Is the super bowl celebrations the biggest anti climax ever?

ANXIOUS

I honestly have to say that not one of the colts players showed any emotions that i would relate to some whose team just won the super bowl. (probally because of all the steriods they take:rolleyes: ). Even the chair man and managers speechs we're a let down talking about corpartion this corpartion that.

I actually cant belive that the chairman is the first to recieve the trophy all he does is inject money, it should be given to the captain of the team like every other trophy is and let him lift it first. It was the biggest anti climax of my life. I nearly fell asleep when the manager gave his speech. And another thing that annoyed me was the big deal they made about him being the first black coach talk about making a big deal about nothing.

grahamo

American football........Probably the 2nd. worst and most boring sport ever. Its not even a sport its a franchise. The fact the Chairman gets the trophy proves money is no. 1. The worst/most boring game ever is cricket!

coyote6

With all due respect: You just don't get it.

de5p0i1er

I was to depressed to watch, I wanted the bears to win. I hate Manning.

RuggieBear

tbh it does kinda sum up America and the corporate mentality that the owner of the "organisation" gets the trophy.

As for all the "thanks to our Lord" crap...oh well that's America for you.:D
Didn't Dungy say something like first black coach and first Christian too...

Dr.Slurm

The players should all be on a huge podium and recieve the trophy together instead of that rubbish of giving it to the chairman!!

You would have seen a lot more passionate speaches from the likes of Freeney, Reggie and Dom Rhodes. The Colts players were all just relieved to finally win the big one.

spyder238

Dr.Slurm wrote:

The players should all be on a huge podium and recieve the trophy together instead of that rubbish of giving it to the chairman!!

You would have seen a lot more passionate speaches from the likes of Freeney, Reggie and Dom Rhodes. The Colts players were all just relieved to finally win the big one.

exactly, not that stupid chariman thanking god for the win everytime he talks, god isnt the one throwing 53 yard passes!!

Boomer23

Its out of respect, the owners run things, without them there IS no sport.

and respect is not something other sports would understand. how many NFL players surround the referee after what they believe to be a questionable call? NONE, coz they know its a yardage penalty. Not even T.O. does that and he is the leagues biggest mouth!

plus, if NFL is SO crap and useless, TURN OFF and post on a different Thread

good luck!

spyder238

ill assume that wasnt aimed at me...

ANXIOUS

coyote6 wrote:

With all due respect: You just don't get it.

Care to expand on this?

Boomer23

Ill explain:

ANXIOUS wrote:

I honestly have to say that not one of the colts players showed any emotions that i would relate to some whose team just won the super bowl. (probally because of all the steriods they take:rolleyes: ).

any players caught taking steroids are banned, therefore you know nothing. Also they had just completed their lifes work, first comes relief, then joy.

ANXIOUS wrote:

Even the chair man and managers speechs we're a let down talking about corpartion this corpartion that.

out of respect you thank everyone who helped during the year, this includes people on the business side. RESPECT

ANXIOUS wrote:

And another thing that annoyed me was the big deal they made about him being the first black coach talk about making a big deal about nothing.

you have obviously never heard about the civil rights problems blacks had in America, for this to happen is a major thing. Just wait until there is a Black All-Ireland manager and you MIGHT understand

RuggieBear

lol

I'm a an American football fan but please....

Out of "RESPECT" a player taking steroids gets just a 4 match ban and still gets honoured and gets to go to the probowl.

Respect for who? the fans, the young players in America and around the world?


How about this interpretation:
The incredibly rich white owner getting the trophy first is just the rich whiteman getting rewarded for all the hard work of his mostly black playing staff.

BTW how much RESPECT do owners show the fans and cities when they move a franchise. Oh that's right did the Batimore colts win last night?

Boomer23

RuggieBear wrote:

Out of "RESPECT" a player taking steroids gets just a 4 match ban and still gets honoured and gets to go to the probowl.

2 things:

1. it was a sweeping statement i was referring to,
2. Keep up to date, from 2008 any player found using any banned substance will be banned from winning seasonal honours and going to the pro bowl.

on a side note, the NFL are so determined to have a clean league that a New Orleans player was banned for 4 games due to his ASTHMA inhaler containing a steroid!

