NFL Fandom Report 2019

 

Time for our yearly look at NFL fandom.

Each year, I do a quantitative analysis of NFL fandom.  The analysis is grounded in economic and marketing theory, and uses statistical tools to shed light on the question of which teams have the most loyal or “best” fans.

The fundamental question that guides the analysis is simple – Who has the best fans in the NFL?  For the business folks, maybe we phrase this as – What are the best brands in the NFL? It’s a simple question that requires some complicated analyses.  First, we have to decide what we mean by “best”.  What makes for a great fan or brand?  Fans that show up even when the team is losing?  Fans that are willing to pay the highest prices?  Fans that are willing to follow a team on social media? Fans that show up to see the team play in other markets? All good options.

Even after we agree on the question, answering it is also a challenge.  How do we adjust for the fact that one team might have gone on a miraculous run that filled the stadium?  Or perhaps another team suffered a slew of injuries?  How do we compare fan behavior in a market like New York with fans in a place like Green Bay?

My approach to evaluating fan bases uses data on attendance, revenues, social media following and road attendance to develop statistical models of fan interest (more details here).  The key is that the models are used to determine which city’s fans are more willing to spend or follow their teams after controlling for factors like market size and short-term changes in winning and losing.

Similar to past years, I use three measures of fan engagement: Fan Equity, Social Equity and Road Equity.  Fan Equity focuses on home box office revenues (support via opening the wallet). Social Media Equity focuses on fan willingness to engage as part of a team’s community (support exhibited by joining social media communities).  Road Equity focuses on how teams draw on the road after adjusting for team performance. These metrics provide a balanced analyses of fandom – a measure of willingness to spend, a measure unconstrained by stadium size and a measure of national appeal.

To get at an overall ranking, I use a statistical tool that looks at the correlation across the three metrics to create a “Brand Equity Factor”.  Similar analyses are available for the NBA and MLB.

The Winners

 

The top five fan bases (team brands if you prefer) are the Cowboys, Patriots, Eagles, Giants and Steelers.  This is unchanged from the last two years – leaving me with little to say. The Cowboys have long been NFL royalty and the Patriots are now firmly established at the top of the league. It remains to be seen if the Patriots will remain near the top when Brady and Belichick move on.

In past years I have noted that the Eagles are a bit of a surprise.  But the strong social and road scores keep the Eagles near the top. The Steelers could probably be a bit higher on the list. The Steelers tend to price near the middle of the league and this limits their Fan Equity score.

The Giants are an interesting case. They do well on Fan Equity (especially compared to the Jets) and the Road Equity score is impressive.  The Social Equity score suggests that the Giants are more of a regional brand but when your region is NYC it’s not a major problem. The Road Equity score is an interesting one to debate. The teams in the NFC East all do well on this measure. I could adjust for divisional affiliation but the NFC East is, for whatever reason, the glamour division of the NFL. My feeling (like I said it’s debatable) is that the teams in that division should be given credit for the divisions appeal.

The next group of five includes the Packers, Broncos, Bears, 49ers and Saints.  A lot of face validity to these results. The 49ers might raise some eyebrows, but it is a team that does very well in terms of attendance and pricing power. The Bears, Packers and Broncos are all strong brands with impressive histories. The Saints are the relative newcomer in the top ten. Like the Patriots, it will be interesting to see how Saints fandom responds when Drew Brees retires.

 

The Losers

At the bottom of the rankings, we have the Bengals, Jaguars, Titans, Chiefs and Rams. Only minor changes from last year. The Browns have edged out of the bottom 5. These teams all suffer from the same issues – relatively weak pricing power and limited social followings.

The Chiefs are the team that will generate push back. The Chiefs have had some success and they have significant star power. The problem is that the Chiefs lack pricing power and do not have much of a social following (I use Twitter). However, the Chiefs and Browns are probably the best positioned teams to make moves up the charts the next few years.

