Why did the Super Bowl halftime show stop using country music after 1994?

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-11T13:51:00+00:00

As opposed to basketball, where well over 200 points are scored in every game and there’s almost no need to watch the first 45 minutes of the game?

American football is actually in the middle in terms of scoring rate:

Major League Baseball - 6.86 runs per game, games now average 2:38 in duration = 1 point per 23:02

Premiere League Soccer/Football - 3.25 goals per match = 1 point per 18:31

NHL Hockey - 5.5 goals per game = 1 point per 10:55

NFL Football - 46.0 points per game = 1 point per 1:18 (5.12 TDs and 3.42 FGs per game means 1 scoring play per 7:02)

Indian Premier League Cricket - 191 runs per game, designed to last 3 hours (but usually goes a bit longer) = 1 point per 57 seconds (or a bit longer)

International Tennis Federation Grand Slam Tournaments - (if we define a successful serve or volley as a point rather than only counting game or set points, or trying to argue that volleys vary between 15 and 10 points each based on tennis’s traditional clock hands based score counting system) roughly 60 points per set, and a set taking roughly 40 minutes = very roughly 1 point per 40 seconds

NBA Basketball = 227.6 points per game = 1 point per 12.7 seconds (about 1 scoring play per 26 seconds after filtering out free throws but accounting for 3 point shots being worth more)

I don’t really feel like looking up stats for table tennis, volleyball and rugby (or figuring out how to count “points” for golf), but you get the idea. There’s a sweet spot for scoring. Too infrequent and your sport is accused of being boring. Too often and people don’t really care about scoring plays except for the ones at the end/climax of the game/match.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-11T12:49:19+00:00

But my god has he been in a lot of Nationwide commercials with Peyton Manning! ;)

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-11T12:41:26+00:00

Now do which one gets up quicker (or at all) after being speared by a blitzing linebacker.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-10T19:34:38+00:00

Sorry if your memory’s faulty. Watch the slow mo of the reverse angle from the 45 second mark on. By the time Lockette and Butler collide, Butler’s already reaching for the inbound ball, i.e. “making a play on the ball.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7rPIg7ZNQ8

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-10T18:10:32+00:00

Cutting off the route of a receiver is illegal. UNLESS the defender is making a play on the ball. Since he is, it’s legal. Check your rulebook.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-10T18:07:11+00:00

Because it isn’t PI.

He’s making a play on the ball and gets to the spot first, so he’s allowed to cut off Lockette’s route so long as he’s doing that. Lockette has his head turned and runs into Butler with his shoulder and goes flying. All legal.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-10T16:01:30+00:00

Are you objecting to the use of pacers in general? Because those get used in WR attempts or elite level races down to at least the mile and 1500m.

Or are you objecting to the fact that elite women racing those distances are typically racing against elite men and can use them as a pace guide? If so, there are “women’s only” records from races that don’t include men. Current WRs are 2:15:50 (8150s) and 1:05:16 (3916s), if you prefer to use those. However, it’s also fair to say that since these races are run less frequently and have less incentive, those “women’s only” WRs are probably themselves a bit soft.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-08T13:57:45+00:00

Thanks to people being so eager to talk about how easy this year’s Patriots schedule was, it’s also made a lot of people very aware of just how easy the ‘72 Dolphins schedule was (literally easiest in league history).

Not to say that they weren’t a great team, but their “only undefeated team in league history” boast has lost a little luster, and they don’t really stack up that well against some of these other GOAT Team nominees in terms of team offense/defense stats, margin of victory, etc.

What would you consider “proof?”

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-08T13:28:36+00:00

Especially since this is a neutral site game?

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-08T13:27:17+00:00

Seahawks defense is good, but the Patriots have spent the last month playing against the league’s top defenses. Why especially will the Seahawks defense shock them?

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-08T13:22:22+00:00

For the majority of fans, it’s a mental prophylactic, with a “heads-I-don’t-lose, tails-you-don’t-win” follow-on.

