Sports

Even without media fanfare, Bowl still packs punch

In print | February 5, 2009

Super Bowl XLIII was astounding. It featured a 100-yard interception return for a touchdown as time expired in the first half. It had a 13-point fourth quarter comeback. It also had two lead changes in the final three minutes of the game.

We saw Larry Fitzgerald, probably the most dynamic and talented receiver in the sport, streak 60 yards down the field between three defenders to cap the stirring comeback with time dwindling. But we weren’t done. With under a minute to go, we saw Santonio Holmes twist in midair, catch the ball with arms completely outstretched and somehow get his feet in bounds to take the lead back. (As impressive, he was able to carry out his premeditated celebration, an homage to LeBron James’ chalk toss, despite the enormity of the moment.)

It was one of the most gripping games I’ve ever seen, and it was probably even better than last year’s Super Bowl, when the New York Giants topped the New England Patriots in the game’s final minutes, ruining their perfect season.

But we had been told that Super Bowl XLIII was a dud of a matchup. The Pittsburgh Steelers are a good team, no one argued that, but they lack an appealing offensive superstar. And the Arizona Cardinals are … well, the Arizona Cardinals, probably the most hapless franchise in the National Football League. Despite being an old franchise, they have very little notable history and so no real following – they had never even advanced to the Conference championship game (semi-finals) before this year. And although Fitzgerald is a legitimate superstar, he has spent his whole pro career in the obscurity of the Arizona desert, so this postseason was his first chance to get national exposure.

Basically, the game lacked hype, so fans and analysts griped that there was nothing really intriguing about the matchup, some even claiming that they had no interest in watching it. No Tom Brady. No Manning of any sort. No major East-coast metropolitan area. No drama from the Dallas Cowboys, no discussion of Donovan McNabb’s relationship with Philadelphia. These are the things that hype is made of. All year, we are force-fed these stories. I imagine that over the course of this NFL season, ESPN talked more about the tumultuous relationship between the Cowboys’ Terrell Owens, Jason Witten and Tony Romo than about the entire Cardinals team, even though the Cardinals made it to the Super Bowl and the Cowboys missed the playoffs.

Those larger-than-life personalities are very easy to get into and, as importantly, very easy to market. They make writing stories for the two weeks prior to the big game easy. But hype is just hype — it’s empty fluff. But it’s easy, and without it, people might have to actually analyze football. And to analyze a football matchup, you have to watch game film and know what you’re talking about, as opposed to speculating about whether there’s enough positive energy flowing between Owens and Romo for them to be able to work together — which takes no expertise or analytical thought.
Last fall, the World Series was largely ignored because “Tampa Bay Rays vs. Philadelphia Phillies” lacked the hype that “Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Dodgers” could have generated. After all, Boston and L.A. are two of the biggest baseball markets in the country, plus the story about Manny Ramirez playing his former team would have basically written itself. Tampa/Philly provided no such hype. And even though the Series lasted only five games, four of them were classics, and it turned into a very intriguing matchup.

Super Bowl XLIII did this once again. The thing about off-the-field stories is that they’re off the field, and when game-day arrives, the hype is exposed for what it really is, leaving the greatness of the game to be decided on the field. So don’t let people tell you that a World Series or Super Bowl or NBA Finals won’t be superb. If you love a sport, then the pinnacle of its competition, the fight for the championship, will always be intriguing. The fact that it might not have an easy story to accompany it doesn’t matter, because in the immortal words of Marlo Stanfield, the game is the game (always), and that’s what we watch for.