For the Rams (and the Chargers), we should probably include an asterisk. Moving markets and playing in temporary stadiums can lead to questionable data. The Rams – like the Chiefs and Browns – are well positioned for on-field success over the next few years.  The good news for these teams is that on-field success is the best way to create brand equity and fan loyalty.  The bad news is that it takes a good amount of success to move the needle long-term.

 

The Business Implications: Why does this Matter?

This study is about measuring fandom intensity or engagement. The logical foundation is that we attribute over or under performance in revenues or social following to fan engagement. To do this, we have to control for factors like market size and winning. This is the key point. Fan engagement is a little different from brand equity (the value of a brand) because we are controlling for market differences. The preceding results are more about intensity or passion of a fan base rather than the value of the fan base.

Fandom intensity is an important and often overlooked part of brand equity. In a full brand equity analysis, I would want to combine structural elements of a market (population, income, arena, etc…) with a fan engagement factor to assess a team’s brand equity. The value of the fan base is probably best thought of as a product of the passion (or intensity or engagement) and the size of the fan base.

Why do we care about fan intensity?

A standard approach to value sports assets (teams, players and sponsorship deals) is to use comparables. The idea is that you evaluate a future deal based on the characteristics of similar past deals. It’s the same concept used in real estate where housing prices are usually dictated by factors such as square footage, number of bathrooms and the previous sales in the neighborhood.

In the world of sports, there are many deals that are valued based on the fans. Stadium naming rights and sponsorships are two prime examples.

But in the case of sports deals, it’s important to consider the passion of the fan base. Let’s consider a non-NFL example to illustrate the point. How might an analyst value similar deals (naming rights, sponsorships, etc…) related to the Clippers and Lakers. Both teams play in the same city so there is little difference in market related factors. If we tried to rely on current winning rates then the Clippers would appear to be the more valuable deal. The missing factor is that the Lakers have a fan base (created through a history of All Star Players and Championships) that is incredibly engaged with and attached to the Lakers brand. If we were valuing competing deals across the two clubs, it is critical that we also consider the passion (and staying power) of each team.

While I present my results as rankings, behind the scenes there are a set of numerical scores for each metric. These numerical scores provide a tool for valuing promotions and sponsorships. The numerical scores provide a basis for valuing the passion of fans across teams. The use of multiple metrics is again useful because each metric has a different behavioral interpretation.

Two quick examples.

The Fan Equity metric is a measure of willingness to spend. Critically, it is a measure of willingness to spend that controls for differences in market characteristics (population, income levels, etc…) and current team performance. In this year’s results, the Cowboys rank number 1 in Fan Equity and the Texans finish number 21. The (behind the scenes) analyses suggest that Dallas’ spend premium relative to the league average is positive 7.79% while Houston’s premium is .39%. This suggests that in a sponsorship deal where all things are equal (number of impressions, median income, etc…) that the sponsorship of the Cowboys would merit a 7.4% premium versus an identical partnership with the Texans. In some ways, this seems like a conservative estimate given the prominence of the Cowboys. But, NFL fandom is intense everywhere and the Fan Equity metric is geared towards local markets.

The Social Equity metric is a measure of transmission or amplification. In terms of Social Equity, the Cowboys rank 3rd and the Texans rank 12th. For this metric, the differences across teams are much more substantial. Relative to the league average the Cowboys have a social media equity index score of 87% (the Cowboys social amplification factor is 87% greater than the average team). The Texan’s index is 1% above the league average. The results suggest that the Cowboys would merit an 86% premium for a nationwide or social media oriented promotion versus the Texans. Again, these results are based on models that adjust or control for differences in team performance and market characteristics.

The Complete List

Click on the logo below to listen to this podcast episode:

 

 

 

Fanalytics Video: NBA Off-Season & Draft

Here’s the latest sports headlines on the Fanalytics video this week! Mike shares his thoughts going into the NBA off-season and the draft happening on Thursday.

 

Fanalytics Podcast: Lucy Rushton and Building Atlanta United FC

How do you build a new team, like the Atlanta United, from the ground up?

