Talk:Super Bowl XLVII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Power outage[edit]

Later this section should be looked into about how the nfl may have manufactured the power outage to keep get the niners back into the game and how it affected the momentum of the game. Some one will do a story on this for sure to provide sources.24.112.193.54 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can only do that if reliable sources make that claim. I also don't see how that would help then either since it would appear that the outage would have affected both teams equally since they both stopped playing for the exact same time.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'We can only do that if reliable sources make that claim' - who? the Wiki geeks? Grammarcop1 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
maybe the Illuminati have blown up the Generator. Seriously, thats bs! Why would the NFL manipulate the Game? Get real. EricDuckman (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is a part of the Liberal elite media CIA funded Wikipedia anti-America pro gun control climate change driven attempt to suppress the ... where's my medication? Manning (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The good news regardless of whether or not it was intentional the Ravens won so we won't need to deal with any conspiracy theories in the future.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement refs did it to get revenge! Man, I need rehab. ZappaOMati 03:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You underestimate the imagination of the conspiracy theorists. Obviously the power outage was created by CBS to increase their advertising revenue, and/or organized crime to upset gambling revenue, or by Obama, because he is always to blame for such things. Manning (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the aliens. They seem to do all kinds of stuff to us, seemingly just to be jerks. Crop circles? Come on guys, that's what you're using your super-advanced intergalactic spacefaring technology for? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, Aliens Love to harvest farts and stick weird Things up your bottom EricDuckman (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or even computer hackers just pulling a prank, if those lighting systems were run through some computer system. Not everyone is "Woah" "Super Bowl". It was Bill Belicheat mad about his SBs being cheapened after he was busted for spygate. 72.129.148.164 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness aside, the blown transformer was most likely avoidable and it would interesting to know the story about it. I suspect it was more a failure to test or properly plan for capacity than conspiracy by the NFL. I am curious if any of the advertisers are seeking compensation or if the extra ad ran was paid for. Alan.ca (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say that this debacle in New Orleans is simply the result of improper planning, huh? Just what kind of precedent to you have to back up these crazy claims? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, seriously, I believe this event warrants its own entry on the table of contents. For one, I only turned it on upon hearing of the power outage. What if the power had been out for hours. Would the NFL have postponed the rest of the game until the next day? 72.129.148.164 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have to agree - I didn't even watch the power outage itself, but have taken an interest in the cause and such. I've added a section. Sports fans, if you don't like where I put it, please feel free to move it around. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game summary[edit]

  • i feel like the game summary has slight bias either toward the 9ers or against the ravens. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the power outage was not caused by a blown transformer (that was what happened at the Baltimore game)

What about the incredible rookie Colin Kaepernick. Starting Qb in the Super Bowl his first season! And he isn't even mentioned!,,,,,,24.167.99.174 (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)spw 8/8/13[reply]

Actually, it was his second season. ZappaOMati 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descended from the Browns[edit]

"The Ravens are descended from the Cleveland Browns franchise, which joined the NFL along with the 49ers when the AAFC disbanded in 1949." If you check the Cleveland Browns, Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns relocation controversy articles, you will see that the NFL does not officially recognize the Ravens as being the same team as the pre-1996 Browns. --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while not "officially" recognized by the NFL, the fact is that the Baltimore Ravens were the Cleveland Browns. --dashiellx (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the entire existences of the Browns and the Ravens is based on the definitions of the NFL, I don't see how a statement that contradicts the NFL can be a fact. --Khajidha (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: The Browns "team", in the sense of the records, history and lineage, never left Cleveland. The Browns "team", in the sense of the players and staff, left to become the Ravens. The Ravens' records, history and lineage only date back to 1996. As this sentence is about records, history and lineage, it is incorrect to link the Ravens to the Browns that joined the NFL in 1949. --Khajidha (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Browns becoming the Ravens may not be part of the official record, but it still happened in the real world. If Wikipedia were going to pretend the Browns never relocated, then there wouldn't be an article called "Cleveland Browns relocation controversy". –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The players relocated, the team didn't. If the entire rosters and staffs of the Ravens and 49ers switched tomorrow, would the 49ers then be able to claim that they were the 2013 Super Bowl champs? No, even though every member of the team and staff would be able to say that he was a part of the 2013 Super Bowl championship team. The Browns/Ravens situation is similar to this, thus the Ravens have no claim on the history of the Browns. --Khajidha (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know what the legal status of the players' contracts with the Browns would have been at the time, had any new Raven decided they didn't want to relocate to Baltimore. Having signed with the Browns the NFL would HAVE TO go deal with the players' union if some player refused to play. Of course, I don't know what the players' union contract says about such a situation. Or if any language regarding such quirks is embedded in each player's individual contract. It would seem to me, that if the NFL considered Baltimore a new franchise; an expansion, and the Browns left behind, that any of those "relocated" players could have just up and signed with another team, the one they signed with no longer in being. I'll have to repost this on the talk page for the Browns Baltimore controversy. 72.129.148.164 (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own article, the then-owner maintained the player and staff contracts but not the rights to the name, history and archives of the Browns. --Khajidha (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Browns and the Ravens are officially separate entities with no connections as considered by the NFL. Canuck89 (talk to me) 09:39, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
I understand what the NFL considers. And I understand the Browns & Ravens are not considered the same, not even by the fans. I am trying to understand the law, which the NFL is not. 72.129.148.164 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What law needs be invoked here? Has there been a court challenge to the arrangement? If not, then the law is silent on the matter, and the only thing that matters is the NFL's official position, which is that the Ravens were an expansion team started in 1996, and that the Browns merely suspended operations for 3 years. The Ravens were founded with the staff, players, and ownership from the Browns, but officially they are not a continuation of the Browns in any way. There is no legal issue because there has been no legal test: the NFL and the relevant parties arrived at this arrangement of their own negotiation, and there has been no accusations by any aggrieved party that any such law has been broken. So there is no law at all to speak of in this case. --Jayron32 04:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, had any player refused to relocate, here too, no law would have been invoked to prevent him from signing with a different team? I guess I'm just trying to understand the laws revolving around players' contracts. Say a player had two more years left on his contract? The Browns are considered to have suspended operations for three years. Would the hypothetical player's contract been null because there was no Browns? Or, if he refused to play for the Ravens, would he have been required to sit out for two years until his contract, which was signed with the Browns, expired? ...and, since there was no currently operating Browns, there would have been no Browns to label the player with the franchise tag or any other type of thing, thus allowing him after those last two years of his contract to then sign wherever he wanted? My question is not about the NFL, per se. Nor is it about the Ravens and Browns being different teams - everyone gets that. My question is about this hypothetical human and his rights. 174.103.231.69 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's how it works. The business entity holding the players contracts was severed from the team history and name of the Browns. This business entity was then attached to a new team name, starting a new team history. The players were required to fulfill their preexisting contracts. Again, there was no legal issue to resolve as all relevant parties agreed to this change. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Khajidha writes seems to be saying that we are to assume the players' contracts were with the owner, and not the Browns legal entity. Or, what legal mechanism allowed the owner to transfer the contracts from the Browns to the Ravens? 72.129.148.164 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The owner was able to do that because the NFL said he could. As Jayron said, there is no legal issue. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring plays[edit]

This game featured 13 different scoring plays, the most in Super Bowl history (Super Bowl 37 between Bucs-Raiders had 12), should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compy90 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 February 2013

It would likely go under "Statistics and records," thought a citation should be used somewhere in the sentence for proof. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur we'd need a reliable source to confirm it, but I just checked myself and yes, it was the most ever. XXXVII had 12 scores, and several prior games had 11 scores, but none have had as many as this one, which is 13. So, it is true, but we still need a reference which notes that it is relevent. --Jayron32 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only undefeated team with multiple appearances[edit]

Under the Background section is the following:
On winning, Baltimore became the only team in the NFL to have appeared in multiple Super Bowls without losing one; in fact, they supplanted the 49ers in this role. Currently, this phenomenon can only be repeated if the Ravens or the New York Jets play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or the New Orleans Saints in a subsequent Super Bowl.

What "phenomenon" does this sentence refer to? Is it:

  • Being the only team with multiple appearances and no losses?

OR

  • Simply having multiple appearances and no losses?

Either way, the prescribed matchups for repeating said phenomenon are incorrect. Rdfiasco (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Super Bowl XLVII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl_XLVII&oldid=1210587072"