Super Bowl XLII: The luck of London?
| 14:04 UK time, Wednesday, 30 January 2008
While the dust was settling on the back in October, our presenter Jake Humphrey and I were discussing how we were going to finish the 91Èȱ¬'s highlights programme.
"Why don't we say the New York Giants' win makes them a good bet for the , and that way we can plug the fact that we're showing the thing," we agreed.
Now, without incurring the wrath of , I'm not sure either of us completely believed it at the time, but here we are three months on and the Giants have made it to the big one, with Scottish kicker and London-born defensive terror playing a major part.
Both of our "British boys" will have their hands full, though, as they try to prevent the New England Patriots becoming the second team in NFL history to go through the entire season without losing a game.
Sounds like it's going to be a memorable night no matter what the result.
Jake is once again fronting our coverage out in Arizona, and joining him in the studio is a familiar face to NFL fans in the UK, . I'm also delighted to announce that our other guest on the night is one of the finest defensive backs in the history of the NFL, . To diehard fans of the game, he needs no introduction. To those occasional viewers, let me put it a different way - think of the legendary quarterbacks of the past 20-odd years - Joe Montana, John Elway, Troy Aikman…well, he's intercepted passes from the lot of them.
As for commentary, we'll be taking the pairing of Dick Stockton and Sterling Sharpe, with Radio 5 Live's Arlo White and Greg Brady available on the red button. We know there were a few of you who wanted us to take the FOX commentary to give it the full authentic American feel, but we decided on this occasion to go with the more inclusive world feed. Let us know what you think though.
Also available on the red button during the game will be a beginners' guide to the sport courtesy of the . And if you're one of those Monday morning strugglers who find themselves confessing "I made it as far as U2 at half-time, but then I fell asleep", the highlights of the game will be available on interactive the following day. (In case you didn't know, it's Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers at half-time this year).
Of course one of the main challenges facing the 91Èȱ¬ as it shows the Super Bowl for the first time is filling those ad-breaks - well, in addition to more studio analysis with Rod and Mike, we'll also be trawling the archives for . So, if you've got a favourite you want us to show, shout now.
I'll finish where I started, at Wembley, and the news that the NFL is set to announce another game in the UK for October 2008, with the San Diego Chargers and New Orleans Saints poised to make the trip. Both teams have plenty of offensive firepower so we could be set for quite a game - and once again the 91Èȱ¬ will be there to cover it. Who knows, if Wembley becomes some sort of good omen for NFL teams, they'll soon be queuing up for a game in lucky London.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment
Great coup getting Rod Woodson to analyse the show, kudos guys. As a young(ish) NFL fan I wasn't alive to see the previous great 'dynasties' - Packers, Steelers, Redskins, Cowboys - and wondered with the Patriots going for 19-0 if we could see clips of those great teams best superbowl moments (Doug Williams is the only one I have seen so far). Would be very interesting to see where Mike and Rod place these Pats in the pantheon of great franchises that have been to the big game and won, much as the Patriots have and probably will again.
All sounds very promising.
I'm sure you'll get a generally negative response to the choice of commentary from those of us who know the game in reasonable depth. However it is probably objectively the right decision as in all likelihood a larger proportion of the viewers will be those with less knowledge of the game but who are interested to see what the Superbowl is all about.
Excellent choice of supporting analysts. Mike Carlson is one of the ablest broadcasters on TV, capable of explaining complicated points with clarity and humour. I've seen a reasonable amount of Rod Woodson on nfl.com as well and I'm sure he'll do an excellent job.
Roll on Sunday.
I'm sorry to say that taking the world feed is the biggest mistake you could have made. Have you actually listened to the world feed commentary of a superbowl? It is dire. At best it is patronising and worse still it often fails to capture the essence of the game as it is trying to reach diverse audiences. Thought I might watch on 91Èȱ¬ instead of sky this year, but not now. It is like having 91Èȱ¬ oictures of a football match and the ITV commentary. More fool you guys.
Haha, having just read the comments, I smiled at the commentary one! FOX I think do provide the best commentary across the board, but as the chap in front said, maybe it's a good idea not to use them for the newcomers of which I hope there are plenty.
There is a show on SKY all week called America's Game, showing the story of the Superbowl winners, the Cowboys 90's dynasty is mostly on tomorrow (Thursday).
Being a long time Cowboys fan, I'm disappointed we aren't there, can the Pats be stopped?
To be honest, nothing.
Those interested in American Football watch it on Sky already, so why have you bothered wasting the licence fee on it?
Excellent work 91Èȱ¬ on screening the Super Bowl. Also brilliant to have quality analysts in the studio. However, got to argue with your choice of commentary...Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are the best commentary team I've heard in any sport and viewing of the big game would definately be enhanced by using the FOX feed and thus have Buck and Aikman commentating. C'Mon the Giants!
Why can't you have the FOX commentary on the red button ?