In this Fanalytics episode we meet Atlanta United’s Lucy Rushton. As the team’s Head of Technical Recruitment and Performance Analysis, she provides analytics, data and insights that help the team build their roster.  In the conversation with Lucy we talk about two types of analyses.  One part involves the subjective analysis which is watching the players on the field. The other part is the objective analysis which involves data and statistics, emotion is taken out of the analysis. Rushton says it’s important to get a balance between the two in order to drive a successful department.

So what’s the game plan when searching for players for the team? Rushton says to get data and find players that fit in with the club philosophy and playing styles. Styles include players who have fast attacking skills, can entertain, athleticism, and speed. You also have to ask, what are the key attributes of a player for the position they look for? How much do these players cost?

When it comes to statistical forecasting, how much of that do decision-makers want to see? They want to see the insights not the models.

What’s next for Atlanta United? The head scout says the goal is to get better, get another chance to play in the CONCACAF Champions League, and growth in analysis.

In the second half of the episode, we talk about some of the larger lessons related to performing and presenting analytics in any organization. Analytics is seldom a magic bullet for any organizational challenge. More often, analytics informs rather than directs decisions.

Along these lines, we frame the interview with Lucy and the challenge of building a championship roster in terms of decision support realities such as biases in human decision making and the limitations of statistical models.

To listen to this podcast episode, click on the logo below.

Fanalytics Video: NBA Finals & FIFA Women’s World Cup

This week on the Fanalytics video, we discuss the big story lines happening in the NBA finals and FIFA Women’s World Cup. Thanks for checking out the trending sports stories with us on Monday mornings!

Fanalytics Video: NBA Finals

Fanalytics Podcast: Three-Point Field Goal

This week, Professor Mike Lewis and Emory student Alex Notis examine the three-point field goal (also 3-pointer) in the NBA.

The modern NBA has been transformed by the three-point shot.  Points are up, turnovers are down and NBA rosters are now built to shoot the three.

Some key facts…

When the three-point line was introduced in 1986 only 3% of shots were three-point attempts.

This season, 36% of shots were three pointers.

In this episode, we talk about Alex’s project which looks into trends and outcomes related to the three-point shot.

In the second half of the episode, Professor Lewis takes a step back and talks about the concept of expected value.  Expected value is a key concept in sports analytics. In decisions ranging from taking a three-point shot in the NBA, pulling the goalie in hockey, going for 2 in the NFL, or bunting to move a runner to second in MLB, expected value calculations are the key.

Click logo below to listen to this Fanlaytics episode.

Fanalytics Podcast: Mascots & Sports Team Names

In this Fanalytics podcast episode, we are doing a deep dive into mascots and team names in the sports world. Marketing Professor Mike Lewis, MBA student Al Multani-Kohal, and I kick off the episode by talking about a viral tweet.

A little background before getting to that…

Professor Lewis has been studying issues surrounding team names and mascots for several years.  This OpEd discusses the business case for changing a controversial team name such as the Washington Redskins.  A full series of posts focused on team names and mascots can be found here.

The topic of team names and mascots has since entered the classroom. Professor Lewis teaches a Sports Marketing class and recently gave an assignment where groups of students had to choose a sports brand that they believed could benefit from an updating.  Students were also asked to propose a solution to the potential branding “problem.”

Al’s group got caught up in a Twitter storm after they proposed changing the National Hockey League’s Nashville Predators to the Sabercats.

Al says his group looked at North American professional teams that could use rebranding because there wasn’t brand equity. This involved asking:

1.) Was there something that could be perceived as offensive?

2.) Was there a disconnect with how a logo/brand/mascot resonated with its origin stories?

Al says his team analyzed data on the word “predator” and found there were negative connotations associated with it. That’s how this proposal came to light.

In the second part of this episode, Mike and I talk about the history of mascots and some of the most famous brand mascots of all time including Mickey Mouse, Tony the Tiger, and Mario.

We also discuss a couple of controversial Native American mascots – the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins.

 

To listen to this Fanalytics episode, click on the logo below.

