Future of football--from StarTrib opinion page

Donate To GopherHole

I think our resident MDs should apply to the NIH to do the definitive study on CTE on college football players/control group and find out the extent of repetitive brain trauma. Could put this whole issue to rest. Resting one's position on the lack of such a study is ... (fill in the blank).
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Because of safety concerns I believe at some point football should not be a "participation" sport (after 3rd or 4th grade?) There are other sports options for kids like running or soccer that is safer and or better suited as a "participation" option.
Click to expand...

Absolutely disagree! Kids haven't grown into their bodies yet and shouldn't be discouraged at that age. 4th grade is what, 10yrs old? Way too early to discourage a kid in my opinion. Make it fun and give everyone a chance.
 

alchemy2u said:
A lot of Neanderthal grunting going on in this thread. It doesn't really matter about traditions and or how much you love to watch the game, it needs some change. Go ahead and blame it on politics if you want, but it really comes down to parents and kids not wanting to be involved in a sport with such a great chance of serous injuries.

The times have changed. Back when grandpa or dad played football the "toughest" player was a 6 ft tall, 220 lb fat kid. Now you have 6'2", 220 lb muscle bound kids that can run a 4.6 (hand timed). The human body can not handle those impacts and a little more foam or air pads in the helmet will not help.

Every high school football gave that I have attended usually has 5-12 guys standing on the sidelines with crutches or some sort of injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I happened to catch Fran Tarkenton on the radio about a month ago while he was talking football. The host of the show asked him how the NFL can slow down concussions. He said it all comes down to PEDs. The players are too big and fast and the collisions too violent as a result. Maybe if the NCAA and NFL came down hard on PEDs the game would still be great to watch and the players would have better long term outcomes. Why has baseball made this a priority, but football has not of yet?
 

When I was in high school there were two athletes that had to quit all sports due to concussions (each had at least 5). One was a female soccer player and the other was a male hockey player. On our football team the most anyone had in their lifetime was 2. Obviously this is one isolated location but I think if they decide football is too dangerous for young people to play they need to take a long, hard look at the other sports too.
 


Dean S said:
Let me expand on what people don't want to hear - 12 deaths last year of high school football players due to force of impact injuries. 30,000 hospitalizations last year. 62% of injuries occur during practice. 70% of youth athletes leave sports by age 13. Main reason: adults. I think if we adults let kids be kids, more kids would be playing sports that are safe and keep them active. Football hurts and I think many would drop out if given a fair opportunity and not having a coach whisper into their ears "You would be a quitter!" There are other sports they could play that would spare them injuries. Coaches push young bodies too hard.
Click to expand...

I would bet big money that there are more head injuries and deaths from bicycle accidents than football accidents. I would also bet big money that you would have no problem with your kids (assuming you have kids) out riding their bikes around with their friends.
 



Dean S said:
Straight from the Pop Warner website. The definition of serious injury from SCOTUS. Nice. Can't change peoples minds even if they see the evidence every day of their lives. As for your NIH article, what a joke. "coaches were surveyed on a weekly basis; thus, their ability to recall injuries was important." Weak. Very weak. Best methodology ever! You can do better than that article. Besides, the one number that stood out in the summary puts this thing to rest: 187K ER visits by football players. Safest sport in America! Recommended for everyone under 18 to play! Who do you represent? Medical opinion? Instead of blowing a gasket, why not search it out better than what you tried to do. Study up, and come back with something more than a tantrum because I have a point of view. No matter how you cut it, 187,000 ER visits is a lot of dudes getting hurt.
Click to expand...

I'm so confused why you are on a football forum?
 



Pompous Elitist said:
As a society we tend to overestimate the risk of death or injury. What is the rate of CTE in former high school or college players?

Like many things, this is a slippery slope. Pretend we have coliseum-style gladiator competitions. Obviously there will be an outcry over the rate of death and injuries. The sport is banned. Next is American football, the sport is banned. Then hockey, then soccer, then basketball because God forbid, there is a risk of injury and even concussion.

What is an acceptable rate of injury? Do the benefits of team sports outweigh the (small) risk of long- term side effects?

Most of us have probably had low grade concussions as young boys rough housing, playing hockey without helmets, downhill skiing, etc. anyone in a car accident, falling off a bike, etc probably suffered a low grade concussion. I guess we're all doomed to memory loss, depression, and blowing our heads off.
Click to expand...

