SuperBowl I Re-Air

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
lupi

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Looks like after extensive work going through the archives, NFL films has managed to piece together enough non-broadcast sources of film to allow it to be rebroadcast as the entire game. First airing will be this friday.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000620927/article/nfl-network-to-reair-super-bowl-i-for-first-time
 
purbeast0

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,652
6,529
126
we were watching the redskins/cowboys 82 NFC championship game yesterday before they played the packers. my buddy gave me a copy on dvd. the pregame was awesome. they follow the players to their homes with cameras and show them looking like joe schmoe on a normal day. it was cool seeing them with their families.

but damn, the quality of the broadcast ... wow lol. we were watching it on my 120" screen and it was so blurry.
 
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,404
136
Kind of amazing how the original was lost and they pieced together other parts plus found a radio broadcast that was still intact to use for the audio, from my understanding old tapes don't age well and radio stations don't have the budgets to maintain archives.
 
S

skimple

Golden Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,283
3
81
Mad Dog Sports was saying that it was crap to watch because they had a bunch of commentators sitting around talking over the game. But I suspect that they probably don't [have] decent (any) audio for sections of the game.
 
Last edited:
lupi

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Excluding how much TV broadcasting has changed, they didn't have any TV audio so had to pick up radio broadcast for audio and that is expected to be substantially different and more constant due to the medium.
 
Stopsignhank

Stopsignhank

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2014
2,752
2,251
136
skimple said:
Mad Dog Sports was saying that it was crap to watch because they had a bunch of commentators sitting around talking over the game. But I suspect that they probably don't decent (any) audio for sections of the game.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen this time they are going to cut out the commentators and just have the radio broadcast as that audio.
 
KeithTalent

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Homerboy said:
when is it showing?
Click to expand...

Super Bowl I: The Lost Game will air on Friday, January 15 at 8:00 PM ET on NFL Network. The three-hour program is enhanced with pregame, halftime and postgame segments, modern broadcast graphics and coverage, social media interaction, facts and information, with studio contributors and guests live reaction and storytelling throughout.
Click to expand...

Sounds annoying unfortunately. I would rather just watch the actual game with the radio broadcast over it, but it sounds like all of the other shit they added in kind of ruined it. Read the comments below the post, everyone said it sucked and they ruined. A shame. :(

KT
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
I think it had to be pieced together--video as well as the audio--because the actual broadcasts tapes were destroyed shortly after. The NFL at the time (or CBS or whoever owned the tapes) figured there would be no interest in this then-highly unpopular circus performance, so no reason to keep them around. (reminds me of Grandpa Simpson)

This broadcast had to be pieced together from disparate clips of the original broadcast that had been preserved from various other sources.
 
Homerboy

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-re-air-super-bowl-i-the-right-way-this-time/

NFL Media tells PFT that it will do a 90-minute re-broadcast this Friday at 8 p.m. ET, and that re-broadcast will be quite a bit different than what aired last Friday, on the 49th anniversary of the first Super Bowl.

The version that will be shown this Friday will have an introduction from Chris Rose in the NFL Network studio, but after that it will be the game itself, with no commentary other than the original NBC Sports radio broadcast.
Click to expand...
 
Drako

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
zinfamous said:
The NFL at the time (or CBS or whoever owned the tapes) figured there would be no interest in this then-highly unpopular circus performance, so no reason to keep them around. (reminds me of Grandpa Simpson)
Click to expand...

So much fail in this post. :D

You realize ~28 million people watched this game right? And it was a game between the AFL and NFL right?
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
Drako said:
So much fail in this post. :D

You realize ~28 million people watched this game right? And it was a game between the AFL and NFL right?
Click to expand...

28 million is a horribly tiny share in the era of 3 Networks on TV when success was determined by some 100mil+ viewers per time slot.

Yeah, 28 million is today defined as "success," but back when there was no such thing as cable, programs were axed if they showed less than 30 or 40% ratings per time slot.

So yes--at the time of the first Superbowl, it was not a very popular sport and was easily dwarfed by baseball in popularity. I mean, that's why the idea of the "Superbowl" was cocked up in the first place: to try and get people to watch football.


