|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 10:58:50 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 29, 2011 10:58:50 GMT -6
There have been posters who are worried about the future of HS football based on the idea that schools are becoming more and more risk-adverse. I've been skeptical but I'm afraid that we've hit the tipping point.
I read that the Federation is mandating that field hockey players must wear eye protection despite the fact that the spokesman admits that eye injuries are rare. In the local paper that story was right below a pic from a softball game showing a girl scoring on an uncontested play. She's wearing a helmet with a facemask.
Now I think about the studies that suggest that football players get brain damage from everyday bumps. Using anecdotal evidence I don't believe it for a minute but it's out there. When the liability lawyers get together with the tea partiers whose only priority is saving money I can see a time not far away when schools start dropping football.
Remember, boxing used to be a varsity sport.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 11:52:04 GMT -6
Post by rideanddecide on Apr 29, 2011 11:52:04 GMT -6
When the liability lawyers get together with the tea partiers whose only priority is saving money I can see a time not far away when schools start dropping football. Uh oh...he's bringing in the tea party too funny
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 11:59:43 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 29, 2011 11:59:43 GMT -6
I love football. I've been involved in organized football for over 40 years. I'm not a tea partier by any means. I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately I don't think I am.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:04:05 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2011 12:04:05 GMT -6
Now I think about the studies that suggest that football players get brain damage from everyday bumps. Using anecdotal evidence I don't believe it for a minute but it's out there. George burns smoked like a chimmney, lived to be 100. So anecdotally, do you believe smoking is not dangerous? I agree it will be interesting. It is not very hard for me to picture football being a club sport within the next 20 years.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:09:53 GMT -6
Post by bluedevil4 on Apr 29, 2011 12:09:53 GMT -6
I definitely believe you can get a brain injury from minor bumbs. I've seen it happen. Just simply walking into a door or something like that could do it. It is still football, it's supposed to be dangerous. I definetely agree with you there, and if they want to make the game safer for those reasons, then it should be mandatory to wear a helmet daily in just every day life.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:11:53 GMT -6
Post by drewdawg265 on Apr 29, 2011 12:11:53 GMT -6
I think it will stay within the schools as long as it continues to make money. Local football programs basically fund all the other sports in our area.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:18:01 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 29, 2011 12:18:01 GMT -6
I think it will stay within the schools as long as it continues to make money. Local football programs basically fund all the other sports in our area. Not when somebody sues and makes millions.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:22:46 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 29, 2011 12:22:46 GMT -6
Now I think about the studies that suggest that football players get brain damage from everyday bumps. Using anecdotal evidence I don't believe it for a minute but it's out there. George burns smoked like a chimmney, lived to be 100. So anecdotally, do you believe smoking is not dangerous? I agree it will be interesting. It is not very hard for me to picture football being a club sport within the next 20 years. By "anecdotally" I mean that I've never met a guy who's a drooling idiot because of HS football. I'm 57. I should know some by now.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:30:32 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2011 12:30:32 GMT -6
George burns smoked like a chimmney, lived to be 100. So anecdotally, do you believe smoking is not dangerous? I agree it will be interesting. It is not very hard for me to picture football being a club sport within the next 20 years. By "anecdotally" I mean that I've never met a guy who's a drooling idiot because of HS football. I'm 57. I should know some by now. Not to dwell on this topic, because everyone is just speculating, but how do you know? Right now, their is some evidence showing lower brain performance after everyday practice contact. That is what we "know". I don't think one will be able to ever "know" if actions or situations later in life were influence by contact made in H.S. football. To get off the specifics, and go to your more general topic..which is the removal of football due to risk aversion...do you think football will just "cease" or will it gravitate to a club scenario?