Your logic is so ridiculous. The point is that some activities, such as football, subject participants to obviously greater risks. When the risks out weights the benefits then people will not participate.

Some people will never fully understand the risks, and in order for them not to be a burden upon others, they may not be allowed to take the risk. People can have such tunnel vision. They may think that it is completely their own choice in how reckless they can be without understanding that when they become a vegetable, it is those who didn't take the risk that end up paying for their care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

National High School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study, a CDC grant project, in 2012 reported on the total national injuries in detail. Football was by far the number 1 sport for injuries per participation. In total, football in 2012 had 616209 injuries. In games, 344,097 injuries. Per 1000 participations, the rate in practice 2.08 injuries; games 12.53 a 223% rate higher than the next highest most dangerous sport, girls soccer. Concussions are 25% of injuries in all cases. Knees are the next highest injury. 22% of game and 14% of practice injuries are career ending, very high odds. Another 9% of injuries take more than 21 days to recover. So, every year, given the number of injuries that fit career ending, 75,000 players every year end their career in football due to injury in games. Another 38000 end it in practice injuries. These are not including the long term brain injuries.

10.2 % of game injuries required surgery. Practice 5.2%. Overall: 7.9%. 1 of 12 injuries require surgery.

Understand the risks.

Authors of the study: Comstock, Collins, Currie, presented by the Center for Injury Research & Policy/CDC

Plenty of very smart people out there that want to ignore the facts to suit their desire to stay true to the game. I truly understand. The reality suggests that in the long term, we should rethink football at very young ages.
 


WorkingMyTailOff said:
I happened to catch Fran Tarkenton on the radio about a month ago while he was talking football. The host of the show asked him how the NFL can slow down concussions. He said it all comes down to PEDs. The players are too big and fast and the collisions too violent as a result. Maybe if the NCAA and NFL came down hard on PEDs the game would still be great to watch and the players would have better long term outcomes. Why has baseball made this a priority, but football has not of yet?
Click to expand...

I think this is spot on. I'm also convinced this is why we see so many ligament injuries in today's game. I think a number of these kids grow too big and too fast and push their body's way too early. At some point something has to give out.
 



Blah, blah, blah. Contact sports are not going anywhere. Let me know when this ridiculous debate some of you are having while also ridiculously predicting their demise is done. Thanks. :rolleyes:
 

WorkingMyTailOff said:
I happened to catch Fran Tarkenton on the radio about a month ago while he was talking football. The host of the show asked him how the NFL can slow down concussions. He said it all comes down to PEDs. The players are too big and fast and the collisions too violent as a result. Maybe if the NCAA and NFL came down hard on PEDs the game would still be great to watch and the players would have better long term outcomes. Why has baseball made this a priority, but football has not of yet?
Click to expand...

What is a "PED"? Forgive my ignorance.
 

supadupafly said:
Blah, blah, blah. Contact sports are not going anywhere. Let me know when this ridiculous debate some of you are having while also ridiculously predicting their demise is done. Thanks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are changing communication to customers about injury and are changing coverage of certain injury classes.
Coaches are not always covered by the insurance they currently have against litigation.
Waivers are increasingly under scrutiny by the courts due to the excessive nature of injuries.
Illinois state HS league is currently under a class action lawsuit. Georgia and New Jersey already consider themselves under threat of such an action.
Participation rates are down in Pop Warner and in Michigan, by almost 25 percent in the last few years.
More and more states are requiring physicians be present at games. This cost is driving some programs to consider closing their programs.
The injury rate is not more than before. It is likely just being diagnosed more as diagnostics are more widely available than ever before.
Parents with children with injuries are more vocal and have banded together with websites, associations, and support groups for their injured children.

Roll your eyes. That really helps. The sport is showing signs that it is in need of serious reform, including how to block, tackle, and run. Injury rates must be brought significantly down or the cost of supporting the game will rise dramatically as more information becomes available to support litigation.

I am not a lawyer. I am a political scientist. This is a already a large scale political issue. I report the facts.
 


