What Super Bowl 100 will be like

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/future-fans-live-super-bowl-not-watch-070440886--nfl.html

Future fans will live the Super Bowl, not watch it

By Steve Keating
Reuters
February 7, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In 2066 when the Super Bowl celebrates its 100th anniversary fans will not just watch the National Football League's championship game - they will live it in all its bone-jarring virtual reality glory.

No longer a parochial pastime, futurists believe American gridiron will be a global game with franchises from London to Beijing, concussions, like paper money, will have disappeared and fans will swarm stadium concession stands at halftime for a puff on legalised marijuana or to sip on $100 beers.

Football fans will look back on Super Bowl 50 in much the same, quaint way people today reflect on Super Bowl I, a simple sporting event with halftime marching bands that did not sell out.

That landmark contest was played between teams from the American heartland, the Green Bay Packers and Kansas City Chiefs, while 2066 might see the Mexico City Aztecs taking on the London Jaguars, envisioned as the NFL's first international club after relocating from Jacksonville.

It could be the first Super Bowl with the teams employing women head coaches.

The biggest changes of all will be how fans experience the Super Bowl.

At Sunday's game between the Denver Broncos and Carolina Panthers at Levi's Stadium, one of the NFL's newest state-of-the-art venues, fans will be able to download an app to order food and watch replays.

In 2066, Levi's Stadium will be as outdated as the Roman Colosseum.

"Super Bowl 100 will definitely provide a variety of choices in the way you can experience the game," futurist Dr. James Canton, CEO of the San Francisco-based Institute for Global Futures told Reuters.

"You can experience it in virtual reality where you actually get to be on the field. You can actually experience what a player on the field is experiencing.

"There will be virtual reality where you will be able to be inside and see out through the visors at what exactly players are doing on field and you can pick which player you want."

It gets even wilder for future fans.

"Then there is augmented reality, where you will have the experience, if you choose, of feeling what the emotions are or there will be a sensory kind of impact of what you might feel.

"Imagine when the quarterback throws, you could choose to be on the ball, actually on the ball, things that could never occur in the real world you will be able to through virtual reality," added Dr. Canton.

During the Super Bowl 50 week, the NFL has also gazed into the crystal ball, staging technology workshops and a first NFL women's summit.

While commissioner Roger Goodell did not want to look too far into the future, refusing to speculate on the timing for a first franchise outside the United States, he acknowledged that technology will be the game changer.

Supersonic planes will be whisking people around the globe in a matter of hours making travel concerns a non-issue, while fans on moon and Mars colonies will be able to watch the game the same as earthbound supporters.

"I don’t believe that we’re going to try to do all the innovation ourselves," explained Goodell during his state-of-the-league address.

"We have great people who know how to innovate in certain areas – use technology that may be used in other areas ... that can make our equipment safer."

By the centennial Super Bowl, it could be a world where nanotechnology has eradicated concussions from the game.

While the sport may look much the same as it does now, space age materials will make players almost indestructible.

Players in Sunday's Super Bowl already have microchips in their shoulder pads transmitting data to the coaches.

In 50 years the amount of information transmitted will be enormous, allowing teams to monitor everything from energy output to a player's emotions which can trigger auto-protectors when a collision is imminent.

"It will look the same except the equipment will be infinitely better," predicts Dr. Canton, author of "Future Smart: Managing the Game-Changing Trends that will Transform Your World".

"Imagine nanotechnology in super materials that are very light but have the strength of steel.

"When you suit up to go out, when you pass through the threshold of leaving the locker room onto the field, automatically the sensor will trigger the auto protectors that will be in your body. That will be a game changer."

While the Super Bowl is already one of the planet's biggest sporting events, in 50 years the league will rule over a massive domain - NFL World.

Fans will live in fantasy leagues that will have their own Super Bowls with multiple outcomes.

"By Super Bowl 100 you are going to have so many choices that whether you are actually in the stadium or at home you are going to be able to augment your emotions," said Dr. Canton.

"Right now we have one primary league in this physical reality, but in 50 years you are going to have NFL VR, virtual reality, where any day of the week there could be multiple number of games played with virtual avatars.

"There will be NFL tribes.

"The NFL interactive experience, there will be whole virtual worlds, NFL World.

(Editing by Larry Fine)
 

ScotsRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,221
Name
Niall
That sounds shite. Give me old school football any day.
 

OnceARam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
3,467
There's no way the NFL survives that long. We're seeing the height of the game now.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,584
.

It will be the same as it is now. Back in the 60s they thought we'd be driving cars that fly now. Not gonna happen.

.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
People still think there are going to be moon colonies? We probably won't have Mars ones either, there is nothing there.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,744
.

It will be the same as it is now. Back in the 60s they thought we'd be driving cars that fly now. Not gonna happen.

