excepts from a WSJ article...

Baseball has 18 minutes of action over the course of a three-hour game

The 18-minute average included balls in play, runner advancement attempts on stolen bases, wild pitches, pitches (balls, strikes, fouls and balls hit into play), trotting batters (on home runs, walks and hit-by-pitches), pickoff throws and even one fake-pickoff throw. This may be generous. If we'd cut the action definition down to just the time when everyone on the field is running around looking for something to do (balls in play and runner advancement attempts), we'd be down to 6 minutes.

The "time between batters" averaged 34 minutes.
The "time between innings" averaged 43 minutes.

By far the most time-consuming period of inaction is the "t
ime between pitches." This took up an average of 1:15. That's not all that far from half the WSJ analysis's average game time of 2:58. Technically, the time between pitches begins when the pitch to the batter who saw the last pitch concludeseither when the catcher catches the ball or it is fouled offand ends when the pitcher begins his next pitch. So it includes the unstrapping and re-strapping the batting gloves, sleeve adjusting, helmet adjusting, practice swings, plus the pitcher doing whatever it is he does as well.

Other "down time" includes pitching changes, arguments with umpires, injury timeouts

What's the bottom line? When we compare total action to total down timeeven including debatable action such as pitches, trots and pickoff throwstotal action time is 17:58. The average game time was 2 hours and 58 minutes, so the action portion of a typical game is 10%. That leaves 90% of the game as down time.

A similar WSJ study on NFL games in January 2010 found that the average action time for a football game was 11 minutes.

That's interesting, but I'll posit that what really attracts most fans is not "action time" but rather a combination of "anticipation time" and "reaction time" all in a communal, social setting. Those numbers, as anyone on this board right now can attest, can be monumentally large.

We sure spend a lot of time during games thinking about and discussing trends in the game, possible strategies going foward, individual performances, criticizing referees/umpires, second guessing the coaches, etc., etc., etc. Up to a point all of that is an important part of the enjoyment of the games.

Nonetheless, these I rarely watch a game live on TV at home. Instead I record games on our DVR and then during playback cut out a lot of dead time. For a Cal game I cut out less and listen to a lot of the commentary. For a non-Cal game I cut out a lot more.

The average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes - everything that happens between the time the ball is snapped and the play is whistled dead.

commercials = hour. 75 minutes (60% of the total air time excluding commercials) are shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps.

Network announcers show up on screen for just 30 seconds, shots of the head coaches and referees took up about 7% of the average show.

Cheerleaders were only on camera for an average of three seconds, and in some games not at all.

Football is the rare sport where it's common for the clock to run for long periods of time while nothing is happening. After a routine play is whistled dead, the clock will continue to run, even as the players are peeling themselves off the turf and limping back to their huddles. The team on offense has a maximum of 40 seconds after one play ends to snap the ball again. The typical play only lasts about four seconds, the ratio of inaction to action is approximately 10 to 1.

uhhh, i see action every play.

the anticipation, then the two lines smash each other and then someone either scores or gets smashed.

i don't need a calculator to tell me that's more exciting than baseball

Davidson;842138559 said:

---

uhhh, i see action every play.

the anticipation, then the two lines smash each other and then someone either scores or gets smashed.

i don't need a calculator to tell me that's more exciting than baseball

---

To each their own. The excitement level of baseball is different than football but not less by any means. In football, fans analyze what the next play should be where as in baseball it's what the next pitch should be. A scaled down version of basically the same thing.

yea and golf is also as exciting

Davidson;842138629 said:

---

yea and golf is also as exciting

---

its all in the eye of the beholder. comes down to a lot of personal preference. probably heard this argument before, but in europe theyd probably say that soccer is much more dramatic and action packed.....

gobears725;842138650 said:

---

its all in the eye of the beholder. comes down to a lot of personal preference. probably heard this argument before, but in europe theyd probably say that soccer is much more dramatic and action packed.....

---

What is great about soccer (i.e. football) is the continuous play/continuous clock. It's free flowing, the entire half is prelude and context, and there is great build up (hopefully to a penultimate result). I used to think that the 45 + injury time system was nuts, as no one has exact knowledge of how much time is left except the referee. But it has grown on me and I see its benefits. It's a more holistic approach to things.

The stop and starts of some sports drive me nuts. This is epitomized by college basketball. Ticky-tack fouls are called as if it's a race and you have teams in the bonus and double bonus before all fans have even warmed their seats (which at sweltering Haas, I understand, is not hard to do). Then you have the endless parade of seemingly unlimited timeouts given to each team, as well media timeouts. Don't even talk to me about the 5 minute delay to review whether someone elbowed another player intentionally. It's a wonder there's actually a minute of non-stop play. At times, it's un-watchable. Don't get me wrong, I love the passion of the student sections for college basketball -- and it approaches some of the intensity that you see for soccer in Europe or South America -- but the game itself needs for free flow. Even though I hate the commercialism of pro sports like the NBA, it is entirely more watchable at this point in time.

KoreAmBear;842138665 said:

---

What is great about soccer (i.e. football) is the continuous play/continuous clock. It's free flowing, the entire half is prelude and context, and there is great build up (hopefully to a penultimate result). I used to think that the 45 + injury time system was nuts, as no one has exact knowledge of how much time is left except the referee. But it has grown on me and I see its benefits. It's a more holistic approach to things.

---

The continuous clock is also the reason soccer will never gain traction in the U.S. The NFL wouldn't be what it is without the TV money, and the TV money wouldn't be there if not for the advertisers, and the advertisers wouldn't be there without the commercial time available with the stoppage in play.

And sometimes play is stopped just so a commercial can be run. But, hey, it beats paying a serious chunk of my social security stipend for a ticket, parking, concession goodies, etc.