Super Bowl ratings down

[the_only_turek_fan]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/NFL/Pla.../923449-cp.html

[habernac]

most are attributing it to "The same team is winning" syndrome. All I can say is, at least the Pats do it with room to spare under the cap, it isn't like the Yankees winning all the time and having to spend $200 million in salary to di it.

[Sylvanfan]

Ironic thing is that in the three Superbowls that the Pats have won, they've all been good games ultimately decided by a field goal. The first two being on last second kicks. For years the Superbowl was the NFC team beating the bejeezus out of some lacklustre AFC team save like two games. I'd like to see someone eventually take out the Pats, but if my team isn't going to play all I want is a good entertaining game.

[Golden Jet]

Dynasties aren't very good for tv ratings.

[nfotiu]

Having 2 teams 300 miles apart probably hurts national ratings a bit too. I don't know that dynasties are necessarily bad for interest. It gets to be a story in of itself, and it is exciting to see if a team can finally knock off the champ. It worked for WWF all that time Hulk Hogan was champ! Boxing does a whole lot better when there is a dominant heavy weight champ, especially a hated one. Maybe its just that the Patriots lack some sexiness. They don't have a Peyton Manning or Michael Vick. Or even a flamboyant personality ala Dion Sanders or Terrel Owens.

[habernac]

Maybe its just that the Patriots lack some sexiness. They don't have a Peyton Manning or Michael Vick. Or even a flamboyant personality ala Dion Sanders or Terrel Owens.

Tom Brady could fit that category. But I think the team is boring on purpose. Bellichik has them all on the same page. Don't give the press any morsels to crucify us with, or the other team for that matter. And that's part of their winning formula.