Jump to content

Why MMA is Better than Football...Interesting fact.


Brady969
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's not brain surgery and if you're a fight Junkie you already know this but interesting fact none the less..

 

According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts, and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.

 

Yep....11 minutes of action. That's it. Compare that to one Mixed Martial Arts fight which is 15 minutes minutes of non stop action. Even better is that just one round in a fight gives you half the action in one football game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not brain surgery and if you're a fight Junkie you already know this but interesting fact none the less..

 

According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts' date=' and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.

 

Yep....11 minutes of action. That's it. Compare that to one Mixed Martial Arts fight which is 15 minutes minutes of non stop action. Even better is that just one round in a fight gives you half the action in one football game.[/quote']

 

15 minutes of non stop action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not brain surgery and if you're a fight Junkie you already know this but interesting fact none the less..

 

According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts' date=' and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes.

 

Yep....11 minutes of action. That's it. Compare that to one Mixed Martial Arts fight which is 15 minutes minutes of non stop action. Even better is that just one round in a fight gives you half the action in one football game.[/quote']

 

That is complete and utter nonsense. Also why the Wall Street Journal is not a sports periodical. I liken that to Sports Illustrated giving stock option advice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're argument is second for second in play during coverage, than by that same logic Golf would in fact be the best sport. Golf is so amazing, they have anywhere between 2 and 18 "in play" moments going on at the same time. AND, television coverage of golf is actually longer than the entire day's worth of play due to multiple people playing at the same time.

 

The fact is correct, about 11 minutes of in play action per NFL game, which is also about the same as MLB. But if you're a fan of one or both of those sports, it's clearly a worthwhile experience for the viewer. And considering far more people watch NFL than MMA, one could make the argument that NFL is so much superior that it's attracts a larger audience with less "in play" action - meaning NFL would be by market value a superior good due to the perceived quality of NFL winning out over MMA's quantity.

 

Ultimately though, anyone who would try to assign one form of entertain as "better" than the next is delusion and fails to grasp that any rating of good to bad is based purely on personal taste and could never actually be qualified as factually better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is complete and utter nonsense. Also why the Wall Street Journal is not a sports periodical. I liken that to Sports Illustrated giving stock option advice...

 

Right...because you have to work for ESPN to grab a stop watch and count the minutes of action. Remind me not to ask you which stocks to buy...you'll over look the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So stalemate guards with rabbit punching qualifies as "nonstop" action? Or leaning on each other in the clinch against the cage? I'm a fan of both sports but that's just ridiculous...

 

The potential for something great to happen in the 15 minutes compared to the 3 hours a football game takes with 10 minutes of actual play....

 

its sad you arnt seeing the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're argument is second for second in play during coverage' date=' than by that same logic Golf would in fact be the best sport. Golf is so amazing, they have anywhere between 2 and 18 "in play" moments going on at the same time. AND, television coverage of golf is actually longer than the entire day's worth of play due to multiple people playing at the same time.

 

The fact is correct, about 11 minutes of in play action per NFL game, which is also about the same as MLB. But if you're a fan of one or both of those sports, it's clearly a worthwhile experience for the viewer. And considering far more people watch NFL than MMA, one could make the argument that NFL is so much superior that it's attracts a larger audience with less "in play" action - meaning NFL would be by market value a superior good due to the perceived quality of NFL winning out over MMA's quantity.

 

Ultimately though, anyone who would try to assign one form of entertain as "better" than the next is delusion and fails to grasp that any rating of good to bad is based purely on personal taste and could never actually be qualified as factually better.[/quote']

 

Ok, your point is that this poll is correct? There's about 11 minutes of in play action per NFL game? Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No' date=' they sampled 4 games, out of how many? This could've been cherry picked to hell. THATS why numbnuts...[/quote']

 

Ok, so 4 games don't represent an average? Seriously? Most of us watch football and agree its about 11 minutes...give or take a few minutes. Who cares about the exact number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' your point is that this poll is correct? There's about 11 minutes of in play action per NFL game? Cool.[/quote']

 

No there isn't ffs!!! I challenge you, grab your stopwatch since anyone can do it and watch a game today. Then average that with the rest for the week. I can tell math is not your strong suit. 4 preseason games with replacement refs is not a good sampling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' so 4 games don't represent an average? Seriously? Most of us watch football and agree its about 11 minutes...give or take a few minutes. Who cares about the exact number?[/quote']

 

Don't try to speak in absolute facts if you "don't care about exact numbers." I swear some of you become more retarded by the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No there isn't ffs!!! I challenge you' date=' grab your stopwatch since anyone can do it and watch a game today. Then average that with the rest for the week. I can tell math is not your strong suit. 4 preseason games with replacement refs is not a good sampling.[/quote']

 

Theres other data pointing to it.

 

Just ****ing think about it kevbo

 

How long does a play last? 30 seconds tops?

 

Otherwise you are watching them stand there getting rdy to go offsides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' your point is that this poll is correct? There's about 11 minutes of in play action per NFL game? Cool.[/quote']

 

My point is the fact that there is an average of 11 minutes of in play action per game has absolutely no bearing on how much "better" one thing is to another. You're the one making an argument that more of something qualifies it as superior. By that logic, ground beef is far superior to filet mignon because for the same amount of money I could get a whole lot more ground beef than filet. OK, if that is how YOU chose to measure something's value, based purely on quantity over quality, that is your priority - however I think you will find many people disagree with you. Now mass appeal does not in it of itself mean superior either, it's just one more measure by which you can arbitrarily try and make an argument for "better" when it's all subjectively based arguments anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The potential for something great to happen in the 15 minutes compared to the 3 hours a football game takes with 10 minutes of actual play....

 

its sad you arnt seeing the difference.

 

You know what's sad? That you didn't even know that the money in your pocket was OWNED by the federal reserve. Your ridiculous opinions matter not in discussions of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the fact that there is an average of 11 minutes of in play action per game has absolutely no barring on how much "better" one thing is to another. You're the one making an argument that more of something qualifies it as superior. By that logic' date=' ground beef is far superior to filet mignon because for the same amount of money I could get a whole lot more ground beef than filet. OK, if that is how YOU chose to measure something's value, based purely on quantity over quality, that is your priority - however I think you will find many people disagree with you. Now mass appeal does not in it of itself mean superior either, it's just one more measure by which you can arbitrarily try and make an argument for "better" when it's all subjectively based arguments anyway.[/quote']

 

His statistic doesn't hold up. They sampled 4 preseason games. That is in no way, shape, or form a representative of the sport as a whole. Just like his "15 minutes of nonstop" action isn't a representative of every MMA fight. He's grasping at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His statistic doesn't hold up. They sampled 4 preseason games. That is in no way' date=' shape, or form a representative of the sport as a whole. Just like his "15 minutes of nonstop" action isn't a representative of every MMA fight. He's grasping at straws.[/quote']

 

OK. Except I've heard similar numbers in the past. I myself have never put forth the effort to use a stop-watch and time it, but whenever these kinds of samplings are done they seem to come back with between 8-13 minutes of actual in play time per game. Ultimately, does it matter? I shutter to think what injury reports would look like if we upped it much higher than that anyway. And it stands to reason, you have a RB take it up the middle moving damn quickly for a first down, all in like 5 seconds, then it's going to take 15-20 for them to reach the line, get in formation and snap the ball again.

 

All I know is that arguing about "in play time" or levels of "popularity" have absolutely zero basis in passing one thing off as superior to the next. I personally have enjoyed NFL my entire life. I love watching it. For me, I enjoy NFL more than MMA. That does not make it better, it means I as an individual like one thing more than the other.

 

Things like "better" or "best" or "worst" are usually very subjective. Even when you try and quantify it by dividing up pros-vs-cons, it still ends up being a decision based on individual taste. MMA isn't better than Football/Soccer which in turn isn't better than NFL style Football, which is no better than Nascar. I myself have an order of preference, but it's all subjective based on qualitative perception - not mislabeled "factual" arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's still not a representative of the sport as a whole... It's the same as me picking a Gray Maynard LnP snoozefest for a representative of MMA "nonstop" action. How are you not understanding that?

 

I would be fine and believe the research if 4 UFC fight cards were studied and and averages were built around those 4 UFC fight cards. That's the meaning of "Averages"... They're never 100 % correct Einstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know what cherry picking is? I don't even know why I'm asking.

 

Yes, it's a biased assumption made by someone or a group to further an agenda. Now prove to me this research is cherry picked.

 

I don't have any reason to believe there's a conspiracy against football. I was just posting interesting research that I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes' date=' it's a biased assumption made by someone or a group to further an agenda. Now prove to me this research is cherry picked.

 

I don't have any reason to believe there's a conspiracy against football. I was just posting interesting research that I agree with.[/quote']

 

It was a 4 game sampling of preseason games, with replacement refs. Meaning will naturally take longer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the average? Are you not able to figure that out? Do you want me to do that research for you too? Please stop talking' date=' you're embarrassing yourself.[/quote']

 

No, im trying to get your simple mind to understand representative sampling and ratios. You keep saying I'm embarrassing myself or that I look stupid, yet it is clearly you who doesn't understand proper implementation of statistics. I'm going to chalk this up to trolling because you can't possibly be this stupid. Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a 4 game sampling of preseason games' date=' with replacement refs. Meaning will naturally take longer...[/quote']

 

Actually, and I'm SHOCKED Brady hasn't said something about this yet (perhaps he himself doesn't even realize it); this study he's referring to isn't even recent.

 

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html

 

You will note, the publication date is January 15, 2010, which means that the original study was done prior to this article. So the sampling, however limited it was in it's scope, didn't come from this most recent week of pre-season with replacement refs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually' date=' and I'm SHOCKED Brady hasn't said something about this yet (perhaps he himself doesn't even realize it); this study he's referring to isn't even recent.

 

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html

 

You will note, the publication date is January 15, 2010, which means that the original study was done prior to this article. So the sampling, however limited it was in it's scope, didn't come from this most recent week of pre-season with replacement refs.[/quote']

 

You're correct! Burn on both of us. I'm still waiting for him to define action in both sports. Or anyone for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! Burn on both of us. I'm still waiting for him to define action in both sports. Or anyone for that matter.

 

Football is pretty easy to define. Once the ball is snapped until the play is over. MMA, I'd imagine he was talking about from bell to bell. So provided it went to judge's decision, MMA would have 15 minutes of "action" over a 17 minutes span (assuming it's a non-title, non-main event bout) and in football, your final play time would in a big way be contributed by how each coach manages the clock. Now, it's worth noting that in NFL, there is a lot going on during a play, where as in MMA it's conceivable there would be a lot of circling and sizing each other up with little actually engaging; Kimbo/Houston comes to mind. But, I suppose as long as the bout is happening, it would qualify as "action."

 

I maintain I've heard from different places that the average NFL in play time per game to be somewhere in the 8-12 minute range, and that actually makes sense. Doesn't diminish my entertainment value from watching a game in the least bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...