While I think Mike Holmgren is a pretty solid coach, I’ve always felt he was a bit overrated (before the Super Bowl, one of the common stories was about the tremendous job Holmgren has done since he gave up personnel responsibilities).  Sunday’s performance did nothing to change my mind. 

            But after I recently read about Holmgren’s motivational techniques, my opinion of him dropped another couple of notches.  Apparently, in an attempt to inspire his players, Holmgren showed the team $73,000 – the winner's share – in $1 bills the Saturday night before the Super Bowl, according to The New York Post.  The loser’s share is $38,000.

            Does this make sense to anyone?  This just seems absolutely insane to me.  Maybe I’m overreacting, but I can’t stop thinking that Holmgren is completely out of touch with reality.  These players are facing the biggest game of their lives, they’re already millionaires and can make history by bringing the first championship to Seattle – and Holmgren thinks that the extra $35,000 (the difference between the winning and losing) is the most important factor to the players.   

            The weird part is that Holmgren has won a championship before with the Green Bay Packers, so you would think he would make decisions based on past experience.  I’m trying to imagine Brett Favre, Antonio Freeman and LeRoy Butler sitting in the locker room, all of them smoking cigars and celebrating the fact that they were now $73,000 richer.  Granted, I wasn’t there, but I have a hard time believing that’s what happened.      

            Initially, I thought maybe Holmgren just didn’t give much thought to his speech so it turned out lame.  But that can’t be it – think about the effort it would take to get $73,000 in $1 bills on a Saturday.  You obviously just can’t do on the spur of the moment – a likely scenario is that he came up with the idea on Thursday, had someone get the money on Friday and then gave the speech on Saturday.  So even after three days, this still seemed like a good idea to Holmgren. 

            If I was a Seahawks fan, I would be concerned.  It’s not that I think the motivational speech is important because I think a lot of the rah-rah stuff is forgotten as soon as the game starts.  It’s just that it shows an amazing lack of common sense by the head coach who is supposed to lead your team to the promised land.  When you think about it, are you surprised that this man couldn’t figure out how to manage the clock (kick the field goal!) at the end of the game?        

            Um, that’s it.  Just wanted to let everyone know that Holmgren might be delusional.  

***********************************************<
/p>

             Last note on the Super Bowl: After the big game, I typically feel a little bummed out that football season is over.  But after all the whining from Seattle fans and the ridiculous rants of Pittsburgh fans, I’m sick of football.  I just want it to go away.  It’s like when I have a bad round of golf, I don’t care if I play for another month.  So thank you, Seahawks and Steelers fans, for providing such an excruciating experience – it is much easier to move on now.    

 

 

Did the NFL fix the Super Bowl? No, the refs were just horrible. 

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories because of one principle: risk/reward.  Bottom line: the risk of fixing games by the league is far too great.  If the NFL was caught doing that, it would be the greatest scandal in sports history and could cripple the league for years.  Do you think the league would risk all that just so that Jerome Bettis could win a championship?  Or just because Pittsburgh makes a better story?  No way, it’s not worth it. 

Trust me, as a Utah Jazz fan who watched Michael Jordan get all the calls in the playoffs, I've given it a lot of thought. 

*************************************

Did the refs cost the Seahawks the game?  Sort of.  Yes, it's true that great teams can overcome bad calls and Seattle didn't -- they're not a great team.  But neither is Pittsburgh.  If there were phantom penalties on the Willie Parker run and the pass play that set up the first Steelers’ touchdown, Pittsburgh doesn't win either. 

Seattle fans shouldn't complain because the Seahawks still had their chances to win it.  But Pittsburgh fans shouldn't be gloating, either, because the Steelers were flat-out lucky.  Just celebrate the title and thank your lucky stars that the officials had a Peyton Manning-like meltdown on the big stage, but don’t try to tell us that Pittsburgh was the better team on Sunday.  The only people who think that the penalty calls on the Seahawks were legitimate are Pittsburgh Steelers’ fans or people who thought the halftime show was great – either way, they’re both delusional.

*************************************

Does anything scream rock ‘n roll more than a 62-year-old man doing Jazzercise moves in a belly shirt?  I think not. 

