16 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

If you take the ball second, you have more control over the outcome of the game and more opportunity to win.

1. You will know for sure what you need to do to win on your first possession - 3 points, 7 points or 8 points if you want go for 2.

2. If need a TD, you know you have to go for it on 4th down. An extra down on each series if needed.

3. If you want to go for the win, go for 2. You get to decide your best option to win.

4. You put pressure on the opposing team to guess on whether to go for it on 4th, kick the field, try the long field goal, go for 2 after a TD, etc.

Also, in last night's game, make sure Mahomes doesn't have the ball last.

Shanahan said the reasoning for taking the ball first is to have control of the 3rd possession and know if you only need a field goal to win.

I agree with all this, and as I said, I would take the ball 2nd.  Just pointing out that it doesn't seem to matter in the college game.  Red zone efficiency, 3rd and 4th down efficiency, these are probably more important than who goes first or second.   

6 hours ago, OlDog75 said:

I've watched MANY a Superbowl and I came to a conclusion last Sunday evening.  It's really not about football any longer in my opinion.  It's just a giant infomercial about a bunch of stuff and causes where some football breaks in for a few minutes.  I got frustrated with it and turned it off.

It is painful to watch with the pomp and circumstance, commercials after every possession, and extended halftime. I hear you. Brady has talked before about how the first and second halves are like two different games and you must conserve energy to make it through. That is why the experience factor can't be ignored.

38 minutes ago, bugatti said:

It is painful to watch with the pomp and circumstance, commercials after every possession, and extended halftime. I hear you. Brady has talked before about how the first and second halves are like two different games and you must conserve energy to make it through. That is why the experience factor can't be ignored.

I agree 100% with this and what @OlDog75said, but I don't see anything change I just saw the rating from the game and it was the most watched show in tv history with just over 120 million viewers and it surpassed last year's Super Bowl by over 7.5 million.

12 minutes ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

I agree 100% with this and what @OlDog75said, but I don't see anything change I just saw the rating from the game and it was the most watched show in tv history with just over 120 million viewers and it surpassed last year's Super Bowl by over 7.5 million.

Absolutely nothing is changing. If anything, we will get more of it. $7M for a 30-second spot is insane. It is estimated $650M was brought in for advertising. Wowzer.

1 hour ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

I agree 100% with this and what @OlDog75said, but I don't see anything change I just saw the rating from the game and it was the most watched show in tv history with just over 120 million viewers and it surpassed last year's Super Bowl by over 7.5 million.

I think it was it P.T. Barnum that said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

57 minutes ago, bugatti said:

Absolutely nothing is changing. If anything, we will get more of it. $7M for a 30-second spot is insane. It is estimated $650M was brought in for advertising. Wowzer.

I love football, but I'll probably not be watching. 

This Super Bowl will be hard to surpass. It was the epitome of American capitalism in its current form. Extravagance, gaudiness, celebrity worship and people throwing money down the wagering pit like it all means nothing.

31 minutes ago, OlDog75 said:

I love football, but I'll probably not be watching. 

It is why I generally wait an hour into the game before watching and catch up with it being back-recorded. This year my wife had it on so I had to sit through the entire first half and halftime show live. At that point, I hit pause, finished doing laundry, showered, and came back down to play catchup. The second half flew by!

Why can't they just have fewer commercials but just charge more for them?   

Who sets the price----NFL or the televising network, or does the advertiser sumbit an offer saying it will pay "x" dollars?     Is the price ultimately  negotiated?   

1 minute ago, tcjkbt said:

Why can't they just have fewer commercials but just charge more for them?   

Who sets the price----NFL or the televising network, or does the advertiser sumbit an offer saying it will pay "x" dollars?     Is the price ultimately  negotiated?   

Their philosophy is to show more and charge more ?

I would say the market dictates the price.

4 minutes ago, bugatti said:

It is why I generally wait an hour into the game before watching and catch up with it being back-recorded. This year my wife had it on so I had to sit through the entire first half and halftime show live. At that point, I hit pause, finished doing laundry, showered, and came back down to play catchup. The second half flew by!

In the past I did that a lot with multiple sporting events but now I just turn on multiple TVs and let them run...

However, with NASCAR and sometimes F1, I like to watch from the DVR.  Long green flag runs can get boring so sometimes I just run it up until I see a yellow, back it up one minute, and grab my popcorn.

18 minutes ago, theguru said:

JEEEEZ!  Swifty overload!!!

I am the same on the Super Bowl being such a big event sometimes the game gets lost in the shuffle.  I know I enjoyed the halftime show so much I forgot it was halftime of the game.  

Also, I thought the commercials this year were pretty weak as a whole.  To me most of it catered to the ADHD crowd and was a little over stimulating.  One thing I did notice was a lot of commercials made use of or incorporated UFOs and some science fiction.  Maybe we are getting close to first contact. 

I am all in on Taylor Swift. It was said she was shown less than one minute of the telecast, but she brought a level of intrigue the sport has never seen.