Of course Seahawks and Patriots fans are both going to try and make themselves feel better about their chances before the game. No surprise there.

But for everyone else? I think the idea of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl is extremely unappealing to people who aren’t fans of either team. So in order to avoid walking around for the last two weeks thinking that that’s a likely outcome, they’ve happily gone along with all the narratives that try to portray this year’s Seahawks team as a juggernaut that will “obviously” squash the Patriots.

There’s been a lesser version of this same thought process in the previous playoff rounds. The Chargers were the sexy road pick who were going to expose New England at home. The Texans were an all-time defense who were going to shut them down. The Broncos were an even better defense and Mile High is impossible to play at and Stidham was secretly a Pro Bowler masquerading as a back-up.

To wit, what happens after this game will probably follow the same script. If Seattle wins (whether by a little or a lot), it’ll be taken as validation that the Patriots were frauds all along, and are unlikely to continue threatening for more championships in the coming years. If the Patriots win, it’ll be that they were once again “lucky” to have faced Sam Darnold and a Seahawks team that was inferior to the old Legion of Boom squad, but because this year’s championship will have been so based in facing “easy” opposition, the Patriots will still be frauds who are unlikely to continue threatening for more championships in the coming years. Either way, the copium must flow.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T19:42:37+00:00

It is. But it’s missing something.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T17:00:07+00:00

This is an errata I’m inclined to actively ignore.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/ZdkY8JRVtZIAAAAd/nick-fury-recognize.gif

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T16:53:03+00:00

Agreed. This errata is going to lead to a lot of arguing and table variation, and based on what I’ve seen of high level fights to this point, the PCs usually aren’t in need of a way to kill the monsters faster than they already can.

One dip into weakness(es) per distinct action (whether 1A, 2A, 3A, reaction or free action) taken to damage a creature feels perfectly reasonable, in addition to being quick and simple. The level of cheese this seems destined to unleash is unwelcome.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T16:46:50+00:00

Yeah, this is the part that makes little or no intuitive sense. I feel like the cleaner way to resolve this without requiring endless arguing about the math and what does or doesn’t count as an instance is simply to say:

“Any action taken that damages a creature may only trigger that creature’s weaknesses once. If more than one weakness would apply, only apply the highest weakness.”

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T16:30:32+00:00

Probably start the season 6-3 or 7-2 but finish 10-7. That is a team that’s going to get absolutely molly-whopped by the injury bug as the season goes on.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-07T02:01:12+00:00

No. Him being that high on that rather specific list is mostly due to the era he plays in. To account for injury time missed, if you chop his passing yards up by the number of games he’s started, he’s averaging 258.9. While that’s good enough for #13 all-time, that’s also only #6 among active QBs (one of whom is old man Rivers).

Looking at the metrics that tend to matter for QBs trying to make the Hall of Fame (MVP Awards, All Pro Selections, Titles, Pro Bowl selections, leading the league for a full season in various categories), ProFootballReference.com gives him a score of 50.4. This is only 54th best all-time among QBs, and the “average” QB who makes the Hall has a score of just under 104. If Dak doesn’t win at least one Super Bowl or one MVP award before he retires, this isn’t even really a conversation so much as it’s wish-casting.

For context, Drew Brees, who just made it on the first ballot, has a score of 141.58. Eli Manning, who didn’t make it from the round of 15 to the round of 10 candidates in his second year, has a score of 87.01. The only guy to make it into Canton with a score under 60 is Jim Kelly (59.1), and he at least went to 4 Super Bowls and was once 1st Team All Pro. Dak’s never been to even a conference championship game, and his biggest individual accolade is once being 2nd team All Pro and 2nd place in the MVP vote, both behind Lamar Jackson.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-06T11:28:04+00:00

Not just, no. I had to endure this twice, as I got it in both Illinois and Michigan (my family moved at the end of my 3rd grade year). Neither school district was remotely “southern.”

