The official list of games that were better than Super Bowl XLIII

[Crazyswordsman]

Obviously, the best game this year, in any sport, was the six OT epic in the Big East Tourney.

*The lacrosse title game (where Syracuse tied the game on a last second shot after they rode Cornell’s Clear)
*The Maryland-Virginia 7OT lacrosse game,
*The Texas-Texas Tech football game (especially considering its implications)
*The NFC championship game
*The entire Bulls-Celtics NBA playoff series
*Game 2 of Orlando-Cleveland
*The soccer match between the US and Spain
*Federer-Nadal at Wimbledon
*Michael Phelps at the Olympics
*The Sugar Bowl (the True National Champion Utah’s coming out party)
*Last year’s MLB all-star game that took forever
*Tiger Woods hopping to a major championship
*SDSU's baseball no-hitter

ALL those games were better than the average run-of-the-mill Super Bowl. The ESPY's are a joke and sound WAY too much like an issue of Playboy or a beer commercial. -CSM

(Oh, and by all means this list is incomplete. I'm sure there were at least 245 other games that were better than the Super Bowl).

[Lurch1982]

This really isn't worth trolling, but I'm bored.

*The lacrosse title game (where Syracuse tied the game on a last second shot after they rode Cornell’s Clear)
*The Maryland-Virginia 7OT lacrosse game,

Fail. Nobody outside of prep schools in the NE gives a damn about Lacrosse. Lacrosse blows, and the best game of all of Lacross from 2008 is still not on the same level as the worst game played by the Lions.

*The Texas-Texas Tech football game (especially considering its implications)

Maybe. I have problems citing any Big XII football game since nobody plays defense in that conference

*The NFC championship game

No. Philly was an underachieving squad. Not impressed at all.

*The entire Bulls-Celtics NBA playoff series

I'd be inclined to agree if the refs and league would have called this series correctly.

*Game 2 of Orlando-Cleveland

No.

*The soccer match between the US and Spain

Overshadowed by the US "US Soccering" the next match and losing to Brazil in come from ahead fashion. Plus it wasn't the World Cup. Until we don't choke out in the group play stages of the World Cup, nobody cares.

*Federer-Nadal at Wimbledon

I'd agree if Nadal could actually beat Federer. He's good enough to challenge him slightly, but not beat him. Its like saying that the Jordan era Bulls were actually challenged during their Finals runs. Sure teams would go 6 or 7, but they were never really in it.

*Michael Phelps at the Olympics

Not a game.

*The Sugar Bowl (the True National Champion Utah’s coming out party)

That wasn't a good game. Alabama was insanely overrated due to their half of the SEC being horrific. At any time they had a test, they either tried to fail miserably or they did fail miserably. Florida embarrassing them in the SEC-C set up the preview for that game. All you have to do is create speed mismatches when they're on defense and go up two scores. If you take them out of their offensive comfort zone (running the ball 65% of the time and not taking risky passes), they're going to lose. Any other year, Alabama isn't even bowl eligible with that team.

And they're not the "true" national champion to anyone outside of Utah: that would be Florida, who was actually good and continued to show that against the overrated Big XII trash.

*Last year’s MLB all-star game that took forever

No. Not even a real game played under real conditions. Oh look, my starter gave me 5 shutdown AT BATS, lets pull him.

*Tiger Woods hopping to a major championship

See the thing about Federer vs. Nadal and change it to Tiger vs. the field.

*SDSU's baseball no-hitter

Pingball doesn't count. Even going by no-hitters, Pro > college, especially in baseball. Strasburg blanked AIR FORCE, who lost like 2x as many games as they won and were no-hit TWICE. Its like, ok, this kid is good and all, but he no hit a bunch of baseball scrubs. If you're going No hitters it doesn't match Carlos Zambrano in 2008 no-hitting the Astros, striking out 10 and walking 1 (meaning near perfect game).

ALL those games were better than the average run-of-the-mill Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl was actually close this year and the Cards almost came from behind to win. Stop being a tool.

The ESPY's are a joke and sound WAY too much like an issue of Playboy or a beer commercial.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

[Crazyswordsman]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

This really isn't worth trolling, but I'm bored.


Fail. Nobody outside of prep schools in the NE gives a damn about Lacrosse. Lacrosse blows, and the best game of all of Lacross from 2008 is still not on the same level as the worst game played by the Lions.

In an ideal world, this shouldn't be a popularity contest; it should be about how good the game is (but the ESPYs are completely out of touch with objectivity). And I'd get into an argument about the blue-collar nature of the sport in central NY (and the prep school bastards are in Maryland, not NE).

Maybe. I have problems citing any Big XII football game since nobody plays defense in that conference

True, but the game had all the impact in the world on the season; it was probably the most important game of the season; blame the BCS.