I bet your package of best moments from previous Superbowls doesn't include Janet Jackson..............
Though I'd rather have the FOX feed, I'll definitely watch the 91Èȱ¬ coverage for Mike Carlson's analysis - he's the best there is covering the NFL anywhere in the world.
And as for your "Classic Super Bowls", as well as featuring the Giants and Patriots past victories, you should focus on classic games like the Rams/Titans Super Bowl, with the greatest Super Bowl finish of all time.
nothing against Dick Stockton/Sterling Sharpe commentary, i'd have preferred the fox commentary, i presume it will be Joe Buck/Troy Aitken as one of the best pairings on the nfl circuit and Totally Unbiased commentary of the games they've covered, unlike the english equivalent say John Motson/Mark Lawrensen and Clive Tyldesley/David Pleat.
i'll be rooting for the giants.
Great job on getting Mike and Rod. Please though don't hold them back from their traditional stlye and depth. It would be self defeating anyway because the best analysts like Mike and Rod naturally simplify what they are explaining.
Concentrate on making the highest quality production and by that have the best quality commentatory available. It's just false and patronising to assume simplified amounts to being more inclusive. Wouldn't it be more inclusive to at least have the Fox feed as an option?
In the 80's when Channel 4 introduced american football to the UK they used the normal american commentary for the Superbowl and the game still became very popular here. I don't see why they need to use a "world" feed which will be of a lesser quality as the commentators haven't worked together and the production quality will not be as good thereby devaluing the product.
I have to agree on the commentary issue, it is very patronising to listen to. I understand the descision, but can we please have Fox on interactive?
As much as I like Mike Carlson, I too will be tempted by Sky. Its like listening to James Allen doing F1, it makes me cringe!
Would have preferred the US/FOX commentary, but happy that the game is being shown on 91Èȱ¬. #5 - why do you assume that everyone interested in the NFL either wants, or can afford Sky??
In terms of previous highlights - Joe Montana and the 49ers winning drive from SB XXIII has to be included. I watched the game off tape when I was 9, and it got me hooked in the first place.
Confusion and contradictions reign.
We've only just finished celebrating after hearing that the American TV feed was to be made available on the 'red button' 91Èȱ¬ Interactive channel.
This is confirmed on the Radio Times website right now;
'91Èȱ¬ Sport Interactive (red button)
Live coverage, with choice of audio - American TV or 91Èȱ¬ Radio 5 Live - plus a guide to the rules of American football.'
However, the above blog seems to blow this right out of the water?.
Congrats on getting Mike Carlson for the Superbowl on Sunday.Not to sure about the world feed for the game would have prefered Fox.But at least those of us who can't afford Sky can still see get to see the highlight of the season.Would love to see the Pats go undefeated.
Terrible decision to go with the international feed. FOX should be the default with the other as red button option.
So what if the commentary assumes some knowledge on occasion? You have plenty of time for Mike Carlson and his colleagues to clear up anything that might confuse newbies.
SKY will be delighted at your choice.
(PS. If 91Èȱ¬ viewers haven't heard of NFL.com yet they will by Monday morning - Dick Stockton and Sterling Sharpe will spend 50% of their time plugging it).
I'm not sure why there is the need to use the 'inclusive' commentary. Given the timing of the event it seems unlikely that you will be dealing with many viewers without some prior interest in the game.
"Those interested in American Football watch it on Sky already, so why have you bothered wasting the licence fee on it?"
That'll be for people like me who are interested in American Football but can't afford to subscribe to Sky.
Great choice on Rod and Mike. Mike is a great and I hope that you use him for proper in-depth analysis. Please them talk football and not just do light to-camera pieces.
The international feed however is not a good decision. It never covers the why of the play calling - which is very important in people understanding what the teams are trying to achieve. There is no getting around that football is a complicated sport and needs to be explained for people to appreciate it.
I have to say that I'm very happy to see the NFL on 91Èȱ¬ and hope that you're actually going to start promoting your coverage of the Superbowl because I haven't seen any yet.
Disappointed with the decision to go with the World Feed without the option of the Fox coverage on the red button - this would be a perfect solution for all.
as a life long fan i'm delighted that the game is on the 91Èȱ¬. The Super Bowl is the only game i get to watch now as I don't have Sky.
No adverts should mean plenty of scope for anlysis and Carslon and Woodson should be great together.
Have been watching Jake on the African footie coverage and he does a good job there.
Like many (all?) i'd have preffered the Fox coverage but have seen games with Stockton and Sharpe before and they are a decent combo. Might even give Arlo and Brady a listen.
I do think the 91Èȱ¬ should have had some regular season or play off packages to lead in to the game. Seems a bit odd to just show the Super Bowl and try and attract people who haven't seen a game all year! - maybe next season we could have a weekly hi-lights programme, even if only on 91Èȱ¬ 3 or the red button.
Great to see the Superbowl on the Beeb and Mike & Rod as part of the studio team, but please try to get the FOX feed via the red button it enhances the all experience of the game.