.
I don't think so. With the introduction of the internet, technology is advancing at an exponential rate, the world will be almost unrecognizable 50 years from now.
 

Young Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,499
.

It will be the same as it is now. Back in the 60s they thought we'd be driving cars that fly now. Not gonna happen.

.


The greed of the oil companies deterred automobile innovation. Cars should all be electric by now. We are still using 100 year old technology to power up cars. That's going to change soon though.

People still think there are going to be moon colonies? We probably won't have Mars ones either, there is nothing there.


http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

It's a long read but very interesting. I would suggest you start with part 1 though. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,935
.

It will be the same as it is now. Back in the 60s they thought we'd be driving cars that fly now. Not gonna happen.

.

Flying cars made no economic sense. There are already personal flying machines - helicopters, for instance. They aren't common, since they're expensive, require expensive training to use safely, and require much more maintenance than cars do. If a car breaks down while you're driving, you usually just need to call a tow truck. If a helicopter, plane,or flying car breaks down while in the air, if you're lucky only the vehicle is destroyed without fatal injuries to passengers or people on the ground. If there's a collision between cars, most of them are relatively minor - not so in the air. And building a vehicle that is good on the ground AND in the air is extremely expensive, since ground vehicles weigh much more in general to do a good job there, but air vehicles need to be as light as possible - which includes much less shielding for the passengers. Better to have specialized vehicles instead.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,584
Flying cars made no economic sense.

never mind the economics, 90% of people that drive don't know their head from their arsehole. imagine giving those bozos the power of flight. never gonna happen.

.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The greed of the oil companies deterred automobile innovation. Cars should all be electric by now. We are still using 100 year old technology to power up cars. That's going to change soon though.




http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

It's a long read but very interesting. I would suggest you start with part 1 though. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html

I understand the logistics and desire for it all, and for science reasons going to Mars is very important. However colonies on Mars is rather pointless. There's no real reason to do so rather than say we did it. If we're looking to move to other planets, as we should, then we need to expand much further than our solar system. The idea of a large Martian city is a pretty big waste of money time and resources to be honest. Thats not a hit on Musk either, I think it's a cool idea, but it's not practical. Similar to his idea to detonate nuclear bombs above Mars to teraform it.
 

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
23,279
Name
mojo
There's no reason to explore the universe anymore because we have the internet now.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,999
Name
Dennis
Your Truly at Super Bowl 100.
ARLINE%2BClarence%2BEarns%2BHis%2BWings.jpg
 

Young Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,499
I understand the logistics and desire for it all, and for science reasons going to Mars is very important. However colonies on Mars is rather pointless. There's no real reason to do so rather than say we did it. If we're looking to move to other planets, as we should, then we need to expand much further than our solar system. The idea of a large Martian city is a pretty big waste of money time and resources to be honest. Thats not a hit on Musk either, I think it's a cool idea, but it's not practical. Similar to his idea to detonate nuclear bombs above Mars to teraform it.
Baby steps. How are we supposed to expand beyond our solar system before colonizing one of our own planets in our solar system? I don't think it's pointless to colonize Mars. What if something were to happen on earth? Whether it be nuclear war, natural disaster or whatever, I think it's a good idea to have a 2nd home for humans to go to.

We need more people like Elon musk who think outside the box instead of being sunken down by their own greed. This world is ruled by it. It will be our own downfall as a human race.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Baby steps. How are we supposed to expand beyond our solar system before colonizing one of our own planets in our solar system? I don't think it's pointless to colonize Mars. What if something were to happen on earth? Whether it be nuclear war, natural disaster or whatever, I think it's a good idea to have a 2nd home for humans to go to.

We need more people like Elon musk who think outside the box instead of being sunken down by their own greed. This world is ruled by it. It will be our own downfall as a human race.

The problem is that Mars isn't going to be really self sustaining, there are a lot of issues that we need to overcome before we can realistically figure something out. Even then, other than the scientific research what's the advantage? You're going to be exposed to radiation, the planet is extremely cold, theres nothing really there, and you're going to have muscle degeneration/bone issues. That's assuming we can terraform, and not need pressure suits.

Mars is great for learning, for the science. However, like the moon, long term colonization is pretty much a waste of time energy and resources. You can take baby steps without colonization, trying to build huge cities for people just to live in. Yes there will likely be scientific areas, but not like what the article suggests.

This isn't me just simply not thinking outside the box either. I'm a doctoral candidate in Astrophysics and my research is focused on finding planets that would be habitable, and the various types of stars we could expect to hold terrestial planets, as well as the different methods to reach them. This is what I want to do for my career, if given the opportunity to go to Mars I'm all over it.

But if they want to spend billions and trillions on colonizing Mars, I'd suggest using that money to think bigger. Humanity needs to move to another system if we want to survive, Mars isn't going to cut it.