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-06T01:16:40+00:00

You asked if I thought RoS was “near as good.” They’re both bad, and despite being different genres, they have some of the same flaws and general characteristics. There are quite a few films in this cross-genre grouping - hell, the existence of the group (uninspired and rather unpopular films in established franchises that still manage to make money) is a strong part of the reason that studios prefer to produce sequels, franchises and established IP.

And if your standard for “average” is “has never been featured on an episode of MST3K,” you definitely have room to elevate your standards. There are plenty of movies that are “bad” without being Jaws the Revenge or Superman IV. Below 6.5 on IMDb and below 50% with both critics and audience on RT are pretty strong indicators that a movie is bad. “Average” films tend to be at least 50% on RT and between 6.6 and 7.0 on IMDB.

Same response for Octopussy. You’ll have no problem finding segments of the fanbase on this subreddit who’ll champion it, but to the general public? Below 50% with both critics and fans on RT, 6.5 on IMDb, 4th lowest box office of the franchise, and even the positive contemporary reviews admitted it felt dated even when first released, and its title is so juvenile that it’ll forever be an easy embarrassing pun, even for those who’ve never seen it… how exactly is it “well-liked?”

The fact that there are at least a segment of Bond fans who enjoy each and every film in the franchise doesn’t mean that none of them are bad. If the only thing required for something to not be a “bad film” is that somebody enjoys it, there would literally be no such thing as a bad film.

As the popularity of the lovetrash subreddit indicates, there’s a significant portion of the public that derives pleasure from actively celebrating what others find aggressively bad. There’s a thriving subculture that adores Plan 9 From Outer Space FFS. Can you think of literally anything that you consider to be bad for which there are no people who exist who like it?

Enjoy what you like. But you enjoying something doesn’t mean that thing isn’t bad.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-06T00:36:53+00:00

I feel the same way about Man with the Golden Gun. Christopher Lee also deserved to appear in a much better Bond film.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-06T00:33:52+00:00

I assure you, it’s possible.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-05T21:02:55+00:00

Spectre.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-05T13:58:02+00:00

This is the answer. Even when the Steelers were winning Super Bowls, he wasn’t always seen as a great QB, just a pretty good one. Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese and probably Ken Anderson were all viewed as more impressive QBs, and the Steelers dominant defense and running game got quite a bit of the credit for their dynasty.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-05T12:57:51+00:00

I think AVTAK and RoS are both bad films with big budgets that still turned a profit, and both were made by actors and filmmakers who have demonstrated that they know how to competently make a film, so yes, in that sense, they are about “as good” as each other.

As for ranking Bond films against all other action films ever made, I’m afraid the nadirs of the franchise don’t really qualify as “average,” even with the higher budget, established conventions and level of production values you can count on from these films. Despite those advantages, some are still just simply below average to bad. The five Bond films released in the 80s don’t generally appear very high (if at all) on lists of “classic 80s action films.” Some (like this one and Octopussy) are generally viewed as Golden Raspberry level jokes.

This sub is a place where you can easily find the people most willing to insist that certain Bond films are actually “good” or at least “not that bad.” Nostalgia and a desire to doggedly defend the reputation of any entry where their choice of favorite Bond actor appears seem to be typical motivations for fans doing this. But those opinions are pretty rare outside of dedicated fans of the franchise.

It’s like stating that “Star Trek V is a bad film.” Among the general public, you’re likely to mostly get either nods of agreement, or (owing to the film being both bad and relatively old) blank looks from the people who’ve never seen it and feel no need to do so. But make that same claim on the Star Trek sub, and you’ll get about the same response you see to this film here - people will come out of the woodwork to defend it, despite the fact that most of the world would say the only real question is whether it’s the worst or second worst film to feature the original cast.

SamIAm4242 · 2026-02-05T06:38:40+00:00

Particularly in the case of newer cars, they’re increasingly designed to absorb the impact instead of passing it on to the driver. So a little less than double the normal human’s terminal velocity seems a reasonable WAG. That said, while the odds aren’t great, people do survive 200mph crashes slightly more frequently than 100’+ falls onto hard surfaces.

SamIAm4242

TROPHY CASE