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?
I agree, but I still think the commercials are too much. It's a lot of fun to argue with friends about whether the player was down before he fumbled, whether they should go for it on 4th down, whether the ref made the right call, etc., which is all possible because of the breaks in action. But commercials after a touchdown and then AGAIN after the kickoff? Really?
Each football team has three units - Offense, defense, and special teams (kickoff, punting, field goals, etc). When teams are required to shift units (turnover, score, kickoff) there's a short official break for them to switch units and get onto the field.
Arena football ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_football#Rules_of_the_gam... )fits that bill, though it would be nice if we could also have NFL-caliber players, full-size field, etc. Sadly, the long and frequent delays allow for the spectacle at the stadium itself (cheerleaders, dancers, contests) and advertisements elsewhere, so I wouldn't count on the NFL itself doing away with them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MLB.com features condensed games that do exactly this. And you're right about the time. But I found it less surprising since there isn't an active clock in baseball.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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]).
There are a couple of what are called "gadget plays" that include what you might call multiple passes, such as the "flea flicker" but they are not frequently used because of the extreme danger of turnovers. Even the professional quarterbacks don't always manage to throw a pass without turning the ball over. At the pro level, the defenses are so athletic and so good that you just don't want to risk losing the ball, so it's only done in circumstances predicted to take advantage of its unexpectedness. There are also rules-based reasons why you cannot make multiple passes downfield, but I might as well try explaining the infield fly rule to someone who's never heard of baseball - it gets complicated fast.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
iTunes does this and the games are actually captivating to watch in 15-20 minutes of the best plays. Don't look away or you'll miss something. They also use the audio from the radio commentators, which is usually a lot better than the tv commentators.
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?
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.
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.
Amazing off-topic trivia: the etymology of "football" has nothing to do with kicking the ball, it's actually about how the game is played on foot (rather than horseback, like polo).
That is interesting, what was the former game involving an inflated pigs bladder that involved horseback? Some sort of version of handball?
Plus you should forward your source to OED as they remain unclear as to whether your etymology or that of kicking the ball is the origin.
Clearly football has referred to different games hence the need for the modifier Rugby [football] to be applied to the game of that same name to differentiate it.
Although it is widely believed that the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. The historical explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[2] These sports were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports more often enjoyed by aristocrats. This explanation is supported by the fact that the word football has always implied a wide variety of games played on foot, not just those that revolved around kicking a ball. In some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking. For example, the English writer William Hone, writing in 1825 or 1826, quotes the social commentator Sir Frederick Morton Eden, regarding a game — which Hone refers to as "Foot-Ball" — played in the parish
of Scone, Scotland:
The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run [sic] with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it.[3] [Emphasis added.]
However, there is no conclusive evidence for either hypothesis regarding the origins of the word.
---
So, it's not as clear cut as I thought, but there it is.
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.
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.
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.
This is silly. If my employer is paying me for the time I spend actually physically pressing each key while I code, I guess I'm making probably 100x my stated hourly wage. Why does that matter? Oh, it doesn't.
So what I hear you saying is that if your employer knew how much time you spend on the clock actually physically masturbating to Hacker News, you might have to take a pay cut. Did I get that right?
That's a specious argument, since Peyton Manning has to be there all day, even through he's only running around and throwing the ball for 5 minutes. (And probably spending another 5 minutes calling the play and communicating it to his teammates.)
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?