
NFL Games Have 11 Minutes of Action - robg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html
======
JacobAldridge
I've long compared an NFL game to a game of chess - it's much more about
incremental position playing than, say, soccer where a freak move can swing a
game rapidly.

This analysis seems to bear out my comparison - watch a grand master chess
game, and there's a _lot_ more time between moves than actually moving. Maybe
we need a speed version of the NFL?

~~~
mynameishere
Chess? Well, you're making the wrong comparison. Football is like war. War is
two things: Extended, pointless boredom, and short bursts of energy and terror
and injury, all of which is encompassed by years of unseen strategic,
economic, logistical, and tactical planning.

Chess is some freak memorizing combinations of opening moves from past games.

~~~
alanthonyc
Saying: _"Chess is some freak memorizing combinations of opening moves from
past games."_

Is about as accurate as saying: _"NFL Games Have 11 Minutes of Action"_

And incidentally, chess also happens to be a game about war.

~~~
mynameishere
_chess also happens to be a game about war._

So is the game RISK. But the actual relationship of both games to war is
exactly nothing.

------
nir
I bet it seemed like a lot more than that to Brett Favre, last Sunday evening.

The beauty of Football (I've only really followed the game for about a year
now, coming from a place where soccer & basketball are the major sports) is
that these short bursts of action are extremely concentrated, physically and
mentally. The game may seem simple, but when you see the plays explained later
on it's incredible how many variables go into each move.

BTW, one thing I think is unique to the NFL are these clips where they
actually put a mic on a player for the duration of the game. Haven't seen it
in any other sport yet, pretty cool: [http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-
sound-efx#orderBy:allTim...](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-sound-
efx#orderBy:allTimeViews)

~~~
stanleydrew
I think it's cooler that in Rugby broadcasts they actually have a mic on the
referee for the entire match.

~~~
Eurofooty
Interestingly, the Australian Football Leagues three field umpires are mic'ed
up as well.

It was also tried on a number of players but the constant grunting (from
exertion) was seen as a distraction to the enjoyment of the game.

~~~
smallblacksun
I remember reading that a center in the NFL had been mic'd and that he said
"fuch" an absurd number of times during the game (three or four hundred).

------
mattwdelong
Football fans should really check out the sport of Rugby.

If you want to see an all encompassing video of the sport, watch this:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRpPf6rCyW4>

Rugby, 80 minutes of prowess and determination. The camaraderie is
unparalleled in any other team sport I have played, that includes soccer,
hockey and baseball. The game is definitely underrated in North America.

~~~
fungi
Specifically rugby union, rugby league is a pretty stop. go. stop. go. but not
as bad as American footy.

I don't really like any footy and i'm not from NZ but just about any All
Blacks game is worth a watch.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXTa7UCGlk>

~~~
Eurofooty
If you are also into high speed, high action, full contact sports. I'd highly
recommend youtubing Australian Football or Aussie Rules.

Teams to watch out for who tend to play a very entertaining game is the
Geelong Cats (last years AFL Grand Final winners). They are going through a
golden era at the moment.

~~~
fungi
Tight short's... arial ping pong... but at least you didn't say collingwood.

That said i'm always up for a kick in the park :D

------
Towle_
In related news, marathons have a minimum of ~2 hours of action.

It would seem that length and/or amount of action does not necessarily
correlate with average spectator enthusiasm/excitement.

Who knew?

------
gr366
I'd be interested to see a similar breakdown of a baseball game. If you count
from the pitcher's release to the end of a play (basically, when the ball is
in motion), I bet the total would clock in somewhere around 15 minutes.

Edit: 15 minutes on average. Of course baseball isn't timeboxed like most
other sports.

~~~
KC8ZKF
When the pitcher steps on the rubber would be a better starting point for the
start of the play. Many plays don't even involve a pitch, and wouldn't be
counted in your definition.

~~~
gr366
That's a great point and I agree with you. However by that logic, shouldn't
the amount of time counted for football include when the quarterback comes
under center? There's a lot of football going on when Peyton Manning comes to
the line of scrimmage. Or when a quarterback is trying to draw the defense
offsides.

------
dagw
There was a guy a while back who would put up torrents of NFL games with all
the non game stuff cut out. I seem to recall them weighing in at around 20-25
minutes. I though they where great, and I love watching football.

------
lanstein
This comes as no surprise to anyone who's attended an NFL game, _especially_ a
playoff game.

------
keeptrying
Thats like saying that olympic powerlifters work for 3 minutes every 4 years.

~~~
kelnos
No one's denying that NFL players train heavily throughout the year. But their
games are pretty short on action. Pretty similar to your powerlifter
comparison, actually.

~~~
keeptrying
What I'm trying to say is that just because you dont see the action, that its
not there.

Every football fan knows the average length of a football play is 6 seconds or
less. But within those 6 seconds there is soooo much: 1\. Offensive -
Defensive line play 2\. Offiensive coordinator versus the defensive
coordinator in play calling, formations... (tactical) 3\. The safety verus the
quarterback. 4\. The corners versus the wideouts. 5\. Coach strategy.
(strategic) 6\. Specific Matchups ... 7\. QB versus defensive coordinator.

Its all in there ... You have to be able to see it. I was going to write a
document on understanding all this from the position and number of players at
the line of scrimmage - ie what they show on TV during the play ... but I've
not yet had time :( ...

The thing is in a team sport you can either be long on action and short on
strategy or vice versa. The main tradeoff is the amount of communication
required between players.

I love American Football more than any sport because of the amount of strategy
+ the great quality of players that you get over here.

------
Eurofooty
11 minutes of action in the NFL would very compare poorly with a full contact
outdoor grass field sport like Australian Football (aka Aussie Rules).

I suspect that the amount of action time in a full 100 minute game of Aussie
Rules (taking the professional Australian Football League as an example) would
be close to 30-40 minutes action time (with some of the midfield players
racking up around 20 kms running per game).

It would be interesting to do a similar analysis to the one undertaken here.

NB: Aussie Rules in the US has around 60 clubs and 3000 or so players. Their
website can be found here: <http://www.usfooty.com/>

------
emarcotte
So, what is the hourly pay rate of the players that are only really involved
the plays, not planning/strategy? What is the caloric output during play of
the typical NFL player? How does that relate to how much money they make and
how does that compare to other sports, say basketball or hockey? I'd love to
find some stats on this kind of thing mostly just so I could be more sick of
football :)

I understand they make so much because the public 'demands' and they 'supply'
but it seems almost grotesque how much some of them make and how little they
apparently do.