Major League Baseball Fandom Report 2019: The “Best” Fans in Baseball

Major League Baseball seems to be perennially in crisis in terms of its relationship with its fan base.  Free agency, strikes, steroids, competitive imbalances, short attention spans of millennials, a lack of stars, an aging fan base, and other factors have been cited to explain why baseball has either lost or is in danger of losing its position as the national pastime.

On the other hand, the league keeps setting revenue records. This article from Forbes reports that baseball has set revenue records for 16 straight years.

When thinking about baseball and its fans, it is safest to say it is a mixed bag of positives and warning signs.  Record revenues show that baseball has been able to develop innovative revenue streams and attract high value sponsors. But there does seem to be trouble on the horizon in terms of the next generation of fans.

In terms of demographics, MLB has one of the oldest fan bases (up there with golf). It is also largely viewed as the most family oriented sport. This is an interesting pattern. An aging fan base is a concern for the future if fans are aging out of attending games.  Of course, an aging fan base is also potentially an increasingly wealthy fan base.  The family orientation is an enormous positive. Sports fandom is largely transmitted through the family and the nature of the game helps bring the next generation into the fold (summer schedule, 81 home games, relatively cheap tickets, etc…).

There is also the issue of “tanking.” Tanking has been most frequently mentioned in the context of the NBA but it’s also a concern for baseball. Losing 100 games has long been considered epic futility. In 2018, the Orioles lost 115 games, the Royals lost 104, and the White Sox lost 100. The Marlins and Tigers lost 98.  Tanking is a fan issue because it speaks to the quality of the product that fans (in certain markets) are asked to buy.

Tanking brings us to the issue of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. While the Collective Bargaining Agreement is usually discussed in terms of the labor relationship between owners and players, the CBA is a critical issue for fandom because this agreement essentially defines how the league operates. For example, the CBA largely defines the rules related to revenue sharing, luxury taxes, and salary caps. These rules directly impact fans by creating the structures that influence player movements and competitive balance.

Baseball is notable for having relatively little revenue sharing and no salary cap. Controlling the distribution of spending by teams matters because there is a significant correlation between spending and winning in baseball.   The Red Sox won the World Series and also led the league with a payroll of about $240 million. At the bottom, The White Sox had a payroll of around $80 million. Remember, the White Sox lost 100 games.

The CBA matters because teams will find strategies that work for their circumstances.  There is some speculation that small market teams like the Royals are using business models that involve developing low cost homegrown talent, trying to win for a few years and then dumping payroll to pursue draft picks. The Royals reduced payroll from $185 million in 2017 to $135 million in 2018. The Royals lost 104 games in 2018 after making the playoffs in 2014 and 2015. In 2018 the Dodgers had the 4th highest payroll at about $195 million.  But that payroll was $59 million less than the previous season’s amount.  This decline allowed the team to drop below the luxury tax threshold. Are these strategies designed to maximize fan enjoyment?

The run-up to the 2019 MLB season has also included a “glacially” slow free agent market.  Eventually, the big name stars signed with teams outside of the major markets. Manny Machado signed with the Padres for $300 million for ten years and Bryce Harper signed with the Phillies for $330 million over 13 years. “Stars” matter to fans. Fans like winners but they also like stars.  While the NBA is and has been for a long time all about stars – Larry, Magic, Michael, Kobe, LeBron, Steph…. – MLB doesn’t seem to produce household names anymore. This article states that ESPN’s annual ranking of the most famous athletes includes 13 basketball players, 2 table tennis stars and no baseball players.  This lack of “media” stars matters.  Maybe not in the short-term where winning mostly drives attendance but likely in the long-term. When I have looked at the factors that build brand equity in sports, two items really jump out. Winning championships and having a history of Hall of Famers and All Stars.

 

The Best Baseball Brands

My last statement about how brands are built is based on logic and by running numbers on fandom in MLB and other sports leagues. As we enter the 2019 season, it’s time for my annual data based look at MLB fandom across the MLB brands. This analysis starts from questions like “Who has the best fans in Major League Baseball?” and “What are the best brands in MLB?”

