# Why is the NFL not as enjoyable to watch, as it was 25 years ago? (or is it?) **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 20, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892 "2011-09-20T01:33:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/41 "2011-09-21T16:28:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > That’s completely inane. It’s not “politically correct”, it’s an attempt to minimize the toll of playing the game on the players. With playing professional football taking years off your life, the increase of awareness of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and the stories from ex NFL’s having huge health problems, it’s important to the NFL (and to us as human beings) to attempt to minimize those kinds of trauma. > > Football is clearly a violent sport, and that’s not going to change. But wistful nostalgia for a time when guys speared others, when “head on collisions” were cool, is, to me, barbaric. Contrary to James Harrisons’ ramblings, there are clean ways to play football. You don’t have to lose the big hits. Just make them less dangerous, less life threatening, and less costly to the players. Yes, I completely agree. But then are we to get rid of football as we know it and replace with touch football. It is the fundamental question of is there place for contact sports like football, rugby, etc in our time/society. I see eventuality saying it’ll have to be “either/or”. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/42 "2011-09-21T16:34:31Z")
> [@brittekland](#): > > Yes, I completely agree. But then are we to get rid of football as we know it and replace with touch football. It is the fundamental question of is there place for contact sports like football, rugby, etc in our time/society. I see eventuality saying it’ll have to be “either/or”. Bullshit. Head to head hits are not an integral part of the game. A whole slew of players make huge hits, wrap up and tackle, and separate a receiver from the ball, without leading with their helmet, aiming for their head, or spearing them in the back. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/43 "2011-09-21T16:39:55Z")
> [@brittekland](#): > > Yes, I completely agree. But then are we to get rid of football as we know it and replace with touch football. Since 1905 the rules of football have been changed to make the game safer (players were dying) and the game has survived. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/44 "2011-09-21T16:41:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Bullshit. Head to head hits are not an integral part of the game. A whole slew of players make huge hits, wrap up and tackle, and separate a receiver from the ball, without leading with their helmet, aiming for their head, or spearing them in the back. Yeah, there is a fine line between good fair hit and intentionally trying to cause injury but then there were also unwritten rule that you don’t get away blatantly hurt someone back then? ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/45 "2011-09-21T16:47:44Z")
What I’m saying is these rules take away aspects of the game such as if a OB throws a bad high pass and leave your receiver in vulnerable position the blame used to fall on the QB. It required more thought put into where you can place the ball and receivers to think twice before jumping up to grab certain pass. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/46 "2011-09-21T16:48:36Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Same difference. K-balls be damned. They’d narrow the width of the goal posts, outlaw soccer style kicking go back to wide hashmarks if they really wanted to make field goals more difficult. Which they don’t. Place Kicks are snooze fests. In the spirit of “perception vs. reality” (stats are from [pro-football-reference.com](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/)) In 1970, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 2.2 field goals per game (for a success rate of 59%) (note that, in 1970, NFL goal posts were at the goal line, not the end line…they were moved back to the end line in 1974, IIRC). In 1990, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 74%). In 2010, the average NFL team made 1.5 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 82%). So… Teams are actually attempting **fewer** field goals now than they did 40 years ago, and are not attempting any more field goals now than they did 20 years ago. Teams are making a higher percentage of field goals now, which means that, yes, they are scoring more field goals today, but it’s a very small number. The average NFL team scored **3 more field goals over the course of a entire season** in 2010 than they did in 1990 (or 1970). ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/47 "2011-09-21T17:41:10Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > Because it takes so long. Maybe 30-40 minutes of actual game play spread over 3 - 4 hours. One play takes maybe 10-15 seconds with another 10-15 seconds of clock running, then a break for some talking heads, a replay and a commercial. > > I used to be able to watch a football game. These days I’ll sit down and start watching and then wander off during a break. Every time I look in, nothing is happening so I don’t come back. They have streached the game beyond to the breaking point for me. It’s definitely the commercials, but I think it has less to do with the amount and more to do with the audience. We live in an era of DVR and internet TV. Today’s audience doesn’t want to sit through three hours of commercials like they did in 1985. If I can’t fast-forward through it, I’m simply going to turn it off. > [@Laggard](#): > > At least it ain’t baseball. Why do we have to keep dispelling this meme year after year? Baseball games have 15 minutes of action in just under 3 hours of play. Football has 11 minutes of action in just over 3 hours of play. ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/48 "2011-09-21T18:07:09Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s definitely the commercials, but I think it has less to do with the amount and more to do with the audience. We live in an era of DVR and internet TV. Today’s audience doesn’t want to sit through three hours of commercials like they did in 1985. If I can’t fast-forward through it, I’m simply going to turn it off. > > Why do we have to keep dispelling this meme year after year? Baseball games have 15 minutes of action in just under 3 hours of play. Football has 11 minutes of action in just over 3 hours of play. But yet baseball is a zillion times more boring. Weird. ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/49 "2011-09-21T18:10:38Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Baseball does not stop the game for ads. Football is controlled and run by sponsors. > . Probably because there are natural breaks in baseball for stations to fit commercials in. I’m sure that play is delayed between innings long enough to fit commercials in. It can’t possibly take five minutes for teams to switch sides. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/50 "2011-09-21T18:26:38Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > Probably because there are natural breaks in baseball for stations to fit commercials in. I’m sure that play is delayed between innings long enough to fit commercials in. It can’t possibly take five minutes for teams to switch sides. It’s actually about two and a half minutes. Which makes sense, because players have to get to their position and make practice throws, and the pitcher has to throw warmup tosses from the mound. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/51 "2011-09-21T18:28:14Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > To expound: segregation, steroids, gambling, bad guys playing, cheating, changing rules for viewership, and the DH. Just off the top of my head. Not the players. The game. The game is not being changed to accommodate commercials. Pro football is run by sponsors. Now so is college. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/52 "2011-09-21T18:39:44Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The game is not being changed to accommodate commercials. Pro football is run by sponsors. Now so is college. It may not impact the flow of the game in the same way, but sponsorship is just as endemic in baseball as it is in football. Pitching changes are sponsored, lineup announcements are sponsored, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/53 "2011-09-21T18:43:39Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not the players. The game. > The game is not being changed to accommodate commercials. Pro football is run by sponsors. Now so is college. The Designated Hitter. The size of the ballparks. Instant Replay. Lowering the mound and shrinking the strike zone to help offense. Who gets to play. How players cheat. All about “the game”, not just the players. Yes, football has more commercials (which, incidentally has fuck all to do with “the game”), because more people watch it. But this idea that somehow the baseball is “pure” is complete and utter bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/54 "2011-09-21T18:55:54Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > In the spirit of “perception vs. reality” (stats are from [pro-football-reference.com](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/)) > > In 1970, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 2.2 field goals per game (for a success rate of 59%) (note that, in 1970, NFL goal posts were at the goal line, not the end line…they were moved back to the end line in 1974, IIRC). > > In 1990, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 74%). > > In 2010, the average NFL team made 1.5 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 82%). > > So… > > Teams are actually attempting **fewer** field goals now than they did 40 years ago, and are not attempting any more field goals now than they did 20 years ago. > > Teams are making a higher percentage of field goals now, which means that, yes, they are scoring more field goals today, but it’s a very small number. The average NFL team scored **3 more field goals over the course of a entire season** in 2010 than they did in 1990 (or 1970). Interesting stats, but I wonder exactly when the hashmark change fits in all of this. No more wide angle field goals, which could make even a 20 yard kick difficult. Why even bother with hashmarks, why not a single longitudinal stripe down the middle of the field and snap the ball at the dead center of every yard line? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/55 "2011-09-21T19:34:43Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Interesting stats, but I wonder exactly when the hashmark change fits in all of this. As far as I can tell, the last time that the NFL hashmarks were moved was in 1972 (they apparently moved from 60 feet in from the sidelines, to 70 feet, 9 inches in from the sidelines, making the hashmarks at the same width as the goalposts). So, that change would appear to have been made well before most of the “recent changes” which this thread discusses. It might be one factor in the increase in kicking accuracy, but kickers were still pretty inaccurate (by modern standards) in the latter part of the 1970s, after the hashmark change. ---
**Author:** ![Gordon\_Urquhart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gordon\_Urquhart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gordon_Urquhart)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/56 "2011-09-21T19:59:25Z")
I completely agree with the OP. Part of it, for me, is the extraordinary salaries that these guys can get just by virtue of having a good college career (NCAA football can be considered the AAA league of the NFL). I continue to be shocked, each year, at what a first-round draft pick gets in guaranteed money, without ever playing a down in the NFL. Other professional players from other leagues, be it the NBA or NHL or MLB, get paid a lot too, of course, but it seems like a lot of NFL teams are willing to take a very expensive flyer on college players – and it has affected both the NFL and the NCAA to both of their detriment. At least as significant to me, however, is that no other major league is staffed with nigh-superhuman players. Yes, your average NHL defenseman or MLB shortstop will be in great shape and stand out in a crowd of shirtless Americans – but I can remember when William Perry was an anomaly – a 300-pound lineman! – nowadays, 300 pounds will get you knocked off the line like a high school JV player. I can identify with Sidney Crosby or Troy Tulowitzki – they’re my size. Football players, even in the skill positions, have become behemoths. A third point (and one that has been mentioned upthread): I’m beyond marketing saturation with the NFL. No other professional sports league gives me the impression that they are in it for the money as much as the NFL. The other leagues aren’t in it for “the love of the game” – that’s perhaps never been true – but the NFL just gives off a reek of wanting to make money, and entertainment is a side effect. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/57 "2011-09-21T20:08:20Z")