Dean S said:
Insurance companies are changing communication to customers about injury and are changing coverage of certain injury classes.
Coaches are not always covered by the insurance they currently have against litigation.
Waivers are increasingly under scrutiny by the courts due to the excessive nature of injuries.
Illinois state HS league is currently under a class action lawsuit. Georgia and New Jersey already consider themselves under threat of such an action.
Participation rates are down in Pop Warner and in Michigan, by almost 25 percent in the last few years.
More and more states are requiring physicians be present at games. This cost is driving some programs to consider closing their programs.
The injury rate is not more than before. It is likely just being diagnosed more as diagnostics are more widely available than ever before.
Parents with children with injuries are more vocal and have banded together with websites, associations, and support groups for their injured children.

Roll your eyes. That really helps. The sport is showing signs that it is in need of serious reform, including how to block, tackle, and run. Injury rates must be brought significantly down or the cost of supporting the game will rise dramatically as more information becomes available to support litigation.

I am not a lawyer. I am a political scientist. This is a already a large scale political issue. I report the facts.
Click to expand...

The bold comment is concerning. Mixing data and politics ends up with lots of misleading information. For example, many times statistics are used by political groups to prove or tell their story. The issue many times, are that the facts are cut, displayed in a manor that supports their cause. (you can take pretty much any raw data and get the desire stats you want out of it). I roll my eyes when political types say 'I just report the facts'.

Some things to consider that are normally left out:
1. Defining what is measured. (in this case injuries). What is included or excluded? By including or defining more injuries, you metric can actually skew the data.
2. Is the data collection more accurate recently? More accurate reporting or improvements in reporting cause changes and skewing of the data.
3. Where is the data/study coming from? Many sources have an agenda to prove.
4. Just because there are class lawsuits or whatever doesn't mean there is more of a problem. Just means that more lawyers are trying to get a payday at the expense of the client. Jump in while the iron is hot.

For the record, I'm not a fan of pop warner contact. Heck, youth hockey doesn't allow checking until the kids are a bit older, and I know there has be discussions to move the age group up.

And also, I hate how statistics are used as tools to restrict honest discussions or debate. (sorry, pet peeve of mine)
 

LC19 said:
The bold comment is concerning. Mixing data and politics ends up with lots of misleading information. For example, many times statistics are used by political groups to prove or tell their story. The issue many times, are that the facts are cut, displayed in a manor that supports their cause. (you can take pretty much any raw data and get the desire stats you want out of it). I roll my eyes when political types say 'I just report the facts'.

Some things to consider that are normally left out:
1. Defining what is measured. (in this case injuries). What is included or excluded? By including or defining more injuries, you metric can actually skew the data.
2. Is the data collection more accurate recently? More accurate reporting or improvements in reporting cause changes and skewing of the data.
3. Where is the data/study coming from? Many sources have an agenda to prove.
4. Just because there are class lawsuits or whatever doesn't mean there is more of a problem. Just means that more lawyers are trying to get a payday at the expense of the client. Jump in while the iron is hot.

For the record, I'm not a fan of pop warner contact. Heck, youth hockey doesn't allow checking until the kids are a bit older, and I know there has be discussions to move the age group up.

And also, I hate how statistics are used as tools to restrict discussions. (sorry, pet peeve of mine)
Click to expand...

This explains a lot about Dean S's past posts. We all have opinions but Dean S has "facts". Wrong! He like everybody else here has a perspective. Often it sounds like an agenda but now I find out he is just reporting facts.:rolleyes:
 

supadupafly said:
Blah, blah, blah. Contact sports are not going anywhere. Let me know when this ridiculous debate some of you are having while also ridiculously predicting their demise is done. Thanks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Totally agree that contact sports, especially football, are not going anywhere, nor should they. On the same token I think it is totally valid to discuss at what age kids should start tackling in football. Limiting the contact at the younger ages may actually be better for the long term health of the sport.
 

As a high school football coach, here are my $0.02.

1) Youth tackle football could easily be cut. I don't think you learn anything in football from ages 5-10 that you could learn from 13-16. It takes a better athlete to play flag football in my opinion.

2) We had one concussion this past season. The player sat out for two weeks and has not exhibited any type of symptom since then.

3) We have had a total of 3 concussions in the past two years. The player above was one, then we had one kid receive two. One the first week of the season from his head hitting the ground. He was cleared by a doctor and athletic trainer. Received another concussion in week 7 and sat the rest of the season.

4) If lineman block with correct form there should not be any head to head contact between offensive and defensive lineman. Yes, the random punches and hands to the face happen, but they also flagged for that.
 