These are simple questions without simple answers.  What makes for a great fan or brand?  Fans that show up even when the team is losing?  Fans that are willing to pay the most?  Fans that are willing to follow a team on the road or social media?  Even after we agree on the question(s), answering it is also a challenge.  How do we adjust for the fact that one team might have gone on a miraculous run that filled the stadium?  Or perhaps another team suffered a slew of injuries?  How do we compare fan behavior in a market like New York with fans in a place like Milwaukee?  What if a team just opened a new stadium?  Did the fans stream in to see the building or to see the team?

For the past few years, I have been studying fandom across professional and college sports.  My approach to evaluating fan bases is to use data to develop statistical models of fan interest (more details here).  The key is that these models are used to determine which cities fans are more willing to spend or follow their teams after controlling for factors like market size and short-term variations in performance.

The “Overall” rankings are based on three sub-rankings – Fan Equity, Social Equity and Road Equity.  Fan Equity is a revenue premium based metric that compares the team’s box office results with league standards.  In other words, Fan Equity assesses how much fans are willing to “attend and spend” relative to fans across the league.  The KEY idea is that we measure this while controlling for team success and market characteristics like incomes and populations.

  • Fan Equity is a great metric for assessing the CURRENT level of passion or engagement in a local fan base.

Social Equity is focused on the team’s social media followings (Facebook and Twitter).  Again, the rankings are based on how a team’s social media results compare across the league after controlling for team success.

  • The Social Equity metric provides insight into the team’s POTENTIAL fan passion.

The third metric is Road Equity.  This metric is based on a statistical model that looks at how teams draw incremental fans when on the road.  The KEY idea is that draw outside of the home market reveals something about a club’s national appeal.

  • Road Equity provides a metric of passion beyond the local market. This passion can be positive (love the Cubs) or negative (hate the Yankees).

I could go on.  In the past I have developed additional metrics related to win sensitivity or price sensitivity.  Willingness to attend even when the team loses probably says something about loyalty.  Fans that don’t watch a loser might be termed bandwagon fans.  Willingness to pay is a great marketing metric.  Willingness to pay to see a team that isn’t winning is another great indication of loyalty.  These metrics are available upon request (mike [dot] lewis [at] emory [dot] edu – FYI, I don’t look at the comments) but I want to keep this article brief.

So, we have three metrics with different pluses and minuses.  In the quest to find an overall winner, I use a weighted average of the three metrics (more weight on the Fan Equity metric).  This may not be the right weighting but it’s usually a good idea to emphasize how customers actually spend.

 

The Winners

Overall, the group of clubs that comprise the Top 6 contains little in the way of surprises.  The Red Sox rank number one and are followed by the Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cubs and Cardinals.  The Red Sox are perennially strong and finished first last year.  They also won the world series.  Boston is probably the best sports town in America.

In general, the clubs at the top of the list share these same traits.  They are all able to motivate fans to attend and spend as they all possess great attendance numbers and relatively high prices.  More to the point, these teams are even able to draw well and command price premiums when they are not winning.  Historically, the Cubs are the best example of this.

The list of winners probably raises an issue of “large” market bias.  However, keep in mind that the methodology is designed to control for home market effects.  The method is explicitly designed to control for differences in market demographics (and team performance).  While the “winners” tend to come from the bigger and more lucrative markets, other major market teams do not fair particularly well (White Sox, A’s).  There is also a more subtle point.  The large market teams likely have the best fan bases because they often have significant histories of success and are often featured in the media.

The topic of how these brands are built over time is another one of my favorite things to talk about.  I think it’s mostly two (highly correlated) things – championships and stars. Building brand equity is a fascinating sports topic and I think it’s a difficult one for teams (in small markets) to manage.  Will the current popular strategy of cycles of tanking and competing yield enough winning and “temporary” star to build brands?

 

The Bottom

The bottom of the list features the Marlins, White Sox, Indians, Athletics and Rays.  It is interesting that the bottom also includes teams from major markets such as the Bay Area, Chicago and Miami. The markets with two teams seem to yield dramatically different results within each market. I think this reveals something fundamental about fandom.  Fan bases are communities and many fans want to be a part of the most popular group. It is a simple theory but the end result is that the second team in a market will struggle to compete. Many fans are drawn to the bigger and more dominant community – Yankees, Cubs, Giants or Dodgers rather than the Mets, White Sox, A’s or Angels.

