New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Scientific American's 1930 Football Study Found Little Actual Action

The Wall Street Journal found in 2010 that an NFL game has just 11 minutes of actual action. Eight decades earlier, Scientific American found just about the same thing
 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Thanksgiving Day means [turkey noises] and [football noises]. And you know what: there might be more total action at the dinner table than in the football game.

Back in 2010 the Wall Street Journal announced that their study of four game broadcasts, combined with analysis by other researchers, found that “the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.”

Turns out the Journal’s study merely confirmed a Scientific American investigation that we did 80 years earlier.
 
While scrounging through our digital archives recently I happened on the article from our November 1930 issue, titled, “How many minutes of play in the average football game?” Author Hugo L. Rusch was the supervisor of the Technical Data Section of the Johns–Manville Corp. He studied eight college games between 1927 and 1929 that included teams from a few Ivy League schools as well as Notre Dame, Army, Stanford and Ohio State. And he found that the time the ball was actually in play during those games was 12 minutes, 22 seconds. I’d guess that the tendency to use more time-consuming running plays back in the day accounts for the extra minute or so of college game action back then compared to today’s NFL style.
 
Rusch’s article pointed out that watching football in person was really expensive if you figured you only paid to watch the actual plays. Why, he wrote, you could be paying $24.25 an hour to watch football. Because that’s what your $5 ticket—yes, $5 for a major college game—was really buying you. Rusch concluded that the stress of watching a game in person meant that “even though you may be paying at the rate of $24.25 per hour to see actual football, perhaps it is best for you that there is only 12 minutes of it. If you kept this tension steadily for an hour, you might have to be carried out of the stadium.”
 
—Steve Mirsky
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe