THIS is what we need for a Superbowl halftime

[ChrisL]

I'm a woman. I watch the SB for the game. They usually pass when I think that they should run the ball and pass when I think that they should run it. The half-time show is basically for food and bathroom breaks. The only exception that I ever made was when Springsteen played it because I'm a long-time fan of his. I hate these extravagant, boring dance numbers by half-clothed individuals, and, frankly, most of what passes for music these days are lip-syncing idiots who can't even play an instrument. It's all electronic.

Milli Vanilli would be perfect for this, then.

Barf.
Give me people like Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, the entire Motown/R&B Crew, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Winwood, the Yardbirds, Tina Turner, Melissa Etheridge,Van Morrison, Black gospel. There are so many more. Not these big production numbers with people who have no talent or creativity. Why eat at McDonald's when you can dine at the Ritz? End of rant.

Most of these are not even bands anymore. This is the year 2020. Black gospel? For the SB?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm a woman. I watch the SB for the game. They usually pass when I think that they should run the ball and pass when I think that they should run it. The half-time show is basically for food and bathroom breaks. The only exception that I ever made was when Springsteen played it because I'm a long-time fan of his. I hate these extravagant, boring dance numbers by half-clothed individuals, and, frankly, most of what passes for music these days are lip-syncing idiots who can't even play an instrument. It's all electronic.

Milli Vanilli would be perfect for this, then.

Barf.
Give me people like Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, the entire Motown/R&B Crew, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Winwood, the Yardbirds, Tina Turner, Melissa Etheridge,Van Morrison, Black gospel. There are so many more. Not these big production numbers with people who have no talent or creativity. Why eat at McDonald's when you can dine at the Ritz? End of rant.

Oh, they have talent. Some of them quite a lot. It's just not a talent for something you or I enjoy.

There is no energy or originality there. Someone like the electric Tina Turner has it. So does Springsteen, who actually is quite proficient on guitar, as well. I have seen him keep it up for hours. I saw him once keep playing will going to a pail of water on the drum riser, dunk his head in and shake it off, without missing a thing. I also went to an acoustic concert of his at Constitution Hall, when he held the audience for hours with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonic, no band.

I hate this watered-down, overly-produced stuff. The last person to really inspire me was that frumpy Scotswoman, Susan Boyle, who went out there to laughter and brought down the house. I still enjoy listening to her performance that night.

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

 

[Montrovant]

Milli Vanilli would be perfect for this, then.

Barf.
Give me people like Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, the entire Motown/R&B Crew, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Winwood, the Yardbirds, Tina Turner, Melissa Etheridge,Van Morrison, Black gospel. There are so many more. Not these big production numbers with people who have no talent or creativity. Why eat at McDonald's when you can dine at the Ritz? End of rant.

Oh, they have talent. Some of them quite a lot. It's just not a talent for something you or I enjoy.

There is no energy or originality there. Someone like the electric Tina Turner has it. So does Springsteen, who actually is quite proficient on guitar, as well. I have seen him keep it up for hours. I saw him once keep playing will going to a pail of water on the drum riser, dunk his head in and shake it off, without missing a thing. I also went to an acoustic concert of his at Constitution Hall, when he held the audience for hours with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonic, no band.

I hate this watered-down, overly-produced stuff. The last person to really inspire me was that frumpy Scotswoman, Susan Boyle, who went out there to laughter and brought down the house. I still enjoy listening to her performance that night.

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

 

[ChrisL]

Barf.
Give me people like Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, the entire Motown/R&B Crew, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Winwood, the Yardbirds, Tina Turner, Melissa Etheridge,Van Morrison, Black gospel. There are so many more. Not these big production numbers with people who have no talent or creativity. Why eat at McDonald's when you can dine at the Ritz? End of rant.

Oh, they have talent. Some of them quite a lot. It's just not a talent for something you or I enjoy.

There is no energy or originality there. Someone like the electric Tina Turner has it. So does Springsteen, who actually is quite proficient on guitar, as well. I have seen him keep it up for hours. I saw him once keep playing will going to a pail of water on the drum riser, dunk his head in and shake it off, without missing a thing. I also went to an acoustic concert of his at Constitution Hall, when he held the audience for hours with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonic, no band.

I hate this watered-down, overly-produced stuff. The last person to really inspire me was that frumpy Scotswoman, Susan Boyle, who went out there to laughter and brought down the house. I still enjoy listening to her performance that night.

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

 

[ChrisL]

One of my favorite J Lo songs. A lovely song, but doesn't really rile me up to watch a football game.

 

[MaryL]

Good old fashioned unicorn jousts, or say a frumious Bandersanch Vs Nessie, the loch ness monster. I'd pay two &1/2 bits for that. Not a shilling more.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, they have talent. Some of them quite a lot. It's just not a talent for something you or I enjoy.

There is no energy or originality there. Someone like the electric Tina Turner has it. So does Springsteen, who actually is quite proficient on guitar, as well. I have seen him keep it up for hours. I saw him once keep playing will going to a pail of water on the drum riser, dunk his head in and shake it off, without missing a thing. I also went to an acoustic concert of his at Constitution Hall, when he held the audience for hours with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonic, no band.

I hate this watered-down, overly-produced stuff. The last person to really inspire me was that frumpy Scotswoman, Susan Boyle, who went out there to laughter and brought down the house. I still enjoy listening to her performance that night.

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no energy or originality there. Someone like the electric Tina Turner has it. So does Springsteen, who actually is quite proficient on guitar, as well. I have seen him keep it up for hours. I saw him once keep playing will going to a pail of water on the drum riser, dunk his head in and shake it off, without missing a thing. I also went to an acoustic concert of his at Constitution Hall, when he held the audience for hours with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonic, no band.

I hate this watered-down, overly-produced stuff. The last person to really inspire me was that frumpy Scotswoman, Susan Boyle, who went out there to laughter and brought down the house. I still enjoy listening to her performance that night.

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

 

[Montrovant]

Again, what matters to the NFL is probably the broadest appeal they can get. Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are pretty popular singers, or at least have been. I don't think either of them is known for being particularly controversial, so that also might be appealing. They probably like to space out their Janet Jackson type moments.

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

 

[Lysistrata]

I'm a woman. I watch the SB for the game. They usually pass when I think that they should run the ball and pass when I think that they should run it. The half-time show is basically for food and bathroom breaks. The only exception that I ever made was when Springsteen played it because I'm a long-time fan of his. I hate these extravagant, boring dance numbers by half-clothed individuals, and, frankly, most of what passes for music these days are lip-syncing idiots who can't even play an instrument. It's all electronic.

Milli Vanilli would be perfect for this, then.

Barf.
Give me people like Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, the entire Motown/R&B Crew, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Winwood, the Yardbirds, Tina Turner, Melissa Etheridge,Van Morrison, Black gospel. There are so many more. Not these big production numbers with people who have no talent or creativity. Why eat at McDonald's when you can dine at the Ritz? End of rant.

Most of these are not even bands anymore. This is the year 2020. Black gospel? For the SB?

I'm just saying that this "vocalist" with dance extravaganza stuff is crap.There is talent out there. Rihanna has done some good stuff. Melissa Etheridge, of course. Monsters and Men. There are talented musicians, songwriters, vocalists out there, and I hope that there always will be to take it forward, but somewhere along the line, real music got tangled up with what used to be known as "bubblegum." I like some energy. I want the middle-eight to be different, a gear switch. So much of this now disappears into dancing, and the vocalist might as well be singing the Manhattan phone book.

 

[ChrisL]

I love J Lo and Shakira. I don't mind at all seeing them perform. They are both very talented women. Just, like I said, I think something that riles people up would be more appropriate.

Instead of letting the NFL and the host cities choose, maybe they should have votes from fans to choose.

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

 

[Montrovant]

If the halftime shows become unpopular, maybe they will. Then again, maybe some of the same artists would still be performing.

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

 

[ChrisL]

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

 

[ChrisL]

Kind of hard to gauge exactly how popular the halftime shows are though. Most people are watching to see the game.

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

I'm going to call you Pogo, Jr. Lol! Arguing for the sake of argument.

 

[Montrovant]

I've posted a few surveys. I think that there were multiple surveys in which 10%+ of people considered the halftime show the most important aspect of the game. That's a whole lot of people for a broadcast that gets over 100 million viewers. Pepsi has been sponsoring it for 8 years and is expected to spend somewhere around $13 million on it. I guess they think it's popular enough to give them good advertising.

If enough people were to complain about it in letters, on social media, whatever, maybe they would change it.

Oh, and the same surveys had the commercials as the most important aspect of the game for 20%+ of people. A lot of people apparently watch the SB for reasons other than the actual game.

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

If you look back, this started with me responding to a comment from toobfreak early on about who goes to the SB and whether or not the halftime show is targeting the people at the stadium or the wider viewing audience. No one is making you continue anything.

 

[ChrisL]

Those are probably people that only tune in for the SB because their spouse wants to watch or because they attended a SB party. They would probably not even watch otherwise. The people the NFL need to make happy are paying fans who actually watch games and support the NFL financially.

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

If you look back, this started with me responding to a comment from toobfreak early on about who goes to the SB and whether or not the halftime show is targeting the people at the stadium or the wider viewing audience. No one is making you continue anything.

But you aren't arguing with him. You are arguing with me every time I say what I would like to see in a superbowl halftime show. I and many others would like a more exciting half time show.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, but if they wouldn't watch otherwise, and football fans are going to watch regardless...don't you think the NFL would be more concerned with getting and keeping those who would NOT normally watch? If they can be confident of the fans watching anyway?

The Super Bowl is a big event. The NFL is a business. Of course they are going to try to draw non-football fans to the SB if they can. That makes them more money.

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

If you look back, this started with me responding to a comment from toobfreak early on about who goes to the SB and whether or not the halftime show is targeting the people at the stadium or the wider viewing audience. No one is making you continue anything.

But you aren't arguing with him. You are arguing with me every time I say what I would like to see in a superbowl halftime show. I and many others would like a more exciting half time show.

What I've mostly argued, other than some silly comments about specific suggestions from people, is that the idea that no one likes the halftime show or that all football fans want to see whatever music the poster enjoys is just ridiculous. I can give a whole list of bands I'd like to see at the halftime show, but I wouldn't argue that the NFL should actually have them. I don't care if people want to suggest any music, I just take issue with the idea that those suggestions are what everyone watching wants, or even what the majority wants.

If you go back, you'll see that the only times I've been really arguing anything with you is when you've made comments like saying "The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people." That's not me arguing with you saying who you want in the halftime show.

 

[ChrisL]

Like you said, those people are tuning in to watch for other reasons than the actual game. The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people. People who actually watch games make the NFL money.

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

If you look back, this started with me responding to a comment from toobfreak early on about who goes to the SB and whether or not the halftime show is targeting the people at the stadium or the wider viewing audience. No one is making you continue anything.

But you aren't arguing with him. You are arguing with me every time I say what I would like to see in a superbowl halftime show. I and many others would like a more exciting half time show.

What I've mostly argued, other than some silly comments about specific suggestions from people, is that the idea that no one likes the halftime show or that all football fans want to see whatever music the poster enjoys is just ridiculous. I can give a whole list of bands I'd like to see at the halftime show, but I wouldn't argue that the NFL should actually have them. I don't care if people want to suggest any music, I just take issue with the idea that those suggestions are what everyone watching wants, or even what the majority wants.

If you go back, you'll see that the only times I've been really arguing anything with you is when you've made comments like saying "The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people." That's not me arguing with you saying who you want in the halftime show.

That is why I suggested they do a vote. They could post the bands online and have people vote. The one with the most votes wins.

 

[Montrovant]

The NFL will make money from the Super Bowl. A lot of money, actually. And once again, unless the NFL starts losing fans as viewers because of the halftime show, why would they want to change it? What does it gain them?

What exactly is your issue anyways? This thread is about what most people would like to see at a SB halftime show. Why do you feel a need to argue with everyone about this?

If you look back, this started with me responding to a comment from toobfreak early on about who goes to the SB and whether or not the halftime show is targeting the people at the stadium or the wider viewing audience. No one is making you continue anything.

But you aren't arguing with him. You are arguing with me every time I say what I would like to see in a superbowl halftime show. I and many others would like a more exciting half time show.

What I've mostly argued, other than some silly comments about specific suggestions from people, is that the idea that no one likes the halftime show or that all football fans want to see whatever music the poster enjoys is just ridiculous. I can give a whole list of bands I'd like to see at the halftime show, but I wouldn't argue that the NFL should actually have them. I don't care if people want to suggest any music, I just take issue with the idea that those suggestions are what everyone watching wants, or even what the majority wants.

If you go back, you'll see that the only times I've been really arguing anything with you is when you've made comments like saying "The NFL will gain nothing for catering to that small percentage of people." That's not me arguing with you saying who you want in the halftime show.

That is why I suggested they do a vote. They could post the bands online and have people vote. The one with the most votes wins.

I'd be fine with that. I almost certainly wouldn't care about it whatever they do. I watch the Super Bowl for football, not the halftime show.

I imagine you might not be happy with whatever performers they put up to vote for, though. It would probably be a lot of pop artists.

 

[candycorn]

The money the NFL gets from ticket sales is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the advertising revenue they get from what is the single most watched TV broadcast in the US every year.

Then watch the commercials and tell me who most of the target audience is aimed at, kids or adults? Men or women?

In addition, women make up around half of the viewers from what I've read, which of course may play a part in the choice of musical acts.

Seriously doubt that. Most of the women watching the game do so because their boyfriend, husband or other friends are watching it.

Further, considering the apparent popularity of the SB halftime show, they are clearly doing something right as far as viewers are concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people tune in to the halftime show that don't bother to watch the game.

Never met one person yet who tuned in just for the halftime show. You can see a better music video on You Tube any day of the week. The shows are becoming sickeningly PC.

And again, who has the money for a SB ticket is almost irrelevant. I am confident that the fans at the stadium are not the main target audience of the halftime show.

Irrelevant I think not. They are shelling out far more money to see that show than anyone else. Many of those folks are paying $6,000 to be there live to see it first hand. Me? About 17¢ in electricity.

One final point: while the NFL apparently creates a list of performers, the host city supposedly makes the actual choices.

I bet they'd get quit a different list if they actually asked the fans.

It’s made for TV.