The case of the Marlins reveals another common problem for franchises. The Marlins finish is a reflection of how the team struggles on multiple dimensions. Attendance is often in the bottom 5 of the league despite being located in a major metro area.  Pricing is also below average for MLB.  Why do the Marlins struggle?  Lots of reasons.  Florida weather, a short history (fandom is often generational), a history of small payrolls and bad teams, and Miami being a transient city.

The Indians is an interesting case as well.  Cleveland is a passionate sports town.  But when you look at the numbers there is not a lot of support. An open question is how much of the problem is the Indian’s branding? The Indians have made moves to shift from the Native American imagery but have retained the team name.  I suspect that half measures might be the worst approach.

 

The Movers

In terms of year over year comparisons, there is a good amount of stability on the list.  This is a good sign since sports brands should evolve slowly.  Some notable movers on the list were the Blue Jays and Phillies moving up and the Diamondbacks and Indians dropping down. The Blue Jays illustrate an important feature of the model. When I calculate the brand “premiums” I use the most recent three seasons. This is intended to provide stable but evolving measures of brand equity. In the case of the Blue Jays, the improvement in ranking was mostly driven by attendance growth in 2016 and 2017. In the case of the Phillies the improvement was about growing attendance coupled with relatively high prices.

 

The 2019 Complete List

Click the logo below to listen to this Fanalytics podcast episode:

Fanalytics Podcast: Super Bowl Advertisements

Goizueta Marketing Association’s Vice President of Career Services Nihar Thadani and Professor Mike Lewis do a live podcast on 2019 Super Bowl advertisements. They watch and analyze different advertisements to see what brands are trying to do.  For timing purposes, we have cut out the full version of advertisements being watched in the podcast.

Who are the winners and losers? Opinions are from Emory MBA students who answered a survey.

WINNERS:

  1. Stella Artois – Change Up The Usual
  2. Pepsi – More Than OK
  3. Bud Light – Game of Thrones

LOSERS:

  1. Mint Mobile – Chunky Style Milk
  2. Avocados From Mexico – Top Dog

To listen to this podcast episode, click on the logo below:

Fanalytics Podcast: Super Bowl History

Super Bowl LIII is right around the corner! With the big game being less than three weeks away, Mike and I wanted to talk about the history of the Super Bowl on this episode of the Fanalytics podcast. Talking about all 50+ Super Bowls would be a bit excessive so we picked the ones we felt were the most significant. Our goal was to see how much the Super Bowl has evolved and how it got to become the big sporting event it is today. Hope you enjoy!

Here’s some notes about the games we talked about.

1967 (AFL/NFL championship game):

  • The NFL champion Green Bay Packers defeated the AFL champion Kansas City Chiefs by 35–10
  • 51 million viewers – CBS and NBC two networks because it was the AFL/NFL championship game
  • Ticket pricing: $10 ($74.98 in 2018)
  • The halftime program was University of Arizona and Grambling State marching bands

1969 (Super Bowl 3):

  • First Super Bowl to be called by a number (Super Bowl III)
  • This championship proved the AFL was on par with the NFL for the very first time
  • New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath promised his team a victory – a guarantee that was obviously out of place, as the Colts were favored to win by as much as a 20-point margin
  • The Colts were unable to keep the game within one score, and the Jets took the title, 16-7
  • Ticket price: $12 ($83.15 in 2018)

1973 (Super Bowl 7):

  • Miami 14 – 7 Redskins
  • Miami was undefeated
  • Super Bowl ads did not become ‘famous’ until 1973 when Noxzema ran a commercial for their shaving cream featuring Joe Namath
  • Ticket price: $16 ($86.86 in 2018)
  • Halftime show: “Happiness Is.” with University of Michigan marching band and Woody Herman

1976 (Super Bowl 10):

