328 replies to this topic

[You Play to Win the Game]

The long term effects of playing football in HS and college are really what need to be investigated.

 

The NFL has a problem amongst their members, but really, that's only 2,000 men each year playing in the league.  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the exponentially higher number of kids playing in college, high school, and youth league football every year.  That number has to be into the millions, a thousand-fold increase over the number of players in the NFL.  What are the impacts of playing just for a few years or up to maybe 10 or 15 years if you play all the way from the youngest pee wee leagues through high school or college

 

Agreed. And I think the NCAA should own a piece of this as well. Between the resources of the NCAA and NFL, they could go along way to helping investigate and help find solutions (in technology) to combat this. 

[KWebz]

The long term effects of playing football in HS and college are really what need to be investigated. The NFL has a problem amongst their members, but really, that's only 2,000 men each year playing in the league. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the exponentially higher number of kids playing in college, high school, and youth league football every year. That number has to be into the millions, a thousand-fold increase over the number of players in the NFL. What are the impacts of playing just for a few years or up to maybe 10 or 15 years if you play all the way from the youngest pee wee leagues through high school or college

Agreed. And I think the NCAA should own a piece of this as well. Between the resources of the NCAA and NFL, they could go along way to helping investigate and help find solutions (in technology) to combat this.

This, in theory, seems very doable. There is no reason that the medical labs and the athletic programs of some universities can't team up and conduct meaningful research without having to deal with the NFL red tape.

[You Play to Win the Game]

This, in theory, seems very doable. There is no reason that the medical labs and the athletic programs of some universities can't team up and conduct meaningful research without having to deal with the NFL red tape.

 

No doubt. And the NCAA has largely gotten a free pass with all of this stuff, despite having a ton more risk (many more athletes), and unpaid amateurs at that. I think they need to do a lot more, and agree fully with Mack's sentiment that it's the colleges and HS/little league's that really need to benefit the most from all of this. 

 

The NCAA's commercial: "Most of us go professional in something other than our sport." Well, the one's who play football, won't go pro, and will have to deal with CTE issues potentially. 

 

I think by and large, the issue is no one has gotten their arms around what their risk exposure is around all of this quite yet. Unfortunately, that has prevented people from doing the right thing here.

[Oriole85]

ESPN: HS Football Player Dies from Brain Injury

http://espn.go.com/h...y-suffered-game

 

Very sad. Interesting tidbit from the story:

This probably is going to get the attention it deserves until it's a NFL or BCS player. And yes, there have been some serious, life-threatening injuries on that level but nothing fatal to my knowledge.

[Oriole85]

I agree with the comments that the NFL and colleges need to do more.

 

With that said, how much of this falls on the parents and even the athlete themselves as they get older to know the risks involved going forward -- knowing what we know now? I've seen the comments on here from current parents on the board as well as future ones, saying they wouldn't let their sons play.

 

Also, I wanted to touch upon something Lance said on his show about football being more dangerous than MMA or boxing. I had never really thought about that, but how do we know that's the case?

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Youth football participation drops

 

http://espn.go.com/e...n-causal-factor

 

According to data provided to "Outside the Lines," Pop Warner lost 23,612 players, thought to be the largest two-year decline since the organization began keeping statistics decades ago. Consistent annual growth led to a record 248,899 players participating in Pop Warner in 2010; that figure fell to 225,287 by the 2012 season.

Pop Warner officials said they believe several factors played a role in the decline, including the trend of youngsters focusing on one sport. But the organization's chief medical officer, Dr. Julian Bailes, cited concerns about head injuries as "the No. 1 cause."

Not really buying the focusing on one sport as much as parents not wanting their kids to play.

 

Year Players Percent change
2012 225,287 -4.0 percent
2011 234,723 -5.7 percent
2010 248,899 N/A

[You Play to Win the Game]

Studies like that are difficult because they look strictly at enrollments as opposed to the pool of available participants to enroll. 

 

Regardless, that's probably substantial enough for the NFL to be greatly alarmed. Not surprising at all.

[Oriole85]

Studies like that are difficult because they look strictly at enrollments as opposed to the pool of available participants to enroll. 

 

Regardless, that's probably substantial enough for the NFL to be greatly alarmed. Not surprising at all.

What's the pool available: any physically able boy who is of a certain height or weight?

[You Play to Win the Game]

What's the pool available: any physically able boy who is of a certain height or weight?

 

Don't know - but I know that these numbers can be heavily skewed just in the volatility of the population (in terms of kids born every year).

[Oriole85]

Don't know - but I know that these numbers can be heavly skewed just in the volatility of the population (in terms of kids born every year).

