Superbowl XLV- The Thread!

[DaShi]

I've been noticing a lot of reports in the media about the damaging health effects of the Superbowl. While unhealthy eating and drinking have long been a problem during the game, the current topic is targeted more toward the stress on fans, especially the losers. However, they seem to ignore the fact that this year's game features the Packers against the Steelers. I mean, really, who cares?

[giblets]

I don't really give a crap about this 'foot' ball stuff but I thought I would post this

A Close Super Bowl? Don’t Bet on It.
By NATE SILVER

Spoiler:

“Anyone can tell you that it’s going to be a close game,” write Bill Barnwell and Aaron Schatz, two of the smartest football analysts on the planet, in their Super Bowl preview at Football Outsiders.

The Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed, are hard to distinguish statistically. The Steelers, counting the playoffs, have scored 24 points per game and allowed 15. The Packers’ numbers — 25 points scored per game, and 16 against — are nearly identical.

Bettors see two closely matched teams as well. Vegas lines have Green Bay favored, but only by a small margin — 2½ or 3 points, depending on the sports book. (Mr. Barnwell and Mr. Schatz also conclude that the Packers are slight favorites.)

Such close point spreads are fairly rare in the Super Bowl. Only 9 times in the 44 years of the game has the final point spread been within a field goal or less.

What’s interesting about those games is that while the point spread was close, the games themselves usually weren’t. The last one to feature such a tight point spread was Super Bowl XXXV in 2001, when the Baltimore Ravens, favored by just a field goal, instead blew out the Giants 34-7.

Prior to that was 1988, when the Washington Redskins — listed as narrow, 3-point underdogs — clobbered the Denver Broncos 42-10 in Super Bowl XXII. And before that was 1984, when the Los Angeles Raiders — also 3-point underdogs — steamrolled the Redskins 38-9.

Other games that looked as though they would be close, like Super Bowl XVI and Super Bowl V, in fact turned out to be. But on average, the final margin separating the teams in these games was 16 points.

Perhaps this is some sort of karmic retribution for the major upsets that the Super Bowl has seen over the years, like the Giants winning as 12-point underdogs over the Patriots in 2008. If Super Bowls that were supposed to be blowouts instead turned into close, epic games, it’s only fair that things turned ugly in a few games that looked like good matchups on paper.

In fact, the point spread — whether in the Super Bowl or in other games — is a much poorer predictor of the final score than most people realize. The chart below compares the closing point spread to the final score in all N.F.L. games played between 2002 and 2006.

The point spread was a relatively unbiased predictor of the final score: that is, teams favored by 5 points in fact won by about 5 points on average. The variance, however, was extremely high: on average, the point spread missed the final score by 10.4 points. The error was just as bad in games that were expected to be competitive as in those that looked like mismatches.

As a result, of the 487 games in the database in which the closing point spread was within a field goal, the game was decided by less than a touchdown (6 points or fewer) only 41 percent of the time. Games where one team won by double digits were somewhat more common, in fact, occurring 45 percent of the time.

This is not to suggest that there is no correlation at all between the closeness of the point spread and the closeness of the game. Of the games where one team was favored by 10 points or more, just 28 percent were decided by less than a touchdown. Still, the relationship is quite weak.

Here, then, is a bet that you might be able to sucker one of your friends into, especially after a couple of pregame beers. Offer to bet him that the game won’t be especially close: one team will win by at least 7 points. He may think the bet is too good to be true, but you have a 60 percent chance of winning.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ont-bet-on-it/

Anyway, why do they call it football when they mostly use their hands to carry something that isn't ball-shaped?

[-Jrabbit]

The game has begun. Packers defer after winning the toss.
The Bears took some heat in Chicago for doing that two weeks ago.

Works out better for the Pack. 3 and out. Survive the muffed punt...

Personally I like receiving to start the 2nd half, especially if you've got a decent defense.

[EPW]

These doritos commercials are in really poor taste.

[-Jrabbit]

Pick-6. 14-0.
Oh my.

[Demonbinder]

Lousy tackling and no pressure by Steelers. Have to step it up in second half and get some turnovers if they want to get back in the game.

[-Jrabbit]

Big Ben gives the Steelers hope to close out the half. But I think that pick-6 will wind up being the difference.
Let's see if either team finds a key halftime adjustment.

[Tuberski]

Christina Aguilera really screwed up the national anthem. Getting words wrong and singing like ****.

ACK!

[Demonbinder]

Big Ben gives the Steelers hope to close out the half. But I think that pick-6 will wind up being the difference.
Let's see if either team finds a key halftime adjustment.

Steelers seem to have made that adjustment. Better tackling and pressure.

[Guynemer]

Good game so far. Come on, Pack!

[Demonbinder]

Can't commit that many turnovers and win game. Congrats to Pack but no looking forward to hearing from Packers fans about all their rings.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Grats to the Pack. Was rooting for Aaron Rodgers (mostly since that embarrassing draft of his and how Favre treated him afterwards) and really don't like Roethlisburger. So it ended up working out. And it was a really fun game!

[SlowwHand]

Matthews had a decent game.

Clay Matthews’ hit was the play of the game
February 6, 2011, 10:58 PM EST

When the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLV started, the Packers had the lead, but the Steelers had all the momentum.

And then, on the first play of the fourth quarter, Packers linebacker Clay Matthews changed that.

Matthews burst through the line and drilled Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall three yards behind the line of scrimmage, forcing a fumble that Packers linebacker Desmond Bishop recovered. On the Packers’ ensuing possession they scored to expand their lead to 28-17, and that hit from Matthews proved to be the play of the game.

“I was able to get around my guy and make a solid hit right on the football,” Matthews said after the game. “I wasn’t sure that it had come out until I looked up and saw Desmond with the ball.”

For the Packers, the hit was emblematic of the style of play Matthews has delivered for the two years he’s been on the team, two years in which he’s been as good as any defensive player in football. But Matthews wanted to put the spotlight on his defensive teammates.

“We have been playing team defense all season and this was just another case of that tonight,” Matthews said. “I am so proud of our defense.”

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Packers

[rah]

Congrats Packers. So where is the superbowl ads thread. I think this was one of the better years for ads in a long time.