> [@Gordon\_Urquhart](#): > > I completely agree with the OP. Part of it, for me, is the extraordinary salaries that these guys can get just by virtue of having a good college career (NCAA football can be considered the AAA league of the NFL). I continue to be shocked, each year, at what a first-round draft pick gets in guaranteed money, without ever playing a down in the NFL. Other professional players from other leagues, be it the NBA or NHL or MLB, get paid a lot too, of course, but it seems like a lot of NFL teams are willing to take a very expensive flyer on college players – and it has affected both the NFL and the NCAA to both of their detriment. The new CBA now has a limit on the amount a first round pick can sign for. It was, in part, meant to alleviate this very concern. > [@Gordon Urquhart](#): > > A third point (and one that has been mentioned upthread): I’m beyond marketing saturation with the NFL. No other professional sports league gives me the impression that they are in it for the money as much as the NFL. The other leagues aren’t in it for “the love of the game” – that’s perhaps never been true – but the NFL just gives off a reek of wanting to make money, and entertainment is a side effect. If anything, given the shortness of NFL careers and the damage to their bodies, I think NFL players should be making more than the other league. And the sheer punishment that they take I think speaks volumes about how they’re not in it just for the money. For the amount of revenue they produce, I don’t have a problem with their salaries. I can’t help subjective impressions, but I find it … unsupported by any evidence … to conclude that NFL players care less than any other professional athlete. ---
**Author:** ![Gordon\_Urquhart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gordon\_Urquhart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gordon_Urquhart)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/58 "2011-09-21T20:15:10Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The new CBA now has a limit on the amount a first round pick can sign for. It was, in part, meant to alleviate this very concern. Time will tell – I’d forgotten about that aspect of the CBA. > [@Hamlet](#): > > If anything, given the shortness of NFL careers and the damage to their bodies, I think NFL players should be making more than the other league. And the sheer punishment that they take I think speaks volumes about how they’re not in it just for the money. For the amount of revenue they produce, I don’t have a problem with their salaries. > > I can’t help subjective impressions, but I find it … unsupported by any evidence … to conclude that NFL players care less than any other professional athlete. I was unclear: when I wrote of “the NFL,” I’m referring to the league itself. I’m quite aware that NFL players go through brutal punishment. In fact, I think the league itself has been happy to be making beaucoup bucks off of those punishing hits in the last few years, and the rule changes in the last year or two have addressed that somewhat, but I still believe the NFL wants its players to beat the crap out of each other. ---
**Author:** ![Gordon\_Urquhart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gordon\_Urquhart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gordon_Urquhart)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/59 "2011-09-21T20:24:10Z")
> [@Gordon\_Urquhart](#): > > Time will tell – I’d forgotten about that aspect of the CBA. > > I was unclear: when I wrote of “the NFL,” I’m referring to the league itself. I’m quite aware that NFL players go through brutal punishment. In fact, I think the league itself has been happy to be making beaucoup bucks off of those punishing hits in the last few years, and the rule changes in the last year or two have addressed that somewhat, but I still believe the NFL wants its players to beat the crap out of each other. Another thought that’s been on my mind for a few years but arose too late to edit: I do think the NFL is facing a coming PR nightmare: if players from the 70s and 80s are coming forward with neurological problems, what’s going to happen in a few years when players from the 90s and forward start having problems? The hits have became more frequent and more savage (and I know that players like Jack Tatum and Steve Atwater doled out their fair share of damage), and inflicted by people who were more of an immovable force. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892/60 "2011-09-22T14:42:09Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > In the spirit of “perception vs. reality” (stats are from [pro-football-reference.com](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/)) > > In 1970, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 2.2 field goals per game (for a success rate of 59%) (note that, in 1970, NFL goal posts were at the goal line, not the end line…they were moved back to the end line in 1974, IIRC). > > In 1990, the average NFL team made 1.3 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 74%). > > In 2010, the average NFL team made 1.5 field goals per game, and attempted 1.8 field goals per game (for a success rate of 82%). > > So… > > Teams are actually attempting **fewer** field goals now than they did 40 years ago, and are not attempting any more field goals now than they did 20 years ago. > > Teams are making a higher percentage of field goals now, which means that, yes, they are scoring more field goals today, but it’s a very small number. The average NFL team scored **3 more field goals over the course of a entire season** in 2010 than they did in 1990 (or 1970). Kenobi I appreciate the work you put into that, but there is something screwy about the figures on [pro-football-reference.com](http://pro-football-reference.com)’s [chart](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/kicking.htm). Note FGAs and FGM both appear consistent over the 40 years from 1970-2010 FGAs each 5 years: 2.2, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.8, 2.0, 1.8, 1.9, 1.9 FGM each 5 years: 1.3, 1.1. 1.1, 1.3, 1.3, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5 Meanwhile, FG Pct has been consistently rising 59.4, 64.2, 63.6, 72.2, 74.4, 77.4, 79.7, 81.0, 82.3. Now ask yourself, how can that be? If FGPct is rising, and FGA is consistent, then shouldn’t FGM be going up as well? Of course it should, and yet on the charts it doesn’t. Which means that there is a real serious rounding error problem embedded in the charts, IMHO. YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-nfl-not-as-enjoyable-to-watch-as-it-was-25-years-ago-or-is-it/596892.md?page=4)