No. Philly was an underachieving squad. Not impressed at all.

Philly came back and even took the lead late in the game before Arizona took it back, let alone this was the game that was Arizona's coming out party. It was way more fun to watch than the actual Super Bowl.

I'd be inclined to agree if the refs and league would have called this series correctly.

I don't think there's a game in the world where the refs call things correctly.

No.

The Magic took the lead with 1 second left, and LeBron then hit a game winning 3. Tell me how this isn't exciting.

Overshadowed by the US "US Soccering" the next match and losing to Brazil in come from ahead fashion. Plus it wasn't the World Cup. Until we don't choke out in the group play stages of the World Cup, nobody cares.

Still, it was mighty impressive.

I'd agree if Nadal could actually beat Federer. He's good enough to challenge him slightly, but not beat him. Its like saying that the Jordan era Bulls were actually challenged during their Finals runs. Sure teams would go 6 or 7, but they were never really in it.

Nadal won that and the subsequent Aussie Open.

Not a game.

Still, it was exciting.

That wasn't a good game. Alabama was insanely overrated due to their half of the SEC being horrific. At any time they had a test, they either tried to fail miserably or they did fail miserably. Florida embarrassing them in the SEC-C set up the preview for that game. All you have to do is create speed mismatches when they're on defense and go up two scores. If you take them out of their offensive comfort zone (running the ball 65% of the time and not taking risky passes), they're going to lose. Any other year, Alabama isn't even bowl eligible with that team.

Still, no one gave Utah a chance.

No. Not even a real game played under real conditions. Oh look, my starter gave me 5 shutdown AT BATS, lets pull him.

I'll give you this; the All-Star game is meaningless (people use it to talk about how superior the AL is to the NL despite the fact that the World Series over the past decade is pretty much even).

See the thing about Federer vs. Nadal and change it to Tiger vs. the field.

And Tiger won (this was last year).

Pingball doesn't count. Even going by no-hitters, Pro > college, especially in baseball. Strasburg blanked AIR FORCE, who lost like 2x as many games as they won and were no-hit TWICE. Its like, ok, this kid is good and all, but he no hit a bunch of baseball scrubs. If you're going No hitters it doesn't match Carlos Zambrano in 2008 no-hitting the Astros, striking out 10 and walking 1 (meaning near perfect game).

Yeah, well the media hyped it up, and you seem to love Pingball.

The Super Bowl was actually close this year and the Cards almost came from behind to win. Stop being a tool.

So what? There were a lot of games that were close. People gave it to the Super Bowl solely because it was the Super Bowl, and for no other reason. I honestly have very little fun watching the Super Bowl these days, mostly because football is the LAST thing about 90% of the people who watch it with me care about (except for "OMG HOW HAWT IS TEH QUARTURBACK!") The NFL is ten times more fun in December and January during the playoff races.

And these are just examples. The 6-OT game in basketball was clearly the winner. And unlike most basketball games, the refs actually made the RIGHT calls there. -CSM

[Panfan]

why are we even caring about the espys, isn't it obvious that ESPN would pick the goddamn super bowl for game of the year?

[Crazyswordsman]

Oh, and BTW, 6 of the last 9 Super Bowls ended as one possession games. -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

In an ideal world, this shouldn't be a popularity contest; it should be about how good the game is (but the ESPYs are completely out of touch with objectivity). And I'd get into an argument about the blue-collar nature of the sport in central NY (and the prep school bastards are in Maryland, not NE).

They've had bitchin Cricket matches that nobody outside of a minority in the UK and India/Pakistan care about. Much like Lacrosse, its a niche sport that nobody gives a damn about.

True, but the game had all the impact in the world on the season; it was probably the most important game of the season; blame the BCS.

Again, pro >>>>>> college.

Philly came back and even took the lead late in the game before Arizona took it back, let alone this was the game that was Arizona's coming out party. It was way more fun to watch than the actual Super Bowl.

Philly wasn't anywhere near Pittsburgh's level defensively. It wouldn't top the Super Bowl because it wasn't the same level of talent.

I don't think there's a game in the world where the refs call things correctly.

Possibly, but that series was the biggest screwjob since the Lakers/Kings rig-job. The Bulls won pretty much every game of the series, and the Celtics only went over the edge due to late bullcrap calls. The league also bungled its own rules by not flag-2ing Rondo for annihilating Heinrich, and not Flag-1ing him for gooning Miller.

The Magic took the lead with 1 second left, and LeBron then hit a game winning 3. Tell me how this isn't exciting.

Because the NBA is about as legitimate to me as the WWE.

Still, it was mighty impressive.

Not really.

Nadal won that and the subsequent Aussie Open.

Are you talking Wimbledon 2008 or 2009?

Still, no one gave Utah a chance.

You play in the format you're given. Even if you gave the MWC "BCS CONFERENCE STANDING," they still wouldn't have been in the BCSC over Florida and OU. In a playoff, I'm not sure they'd hold up to OU or Fla, or Texas, or TT, or USC, or basically anyone but Alabama. Drawing Alabama was a perfect storm for them.

And Tiger won (this was last year).

Tiger Woods beating the field isn't really impressive until someone in the field proves they can actually push him.

Yeah, well the media hyped it up, and you seem to love Pingball.

The media hyped up Strasburg, not a no hitter against an extremely mediocre squad.

I like baseball, not pingball. Pingball is a bastardization of baseball. Until they lose aluminum bats, college (and HS outside of ND, and little league) are on the same level as rec league softball. I like to laugh at college hitters that plowed 30 homers a year in college that struggle to hit 5 a year with real bats against quality pitching.

[Auron]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Are you talking Wimbledon 2008 or 2009?

2008. Nadal didn't even play this year's Wimbledon.

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

They've had bitchin Cricket matches that nobody outside of a minority in the UK and India/Pakistan care about. Much like Lacrosse, its a niche sport that nobody gives a damn about.

I don't know if you realize this, but cricket's popularity is rapidly expanding and is according to Times Online is already the second most popular sport in the entire world. Period. Do your research.

Also, since when did popularity = quality? Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Auron

2008. Nadal didn't even play this year's Wimbledon.

Oh wait, he beat Roddick. I was sick during Wimbledon, so I was zoning in and out.

Originally Posted by Bomby

I don't know if you realize this, but cricket's popularity is rapidly expanding and is according to Times Online is already the second most popular sport in the entire world. Period. Do your research.

According to the Brits, the Empire is still well and healthy, England will finally break its World Cup drought, and blahblahblah. Cricket has "second best" popularity because the Indian subcontinent still plays it. In terms of countries that actually have sizable interest in cricket, you're limited to the former Empire at best. Basketball is arguably positioning itself into the Number 2 position behind soccer, especially since the Chinese have massively embraced it.

Also, since when did popularity = quality?

If 20 people watched an amazing lacrosse match and 2 million people watched an amazing basketball match, the basketball match is more important.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Glad to see you took Philosophy 101 and remembered to reverberate all of the jargon like a douchebag.

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by Lurch

According to the Brits, the Empire is still well and healthy, England will finally break its World Cup drought, and blahblahblah. Cricket has "second best" popularity because the Indian subcontinent still plays it. In terms of countries that actually have sizable interest in cricket, you're limited to the former Empire at best. Basketball is arguably positioning itself into the Number 2 position behind soccer, especially since the Chinese have massively embraced it.

That's great. Now take that same logic and apply it to your beloved American Football, if you wish. You see, it's had moderate success at best abroad, but it's quite popular in the United States. So if cricket is a "niche sport that nobody gives a damn about," I'd hate to have the self-esteem of an anthropomorphized American Football.

Originally Posted by Lurch

If 20 people watched an amazing lacrosse match and 2 million people watched an amazing basketball match, the basketball match is more important.

No matter what? Even if an absurd amount of world records were broken in that lacrosse match and the basketball match was only amazing because it was a nail-biter? That's a bit rigid of a standard, and I really hope it only applies to sports. I'd hate to wake up one morning and realize that Home Alone was more important than Goodfellas because it grossed more.

Glad to see you took Philosophy 101 and remembered to reverberate all of the jargon like a douchebag.

Never took Philosophy 101, but I'd much rather sound like a pretentious douchebag than a narrow-minded douchebag.

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Bomby

That's great. Now take that same logic and apply it to your beloved American Football, if you wish. You see, it's had moderate success at best abroad, but it's quite popular in the United States. So if cricket is a "niche sport that nobody gives a damn about," I'd hate to have the self-esteem of an anthropomorphized American Football.

American football is probably my third or fourth sport, and I freely admit that nobody outside of the US plays or gives a **** about it.

Let's use a more objective approach: Cricket isn't prevalent enough among enough countries to gain TEST status for the Olympics. It isn't widely played, and the only reason it has any sort of "popularity" is because the second most populous country in the world uses it as one of the only main sport.

No matter what? Even if an absurd amount of world records were broken in that lacrosse match and the basketball match was only amazing because it was a nail-biter? That's a bit rigid of a standard, and I really hope it only applies to sports. I'd hate to wake up one morning and realize that Home Alone was more important than Goodfellas because it grossed more.

Records being broken in lacrosse isn't impressive because the people that play lacrosse are 5th tier athletes at best, since everyone else that's more athletic plays a different sport or runs track/field.

Never took Philosophy 101, but I'd much rather sound like a pretentious douchebag than a narrow-minded douchebag.