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:38:15 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2011 12:38:15 GMT -6
I think it will stay within the schools as long as it continues to make money. Local football programs basically fund all the other sports in our area. I think what fantom may be alluding to is that the cost associated with the Risk Aversion may become too great. Soon you may need to have all students screened and monitored etc. May need to have certified athletic trainers present at ALL functions, etc.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 12:45:53 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 29, 2011 12:45:53 GMT -6
By "anecdotally" I mean that I've never met a guy who's a drooling idiot because of HS football. I'm 57. I should know some by now. Not to dwell on this topic, because everyone is just speculating, but how do you know? Right now, their is some evidence showing lower brain performance after everyday practice contact. That is what we "know". I don't think one will be able to ever "know" if actions or situations later in life were influence by contact made in H.S. football. To get off the specifics, and go to your more general topic..which is the removal of football due to risk aversion...do you think football will just "cease" or will it gravitate to a club scenario? That's what really scares me. Kids are heading to X games and MMA. Properly supervised, I don't think they're terribly dangerous. In the back yard I find them terrifying.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 15:22:10 GMT -6
Post by airman on Apr 29, 2011 15:22:10 GMT -6
I think it will stay within the schools as long as it continues to make money. Local football programs basically fund all the other sports in our area. I think what fantom may be alluding to is that the cost associated with the Risk Aversion may become too great. Soon you may need to have all students screened and monitored etc. May need to have certified athletic trainers present at ALL functions, etc. we have certified athletic trainers at ever practice. we have a team doctor on friday nights.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 21:07:15 GMT -6
Post by cqmiller on Apr 29, 2011 21:07:15 GMT -6
Before too long we will have to have Varsity Virtual Football Teams. We'll just hook our teams up to electronic monitors and they will have to play with 0 risk of injury.
Anything that requires work, discipline, physical or mental toughness, or any risk of injury will be removed at this rate. I played QB in HS and College and I think that we are almost at the point where they should have skirts for the QB's who get drafted to hold up. So many rules trying to eliminate the injuries in football, which makes players play more hesitant which weill lead to more injuries due to being out of position. Every single one of my serious injuries on my teams since I've been coaching has been a player who was playing scared or hesitant and got injured because of it or from a kid doing something he was specifically coached not to do. DB's who attack and play physical but keep head up and drive after contact dont' get hurt while my LB's who refuse to keep their heads up will get injured even if the contact is not as physical.
Sorry for the rant, but I am growing frustrated with the direction we are going and the fact that it is getting harder and harder to show kids examples of how to be a strong/tough man because they are being allowed to make it through life without it. The fact that I have to deal with all of the excuses from parents for why their son has a bad grade or can't come to weights/conditioning/practice, then they think that they should be in the NFL even though they bench 100 lbs and run a 6.0 40-yd dash. Everyone wants everything handed to them.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 29, 2011 23:06:48 GMT -6
Post by bluedevil4 on Apr 29, 2011 23:06:48 GMT -6
Before too long we will have to have Varsity Virtual Football Teams. We'll just hook our teams up to electronic monitors and they will have to play with 0 risk of injury. Anything that requires work, discipline, physical or mental toughness, or any risk of injury will be removed at this rate. I played QB in HS and College and I think that we are almost at the point where they should have skirts for the QB's who get drafted to hold up. So many rules trying to eliminate the injuries in football, which makes players play more hesitant which weill lead to more injuries due to being out of position. Every single one of my serious injuries on my teams since I've been coaching has been a player who was playing scared or hesitant and got injured because of it or from a kid doing something he was specifically coached not to do. DB's who attack and play physical but keep head up and drive after contact dont' get hurt while my LB's who refuse to keep their heads up will get injured even if the contact is not as physical. Sorry for the rant, but I am growing frustrated with the direction we are going and the fact that it is getting harder and harder to show kids examples of how to be a strong/tough man because they are being allowed to make it through life without it. The fact that I have to deal with all of the excuses from parents for why their son has a bad grade or can't come to weights/conditioning/practice, then they think that they should be in the NFL even though they bench 100 lbs and run a 6.0 40-yd dash. Everyone wants everything handed to them. whoowhoowhoowhoowhoowhoowhoowhoowhoo! Dead on. I have noticed that whenever I or another coach tells a kid about a great player, especially a tough player, it's never a current NFL player. I wonder what Chuck Bednarik would have to say about this topic?