Not to diminish Dean S comments, but the Political Scientist made me chuckle. It is like a Sanitation Engineer, just adding a fictitious title doesn't class up a sh!tty profession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

FWIW - in my area of SW MN, they have added a tackle FB league for younger kids in the last few years. Kids start playing tackle with pads in the 3rd grade. (3 levels are 3rd & 4th grade - 5th grade - and 6th grade). The local Park and Rec dep't in the town I live in used to offer flag FB for elementary students, but after the tackle FB league started, participation in flag FB dropped off so much they cancelled flag FB for 4th grade and up. They still offer flag FB for K-3.

As Dean would say, this is mostly anecdotal evidence (I minored in Sociology in College....). But, it's interesting in that it is contrary to the conventional wisdom that the fear of injury is causing parents to keep kids out of FB. In my experience, the parents who organize and coach in this league are really gung-ho. I have no idea what type of injury experience they have had in this league. I believe they do stress "heads up" blocking and tackling.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
FWIW - in my area of SW MN, they have added a tackle FB league for younger kids in the last few years. Kids start playing tackle with pads in the 3rd grade. (3 levels are 3rd & 4th grade - 5th grade - and 6th grade). The local Park and Rec dep't in the town I live in used to offer flag FB for elementary students, but after the tackle FB league started, participation in flag FB dropped off so much they cancelled flag FB for 4th grade and up. They still offer flag FB for K-3.

As Dean would say, this is mostly anecdotal evidence (I minored in Sociology in College....). But, it's interesting in that it is contrary to the conventional wisdom that the fear of injury is causing parents to keep kids out of FB. In my experience, the parents who organize and coach in this league are really gung-ho. I have no idea what type of injury experience they have had in this league. I believe they do stress "heads up" blocking and tackling.
Click to expand...

The issue as I understand it isn't that kids are not still playing football it is that the number of kids playing football has been in a fairly steady decline in recent years.
 

alchemy2u said:
Your logic is so ridiculous. The point is that some activities, such as football, subject participants to obviously greater risks. When the risks out weights the benefits then people will not participate.

Some people will never fully understand the risks, and in order for them not to be a burden upon others, they may not be allowed to take the risk. People can have such tunnel vision. They may think that it is completely their own choice in how reckless they can be without understanding that when they become a vegetable, it is those who didn't take the risk that end up paying for their care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous at all. If our goal is to eliminate risk of injury then almost every sport is on the chopping block. We are talking about relative risk.

Sitting on the couch or at a desk all day has very real health effects. Just not as hyped as football concussions and the very small risk of long-term CTE.
 

The irrational comparisons ar quite popular. Since when does a desk job have CTE? Don't bother.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It's not ridiculous at all. If our goal is to eliminate risk of injury then almost every sport is on the chopping block. We are talking about relative risk.

Sitting on the couch or at a desk all day has very real health effects. Just not as hyped as football concussions and the very small risk of long-term CTE.
Click to expand...

Good point! We are not very good in accessing or measuring risks whether it is investing, sports injuries, or the risks of our decisions. One of the big reasons for this is our emotions and fear. Pharmaceutical companies understand this when advertising their drugs. They never really talk benefits and risks in terms of percentages. Some people won't fly because of the risk they perceive, yet they will drive to their destination not realizing that by doing so they are taking a far, far greater risk.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Have you heard of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke?
Click to expand...

I am afraid Dean S has missed your point. I wonder if he has ever heard of unattended consequences? Trade offs? Probably not since he has stated that he only uses facts.
 

Mvgopher said:
Our high school has 160 participants grades 9-12 on average. Some years more and yes, football does have a stand alone budget. Crowds at the large schools are minimum 2,000-3,000 on Fridays. Some conferences charge 6 for students and $8 for adults. Facts not fiction.
Click to expand...

They may have 160 -- but they don't collect fees from all those students. On average, schools collect fees from 65% of the kids. Also, if there are 2,000 fans, there many more of them than you think have a free pass. I know school budgets very well - a traditional top 10 program in one of the three biggest metro conferences takes in gate receipts totaling 20,000 for the entire year. School districts do not make money on athletics, they spend much more, in upper 6 figures to over 7 in a district of 5;000 students or more, than they take in for any type of revenue. Golf course fees, ice time, etc all add up.

You don't know what you are talking about, so don't just throw it out there. In fact, if you want real facts, not the fiction you are making up, message me and I'll be happy to show you all the facts you want.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom