no way you can excuse your way out of some of these 'late game calls" that artificially extended games. The head of NFL officiating came on TV and openly apologized for that one, while dodging questions on how it could be missed.

 

Your premise is that the NFL tries to help the losing team. If you were watching the game, you must have seen the Ravens players hitting the 49ers players on the head multiple times and not being called for it after plays. You saw a helmet to helmet collision that was also not called. You saw Crabtree make a catch at the 3.5 yard line, turn with a football move, and then fumble it out of bounds.

 

There was bad officiating on both sides.

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

Your premise is that the NFL tries to help the losing team. If you were watching the game, you must have seen the Ravens players hitting the 49ers players on the head multiple times and not being called for it after plays.

 

But that was only at the start of the game, with the score close. None of that went on when they built up a lead, as you obviously know from watching the game.

 

And that Crabtree non-catch wasn't a catch - he didn't even come close to having possession.

 

And overall, the officiating was pretty even as there was virtually nothing the refs could do to erase a 28-6 lead. Then miraculously, some fool turns out the lights....

[Marvelfangirl]

[joe_collector]

Your premise is that the NFL tries to help the losing team.

 

No, my premise is that if the score is close in the 3rd or 4th quarter and there is an opportunity to artificially extend the game through a call favouring the team that is behind, thereby raking in billions in added TV revenue, then they take that opportunity.

 

The Tuck Rule is a great example. Brady gets the call while his Pats are behind, thereby driving the game to overtime (cha ching!), while in the exact same position, Manning doesn't get the call when his Broncos are in the lead and looking to ice the game. Amazingly, that game also goes into overtime ($$$). Wild coincidence, huh?

 

Same scenario (even the footage backs this up) but totally different calls based on how the QB's team is doing and how that call might influence an abrupt end, or artificial extension, of the game.

 

The only constant was that both games went into OT and the NFL made lots of extra bank.

[Transplant]

Explain in simple terms how the NFL makes Billions from 1 game being closer. I wasn't aware that the NFL got a cut of the ad revenue the networks bring in.

[sckao]

The officiating was just bad.

 

Williams clearly shoved an official with two hands in the second quarter and was not penalized at all or ejected from the game. (Video is available in the link.)

 

The 49ers lost because they played badly and shouldn't have been in that position anyway... So no complaints.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/02/03/cary-williams-shoves-official-super-bowl/1888769/

 

 

[PovertyRow]

The REAL reason?

 

[Transplant]

For the record, the Super Bowl has about 45 minutes of commercials = $300 or so million, not BILLIONS. Those slots are sold in advance and are priced differently according to when in the game they air, not whether the game is close or tied to ratings, AFAIK. Granted, high ratings may make the TV contracts more lucrative in later years. BUT, the current deal was inked in 2011 and won't even start the 9 year term until after the 2013 season. How concerned do you think the networks are with whether 1 Super Bowl is close or goes into OT?

[seanfingh]

For the record, the Super Bowl has about 45 minutes of commercials = $300 or so million, not BILLIONS. Those slots are sold in advance and are priced differently according to when in the game they air, not whether the game is close or tied to ratings, AFAIK. Granted, high ratings may make the TV contracts more lucrative in later years. BUT, the current deal was inked in 2011 and won't even start the 9 year term until after the 2013 season. How concerned do you think the networks are with whether 1 Super Bowl is close or goes into OT?

 

I bet you they have a contingency for what happened in terms of the extra commercials shown because of the blackout. Reserve commercials that gets them extra bread. I would if I were the NFL.

 

[Transplant]

For the record, the Super Bowl has about 45 minutes of commercials = $300 or so million, not BILLIONS. Those slots are sold in advance and are priced differently according to when in the game they air, not whether the game is close or tied to ratings, AFAIK. Granted, high ratings may make the TV contracts more lucrative in later years. BUT, the current deal was inked in 2011 and won't even start the 9 year term until after the 2013 season. How concerned do you think the networks are with whether 1 Super Bowl is close or goes into OT?

 

I bet you they have a contingency for what happened in terms of the extra commercials shown because of the blackout. Reserve commercials that gets them extra bread. I would if I were the NFL.

But that begs the question. Does the network get the $$ or does the NFL? Again, a few extra commercials in the context of a $4B nine-year TV deal? This is enough motive for the NFL to actively interfere in workings of the game at hand?

 

The NFL is a cash cow. Exciting game or not, the only thing that can f**k up the NFL's ratings is the NFL. The far more logical notion is that JC is finding a pattern of bad/incredible calls and building a nonsensical conspiracy around it.

[joe_collector]

Explain in simple terms how the NFL makes Billions from 1 game being closer. I wasn't aware that the NFL got a cut of the ad revenue the networks bring in.

 

, "one game" eh? Yo forget to mention it's the Super Bowl and to quote wiki:

 

The television rights to broadcast National Football League (NFL) games are the most lucrative and expensive rights of any American sport.

 

And did you know that the NFL generates over 60% of its revenue from TV contracts alone, and that a record deal was struck in 2011 ($6 billion a year, increasing every year), or that the Super Bowl championship game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers was the most- watched program in U.S. television history.

 

No, TV rights are worthless and getting great ratings from a series of extremely close Super Bowl games doesn't matter at all when negotiating deals.

[seanfingh]

 

Oh, dude, I am not supporting the conspiracy, merely trying to nibble around the edges of the nutbar souffle for some interesting conversation.

[joe_collector]

For the record, the Super Bowl has about 45 minutes of commercials = $300 or so million, not BILLIONS.

 

Come on, are you really this dense? I was obviously referring to the TV deals, of which a new one was just struck in 2011, amounting to around $5-6 BILLION (yes, BILLION) average in revenues for the NFL, and that increases every single year of the deal.

[oakman29]

Oh, dude, I am not supporting the conspiracy, merely trying to nibble around the edges of the nutbar souffle for some interesting conversation.

More sig. line words of wisdom.

[bronze_rules]

If there were truly some type of agenda to air more commercials, then someone please explain-- why, on god's green earth, did they not air extra commercials during that huge gaping segment where we were subject to team pilates for half an hour? Furthermore, where was the cheerleader coverage during that period? What a waste of tv bandwidth.

 

And by the way... I get heckled when I post an outstanding and novel artistic illusion of frogs, and it immediately gets banished to the water cooler for no comic relevance. Yet, I suppose somehow the SuperBowl is comic related? Perhaps we should add a double standards sticky for the uninitiated amongst us.

[joe_collector]

In the interest of fairness, I should outline another theory put forward by a friend of mine who is a big hockey fan and doesn't believe any sports league would be this crazy (though it has happened in other sports like soccer and the Olympics).

 

He does understand that something is not right, but prefers to look at it a different way, which does make some sense.

 

I don't know if you are all familiar with hockey officiating, but a well-known part of the game is often referred to as "evening out". If the refs make a call, give a penalty, award a penalty shot, and it looks like it will have a big impact on the game, they automatically give a penalty or some hard break to the other team that benefited from their previous call.

 

Whether this is conscious or subconscious, that's up the psychiatrists, but it is a well-documented phenomenon in hockey and the teams know this. If a penalty is awarded late in a playoff game, resulting in a potential game-winning goal, the team that is behind knows they can hack and slash without worrying about getting called while the team in the lead has to walk on egg shells or the whistle will blow and they'll be in the penalty box.

 

No ref wants to be known for being the cause of a loss as hockey fans are voracious in remembering past transgressions and the league actively punishes transgressors (no officiating the Stanley Cup for you!).

 

That's how he sees it - that the NFL refs feel bad for a previous call or penalty and try to "even it up" themselves through the course of a game. This results in the leading team being more susceptible to penalties and the trailing team being the beneficiary of questionable calls and instant replay verdicts. It's still bad news for the game, but not an NFL conspiracy, just a pile of dumb farts playing their conscience.

 

I don't really buy it because it's a bit too pat for my liking, especially as this is a long-standing tradition in hockey officiating, but a very recent one in the NFL, but who knows.

[jessebrook1]

I expected Bane to walk out after the lights went out.

[joe_collector]

Again, a few extra commercials in the context of a $4B nine-year TV deal? This is enough motive for the NFL to actively interfere in workings of the game at hand?

 

How do you think they get those big, fat, juicy billion-dollar TV contracts?

 

By having ultra-close Super Bowls being the top-rated programs of all time.

 

The NFL wasn't always the ratings king it is now, and I can remember in the 80's and 90's where the Super Bowl blowouts were the laughing stock of North America and TV deals were nowhere as robust.

 

Did anyone see the Top Ten Things We Loved About the NFL In the 2000s on NFL Network?

 

Anyone care to guess what was Number 1 by a landslide?

 

Close Super Bowls

 

http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/things-we-loved-about-nfl-2000s.asp