Agree with you Tom Joe Cool's drive has to be the greatest Superbowl moment, though there is no biase there!
#14 - I appreciate that not everyone who is interested can afford Sky, although if they can and choose not to, then that's their decision (unlike mine with the compulsory 91Èȱ¬ funding).
But since we're dealing with a sport that has very minor interest over here, I don't think the 91Èȱ¬ should be spending money covering it when coverage is already available (albeit at a cost).
Given the largely appalling standards of commentary and punditry on the 91Èȱ¬ own coverage of sports such as football (which has a much greater appeal than the Superbowl), I'd rather the 91Èȱ¬ put its resources into improving these than spending money on something that's only of interest to a tiny fraction of the audience, and which is already covered by other UK broadcasters.
Commentary - oh well, I'll still be watching, and I understand that the international feed is better for the less knowledgeable viewer, but the Fox feed on the red button would be nice.
RE: Carl Ellis. Not all NFL fans watch Sky - I don't have Sky, I watch Five so the Beeb showing the SB is great.
Favourites from past SB's...
SBXXXI Desmond Howard's 99yrd kickoff return for a TD please :)
Great choice of pundits, no doubt.
FOX would ahve been much better. In future, I'd advise that for the main feature, with a red button feature for beginners to the game.
Not everyone can afford Sky (like us students). Why should we be penalised with beginners commentary, because we're poor? Red button should be for the newbs, and let us have the real deal as standard!
Highlight clips: Panthers V Patriots Superbowl. Possibly the best Superbowl ever. (Superbowl 38)
Not a SB clip, but Raiders V Patriots snow bowl, divisional play off.
Come on, Patriots! Perfection is only 60 minutes away!
While having the US Fox commentary as an alternative option would have been nice, preferable even given the interactive technology is there and being used, I fully agree with the decision to use the international commentary as the main one.
The whole point of the Super Bowl being on the 91Èȱ¬ is to expand the sport and reach a larger audience than those who watch every week. That is what the NFL wants and why they forgo the higher value of selling exclusive rights; it is what the 91Èȱ¬ needs to deliver an audience; and it should be what all football fans want if they wish to see the game grow in this country.
Neither is the international feed is as bad as some want to make out. Not just on here, but it seems almost fashionable amongst American football fans to knock it. As though claiming it is beneath them is a badge of honour for those who do.
It is also worth remembering that Dick Stockton, who will be calling the game on the 91Èȱ¬, is a senior Fox commentator with nearly thirty years of experience regularly covering NFL games.
It's disappointing that you've opted to go for the world feed. 'Inclusive', in this case, really means 'patronising'; imagine watching a football match where John Motson's explaining, every thirty seconds, that goalkeepers are allowed to use their hands, but if anyone else touches the ball with their hands, that's a foul! (It really is that bad.)
The American coverage is hardly particularly technical, anyway - particularly for event TV like the Superbowl. It'd be fantastic if you could carry that on Interactive, whether in place of the Five Live coverage or additionally...
re Jo: I didn't say everyone interested has got Sky, but most have. And, let's be honest, if the 91Èȱ¬ didn't take the Superbowl then chances are someone like five would.
It's interesting that many people are criticising the 91Èȱ¬ for its choice of commentary over this. I, and millions of others, watch the 91Èȱ¬'s football coverage and the analysis and commentary is largely awful, falling back on lame puns and stating the obvious. I'd rather the 91Èȱ¬ spent its time and money on this before buying something that's (a) on Sky and (b) someone else would buy if the 91Èȱ¬ didn't.
I just watched the Road to the Superbowl programme, and all in all, it was very good, but someone needs to tell Jake Humphrey not to be so patronising to the viewer!
The 91Èȱ¬ should get a highlights package or some live games. With Mike Carlson of course.
Carlson is a great broadcaster and well done for getting him.
I know people ain't so happy about the world feed but i'll still be watching on bbc rather than sky because Mike Carlson's analysis and Rod Woodson's willwipe the floor with the drivelsky's team usually provide.
On the superbowl moments give me a nice dose of superbowl xx and the beat the pats recieved and of course Woodson's own superbowl win in 2000
I feel a tad sorry for channel 5 who dedicate many hours to NFL only to have the 91Èȱ¬ take the glamour tie, please do it justice. Jake and Mike appear to have a decent rapport after watching the road to the superbowl programme so I'll give you a chance.
It's got to be better than the time I saw Claire Balding front an NBA game (or 'match' as I think she put it!)
You've got Mike Carlson!! Great stuff, although it was a bit of a no-brainer really. He's probably the best sports analyst on TV (ahead of Martin Brundle).
Carl - I appreciate your point about the standard of 91Èȱ¬ coverage of other sports, but I suspect the amount the 91Èȱ¬ spent on acquiring the Superbowl rights is a fairly small proportion of their sports budget. And while the event might be of minor interest I wouldn't be surprised if the ratings were fairly respectable - the sport does have a good level of support over here.