  • Pittsburgh defeats Dallas 21-17
  • 1976 Up with People performs in Super Bowl X in Miami, FL for a live audience of 80,100 and 57.7 million TV viewers
  • Ticket price: $20 ($88.73 in 2018)

1984 (Super Bowl 18):

  • Raiders 38-9 Redskins
  • Apple MAC ad is a big deal
  • Halftime show: “Super Bowl XVIII’s Salute to the Superstars of the Silver Screen”
  • Ticket price: $60 ($145.24 in 2018)

1985 (Super Bowl 19):

  • Bears Super Bowl shuffle
  • Halftime show:”A World of Children’s Dreams”
  • Highlighted some trends in terms of the super bowl creating celebrities
  • Ticket price: $60 ($140 in 2018)

1991 (Super Bowl 25):

  • This Championship game had a lot of patriotic pride, as the U.S. was in the middle of the first Gulf War
  • The New York Giants were on their way to winning two Super Bowls in 5 years as they played the Buffalo Bills
  • New York had possession of the ball for a record 40 minutes and 33 seconds, with their longest drive clocking it at 9:29 in the third quarter before scoring on a one-yard run by running back Ottis Anderson
  • The Bills had one final chance to win the game on a field goal with seconds remaining, but the 47-yard attempt by Scott Norwood sailed wide, and the Giants sealed the victory, 20-19
  • Ticket price: $150 ($274.89 in 2018)
  • Halftime show: “A Small World Salute to 25 Years of the Super Bowl” featuring New Kids on the Block

1999 (Super Bowl 33):

  • Denver beat Atlanta 34-19
  • WASSUP Ad

2002 (Super Bowl 36):

  • With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 earlier in the season, it should only seem fitting that the New England Patriots would be competing in Super Bowl XXXVI. Though labeled as the underdogs
  • New England jumped to a 17-3 lead over the St. Louis Rams by the end of the second quarter. The game switched gears in the second half, as the Rams made up the points necessary to put the game at a 17-17 tie
  • On the final play of the game, Adam Vinatieri made a 48-yard field goal to give the Patriots the championship, 20-17. This game marked the first time a Super Bowl was decided on the points from the final play of the game
  • Ticket price: $400 ($554.94 in 2018)
  • Halftime show: U2

2004 (Super Bowl 38):

  • Super Bowl XXXVIII turned into a shootout in the fourth quarter, as the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers combined for a record 37 points in that period
  • When it was over, the New England Patriots came on top, 32-29, to win their second Super Bowl
  • The game was also noteworthy for its halftime show and the famous “wardrobe malfunction” when Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake
  • Ticket price: $400 ($529.90 in 2018)

2015 (Super Bowl 49):

  • The hype leading up to Super bowl XLIX was some of the biggest of any game in the decade before it
  • The defending Super Bowl Champion Seattle Seahawks and their Legion of Boom on defense would take on one of the greatest post season quarterbacks of all time in Tom Brady
  • Brady and the Patriots had lost their two previous Super Bowl appearances and were looking for redemption
  • A back and forth game saw the Patriots take the lead with just over 2 minutes remaining in the game. But Russell Wilson and company drove the ball the length of the field and had a 2nd and goal situation with 26 seconds remaining. The game looked all but won for the Seahawks, when Malcolm Butler stepped in front of a slant route, to intercept Wilson, and seal the Patriots 4th Super Bowl win
  • Ticket price: $1,750 ($1,839.07 in 2018)
  • Halftime show: Katy Perry, Lenny Kravitz and Missy Elliott

2017 (Super Bowl 51):

  • Patriots 34, Falcons 28
  • It was the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history — the Patriots once trailed by 25 — led by Tom Brady, the greatest quarterback in NFL history, who threw for 466 yards. It gave Bill Belichick and Brady their fifth championship in seven trips, and it cemented the Patriots as one of the league’s top dynasties
  • Ticket price: $1,700 ($1,721.40 in 2018)
  • Halftime show: Lady Gaga

Sources:

ABC

TicketCity blog

History

 

Click on the logo to listen to the full episode.