Nothing happening here

I’ve felt for years that actual football was a low priority at the Super Bowl, but I didn’t know how low until someone ran the stopwatch during the three hours, fifty minutes of Super Bowl LI, and duly reported:

Time distribution in Super Bowl LI

And actually, this was an unusually large segment devoted to Ball in Play, inasmuch as the Patsys and the Farkers played 64 minutes instead of the usual 60.

(Via TYWKIWDBI.)

4 comments

  1. fillyjonk »

    11 March 2017 · 11:20 am

    Confirms what I suspected, going back to days when my family had “free” tickets to the games for the small school where my dad taught. (The only thing I really cared about was the marching band at halftime).

    Funny how baseball, which is notorious for “slowness” can hold my interest but football cannot.

  2. McG »

    11 March 2017 · 12:18 pm

    With a 25-second play clock (when the game clock is running) for plays that typically last four seconds after the snap, I’m surprised the ball was in play for that much of the 64-minute allotment. I would have expected closer to 11 or 12 minutes.

  3. Roy »

    11 March 2017 · 1:32 pm

    I know I’m in the minority and not to be too critical of other folks entertainment, I just never got what all the fuss was about professional sports. I could never stand to watch games on TV because of that and all the chatter-boxing going on in the background between plays.
    Ironically, it’s basketball, the game that probably has the highest time-in-play average, that I find the most boring.

  4. CGHill »

    11 March 2017 · 1:59 pm

    It’s not that great an advantage for basketball. An NBA game runs 48 minutes, and the broadcast typically runs about 2:30. (And the last two minutes of a close game might take 20-30 minutes to play out.)

    Baseball, at least, has no clock. (Okay, the minor leagues have a pitch clock, but they haven’t inflicted this on MLB yet.)

RSS feed for comments on this post