Regarding the choice of commentary it would be great if the Fox feed was available. I can live with the international feed, but you'd certainly make a whole lot of the regular fans happy if Buck and Aikman were available - in fact I think a lot of them would watch the 91Èȱ¬ coverage instead of Sky, especially with Mike Carlson and Rod Woodson on board.
Excellent 91Èȱ¬ that you're showing the game. You clearly are tapping into the fact that this minority sport here in the UK is taking off again big time. Sky's increased live coverage (and viewing figures) this season reflects this. You need to start negotiating now with the NFL to show (on 91Èȱ¬2 at the very least) a weekly highlights show after each week of next season - say 8pm so you can catch kids too. Whilst I'll always love 'our football' I must admit to becoming disillusioned with the Premiership, FACup et al - it now seems if you're not part of the Big 4 then you harbour no real thoughts of winning anything. (and I say this as an ex-Chelsea ST holder) This has skewed the competitions and could eventually lead to the killing of the goose that lays the Golden Eggs.(Think empty stadia at most cup-ties last weekend) The NFL in contrast, by placing well thought out restrictions and constraints have ensured that the competition is exactly that - a competition. Our media here are very quick to criticise the Americans for the way they manage their sports - but if they cared to analyse things properly, they'll see that there are loads of things we can learn here in the UK.
I'm glad you are showing the superbowl. I don't have sky but listen to my team via the net and catch highlight vids on the net.
You've one of the best analysts in Mike Carson too.
However you really should put the Fox broadcast on the red button. The world feed is good for newcomers, but think of all the people who have sky that would switch to the 91Èȱ¬ for advert free, great analysis and Mike Carson. Because of the world feed those people will more than likely stay on sky.
# Michael in London wrote:
Neither is the international feed is as bad as some want to make out. Not just on here, but it seems almost fashionable amongst American football fans to knock it. As though claiming it is beneath them is a badge of honour for those who do.
*
The point about the International feed is that it often fails to capture the excitement of the game because it is trying to reach diverse audiences around the world. In doing so it loses its edge and often sounds/feels detatched from the game itself. Dick Stockton is a respected commentator, I agree. But you can always tell that he is uncomfortable with commentating differently than he normally would for a 'home' audience.
Watching the Superbowl is an experience like no other in sports, the ultimate American spectacle. Listening to the international feed devalues the experience.
On the plus side for the 91Èȱ¬ they do have a much better studio pairing. Kevin Cadle is just there because he is american and adds nothing to skys' coverage. Nick Halling is very knowledgeable but (sorry Nick) soo boring.
Just wondering, is the person who decided not to take the Fox commentary the same person who decided not to to take the Liverpool V Havant & Waterlooville FA cup game?
Perhaps he is just having a really bad couple of weeks at the office.
Good call on showing the game, but like others, how about FOX commentary on the red button?
(As an aside: Go Giants! This is my 23rd Superbowl - my first was the Bears routing the Pats, when I was just seven, and it would be nice to see the Big Blue get their first title in, what, eighteen years?)
John Riggins 43 yard run in Super Bowl XVII on 4th and inches with the Skins down in the 4th Quarter to the Dolphins.
Where has the advertising been for the superbowl? I saw one trailer last weekend. There was no mention of the preview show on Thursday night, which I have only just found out about (now Friday tea time). What a stupid time to show it 11;20. Surely earlier in the evening would have been better. I see the Six Nations has been advertised well. Come on 91Èȱ¬ get your act together, if you want decent viewing figures, tell your viewers
It's great that this is on the beeb, our local is putting it on.
I'm a relative newcomer and the only fix i get is on Five.
Puts on broken record:
Shame about the commentary, what would have made more sense, in my opinion, would have been to have the international feed as default and the Fox feed available via the red button.
definitely the titans/rams superbowl, or at least the last couple of minutes
great stuff, bbc. carlson & woodson is a gem; and no ads. it would be great to have the aikman/buck commentary on the red button - perfect for everybody. once again; somebody at the beeb deserves a medal for all of this, if not the size of a frying pan, then certainly the size of a silver dollar.
thanks.
As most of the previous posters have said, its great that the 91Èȱ¬ are carrying the game and they've done a great job in acquiring Mike and Rod.
With regards to the commentary, I too would have preferred the FOX feed, but will quite happily put up with the world one as being a 'poor' student, I cannot afford Sky and am just pleased to see the game on terrestrial tv.
Im also interested though, to see how Ron Chakraborty or any other member of the 91Èȱ¬ Sport team feels on the whole issue and if the 91Èȱ¬ will consider alternative commentary feeds for any future games??
Fox commentary on red button please. Surely it's too late now, but really if you can, do. Reasons? As unanimously stated above.
Good job getting Carlson and Woodson. Equally, well done for staying away from Martin Johnson.
Would be good to have highlight shows throughout the 2008 regular season. If the Beeb has the rights to show them online, why not put them on TV? Preferably on 91Èȱ¬2, if not then red button. Would bidding for live Sunday games that Sky doesn't want, or even Thursday games, be too much to ask? Especially as there'll be holes in the schedule because of the writers' strike?
And well done for breaking the Chargers/Saints news 2 days early.
I'm really excited about the Superbowl this year as all years, I was born on the night of the 1987 superbowl and so it has been a staple viewing throughout my teens annd young adulthood, shame it's on so late, but a few beers in front of the Beeb should sort it out! Well done 91Èȱ¬ once again, hell yeah!
In view of the majority of the comments on here and even more so elsewhere on the web, is there no possibility of a late change of heart regarding the commentary options on the interactive channel?.
Something billed as an 'American TV' feed would indicate to most people to mean the same commentary that american viewers receive. Not many would take it to mean commentary done by american voices.
In view of the majority of the comments on here and even more so elsewhere on the web, is there no possibility of a late change of heart regarding the commentary options on the interactive channel?.
Something billed as an 'American TV' feed would indicate to most people to mean the same commentary that american viewers receive. Not many would take it to mean commentary done by american voices.
As with just about everyone above, please use the FOX commentary!! You could at least then just put the international feed on the red button!!
Kudos to the 91Èȱ¬ for doing a decent job in setting this up.
Along with many I advocated Mike Carlson as analyst and Jake Humphries as the face of the broadcast and pleased to see you have managed to bag Carlson, he's going to have a lot of time to fill as you say, that is one thing he will do well.
As for the commentary, well in the past we have had to put up with the world feed so I suppose it is not a backward step.
I would appreciate having Fox on the red button rather than 5live as to be honest, the world feed is going to be as accessible as it can get without being trivial so I'm not sure what the additional angle of 5live will be really?
I agree the Fox commentary would be the better option.
As for previous Super Bowl highlights-
Montana's drive in SB 23 must be in there (ideally the whole thing play by play). This is possibly my favourite sporting moment ever.
Broncos v Packers in SB 32 featuring Elway and Favre, two of the greats.
St Louis v Tennessee in SB 34 - all around great game & nail biting finish.
SB 3 - more for Joe Namath's famous guarantee of victory over the heavily favoured Colts than the game itself.
Good to see Mike Carlson involved, he's excellent. Any chance of bringing back Gary Imlach? He always did a great job back when the NFL was on C4.
I'm not happy with the choice of commentary. I don't want to have to listen to the poor world feed choice that you've gone for.
Superbowl highlights has got to include the 85 Bears.
I'm surprised that nobody mentioned Gary Imlach prior to the previous comment. I used to watch Channel 4's coverage before it was plugged and he always did an excellent job. If the 91Èȱ¬ did not consider him to front their coverage then I feel that they've missed a trick somewhere.
Hey
Agree with many of the posts here about the feed - but whoever the 91Èȱ¬ picked up, it'd likely be a point of discussion. Fox is as good as any.
I'll be watching a US feed here in Vancouver, Canada but I still recall watching the C4 feed of what I think was one of the very best Superbowls ever - the Denver : Green Bay game in the late 90's.
As for tomorrows winner - the Patriots have got to be huge favourites but sometimes you've got to wonder about fate. Manning is far from a stellar QB and looking at his stats, (especially early season), neither he nor the Giants really deserve to be here. But here they are and something tells me that as unlikely as it is, the Giants will reverse their end of season loss and take home the silverware.
I just hope it's as good or better than the Denver game.
Now you know how we North Americans feel when we're forced to watch the international audio feed during the World Cup and Champions League ..... :)
It is a shame that the opportunity has been missed with regard to not offering the Fox feed. It would have been nice to at least have the choice between that and the international feed. There does not seem to have been any promotion of this broadcast anywhere outside of these pages and tv listings pages which means that the audience will primarily be fans of the sport, with many of those who have the choice turning to Sky's coverage because of the Fox feed.
A choice of both feeds would have given a more balanced presentation to all audiences and I hope it is something you consider more seriously for next year.
about the feed. because IT IS the superbowl, the nfl do have broadcast rights. that is why fox will broadcast within the US ONLY. the international feed for everyone, just like last years world series for the baseball.
hi guys, just found this....
So you're offering two flavours of beginners' commentary - one from the US & one from the UK. That is really disappointing.
I know non-fans will be watching but you have hours of dead time to fill. You could have used that to let Carlson & Woodson explain things. Which would have meant giving people the full authentic experience but with training wheels during commercials.
I think you let a big opportunity slip away. Poor choice.
Still, well done for getting Carlson & Woodson. I hope you get a good audience.
In your 'Greatest Ever Super Bowl Moments' package, I'd love to see Washington's 35-point 2nd quarter demolition of Denver during Super Bowl XXII. I've always been a 49ers fan, so watched this game as an enthusiastic neutral, expecting a tight, tense, open game. Then, in just 6minutes of play, Doug Williams and co. put the Lombardi trophy out of the Broncos reach, and wrote themselves into Super Bowl history, with an awesome, relentless display of attacking brilliance.