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 6:36:43 GMT -6
Post by tog on Apr 30, 2011 6:36:43 GMT -6
I've never been a fan of the federation. And I am certainly not a fan of the nanny state mamby pamby path our country seems to be drifting towards. The day they take high school football out of the equation due to redtape bureaucratic wussification is the day America has lost it's exceptionalism and all we do is play soccer like everyone else in the world. And heck, I like soccer.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 9:46:18 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 30, 2011 9:46:18 GMT -6
Before too long we will have to have Varsity Virtual Football Teams. We'll just hook our teams up to electronic monitors and they will have to play with 0 risk of injury. Anything that requires work, discipline, physical or mental toughness, or any risk of injury will be removed at this rate. I played QB in HS and College and I think that we are almost at the point where they should have skirts for the QB's who get drafted to hold up. So many rules trying to eliminate the injuries in football, which makes players play more hesitant which weill lead to more injuries due to being out of position. Every single one of my serious injuries on my teams since I've been coaching has been a player who was playing scared or hesitant and got injured because of it or from a kid doing something he was specifically coached not to do. DB's who attack and play physical but keep head up and drive after contact dont' get hurt while my LB's who refuse to keep their heads up will get injured even if the contact is not as physical. Sorry for the rant, but I am growing frustrated with the direction we are going and the fact that it is getting harder and harder to show kids examples of how to be a strong/tough man because they are being allowed to make it through life without it. The fact that I have to deal with all of the excuses from parents for why their son has a bad grade or can't come to weights/conditioning/practice, then they think that they should be in the NFL even though they bench 100 lbs and run a 6.0 40-yd dash. Everyone wants everything handed to them. I think we need to be careful when lumping in aversion to hard work, discipline, and mental/physical toughness with aversion to injury and risk. Additionally, remember there are differences in the risk. One area is the acute injuries caused by a particular blow. These are the injuries you mention where the player is doing something he is coached not to. The other area..the area which I think we really need to focus on as coaches because it is potentially much more dangerous is the evidence that fantom doesn't have much faith in. Also, keep in mind the NFL's rules regarding the quarterback are a business decision. Injured QB's are bad for business. #18 goes down, the Colts are nationally irrelevant. Brady went down, Pats kept on winning but RATINGS went down. Even though they still won, the business suffered (from what it could have) So that is a different discussion.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 10:28:28 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 30, 2011 10:28:28 GMT -6
[quote author=coachd5085 board=general thread=46173 post=445001 time=1304178378 The other area..the area which I think we really need to focus on as coaches because it is potentially much more dangerous is the evidence that fantom doesn't have much faith in.
[/quote]
What frustrates me is that I think they're focusing on the wrong thing. Instead of focusing completely on brain physiology why not also do a simple survey? When I took my annual physical a few weeks ago they included a memory test. Why not include a background survey looking at things like sports played, position, how long, substance usage, etc.?
To me that's a quicker and more effective way to find out if there's a correlation between football and long-term memory loss.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 10:42:38 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 30, 2011 10:42:38 GMT -6
[quote author=coachd5085 board=general thread=46173 post=445001 time=1304178378 The other area..the area which I think we really need to focus on as coaches because it is potentially much more dangerous is the evidence that fantom doesn't have much faith in. But they are coach. Using the ImPACT testing preseason to establish a baseline, and then assessing asymptomatic athletes (athletes that had NOT experienced a diagnosed concussion)as the season progresses , researchers are finding evidence of increased brain impairment. That is a vastly different issue than acute trauma caused by big hits and failing to keep the head up.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 11:02:20 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 30, 2011 11:02:20 GMT -6
[quote author=coachd5085 board=general thread=46173 post=445001 time=1304178378 The other area..the area which I think we really need to focus on as coaches because it is potentially much more dangerous is the evidence that fantom doesn't have much faith in. But they are coach. Using the ImPACT testing preseason to establish a baseline, and then assessing asymptomatic athletes (athletes that had NOT experienced a diagnosed concussion)as the season progresses , researchers are finding evidence of increased brain impairment. That is a vastly different issue than acute trauma caused by big hits and failing to keep the head up. I'm aware of that. My point is that they don't have to do this in real time, waiting until the kid turns 50. They can just ask 50 year olds.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 12:40:55 GMT -6
Post by spreadattack on Apr 30, 2011 12:40:55 GMT -6
Football is the greatest game of all because it basically teaches you three things: (1) If you work hard, you will get better. I can become a better basketball player but I'll never be 6'10"; I may never have that kind of size in football either but at the level you're at you can make some pretty big leaps with hard work. (2) To win you have to win as a team. It's the greatest team sport of all. (3) You have to be reslient. All symbolized by the fact that everyone gets knocked on their butt and has to get back up.
Football coaches teach these things because that is what it takes to win; many people (rightly) think as a country we've gone the other direction, valuing individualism, me-first attitudes, lack of community, and general laziness. I think it's right to be upset about that.
But that is a bit different than if the facts come out saying that football could or does (we're not there yet) cause brain damage. Russian Roulette would build character but I don't think any of us would encourage it.
Look, football is not going anywhere, but if it can be made safer I'm all for that. That is not the same thing as an attack on the game. The stories of people with problems are terrible. We're learning more about how the brain works every day. I think it's a little ridiculous to say "There are studies out there showing this but I don't for a minute [i.e. I simply refuse to] believe it." Another thing we've shown scientifically is that we, as humans, drown out or subconsciously ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe. (A famous experiment involves smokers and evidence about the effects of smoking; now I think everyone should be able to smoke if they want but I think we all agree it's not exactly healthy.)
Last point is that, let's say it comes out that football, i.e. repeated blows to the head and not just "big hits", causes brain injury and it's indisputable (though some people will still dispute anyway): I don't think that means all right, pack up your bags, no more football. It might mean changes to equipment, etc. (I seriously think the helmut might do more harm than good now, and if you played without that big plastic missile I don't think anyone would say football players are being less tough.)
Point is simply that I agree there are different things going on here. If we're talking about a decline of hard work, discipline, and too much individual self-entitlement instead of putting community, family, and team first, then I totally agree. But if we're saying that every time someone does a study showing brain injuries from football they are "attacking the game," then that's a silly view. It's troubling because football is special, but if there are problems and risks I'd like to at least know them. The game itself isn't going away.
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 12:43:00 GMT -6
Post by spreadattack on Apr 30, 2011 12:43:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 13:16:18 GMT -6
Post by fantom on Apr 30, 2011 13:16:18 GMT -6
Look, football is not going anywhere, but if it can be made safer I'm all for that. That is not the same thing as an attack on the game. The stories of people with problems are terrible. We're learning more about how the brain works every day. I think it's a little ridiculous to say "There are studies out there showing this but I don't for a minute [i.e. I simply refuse to] believe it." Another thing we've shown scientifically is that we, as humans, drown out or subconsciously ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe. (A famous experiment involves smokers and evidence about the effects of smoking; now I think everyone should be able to smoke if they want but I think we all agree it's not exactly healthy.) Last point is that, let's say it comes out that football, i.e. repeated blows to the head and not just "big hits", causes brain injury and it's indisputable (though some people will still dispute anyway): I don't think that means all right, pack up your bags, no more football. It might mean changes to equipment, etc. (I seriously think the helmut might do more harm than good now, and if you played without that big plastic missile I don't think anyone would say football players are being less tough.) Point is simply that I agree there are different things going on here. If we're talking about a decline of hard work, discipline, and too much individual self-entitlement instead of putting community, family, and team first, then I totally agree. But if we're saying that every time someone does a study showing brain injuries from football they are "attacking the game," then that's a silly view. It's troubling because football is special, but if there are problems and risks I'd like to at least know them. The game itself isn't going away. The problem that I have is that the evidence contradicts my experience. I don't have to wait to see what happens when somebody gets old. I am old. I'm 57 and so are my former teammates. I'm just not seeing the widespread dementia. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if we do see an upswing starting with the next generation (guys who are now in their 40s) because I agree with you about the helmets. I played my last football game in 1977. Throughout my career I wore the same type of helmet- a Ridell Suspension. I believe that players weren't as inclined to use their head as a weapon because nobody would be crazy enough to ram a Ridell into people consistently. So, it's not denial. I sincerely have a difference of opinion based on different "evidence" (the parentheses are for my evidencem which I understand is anecdotal and hasn't been looked at systematically).