RuggieBear wrote:

Respect for who? the fans, the young players in America and around the world?

meaningless

RuggieBear wrote:

How about this interpretation:
The incredibly rich white owner getting the trophy first is just the rich whiteman getting rewarded for all the hard work of his mostly black playing staff.

the race card, nice. There is nothing stopping there being a black owner, it just hasnt come up yet. How many black ownere are there in Rugby, Soccer or GAA in Ireland and the UK??? doubt there are many.

to quote someone else on this forum "you just dont get it"

RuggieBear

I am up to date. Merriman is going to the probowl and it is only a suggestion that steroid offenders are banned from the probowl from next season.

You have to admit that the NFL (and other North American sports) are extremely soft on drug abuse? Why not give out a proper message that cheating with drugs will get you a 2 year ban like in most international sports.

My meaningless message is that young up and coming players can see that cheating pays off and if you are caught you get no more than a slap on the wrist.

Hey the race card was there when they kept going on about the first black coach...

Nice to see the Baltimore Colts win another superbowl innit? Nice reward for the son of Robert Irsay. Robert showed a lot of RESPECT to Baltimore, huh?


I just obviously just don't get it and neither did all those Baltimore Colts fans

Futureman

Boomer23 wrote:

Keep up to date, from 2008 any player found using any banned substance will

Eh, it's only 2007 now. He said they CURRENTLY get a 4-game ban. You're referring to something that won't even happen until next year. D-D-D-DUH!

cooker3

I agree, I would much prefer to see the players lift. I like how the champions league final works etc, everyone collects the medal and the captain lifts the trophy. It just looks so much better.

On the drugs issue, all the major north american sports lag way behind in terms of drugs policy. The NFL is probably the best out of the lot but they are still lax. Penalites should be much harsher imo

ANXIOUS

Boomer23 wrote:

Its out of respect, the owners run things, without them there IS no sport.
good luck!

Are you joking, last time i checked the sport is about the people on the field playing not the person who can convience a bank to give him the biggest loan possible. Im sure there are plenty of teams in the local parks that don't have a chair man

ANXIOUS

Boomer23 wrote:

2 things:

on a side note, the NFL are so determined to have a clean league that a New Orleans player was banned for 4 games due to his ASTHMA inhaler containing a steroid!

Ok do you hnoestly think that is strict? Rio ferdinand got a 9mth suspension just for missing a test and then when he took it he was negative and still got a ban. Thts tough not 4 games more like 38 games.

Boomer23 wrote:

the race card, nice. There is nothing stopping there being a black owner, it just hasnt come up yet. How many black ownere are there in Rugby, Soccer or GAA in Ireland and the UK??? doubt there are many.

to quote someone else on this forum "you just dont get it"

Ah see now your just getting lazy and irrational, you know that the gaa dont have oweners. The people are the owners, this helps in my oppion create something that american football hasnt got respect for the fans and honour for tradtion.

Do you not know that there are black and middle eastern owners in the uk. Have you seen who owns fulham cardiff and other teams

RuggieBear

cooker3 wrote:

On the drugs issue, all the major north american sports lag way behind in terms of drugs policy. The NFL is probably the best out of the lot but they are still lax. Penalites should be much harsher imo

Very true. I believe you have to test positive a couple of times in MLB before there are any sanctions.:eek:

TheDoc

NFL is jsut different to football and cant be compared. NFL teams are so large and so many players go through most of their career without touching a ball... unlike soccer.

Its the players way of saying thank you..... for those who dont know some guys are paid in excess of 20,000 dollars to come on for a combined game of maybe 5 minutes and just punt a ball. (tho usually 2nd or 3rd string QB)

The Owners are responsible for the success because of the money they inject and the players they attract.... and in America the players show their thanks by letting the chairman pick up the trophy first.

Vikings

The "Merriman" rule is being put in place for 2008 which will have any player who was banned during the season unable to take place in the pro bowl. Better late than never I suppose.

Merriman "only" got a 4 game ban, yes thats true. But when you look at it this way: that 4 game ban is 1 whole quarter of the season for which he is not getting paid - and as his salary is probably a few million this year by missing those four games he probably incurred a loss of at least $1 million, i'll dig up the exact figures later.

RuggieBear

IncredibleBulk wrote:

The "Merriman" rule is being put in place for 2008 which will have any player who was banned during the season unable to take place in the pro bowl. Better late than never I suppose.