*************************************

Why were all the people around the stage during the show wearing bright, neon-#### shirts?  It looked like a Wham! concert. 

*************************************

What was the deal with Al Michaels making a random Lake Placid reference at the start of the game?  “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!”  Yeah, yeah, you made a great call, Al.   But seriously, you’re probably been congratulated on that at least a million times.  You were even in the movie.  Do you really need to remind us again that you were there?

 

            I’ve always loved the Super Bowl, but there are definitely some ways to make it better.  If I could, these are first three things that I would change.    

Designate Las Vegas as the Permanent Super Bowl Site 

I’ve had many in-depth discussions about this, and, honestly, I’m still a little torn.  There is a spiteful part of me that loves that the Super Bowl is in Detroit.  Heck, I kind of wish it rotated between Detroit, Green Bay, and Duluth just so I knew I wasn’t missing anything by not being there. 

In the end, however, I’ve decided that the Super Bowl needs to be in Las Vegas every year – ultimately, it just makes too much sense. 

First of all, more than anything, the Super Bowl is a two-week party.  Obviously, there is no other city better equipped for a bash that lasts half a month.  People would go to Las Vegas just to be part of the festivities, even if they couldn’t get into the game.  When was the last time you heard of someone going to Detroit just to party?

Second, the players’ ability to handle Vegas becomes a story in its own right.  It is probably the only storyline that could hold fans’ attention for two weeks.  The drama that could potentially unfold each day would be mesmerizing.  In addition to a daily injury report, they would need to create a Las Vegas report: Owens – jailed for solicitation; Lewis – missing, last seen at Cheetah’s. 

Then factor in the potential effects of all the wild parties – inebriated players showing up to interview day; rampant dehydration during the game; the first time a player misses the Super Bowl because he simply couldn’t get out of bed – the possibilities are endless.

For example, think about the 1985 Chicago Bears, a team that everyone knew would crush the Patriots.  Now imagine if they had to spend two weeks in Vegas – it would have changed the entire complexion of that game.  How do you handicap that game when you know Jim McMahon is going to get a total of 13 hours of sleep in the final week? 

Of course, none of the above scenarios would apply to today’s Patriots since Belichick would just fly his players back to Utah every night.

The third reason to hold the Super Bowl in Vegas is because everyone in the stadium would have money on the game.  You know how much fun it is to be in the sports book with a couple hundred people on an NFL weekend?  Imagine being with 70,000 people who are betting the over/under.  You could have a 28-7 blowout in the 4th quarter and every fan would still be at the edge of his seat to see if his $100 on the 42.5 over was going to pay off.  The atmosphere would be absolutely electric. 

Lastly, on the night after the game, you have roughly 50 NFL players who have just won the Super Bowl and another 50 who just experienced the greatest disappointment in their lives.  And they are all in Vegas.  We could reach unprecedented levels of mayhem.  The report of this night would easily be the most anticipated story coming out of Super Bowl weekend.

I know what some people are going to say about this idea.  The NFL will never go for it.  The networks and sponsors will never go for it.  Even the Vegas casinos might not go for it (do you want your rooms filled with high rollers or the sports writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer?).  But you know something, if they don’t like it, they can get their own blog.  Because around here, we’re going to Vegas, baby, Vegas. 

 

Allot More Tickets to the Real Fans

            One of the great sights of this year’s Rose Bowl was seeing half of the stadium dressed in Texas Burnt Orange and the other half in USC Cardinal and Gold.  But at the Super Bowl, the stands won’t be brimming with Steelers’ Black and Gold on one side and Seahawks’ aqua-blue puke color on the other.  

That’s because each team is allotted only 17.5 percent of the Super Bowl tickets, or a little less than 11,500 passes.  After all the mothers of the players’ children are given their tickets, there’s only around 8,500 seats left for the fans. 

The rest of the tickets are divvied up among other teams in the league and the NFL.  Most of these tickets are used for corporate sponsors and Mike Tice’s retirement fund.