~~~
muerdeme
I would argue that their pay rate isn't high enough because of what we're
learning about head injuries. I still love watching football though.

------
robryan
Probably why a lot of the world doesn't like the game, I don't mind it every
once in a while but certainly don't follow it.

Random question, they can pass more than once right? If so why don't they?

~~~
lmkg
The restriction on passing is that if you have moved the ball past your own
line of scrimmage, you cannot throw the ball forward relative to the field,
only sideways or backwards. It is not often tactically advantageous to do
this, although it does happen on occasion[1]. Since getting 10 yards in 4
downs suffices to retain possession, it's not worth the risk of turnover
unless there's 4 seconds left on the clock and you're down by one point (as in
[1]).

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_play>

------
mrshoe
And unless they're in a no-huddle offense, there is usually very close to 30
seconds between the tackle at the end of one play and the snap of the ball at
the start of the next. So, if you enable the 30 second skip button on your
TiVo, you can watch an entire game in a half hour.

------
stanleydrew
This is why I prefer to watch soccer. You consistently get about 90 minutes of
action without commercials. I know when I sit down to watch a game that I'll
be wasting no more then 110 mins (halftime included) of my life.

~~~
TrevorBramble
Likewise hockey. Lots of highly-engaged play for about an hour. With a DVR I
only spend about an hour and a half per game including some interviews, maybe
overtime/shootout, and replays.

~~~
stanleydrew
This is true. After watching soccer almost exclusively for the last four years
I find myself more attracted to hockey each time I catch part of a game.

------
wheels
I suppose Highlightcam for football and baseball games would be sacrilege.

------
dejb
It would be cool if somebody could edit together a 20/30 minute version that
showed all the action plus time for a few replays and breaks. This would also
be useful be done for Baseball and Cricket. I wonder if it would be exciting
or if the continuous action would just be too much to handle.

~~~
shrikant
Not sure about baseball, but pretty much every sports channel showing cricket
in India has a 'highlights package' at the end of the day which does just
this.

~~~
dejb
Highlights packages only show the most interesting balls. Usually with a lot
of replays and filler. I'm talking about showing every single ball without all
the fluff.

------
Tichy
I've never watched a NFL game, but my impression from German TV is that the
same ratio of content to idleness could apply to every single program out
there. Perhaps the human brain has a desire to be numbed?

------
julius_geezer
For years, I've thought it was under 5 minutes. oh, well.

------
sabat
... which explains why football games are so boring.

~~~
foulmouthboy
Better yet, this explains why football games are so exciting. Constant
anticipation for the next burst of action. Enough action within those brief
bursts to review, replay and analyze, just in time for the next burst of
action.

~~~
BearOfNH
_this explains why football games are so exciting_

I agree, and often ponder what play I would call were I a coordinator.

Note this is also the argument political columnist George Will used to
enshrine baseball as the "thinking man's sport", where there's no hard limit
between plays. But I prefer football precisely because of the time pressure;
it's rather like chess without clocks vs. chess with clocks. (Pitcher checks
the runner, steps off the rubber, runner retakes base, pitcher steps on the
rubber, gets sign from catcher, winds up, checks the runner again, batter
steps out, grabs some dirt, rubs bottom of bat, reseats helmet, steps in box,
pounds plate with bat, pumps a couple times, pitcher gets sign from catcher
... lather, rinse, repeat. I've had my fill long ago.)

Back when I was a tyke, televised baseball games (with Dizzy Dean and Buddy
Blattner, sponsored by Falstaff, Pabst or Hamms beer) usually took about two
hours. Now it's three hours for the same amount of action, and the beers are
only slightly better.

------
sutro
So if there's 11 minutes of action total, the defense might play 5 minutes,
the offense 5 minutes, and special teams 1 minute. So star quarterbacks play 5
minutes per game. With 16 games, that's 80 minutes of action per season. Add
three more games for Super Bowl bound teams and you've got 95 minutes. The
Colts pay Peyton Manning $14 million per year. Assuming that he is paid for
his _actions_ on the field, he is making a wage of $8.85 million per hour.

~~~
Perceval
In addition to the five minutes of action, you're not counting: watching film,
practice, training, off-season conditioning, and showing up for the job.

~~~
sutro
You don't get it. All those other things you mention could be done by any
amateur quarterback. They require no special skills. What makes Peyton Manning
unique and consequently expensive isn't his ability to show up, watch film,
practice, work out, etc. Rather, it's what he does in those 5 minutes per game
that separates him from thousands of journeyman quarterbacks and determines
his $14M salary. So yes, he is making $8.85M per hour. All the other stuff he
does could be done equally well by countless others.