While Grandpa's comment is ironic in retrospect, it was accurate for the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edq2fbuQqHA

:D

EDIT: I'm starting to look up some numbers for comparison. it looks like my 100mil is "a bit off" :D

A decade prior to the first Superbowl, I Love Lucy--top series in 4 out of 6 seasons, and never lower than 3rd place, drew an average of 40mil viewers--this compared to Eisenhower's inauguration which drew 29 million the year that Lucy debuted.

http://www.museum.tv/eotv/ilovelucy.htm

I need to get into the 60s, because I'm not sure what the adoption rate of TV and viewership was 10 years after those numbers. I just recall reading some article about the major news networks--why cable news networks now dominate over broadcast, but with ratings that are a fifth of what was required to sustain them back before cable. (I mean, obvious when you go from 3-4 channels to dozens to hundreds over the years)

Also, on the NPR broadcast about this NFl network re-broadcast, it was mentioned that the study tossed out the source tape because they assumed that no one would care about it. On top of the fact that pro football wasn't all that popular at the time, that suggests to me that it had a very low viewership for the time.

granted, for pro football, it was probably the most-watched game they had ever broadcast up until that time. So of course it would be a qualified success from an NFL/AFL perspective.
 
Last edited:
Drako

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
zinfamous said:
28 million is a horribly tiny share in the era of 3 Networks on TV when success was determined by some 100mil+ viewers per time slot.

Yeah, 28 million is today defined as "success," but back when there was no such thing as cable, programs were axed if they showed less than 30 or 40% ratings per time slot.

So yes--at the time of the first Superbowl, it was not a very popular sport and was easily dwarfed by baseball in popularity. I mean, that's why the idea of the "Superbowl" was cocked up in the first place: to try and get people to watch football.


While Grandpa's comment is ironic in retrospect, it was accurate for the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edq2fbuQqHA

:D
Click to expand...

You are clearly an authority on everything. :D

28 million viewers was huge back in 1967 for any event. When you consider that 54 million households in the US had TVs back then, that's a pretty good percentage.

Those of us that were actually around at the time, thought it was a pretty big deal by the standards of the time. :D

After that game, the NFL and AFL merged, and professional football skyrocketed in popularity.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
Drako said:
You are clearly an authority on everything. :D

28 million viewers was huge back in 1967 for any event. When you consider that 54 million households in the US had TVs back then, that's a pretty good percentage.

Those of us that were actually around at the time, thought it was a pretty big deal by the standards of the time. :D

After that game, the NFL and AFL merged, and professional football skyrocketed in popularity.
Click to expand...

yeah, check out my edit up there. :p
 
Drako

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
zinfamous said:
yeah, check out my edit up there. :p
Click to expand...

Meh, I was wrong as well.

There weren't 28 million viewers, there were 51 million viewers if you combine the two networks. So you were right. Nobody had any interest in the game back then. :D
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
Drako said:
Meh, I was wrong as well.

There weren't 28 million viewers, there were 51 million viewers if you combine the two networks. So you were right. Nobody had any interest in the game back then. :D
Click to expand...

Oh wow--2 Networks. I didn't know it was simulcast that way.

Still, that's exactly 1/2, maybe even 2/3? of the entire TV broadcast at that time slot. How many channels were there, 3 or 4?

so...it's kinda expected either way? ;)
 
Drako

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
zinfamous said:
Also, on the NPR broadcast about this NFl network re-broadcast, it was mentioned that the study tossed out the source tape because they assumed that no one would care about it. On top of the fact that pro football wasn't all that popular at the time, that suggests to me that it had a very low viewership for the time.
Click to expand...

Networks did not store tapes of sporting events back then. It simply was not done at the time. It's not because they assumed nobody cared about the game, it's because sports broadcast were simply not recorded.
 
Mr.IncrediblyBored

Mr.IncrediblyBored

Lifer
Jun 18, 2000
11,208
775
126
Can somebody explain why all classic sports footage is always in slow motion? I was hoping this was going to look like a real football game, just really old. Instead it was a hodgepodge of clips cut together in slow motion.

Edit:

M0oG0oGaiPan said:
They're going to re-air this without all the extra stuff they added. It'll be the game and radio call only.

NFL should just pay this guy for his video tape. Has most of the game recorded.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704709304576124373773290508
Click to expand...


This is what I was looking for. The snippet embedded in the article has some plays from the game, and they just look like a regular game, just in shitty quality. But like a real football game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom