Why the break between the finals & the superbowl?

[critter42]

@BobLibDem

I’ve always thought that the two week interval made for some lousy Super Bowls, since it often seemed like one team had the other really figured out using that extra week of preparation.

Actually, for a long time now this hasn’t been the case. While the 90s certainly had more than their share of dog games, it’s been a different story since the turn of the century. Since 2000, 8 out 13 Superbowls have been decided by a touchdown or less. 3 more were 2 touchdowns or less. That leaves 2 real blowouts, both by 27 points.

[etv78]

@radar1974

This might be a dumb response, but could the extra time be to help organise transport for the teams involved in the Superbowl (until the respective finals, no team knows if they are going to the Superbowl or not)? There is also longer for fans to organise travel to the final, as once again fans won’t know if their team will be represented until their respective final is won.

I’m from the other side of The Atlantic, so I might be talking a load of crap, but it was the first thing that came into my head when I saw the question. As a comparison, the English FA Cup, played at Wembley stadium, is several weeks after the semi-finals for fans to organise transport and also for police to work out what manpower they will need and where to station them, based on where the two sets of fans will be travelling to London from.

American fans don’t riot at the site of the game, only the cities of the teams involved.

[Jim_s_Son]

There were a few Super Bowls that only had a one week break because for years the NFL didn’t want to play the game in February. They have gotten over that and it is possible they may soon play the game on President’s Day. NASACAR has already abandoned having the Daytona 500 on POTUS day in anticipation for when the NFL claims that day.