Looking forward to Super Bowl XLII on the 91Èȱ¬!!
Rory C. in Norfolk
a few points:
1.where is the response from the blogger? if this was about football they would have commented by now.
2.agree about 'world feed'(although used to it now after 5+ yrs), but at least the studio was sorted properly.
3.to #58, how is it then that sky and canadian tv can get the original(fox)us tv feed, if fox feed is us only?
4.to all those who do not know gary imlach is doing the africa cup of nations on eurosport.
Excellent recruitment of Carlson and Woodson, the studio will be very intresting this year. However, instead of the World Feed, which makes watching the game almost unbearable for fans who know the game, use this personnel coup to stage a quick introduction to the game for beginners, Carlson does a similar thing very well on Five, and Woodson has intimate knowledge of the game. This way, the Fox feed can be used so English die-hards can enjoy the game as we do normally, and people new to the game actually know what's going on. Hopefully the game should be entertaining on it's own merits, but I can't reiterate enough that if it is possible, abandon the World Feed this year, and if not this season, then for 2009, as it is a waste of everyones time. My friends last year who were new to the game were bored by it, and tuned out of a fairly good Superbowl.
Will the 91Èȱ¬ be showing the superbowl halftime show?
Can I be honest and say that I hope you don't.
The world feed is an appaling idea. It is dull with little enthusiasm.
I would much rather have the direct FOX feed and at least hear some commentators that are truly excited about what they are watching.
In fact, i may even consider the switch over to sky sports.
I know peole are disappointed about BBc taking the international feed rather than FOX, but Dick Stockton is a excellent commentator and has called gams on CBS for years - plus Sterling sharpe is a very good analyser of the game - so hopefully it wont as "basic" as NFL world feed's have been in past superbowls! So if you arent watching on Sky than you wont miss out totally on authenticity. Just maybe the annoying "After the superbowl - survivor" or 101 mention of the half time show with Terry, Jimmy etc sponsored by Pepsi !!!!
I know people are disappointed about 91Èȱ¬ taking the international feed rather than FOX, but Dick Stockton is a excellent commentator and has called games on CBS for years - plus Sterling Sharpe is a very good analyser of the game - so hopefully it wont as "basic" as NFL world feed's have been in past superbowls! So if you aren’t watching on Sky than you wont miss out totally on authenticity. Just maybe the annoying "Next on Fox - Family Guy" or 101 mentions of the half time show with Terry, Jimmy etc sponsored by Pepsi !!!!
The bit that disappoints me is that when the Sports Editors' blog said that the 91Èȱ¬ would be showing the Super Bowl live, blog commenters were almost unanimously in favour of the FOX commentary over the international feed - and we've been ignored. The White/Brady pairing is already a very good one for newcomers to the game - the NFL international feed just duplicates that. A complete waste of an opportunity.
'What a stupid time to show it 11;20. Surely earlier in the evening would have been better.'
this comment came in the middle of an otherwise-sensible post, so I'm guessing it wasn't a mickey take.
I think the reason the 91Èȱ¬ are showing the game at that time is becasue it kicks off then. Novel idea for sports coverage they've got going there ....
looking forward to the game!
Hope you show some Bears 85-86 highlights, and of course devin hester's return from last year...
I was hoping that the 91Èȱ¬ would bring in Mike Carlson. He's the reason why I choose to watch live games on five instead of Sky Sports. The best analyst in the business. I've only watched the world feed once, when ITV had the rights a few years ago, the Eagles v Patriots game if I remember correctly. It was noticably dumbed down. I just hope that Rod Woodson and Mike aren't under the instruction to do the same for the entire game.
Impressive 91Èȱ¬ coverage - I hope you pull the same team together for next year. Mike Carlson and Rod Woodson really operated well together and I'm just sorry that the booth was so poorly sound-insulated that it wasn't always possible to concentrate.
A very impressive 91Èȱ¬ package - well done. (p.s. any chance of dumping the "international" feed for next year - it was a substantial step down from the quality fo the inhouse team.]
May I be the first to congratulate the 91Èȱ¬ on their outstanding coverage last night. If you had used the Buck/Aikman commentating team it would have been perfect and its the only suggestion I would make for next year.
Well done to Jake who I thought did a great job as presenter and asked the correct questions to Carlson and Woodson, who as expected were fantastic.
Nice touch on the Superbowl Memories too. The ones you left out though were Namath in SB3, da Bears in SB20 and the great Elway v Favre, Denver v Green Bay matchup.
I hope the 91Èȱ¬ will start taking the NFL a lot more seriously now. Its a fantasic sport and fully deserves the increased coverage it's getting in this country.
Last night's thrilling match certainly helped too. There is a reason its America's number 1 sport and we saw it last night with an incredible finish. Pure drama and an all-time sporting classic.
Well done to the 91Èȱ¬.
Fantastic coverage by the 91Èȱ¬, and a great game. Spot on!!
wot a game. well done new york.
after doing a lot of scanning the foreign channels(got a motorised satellite system), could not find the fox coverage anywhere apart from sky.
Regards Charles in post 69, I think the original poster was referring to the preview show being on at 11.20. Probably.
Thanks for the great coverage of the game. Keep up the good work next season (including FOX commentary)!
Well done to the 91Èȱ¬. Fantastic coverage of the Super Bowl. Jake, Carlson and Woodson absolutely nailed the coverage. No adverts - bliss. Now go and get some regular season games and I can kiss that dreadful SKY goodbye.
This game will live long in my memory thanks to The Grasping Reception. The Giants were worthy winners. The bookies gave me some of their money, so I guess everybody is happy. Except Brady, Belichick and the Pats that is. Dynasty will just have to wait until another year.
excellent coverage from 91Èȱ¬ i was going to watch on Sky with the Fox commentary but i actually stayed with the Beeb's coverage as BBc caned Sky with their analysis - and i like the fact that they are actually in the stadium rather than cut back to london. And i like to think i was right about the NFL world feed - was defo not patronising and matched Fox coverage all the way
Very impressive coverage. Enjoyed the booth analysis very much. Liked the mixture of flashy US-style graphics and traditional 91Èȱ¬ Sport graphics. A lot of thought went into the presentation and it showed.
Loved the Tom Petty post-game montage.
More of the same next year please. Can I also join the ranks of those begging for the genuine US commentary feed next time? It makes a massive difference to us hardcore fans. Cheers.
Cheers 91Èȱ¬, I enjoyed that. As said in #76, a good mix of the British and Amercian way of covering an event.
The US commentary feed would be nice for next year, but I think the team involved found the right balance. Woodson and Carlson were great, and Jake Humphreys anchored it well.
Brilliant coverage 91Èȱ¬.. make sure all you guys there at the 91Èȱ¬ check out the following thread to see how well recieved your coverage was:
Once again, congratulations, and bring on next years superbowl - more of the same quality please..
To all who watched the whole game you saw, I belive, a game equal to the 1958 Championship Game. One of the best ever.
Good job on covering the Superbowl. As many people on here, I don't think going for the NFL world feed was the best option, maybe for XLIII take the feed from NBC
Have to say the coverage was first class, it appeared that you had covered the game for years, with the exception of the international feed! I hope the viewing figures and comments posted here and on other sites give you the encouragment to cover the sport more going forward and not just the Superbowl. Hopefully the NFL has found a new home for the future.
Excellent game, good result, & a "well-cool" broadcast by the beeb. I couldn't find anything dumbed down about Stockton/Sharpe;(apart from a few seconds of red flag explanation) as I've said; Sterling Sharpe is the equal of any commentator. Unless you have the authority of Madden/Michaels or the entertainment of the Marx Bros(Kornheiser/Tirico/Jaworski) then the bbc had a very good team. I taped bbc & sky and when I compared the commentaries side-by-side there was nothing to choose between them.
In the studio the bbc definitely had the edge; + no ads + the 5 1/2 secs + the first time in 20 years we've seen MC in a tie!
Highlights of the game: 1. Tynes putting Maroney off the field (4:54 left in the 1st.) He'll be playing at OLB soon. 2. Osi's fumble recovery. And for Giants fans;- Manning to Tyree with 1:06 left.
I liked the end-of-broadcast highlights with Tom Petty as soundtrack.
Brilliant all round - do it again sometime.
Hi everyone, thought I'd drop you a quick line from our hotel lobby to thank you all for your responses.
I'm still getting over last night's game - what a finish! Looking at the audiences figures, I'm glad so many of you stuck with us to enjoy it too.
I'll be back on Wednesday to reply in detail to your comments - in the meantime, I'm going to try and grab some Super Bowl merchandise before battling through what's likely to be the world's busiest airport.
I don't normally manage to make it through the full four quarters of the Superbowl, all my adrenaline seems to disappear rather quickly when one o'clock comes around! But I have to say that the coverage from the 91Èȱ¬ was first class and I I'll definitely be tuning in next year.
Just one point though, will there be any chance of British commentary next year or is it wise to simply listen to the USA commentary as the are better informed on the game?
Jake was absolutely superb as the anchor.. I think presenting the Super Bowl Live (without ads) must be the toughest broadcasting gig going and he genuinely added to my enjoyment and was relaxed without being flippant, and there was a minimum of 'filler' chat which is pretty remarkable. I was always a massive fan of Gary Imlach but i think Jake may have had as impressive a super bowl as i've seen since watching since my Bengals lose to the Niners in '89
Mike and Rod as pundits delivered great insight and were rock solid in making sure the US ad breaks were filled with more than inane banter.. really showed good chemistry..I think you have your team for next year!... Keep up the good work and think about securing regular season games please!
Thank you for a great show. I used to watch the game on Channel 4, but am now in Belgium watching on free to air. Sky is not an option for me.
I hope the 91Èȱ¬ continue showing games, especially full matches as there could be a substantial number of viewers with a bit of commitment from the 91Èȱ¬.
Really really good coverage. Both pundits were great, never repetitve or hesitant, comfortable in each other's company and actually knew what he was talking about. The anchor Jake Humphrey was also very adept, never made a gaff (I think) and was humerous and knowledgeable. Taking into account that they couldn't stop for adverts, they maintained their professionalism and enthusiasm throughout the 4-hour slog.
I hope the 91Èȱ¬ sticks with the Super Bowl for years to come and perhaps should consider incorporating more coverage of the regular season or the playoffs, because as was shown a few years ago on channel 4 and with the enthusiasm of the Wembley game, there is a audience for American Football. I'm not saying that they should have a match of the day style, weekly coverage; but as was shown last night, it is an exciting, exciliarating sport that could be given to fans here if it were to be provided. Let's not get ahead of ourselves however, just bask in the overall triumph of a job well done by all concerned.
For a first time broadcast of a superbowl aswell as the 1st ever live nfl game on the beeb that was flawless. Jake, Rod & Mike worked so well together, add the (red button) option of normal network commentary next time if possible but don't change anything else. 10/10. Oh, the game was quite good too. Thanks bbc!
about the fox feed. i had the feed direct from US, not via sky, and it was about 3 seconds behind the bbc pictures. but there was a few times they both had different camera angles.
as a bonus, why dont you show the pro-bowl on sunday night??
Too many commercials on Fox interrupted the flow of the game. 91Èȱ¬ should in advance provide simple instructions on how to get the broadcast on a computer monitor.
Also, I know that Steve Spagnuolo, the Giant's defensive coach, Knew how to deploy his men to pressure Brady and cover his receivers, and thus to shut down one of the greatest offensive teams in the history of the NFL, limiting them to only 14 points in the Super Bowl when they scored 38 points to beat the Giants in December. I think that the gap between what you see on the field and how it is accomplished in terms of tactics, strategy, and intra-game adjustments is wider in American football than in any other popular sport. Fox deserves credit for showing him often gesturing with his hands in different ways and shouting to the defense. Vintage Spagnuolo. What was he telling them? how did he do it?
Superb coverage-and the thing about taking the world feed is the graphics were better. The graphics on Fox were similar to the dreadful graphics Sky use for Rugby League and cricket-tasteless pointless and over the top.
Well done.
I also thought the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage was excellent. Jake Humphries was superb as the presenter - asked sensible questions then allowed messrs Carlson and Woodson to answer without interrupting unnecessarily or making inane comments. Mike Carlson and Rod Woodson were excellent as well.
Unfortunately, no Cowboys clips on the Super Bowl memories, though.
I really hope that the 91Èȱ¬ will consider expanding its coverage to cover more post-season games and some regular season games. Full, live coverage if possible. If not, a weekly highlights programme of a decent length (at least 2 hours).
@ Dejan Tomic,
I think that Channel 5 are showing the game this weekend, I wouldn't worry about their coverage of the Pro-bowl match.
They have been showing the Superbowl for a number of years so they will be used to this kind of occasion, in fact the coverage may be even better than the 91Èȱ¬'s but the breaks for adverts may get slightly annoying!
Is there a better young presenter around than Jake Humphreys? I, just, managed to stay up for the whole game and even though I've been an NFL fan for 30 years I felt he knew just as much as me. Woodson clearly felt comfortable with him, Carlson - as ever - 100% the right choice for indepth punditry.
Well done Humphreys, well done 91Èȱ¬, roll on October 26th!
Next year's super bowl will done by NBC (in the us).
Please give the option to have Madden/Michaels as they know how to please the NFL vet fan and the newcomer to the sport.
Clear explanations of the game, but without the sense of patronising 'dumbing down'. There was a reason that NBC were keen to keep the pair together.
This is my first post on any kind of blog, which shows how impressed I was with the coverage.
While I did flick between the commentaries and favoured Sky (habit from the regular season and post-season so far), for analysis the 91Èȱ¬ were miles ahead. Mike is great (he's not too shabby on any US sport - where does he keep all those stats?!) and Ron gave a great player's perspective, which Jake kept asking him for which was also very good.
To all the people who posted before the game about FOX commentary, please read posts 58 and 75.
Considering NFL is just starting to move into the UK sports psyche on a wider scale, this game should have done enough drama-wise to entice more fans. With the London games set for three years, the future looks bright. But don't clamour for full regular season coverage as well - at least, not just yet. Saturation can be a bad thing. Plus, I'm sure Sky have got the £££'s to ensure exclusivity.
Top job and look forward to seeing continued coverage.