More like psuedo-pretentious and fullblown douchebag. Throwing fallacy vocabulary around is a great way to show that you have no other point to stand on.

[Eagle Eye]

To compare different sports with completely different concepts for one is a completely stupid idea. If you're a bigger fan of NCAA Basketball, of course you're going to think Match A in the Final Four is way better than the Superbowl.

If you're a fan of college football you may hate the NFL's guts.

Who cares.

Everyone has different tastes.

Now, that being said, some of the things on that list don't even belong anywhere near games like Superbowl XLIII or the Celtics/Bulls series (refs calling it right or not, Ray Allen was epic). Despite College Football's "playoff system" being a complete joke, you can't knock the Utes and what they did, but like most teams that have surprise runs, they'll be looked at as nobodies next season.

I don't understand your hatred of the superbowl, the game was absolutely insane. Everyone expects the Superbowl to be this scorefest with a final of 50-44 with 2 OTs, lack of points does not mean lack of a game. Kurt Warner was absolutely awesome (and got screwed the last play IMO), and Roethlesberger established just HOW clutch he is and why he DESERVES to be looked at as a Top 5 (probably even Top 3) QB (Brady, Manning, Roeth/Brees, McNabb). The greatness of that game goes beyond the score, it's how everything came together.

[Crazyswordsman]

If this is all based on how popular a sport is, then they shouldn't even have the ESPYs and should just give every single award to a well known NFL player/coach/game/event just because that's the most popular sports league in the country by a wide margin.

I'm not denying that this Super Bowl wasn't a great game, although there have been some other Super Bowls of recent memory that I liked better (Rams-Titans and Giants-Patriots come to mind), and keep in mind that 6 of the last 9 Super Bowls have been decided by one score (only Giants-Ravens, Bucs-Raiders, and Colts-Bears were different) and the non-football aspects of the Super Bowl generally ruin my enjoyment of what usually would otherwise be a very, very exciting and fun game (I'm very content to go play poker during the halftime show and I often do that; I missed the whole Janet Jackson thing and I don't regret missing it).

But you can't deny that a basketball game that goes into six overtimes, the longest game since the NCAA started using the shot clock, is at least comparable to your average run-of-the-mill Super Bowl. -CSM

[Eagle Eye]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

If this is all based on how popular a sport is, then they shouldn't even have the ESPYs and should just give every single award to a well known NFL player/coach/game/event just because that's the most popular sports league in the country by a wide margin. -CSM

ESPYs are voted by fans, not given out by ESPN. The reason why the ESPYs can be given out without much complaint is because fans decide, not the network, preventing any kind of "professional bias".

You can see this via the female gymnast winning Female Athlete of the Year over Serena (should've won), Candace Parker, that chick from UConn, and the swimmer.

Popularity plays a role, but it isn't the only factor in deciding which event is better. At the same time, your dislike for something doesn't automatically mean that "245 games" were better than it. XLIII is easily one of the Top 8 sporting events of the year, not to mention that it outright crush everyone in viewership, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

[Crazyswordsman]

^Still, I'd like to see an argument as to how the Super Bowl is above and beyond a 6OT basketball game in terms of just the fact that its a game (despite the fact that the basketball game was played between two hall of fame coaches who know each other very well) rather than what the game was being played for.

And I didn't hate the Super Bowl (although it was ruined by the people I watch the game with because I always have to watch it with people who don't know anything about football other than which QB is sexier, which irritates me to no end), I just thought it wasn't among what I consider to be the really good Super Bowls. -CSM

[Robotazy]

Bioshock

[Eagle Eye]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

^Still, I'd like to see an argument as to how the Super Bowl is above and beyond a 6OT basketball game in terms of just the fact that its a game (despite the fact that the basketball game was played between two hall of fame coaches who know each other very well) rather than what the game was being played for.

I'd say they're on par. The 6 OT game was awesome in it's own right, it was phenomenal, however, ultimately it meant nothing as Cuse was soon eliminated. If the Orange won that game and went to the Ship, you could look back on that and say "that game was awesome beyond it's own right."

To me there are two levels of great games, games that are awesome within their own right and games that are awesome beyond the game itself. While the 6 OT is the longest in NCAA history, ultimately for both teams it will be a forgotten aspect as they did not get to the championship.

The Superbowl is the same way. Arizona had never been in the Superbowl before, it was a miracle they even got there. Pittsburgh clinched its sixth Superbowl win, giving it the most among any NFL franchise, period. While most aspects and technicalities of the game will be long forgotten in ten years, the fact that Pittsburgh rose above 31 other franchises for at least a year means a whole lot more.

[Crazyswordsman]

This wasn't in the NCAA tournament. It was in the Big East tournament, and Syracuse did make it to the Big East final where they lost to Louisville. -CSM