Last year, USA Today reported that the median income for those who attended the Super Bowl was $125,000. So if you are looking for another reason to hate rich people, here it is – they’re at the Super Bowl and you aren’t.  (Of course, I probably shouldn’t encourage people to hate anyone, but the Internet is a place to rail against things that you find unjust, like rich people or Keanu Reeves’ career.  I also think it’s OK since rich people have their own place to degrade poor people – it’s called a country club.)

I realize that most people at the game are probably football fans.  But few of them have strong loyalties to either team – most are just rooting to see a good game.  While there’s nothing wrong with that (I would be the same way), it doesn’t lend itself to a particularly electric atmosphere.

It’s a little like when the NBA plays an exhibition game in Japan.  All the fans are excited and they’re cheering every play, but they couldn’t care less who wins the game.  It may be a fun atmosphere, but it doesn’t have the same intensity of a home crowd rooting on their team. 

            Obviously, there will always be a substantial number of corporate tickets, but it seems like the NFL should be able to release a few more thousand tickets to the diehard fans.  There are grown adults who paint their faces and bodies to show support for their team – just throw them another bone.  While I don’t understand them and, quite frankly, find them a little frightening, these people deserve to be at the game more than another suit. 

 

Musicians Who are Eligible for Social Security Cannot Perform at Halftime

            During the furor that immediately followed Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, I remember thinking that the controversy would soon pass and it would become nothing more than a funny Super Bowl memory.  Of course, as usual, I was dead wrong. 

            One of my friends has called it the worst non-terrorism event in this country over the last 15 years.  He has three reasons: (1) It ruined any fantasies that he had about Janet Jackson, (2) It set off a chain of events that led to Howard Stern leaving free radio and (3) On a subconscious level, he is now disappointed any time he turns on the TV and doesn’t see nudity.

            You may or may not agree with him on those points.  But I will give you one more reason that he may be right: Halftime entertainment is becoming an absolute abomination. 

            As a result of Janet and Justin’s fiasco, one of last year’s requirements apparently was a musician who was not only uncontroversial, but also had the ability to suck the life out of a stadium full of people.  I present to you Paul McCartney. 

Don’t get me wrong, McCartney is an incredible musician able to put on amazing shows, during the Nixon administration.  I would say more about McCartney’s performance but I can’t – I feel too guilty knowing that I am ridiculing someone’s great-grandfather.  It would be no different than if I went to the local retirement center and teased the residents for having false teeth and artificial hips.

I was willing to give the NFL a pass since it was only a year after the Janet Jackson incident.  But now it’s time to move on – unfortunately, it’s clear that the NFL still hasn’t.

That’s why this year the Rolling Stones are performing at halftime.  I’m not exactly sure which target audience the NFL is trying to reach, but I’m pretty sure that most of them are dead.

Honestly, it’s a little sad to see how the Rolling Stones have sold out.  These guys were groundbreaking, rule breaking, and generally awesome in their heyday.  But now?  Well, now they’re sticking it to the man through multi-million dollar corporate sponsorships and $250 concert tickets.

I realize I run the risk of offending people who are Rolling Stones’ fans, so I just want to say two things to those people.  First, it isn’t that the Rolling Stones are a bad band – they’re one of the all-time greats.  They’re just not right for the Super Bowl, that’s all.  Second, who printed this story out for you?  Because I know you don’t know how to turn on the computer by yourself.

            To be completely honest, Super Bowl halftime shows have never been extremely entertaining.  There have been a few exceptions, such as U2’s performance.  I also enjoyed the years when the league copied the MTV Music Awards’ idea of pairing odd couples during presentations, like Mandy Moore and Marilyn Manson (undoubtedly one of the three most frightening experiences of Mandy’s young life, but if I’m honest, it would be in my top three, too). 

The only difference is that the NFL made the musicians actually perform together, which was a genius.  My favorite was Shania Twain, No Doubt and Sting.  The music wasn’t that great, but it was bizarre, which is a pretty good substitute for real entertainment.  

            I miss those days.  Again, halftime shows were never first-rate, but they were at least tolerable.  That’s all I’m looking for – a return to mediocrity.  Honestly, it would be a major step up.