Merriman "only" got a 4 game ban, yes thats true. But when you look at it this way: that 4 game ban is 1 whole quarter of the season for which he is not getting paid - and as his salary is probably a few million this year by missing those four games he probably incurred a loss of at least $1 million, i'll dig up the exact figures later.

I'm a Chargers fan but i still think it was a soft punishment.

ANXIOUS

IncredibleBulk wrote:

The "Merriman" rule is being put in place for 2008 which will have any player who was banned during the season unable to take place in the pro bowl. Better late than never I suppose.

Merriman "only" got a 4 game ban, yes thats true. But when you look at it this way: that 4 game ban is 1 whole quarter of the season for which he is not getting paid - and as his salary is probably a few million this year by missing those four games he probably incurred a loss of at least $1 million, i'll dig up the exact figures later.

My example was rio ferinand who just didnt take a test and missed a whole season not a quarter. And if you look at mutu who tested positive fo cocaine which has no affect on his performance he got something like 2 whole years

Vikings

Boy was I way off on my guesstimate:

Merriman's base salary for the 17-week regular season was $310,000, which means the four-game ban cost him $72,941.

That would be enough to make me think twice about doing it again, im not saying that the NFLs steroid abuse policy is perfect or anything like that. Yes there is far more severe punishments which could be given though if they were brought in there would be uproar from the NFLPA as there are a number of substances which are completely legal and non benificial that can be and are taken by players which will give false positive results, for example that guys inhaler.

cooker3

RuggieBear wrote:

Very true. I believe you have to test positive a couple of times in MLB before there are any sanctions.:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_drug_policy

Conviction for use of prohibited substances

* First offense: 15 to 30-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine
* Second offense: 30 to 90-day suspension or up to $50,000 fine
* Third offense: One year suspension or up to $100,000 fine
* Fourth offense: Two year suspension
* Any subsequent offense(s): The level of the discipline will be determined by the Office of the Commissioner, consistent with the concept of progressive discipline.


Bit of a joke it has to be said. Compare that to say cycling, if they put the testing procedures that they have in cycling to baseball can you imagine the carnage. I am sure the NFL would be the same as well tbh

LuckyLloyd

Ugh, this conversation really irritates me. The recent Balco scandals have started a fundamental re - examination within all of the US sporting organisations (particularly the MLB and NFL) of how to discipline contraventions of substance abuse policies going forward. From 2008, the penalties for NFL players that cross the line will be much more severe. I can forsee this as an ongoing process, eventually leading to a no tolerance attiitude being taking towards offenders.

What one must understand is that before the BALCO revelations, the topic of performance enhancing drugs was not on the agenda in American sports because it was largely assumed that athletes did not avail of such options to any serious degree. While this may seem crazy to a casual observer now, before 2000 - discussion of substance abuse in American sports was very much regulated to the margins: by fans and the media alike.

Steps in the right direction are being taken, and anyone who: a) thinks that an instant no - tolerance policy would be easy to bring in; and b) doesn't believe that the NFL gets there when it sets to stamp something out of the game is, in my view, respectively underestimating the strength of the players lobby and the NFL / owners. I may note the recent Mike Newell inspired FA hearings and subsequent report as sufficient evidence that there are significant problems in English soccer that need to be addressed over the long - term. Any holier than thou comparisons are a non - starter in my book.


On the second point of having the franchise owner lead the celebrations, let me re - iterate: you just don't get it if you have a problem with this. Each Franchise's chances of success depends on it's owner taking the initial calculated risk to set it up in the first place, then making the neccesary resources and front office expertise available to ensure a platform for the players to perform to the required standards. The culture of each organisation stems from the owner, and bad owners that make bad decisions equal perennial losing franchises. Arizona and Cincinnati are two prime examples of how instabillity and lack of ambition will hold a team back from ever achieving anything worth talking about.

Yes, American sport is different in many respects. Constant comparisons with European sports are redundant in my view. In terms of everything to do with the nature and culture of sports on each side of the Atlantic: style of sports and athleticism; organisational structures; media coverage; fan loyalty and participation; marketing and profits - they are different worlds.

The NFL is a business - a hugely successful one with a kickass product mind - but a business nonetheless. The truly tribal and regionalised aspect to sports is catered for in America through the college and highschool levels. After you get to the pros, money and personal legacy becomes a dominating factor for many of those participating - and one must understand that apart from core original Franchises in each sport, it is more apt to view teams as products that have been successfully marketed to viable fanbases.