|
|
|
Risk
Apr 30, 2011 16:47:38 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 30, 2011 16:47:38 GMT -6
So, it's not denial. I sincerely have a difference of opinion based on different "evidence" (the parentheses are for my evidencem which I understand is anecdotal and hasn't been looked at systematically). I completely get where you are coming from on this issue coach. What i am concerned with is the "right now" aspect. The data showing that the kids..RIGHT NOW.. are experiencing brain impairment. The data that showed that the kids' brains are functioning worse RIGHT NOW after practice..or after a few practice sessions. It goes hand in hand with the "go live" thread, and is definitely a slippery slope, because unlike higher levels of football, our kids and lower have not really been exposed to significant amounts of contact. They can't really "turn it on for games" like an NFL player can...can they? I don't know, but I know I would be worried if My job was to win, and this was what I had to do. Same token, I am worried that going "live" up front 3 times a week during inside/team drills is impairing the brain function of the 15,16,17 year olds I am working with. Very complex situation, and glad it is being discussed civilly and without much cavalier attitude about the "wussification of america" (Tog--I know you aren't lumping injury and brain trauma risk in with the other issues you are throwing under that label)
|
|
hwkfn1
Junior Member
Posts: 258
|
Risk
May 2, 2011 7:19:44 GMT -6
Post by hwkfn1 on May 2, 2011 7:19:44 GMT -6
What worries me is that the state of Iowa just passed a law (maybe other states have it), requiring athelets to sit out until cleared by doctors (makes sense on paper). What I see happenig is players not telling anyone because they don't want to sit out.
|
|
|
Risk
May 2, 2011 10:46:32 GMT -6
Post by bluedevil4 on May 2, 2011 10:46:32 GMT -6
What worries me is that the state of Iowa just passed a law (maybe other states have it), requiring athelets to sit out until cleared by doctors (makes sense on paper). What I see happenig is players not telling anyone because they don't want to sit out. That's the law here in Michigan too, and kids try not to go to the doctors for that reason. If they ever have a complaint that their head is hurting, according to today's standards that's an automatic trip to the doctors. Nothing we can really do. Hasn't really been a big issue, except for when we have a kid who simply wants to get out of practicing.
|
|
|
Risk
May 2, 2011 10:52:58 GMT -6
Post by John Knight on May 2, 2011 10:52:58 GMT -6
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070815154430.htmwww.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412065807.htmYouth and adolescents under the age of 20 were more likely to sustain exertional heat-related injuries during participation in sports and recreation than any other age group. In fact, football was accountable for the greatest proportion of these injuries. Nearly half (48 percent) of all exertional heat-related injuries among boys nineteen years of age or younger were associated with football. Known risk factors for young football players include reduced tolerance to heat, inadequate acclimatization and increased heat production and retention due to their athletic gear and equipment. More than 60 percent of football heat-related injuries in this study occurred during the first few weeks of football season (August) when players are less acclimatized to the playing conditions and often have practices twice a day. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101207102515.htm
|
|
|
Risk
May 2, 2011 10:59:44 GMT -6
Post by John Knight on May 2, 2011 10:59:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Risk
May 2, 2011 16:41:17 GMT -6
Post by bluedevil4 on May 2, 2011 16:41:17 GMT -6
Guess what...we got him!
|
|