 

 

 

 

For many football fans, the Super Bowl is reminiscent of Christmas as a child – waiting for the big day takes an eternity and when it finally does come, sometimes you find yourself thinking: “Is that it?”

This year the former will hold true – there is a two-week break between the Super Bowl and the conference championship games.  And if history serves as a future indicator, there is a good chance that fans will be disappointed Christmas morning, too. 

In the past 25 years, 19 Super Bowls have been played two weeks after the conference championship games.  In those games, the average margin of victory is 19 points.  Compare that to only an 11-point differential in games played with one week of rest. 

It should be noted that the last two Super Bowls have been decided by three points after a two-week layoff, so a longer break obviously doesn’t necessarily mean a bad game.  But when you look at the number of competitive games (decided by 10 points or less) over the years, it is clear that the last two contests have been unusual.  Only six of the 19 games with a two-week rest have been competitive, compared to four out of the six games following a one-week break.

While this small sample size wouldn’t be valid for any respectable statistician, the results make sense.  Even under normal circumstances, an extra week off can lead to teams getting a little out of sync.  During Super Bowl Week(s), the players are on a much bigger stage and can’t follow their normal routines.  Increase the amount of time they are exposed to intense media scrutiny, social obligations and other off-the-field distractions, and you increase the likelihood they don’t perform to their usual levels on game day.  Even if you don't believe in the statistics, it would be difficult to argue that a longer break produces better games.       

So if a shorter wait translates into a better game and happier fans, why doesn’t the NFL change it to one week?  Well, like many things in life, the decision is driven by money.

Specifically, the networks believe that more time spent promoting the Super Bowl translates into more viewers.  Higher ratings, of course, allow networks to charge advertisers more the following year.  This year companies are paying $2.5 million for a 30-second commercial, according to Reuters.

“People like to complain about the hype and the delay,” said Sean McManus, president of CBS Sports, before last year’s Super Bowl. “But from our standpoint, all it does is build interest and build excitement. That’s the way it should be.” 

McManus’ viewpoint has been echoed by other TV executives as well.

“The Super Bowl is a national holiday,” Neal Tile, executive vice-president of marketing for Fox Sports, told the Associated Press last year. “Think of it as shaking a bottle of soda. The more you shake it – two weeks versus one – the bigger the pop.”

Although network executives may believe that a two-week buildup leads to more viewers, past results do not support that view.  Since 1990, the television ratings are virtually identical for games played with two-week and one-week breaks, 42.5 and 42.3, respectively.  (The 1990-2005 period is used to capture the impact of other media, such as cable television, on the ratings.)

In fact, there are indications that a one-week rest may even be better for attracting viewers.  In four of the five years with a shorter break, there was an increase in ratings compared to the prior year.  That happened in only four of the 11 years with a two-week wait.

Not surprisingly, the most important factor in television ratings appears to be the quality of the game.  In games decided by 10 points or less, the average rating was 43.3.  Compare that to a 41.7 television rating for the other games.  That is a significant difference when you consider that would convert into almost 2 million more households this year.

Given those results, it seems obvious that the networks’ greatest desire should be to broadcast a competitive game.  As discussed earlier, history indicates that there may be a relationship between a one-week waiting period and a tight contest.   At the very least, there is nothing that suggests that a longer break is conducive to better games.  So in a worst-case scenario, networks may actually be losing money due to their insistence of a two-week break.  Best case, they're needlessly torturing fans an extra week. 

In 2004, when the New England Patriots narrowly won 32-29 over the Carolina Panthers, the game grabbed the highest TV rating for a Super Bowl in six years. 

“This proves once again it doesn't really matter who the teams are in the Super Bowl,” McManus told USA Today after the game. “What matters is how competitive and exciting the game is in the closing stages.”

Although McManus recognized the importance of having a close game, it was the following year that he cited the value of having a two-week break before a Super Bowl.  Unfortunately, the networks don’t seem to realize that you are usually going to get one or the other, not both.   

Hopefully, the networks will soon realize the benefits of a shorter break and reduce the waiting period to one week.  The best part is they don’t have to do it simply for the fans’ sakes – they can just do it for the money.  Either way, it is a move that would benefit the fans and networks alike.