And apparently parents are choosing to have fewer kids, so there's that. I don't think there's a dramatic shift from one year to the next like with the baby boomers however. I forget the specific numbers but my dad (born in 1947) was telling me the difference in size between his class and the year before at his high school.

[You Play to Win the Game]

ESPN/Outside The Lines: Ex-Players want in on CTE stuy

http://espn.go.com/e...yers-tested-cte

 

This is going to get really fascinating. I don't think we've really even scratched the surface yet on all of this.

[Oriole85]

ESPN/Outside The Lines: Ex-Players want in on CTE stuy

http://espn.go.com/e...yers-tested-cte

 

This is going to get really fascinating. I don't think we've really even scratched the surface yet on all of this.

Think we could see the abolition of football?

[You Play to Win the Game]

Think we could see the abolition of football?

 

Unless helmet manufacturers really meet this head on and figure out a way to greatly minimize the risk, I think it's not impossible. That said, regardless, I think it's a long shot. There is just way too much money at play here. Money always wins the day.

[Oriole85]

Unless helmet manufacturers really meet this head on and figure out a way to greatly minimize the risk, I think it's not impossible. That said, regardless, I think it's a long shot. There is just way too much money at play here. Money always wins the day.

Never say NEVER... I wouldn't rule it out. I do think we'll see less participating in football, in particular, those with middle class backgrounds. Like you said with the money comment, I doubt it myself.

 

I think there's only so much safety you can empathize here. At the end of the day, it's a dangerous game and part of it is on the parents and when they're older, participants to decide whether they want to take the risks involved to play. That said, it should be as safe as possible without drastically altering the game.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Never say NEVER... I wouldn't rule it out. I do think we'll see less participating in football, in particular, those with middle class backgrounds. Like you said with the money comment, I doubt it myself.

 

I think there's only so much safety you can empathize here. At the end of the day, it's a dangerous game and part of it is on the parents and when they're older, participants to decide whether they want to take the risks involved to play. That said, it should be as safe as possible without drastically altering the game.

 

I think the biggest domino yet to fall is helmet technology adapting to this new information. There are ton of tests being run currently around this (shock aborsbent technology, etc.), so we'll see what they can come up with. But I don't see a reason why helmets can't eventually be developed (although probably expensive) which would greatly reduce the risk for head trauma. That being said, that will greatly impact the grass roots levels. How are pee-wee parents going to feel about paying a few hundred bucks or more for a helmet that probably needs to be custom sized?

[mweb08]

If there isn't some sort of technological or other solution to this, I think football as we know will be gone at some point, but likely many decades from now.

[DJ MC]

Football's worry isn't outright banning. That is something that can be fought, and support marshaled, and favors called in, and defeated.

 

The real worry for the sport is a hundred million individual decisions. Parents deciding that they don't want their children to play the sport, so the best athletes get pushed elsewhere. Parents deciding to make an effort to push their children away from becoming football fans. PTAs and rec councils coming together and deciding not to sponsor football programs. All of these could cause both the talent and the fan pools to dry up. When you add in the growing anger at college-football hypocricy, the rising cost of attending games and the emergence of Red Zone making it less likely a youth will become a committed supporter of a team, there could come a point where football is passed by other sports and just fades away.

 

That's looking forty years down the road, of course. But being short-sighted is always what ends up felling you in the end.

[Russ]

I think the solution (if there is one) is less equipment instead of more. Take away the feeling of invincibility with all the padding and players will be more conscious of where their head is going. I did some quick research on concussions in the NFL vs. Rugby (meaning I typed it in google) and the majority of what I read stated that the concussion problem isn't as prevalent in rugby. The rugby people could be in denial, that's possible, but it think the psychological effect of wearing a suit of armor is something that should be investigated.

[KWebz]

I think the solution (if there is one) is less equipment instead of more. Take away the feeling of invincibility with all the padding and players will be more conscious of where their head is going. I did some quick research on concussions in the NFL vs. Rugby (meaning I typed it in google) and the majority of what I read stated that the concussion problem isn't as prevalent in rugby. The rugby people could be in denial, that's possible, but it think the psychological effect of wearing a suit of armor is something that should be investigated.

This is an excellent point.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I think the solution (if there is one) is less equipment instead of more. Take away the feeling of invincibility with all the padding and players will be more conscious of where their head is going. I did some quick research on concussions in the NFL vs. Rugby (meaning I typed it in google) and the majority of what I read stated that the concussion problem isn't as prevalent in rugby. The rugby people could be in denial, that's possible, but it think the psychological effect of wearing a suit of armor is something that should be investigated.

 

I've heard this argued before, and I tend to agree overall. I'd really be interested in them exploring this in some study or something. I think there's something to it. For all we know, the helmet could cause more jarring around in the head.