These are the realities. It is so different, and you can either choose to enter the wacky world or not. I think that the sport in the US is far superior to sport in Europe on just about every single level. That is my opinion, but I am smart enough to know that attempting to rationalise this opinion through direct comparisons is a waste of time. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And if you reckon that you are qualified to discuss the ills of American football on the basis that you watch the Superbowl every year you are either very stupid - or like trolling internet forums for a laugh.

Good luck.

RuggieBear

LuckyLloyd wrote:

And if you reckon that you are qualified to discuss the ills of American football on the basis that you watch the Superbowl every year you are either very stupid - or like trolling internet forums for a laugh.

Good luck.

I seriously hope that is not aimed at me?

LuckyLloyd

RuggieBear wrote:

I seriously hope that is not aimed at me?

No Ruggie - the second post in this thread really got me. The user Grahamo would be most directly in my firing line.

RuggieBear

Ah you should just ignore that shite or report the post.

Chucky the tree

ANXIOUS wrote:

My example was rio ferinand who just didnt take a test and missed a whole season not a quarter. And if you look at mutu who tested positive fo cocaine which has no affect on his performance he got something like 2 whole years

you on drugs yourself? Rio was banned from january till about august i think, not a whole season. Mutu was banned for 6 months, where the hell did you pluck 2 years from? I dont care about the drugs issue myself, most sports people do it, so why bother stopping them?


As a raiders fan i can attest to how important a decent owner is.

ANXIOUS

Chucky the tree wrote:

you on drugs yourself? Rio was banned from january till about august i think, not a whole season. Mutu was banned for 6 months, where the hell did you pluck 2 years from? I dont care about the drugs issue myself, most sports people do it, so why bother stopping them?


As a raiders fan i can attest to how important a decent owner is.

When talking about 9mths i meant that it is the length of a whole season. And i got confused with mutu it was Abel xavier i was thinking of who got a 18mth ban

ANXIOUS

LuckyLloyd wrote:

On the second point of having the franchise owner lead the celebrations, let me re - iterate: you just don't get it if you have a problem with this. Each Franchise's chances of success depends on it's owner taking the initial calculated risk to set it up in the first place, then making the neccesary resources and front office expertise available to ensure a platform for the players to perform to the required standards. The culture of each organisation stems from the owner, and bad owners that make bad decisions equal perennial losing franchises. Arizona and Cincinnati are two prime examples of how instabillity and lack of ambition will hold a team back from ever achieving anything worth talking about.
Good luck.

This is my original point it really annoys me the fact that all americans think that its the person who writes the checks wins the trophies. Its as if they take no notice whats so ever of the hard graft that the players put in to get to that stage.

Another thing that really pi**es me all the way off is how americans refer to their them as a franchaise, do they not feel that thy are part of th TEAM that they follow?

tallaghtoutlaws

ANXIOUS wrote:

This is my original point it really annoys me the fact that all americans think that its the person who writes the checks wins the trophies. Its as if they take no notice whats so ever of the hard graft that the players put in to get to that stage.

Another thing that really pi**es me all the way off is how americans refer to their them as a franchaise, do they not feel that thy are part of th TEAM that they follow?

There is a reason why it is called a Franchise. You do understand what they are talking about when they call it a franchise. The team is bought from the NFL as a franchise. When the owner buys the team he gets the support of the NFL just like McDonalds etc. Yes the owner is free to do what he want once they stay within the NFL's rules and guidelines. When the owner buys the team he buys into the NFL and their rules and regulations both football and business.

ANXIOUS

tallaghtoutlaws wrote:

There is a reason why it is called a Franchise. You do understand what they are talking about when they call it a franchise. The team is bought from the NFL as a franchise. When the owner buys the team he gets the support of the NFL just like McDonalds etc. Yes the owner is free to do what he want once they stay within the NFL's rules and guidelines. When the owner buys the team he buys into the NFL and their rules and regulations both football and business.

I do understand what they are saying when they say franchaise, i just dont know why its so commonly said among fans. And you didnt reply to the second part of the previous statement

tallaghtoutlaws

ANXIOUS wrote:

I do understand what they are saying when they say franchaise, i just dont know why its so commonly said among fans. And you didnt reply to the second part of the previous statement

What about the owner getting the trophy who honestly cares. The players get a ring worth up to a million dollars so who gives a flying fook if they dont get the trophy. The ring they get sure makes up for it.

And do the fans feel part of the team im gonna say yes they do. Have you ever been to Green Bay or Atlanta or New York (jets that is) New England will I go on those fans live for the club regardless of who owns it or who gets the trophy to bring home. A replica goes into their Muesem and they sleep soundly at night knowing their team has accomplished. They call it a franchise because they are stating fact simply put.

LuckyLloyd

ANXIOUS wrote:

This is my original point it really annoys me the fact that all americans think that its the person who writes the checks wins the trophies. Its as if they take no notice whats so ever of the hard graft that the players put in to get to that stage.

Another thing that really pi**es me all the way off is how americans refer to their them as a franchaise, do they not feel that thy are part of th TEAM that they follow?

Without the person to write the cheques there is no chance at winning anything. That is reality. Everbody knows that the specifics of why the Colts won the superbowl is down the players and Dungy in the largest part, and if you just took a brief review of American sports coverage for the past three days you could easily identify that fact. You are way off to say that "all Americans think it is the person who writes the checks wins the trophies". That is not true. They don't think like that. But having the head of the sporting club lift the trophy is the way they do it overthere. It is their tradition. So what?


As Tallaghtoutlaw has said - I am a Jets fan and have been to a game before. Try telling the diehards fans overthere that they are not part of the fabric franchise and should be unconcerned by whether their team wins or loses. It just isn't the case. It is a franchise. So it is correct to refer to your team as a franchise. I cannot see why this is a problem for you.

There is no doubt that the support base for franchises like Green Bay, NY Jets, Giants, Philly, Dallas and San Francisco is much more intense and vociferous than the atmosphere and culture of the fanbases of newer franchises like Houston and Cleveland. For Franchises that have been in their current location for over 40 years, a loyalty, history and tradition builds up that gives the team an extra dimension outside NFL marketing. Newer franchises (set up or moved to a new location in the last 20 years) have been set up to exploit a perceived niche in the market, and like any sporting club that is new - it takes time to build a die hard mentality among fans and inhabitants of the local region.

It seems to me that you do not fully understand what you are talking about and are looking at the NFL on the most basic, surface level. Is it different than sport over here? Yes. Does that make it any less valid than sport over here? No.

The Premiership is also a product that is packaged and marketed to be as attractive as possible to punters over here and in the UK. "Ford Super Sundays", "The Emirate Stadium", £60 tickets, €70 jerseys and David Beckham are things that spring to mind when I think about football - things that cannot exactly be described as the traits of a gritty and regionalised sport that has been kept pure for the working man to enjoy. Professional soccer at the very highest level has become a business to the exact same degree as the NFL. Clubs and leagues are set up these days to make money - and they constantly strive to increase their turnover levels from year to year.

Obviously, it is different as you go down the divisions. When watching non - league teams getting a big day out in the FA cup first round in December, I must admit that the commercial aspect to the game can seem a million miles away - but it is a big day out fir them because it could represent enough money to keep the minnows going for another 18 months. Professional sport needs revenue. But American football and all American sports have that lower level also. College and Highschool athletics is purer, more tribal and much less commercial. It represents the roots of sport in the States.

My ultimate point is that, yes - the NFL is big business, big spectacle and big money. But as the league develops and increases its history; and as the individual franchises develop a deeper affinity with their location as time goes by - the glitz and glamour is transcended and it does become as real as sport should ever become for the fans. Secondly, if anybody thinks that sport is not big business over here they are very much mistaken.

I admit that the way things are done are different, but trying to compare and contrast top level sport on both sides of the pond in the hope of arguing that one is less valid than the other is absolute rubbish in my opinion.

dl

Chucky the tree wrote:

As a raiders fan i can attest to how important a decent owner is.

As a Bears fan I can attest to how important a consistant QB is... :rolleyes:

baldi1212

The last bad Superbowl I watched was superbowl XXXV. Nuff said.
The only good FA cup I've seen in the last 6 years was last years

cooker3

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I may note the recent Mike Newell inspired FA hearings and subsequent report as sufficient evidence that there are significant problems in English soccer that need to be addressed over the long - term. Any holier than thou comparisons are a non - starter in my book.

I actually think football or soccer if you will also has a pretty lax drug policy. There is no percieved drug problem in the game but imo it is due to inefficient testing procedures and penalties.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.