Great game to finish the season!

For people who care about such things, C4 used the NFL feed for the halftime show and trophy presentation whilst Sky, as usual, used the NFL International feed for them.

What's the difference (I think I had Sky on, but was recording the C4 version as an alternate...). Is the C4 version better?

No 5.1 audio on either even though it was available to native viewers.

Which one used the NBC feed?

Thought Sky knocked it out the park with their coverage last night. Their best Super Bowl programme in their 20 years of doing the game. No dumbing down, no cutting to the Super Bash, minimal Wembley noise, analysts and presenters in the right roles, all live from the stadium. Obviously still some Sky niggles like not cutting back to the commentary quick enough but overall I was impressed. As it should be the terrestrial coverage is the place to deal with the newbie viewers and casual fans although this does somewhat restrict Carlson.

I watched the NBC feed from the States to see the Ads (which were a let down, barring the Bud puppy one) but i kept flicking between Sky and Channel 4 too.

From what i saw, i agree with you, Sky for years of fumbling on the goal line with their coverage they got it spot on, no celebs in the studio, such as Don Johnson, no Super Bash rowdiness, i remember when they sent Reinbold there once, no main commentary from Halling (long time ago i know), proper analysis from Reinbold and Gayle, Reynolds seemed to do a decent job of conveying the atmosphere from the sidelines, they just seemed to get it right this time.
I know that Shaun isn't everyones cup of tea, but for me he brings credibility as a Super Bowl winner and a high profile enough one at that on those 85 Bears and he and Jeff seemed to gel well in the studio, not talking over each other and hardly getting a chance to chime in when Neil is sat with them. I know that Shaun will never be the complete natural analyst that Jeff has become, but i thought that they made a nice team and even Kev didn't seem to fumble as much or maybe that was because i wasn't watching it 100% of the time!
I Also liked the fact that they seemed to concentrate on the game, not reading out inane tweets and also Wembley themed promos, i did see Kirkwood in there, but his appearance seemed short as did his Wembley promo.

For me Channel 4 dropped the ball with Nat, Mike and Osi being in the studio in London as oppose to being in the Stadium, when they cut back to London it just didn't seem to convey the atmosphere as well, maybe that allowed them to give a more considered view without the noise of the crowd, i don't know and i wasn't sure what Gethin Jones brought to the table in his similar role to Neil on the sideline as i got the impression that he doesn't seem to knowledgeable, but i stress i wasn't watching it 100% of the time, so maybe i do him a disservice.

Also at the end Sky seemed to stay with the broadcast longer than Channel 4, but i suppose they are a dedicated Sports channel, i'd put on NBCSN by that time for further post game coverage by that time.

If anyone watched NBC or NBCSN, i thought that Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison were excellent in analysis, especially the way they called out Seattle for the play calling in the final minute.

Also and i know that this is subjective, but for me if there was any doubt who the number one NFL announcing team is, there shouldn't be, as again Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth nailed it, eat your heart out Phil Simms, because that is how to analyse a game.

What a game it was too, as a neutral and having seen over 30 of these, easily ranked in my top 5, not sure it was best ever, will it be remembered as a classic? Maybe.But it was built to a remarkable finish.

Just my opinion!

Like Cris Collinsworth I think that analysis nailed it Steve.

Sky got it spot on in every way you said. I hope Neil can learn for next season to leave the analysis to the experts (in which regard two are better than one - another lesson Sky might do well to learn for next season). Al and Cris are the best. C4 did a decent job - maybe they should have had Adam Richman on the touchline instead of Gethin!

Only 7 months to next season...

Go Pats!

Pretty much nothing, which is why I made it as a passing comment.

With the halftime show the NFL International feed started with a wider shot then ended with a "Thank you for watching the Super Bowl XLIX halftime show" over the Super Bowl logo. NBC's version started with a closeup on the dancers as the Pepsi logo and ended with a "Pepsi halftime show" voiceover and logo, although Channel 4 joined after the closeup and cut away as soon as the pepsi logo appeared at the end.

I have little clue about reading picture quality, but that added a notice difference on Sky where the halftime show looked a little jerky. But even with both C4 and Sky using the NBC feed for the actual game coverage though they were clearly converted differently. When I flipped between them C4 had a smooth picture but with artefacts while the Sky version was clean but had jagged edges.

For the presentation the only noticeable difference was the graphics used for captions (NFL Network or NBC style) and both cut back to the studio slightly late so you briefly heard a Bob Papa voiceover on Sky and saw the NBC desk on Channel 4.

Also, going back to the comments yesterday about Sky taking the NBC feed for more postgame coverage, Sky also signed off fractionally later than NBC (by two minutes). And that was despite them staying on air for longer after the game than usual for a US network. So with the fewer commercials they spent longer on analysis than NBC, though did not show any interviews other than those on field (Channel 4 did show the Pete Carroll one).

Obviously in the US there were postgame shows on the various sports networks, but it again goes to the point that there was no value to Sky in showing a separate full NBC feed. If they wanted to show more they would simply have returned to NFL Network coverage.

I did switch over to C4 when the when the guy from NFL UK came into the SKY booth, apart from that SKY's coverage was spot on. C4 coverage felt strange being in a studio with reporters at the game, rather presenting it from the stadium.

Yes i thought C4 coverage never felt right being 6000 miles away from the action, bet Mike and Nat would have rather been in Arizona too.

Kirkwood wasn't on Sky for very long at all, talked briefly about the game and his Wembley contribution consisted of saying how great ticket sales were going, that they were 15% up on this time last year, then i think after the next break he was gone.

At least Sky seemed to keep the Wembley chat to a minimum from what i could hear, we don't need to hear it on a Super Bowl broadcast, especially during a compelling game.

If i want to go to a Wembley game, i don't need to be continually told who the match ups are between, what time the games are on and how ticket sales are selling so fast. Occasionally mentioning it during broadcasts each week or posting it on their website is fine.
I will go based on, do i like the match up, can i afford it and making sure that i don't wait until last minute to secure a ticket and then if it is sold out, then it is my own fault. It is easy these days to get all of that information without it being drummed into me on Sky, which personally i felt that they were doing ever since the games were announced, just my opinion again!

Going over old ground i know, but when Neil previously referenced that the NFL early game from Wembley got better viewing figures than 6 of the 7 World Series games on Fox, i have to say that although baseball viewing figures in no way are up there with NFL, i had to say that i found that stat hard to believe, surely he didn't make that up for effect, if it was true, then it isn't necessarily a ringing endorsement for the Wembley games, but rather a damning indictment over the way 'America's pastime' has fallen, maybe start times and lengths of games are the reason for dwindling ratings, because the Wembley game wouldn't have been a total ratings winner surely.

Yeah, count me as another one very impressed by Sky last night. Easily their best SB coverage that I can remember. Jeff and Shaun are as good as you could hope for analysis wise and I didn't see much of the silliness they have often indulged in over the years with celeb cameos.

I decided to watch Sky as soon as I heard that C4 hadn't bothered to send their team to the game so I can't comment on the C4 presentation.

Agree with the sentiments about Sky.

Got the impression during the post season when they worked together that Jeff and Shaun really seemed to get on well and also had a healthy dose of respect for each other and their respective views, anyone else feel the same way?

I also like the contrast of current coach and former high level player working together.

Would echo the thoughts above that Sky's coverage was superb. Reynolds at pitchside worked well and limited Cadle's scope to make any blunders. The only gripe I had was they kept saying that Shaun Gayle won the Superbowl in 1985 - he could easily pass for 40!

Shaun Gayle and John Salako never seem to age! Also Chris Kamara always looks exactly the same year in year out.

Nick got himself in a tangle trying to recite a creative line he's been spun by either NFLUK or NFL PR. CBSSports.com fell for it too in their recent piece

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...m-et-in-london

What they wanted him to say was that Atlanta/Detroit rated better than Game 6 of the World Series, which it did, but only in the provisional overnight ratings.

In the Final revised ratings all 7 games of the World Series beat the Wembley game in terms of both ratings and viewer numbers.

On last nights coverage I thought Osi settled in quite well with Nat and Mike, just a shame as others have said, that they were in London and not Arizona.

Thanks for that Alex. Another bit of NFLUK spin. Neil Reynolds is better at it than Alistair Campbell was!

I would have been amazed if a regular season game not involving the heavyweight teams at the mid point of the NFL season in an early morning stateside time slot would have beaten World Series ratings in anything other than the local Detroit and Atlanta markets.

Yep, the closeness was also aided by the World Series being a fairly unfashionable matchup in ratings terms

I was shocked when I learned how old Shaun Gayle was. I think Jeff Reinebold looks pretty good for 57 as well. Pete Carroll puts them all to shame though.

Pete Carroll suddenly feels very old this morning.

Looks like SKY heeded some of the complaints & kept mentions of next seasons Wembley games to a minimum, even during the playoffs Wembley games weren't mentioned as often as they have been in the previous years.

Two bits of information has come out from this weeks Owners meeting,

One is that the NFL has announced a trial next season, where all games will be available locally and there will be no blackout

The second is that the Bills-Jags game in London will be used as a digital-network trial. Outside of the local markets, the only place where the game will be broadcast in the US is online through a webcast via a provider such as YouTube

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/03/23/bil...gital-platform

do we know when the fixtures dates and times will be released for nfl 2015 ?

Sometime in April I believe, not sure they've announced an official date yet

the Arena Football League starts on March 27th - does anyone know if any games will be shown in the UK?

I had a quick look at the schedules on Eurosport and ESPN UK but I couldnt see anything in their schedules