|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 27, 2017 6:02:59 GMT -6
Coach, I think you make some good points. I do think that the media seems to focus on football because it probably draws more viewers than if it focused on soccer. I would point out though that the research team that did this study has studied other sports and wants to study the general population. So while the media and Hollywood might be trying to make $$ by demonizing the NFL, or sensationalizing this issue, the researchers are trying to understand CTE. It just so happens, due to the popularity of the NFL, the most accessible brains they have to study are from former football players. But they want to expand that to the general population. That's why they publish studies like this to make an argument for why they need more funding/participants. These very researchers that some people seem to be attacking, might end up being our greatest allies 10 yrs from now. They may someday find that the incidence of CTE among football players is not all that different than that of the general pop. And of course they might find that there is a big difference. But I think we need to objectively accept the new findings and not blow them off as stupid. Agreed. But if that's the case AND IF THEY WANT MORE COOPERATION FROM THE LIKES OF US, then I think they need to do at least as good a job of mentioning that more research needs to be done as they do demonizing FB. Other studies have published simultaneous results of other sports in concurrence with FB studies, I think more Dr.'s should take care to do the same. IF that happens, I will be more open, and I suspect others will as well, to listening to what they have to say. If you want to "feed the birds" you don't run around waving your arms trying to scare them off. You stay low key & develop a rapport with them. Build trust. This has not been done very well by the scientific and medical community IMO. Why on earth does the scientific community need more, or any, cooperation with you? |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 27, 2017 8:19:06 GMT -6
Agreed. But if that's the case AND IF THEY WANT MORE COOPERATION FROM THE LIKES OF US, then I think they need to do at least as good a job of mentioning that more research needs to be done as they do demonizing FB. Other studies have published simultaneous results of other sports in concurrence with FB studies, I think more Dr.'s should take care to do the same. IF that happens, I will be more open, and I suspect others will as well, to listening to what they have to say. If you want to "feed the birds" you don't run around waving your arms trying to scare them off. You stay low key & develop a rapport with them. Build trust. This has not been done very well by the scientific and medical community IMO. Why on earth does the scientific community need more, or any, cooperation with you? Coach, w/ all due respect, maybe you're suffering from CTE. Why pick the unnecessary fight dude? I was responding to an earlier post imploring us to be more open to this type of study/research. My point was if ANYBODY would like the coaching community to get more onboard w/ some of this stuff then be IMPARTIAL in your study instead of targeting the sport I support. Guess that flew over your head or you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something. Why do they need cooperation with US (made it clearly plural) well.....if they want to help people stay healthy.....they may want the people DIRECTLY involved with the subject matter (players) to be cooperative w/ future initiatives, etc. In that case, more IMPARTIAL studies may convince more of us this is a legit problem rather than a $ grab. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 27, 2017 8:20:39 GMT -6
Coach, I think you make some good points. I do think that the media seems to focus on football because it probably draws more viewers than if it focused on soccer. I would point out though that the research team that did this study has studied other sports and wants to study the general population. So while the media and Hollywood might be trying to make $$ by demonizing the NFL, or sensationalizing this issue, the researchers are trying to understand CTE. It just so happens, due to the popularity of the NFL, the most accessible brains they have to study are from former football players. But they want to expand that to the general population. That's why they publish studies like this to make an argument for why they need more funding/participants. These very researchers that some people seem to be attacking, might end up being our greatest allies 10 yrs from now. They may someday find that the incidence of CTE among football players is not all that different than that of the general pop. And of course they might find that there is a big difference. But I think we need to objectively accept the new findings and not blow them off as stupid. Agreed. But if that's the case AND IF THEY WANT MORE COOPERATION FROM THE LIKES OF US, then I think they need to do at least as good a job of mentioning that more research needs to be done as they do demonizing FB. Other studies have published simultaneous results of other sports in concurrence with FB studies, I think more Dr.'s should take care to do the same. IF that happens, I will be more open, and I suspect others will as well, to listening to what they have to say. If you want to "feed the birds" you don't run around waving your arms trying to scare them off. You stay low key & develop a rapport with them. Build trust. This has not been done very well by the scientific and medical community IMO. Scientists don't write the headlines. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 27, 2017 8:27:05 GMT -6
Agreed. But if that's the case AND IF THEY WANT MORE COOPERATION FROM THE LIKES OF US, then I think they need to do at least as good a job of mentioning that more research needs to be done as they do demonizing FB. Other studies have published simultaneous results of other sports in concurrence with FB studies, I think more Dr.'s should take care to do the same. IF that happens, I will be more open, and I suspect others will as well, to listening to what they have to say. If you want to "feed the birds" you don't run around waving your arms trying to scare them off. You stay low key & develop a rapport with them. Build trust. This has not been done very well by the scientific and medical community IMO. Scientists don't write the headlines. Nope. They just conduct the studies that make them. |
|
|
|
Post by cc on Jul 27, 2017 8:47:53 GMT -6
Maybe we need studies about dangers of band or drama in n high school? Those teachers love to share articles about football and CTE. There is more depression, drug abuse, and suicde in the lives of musicians and actors than most people. Plus many of them are not getting a lot of excercise so increased health risks. Fight fire with Fire?....
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 27, 2017 9:18:47 GMT -6
Scientists don't write the headlines. Nope. They just conduct the studies that make them. Should they not do the studies? |
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 27, 2017 9:22:23 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying. My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it. I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study. It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing. ...but that is not the way media is covering it...the headline is "99% of NFL Players Die With CTE", not "99% of NFL Players WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD CTE Die With CTE". What about the thousands that didn't donate their brains because they didn't have symptoms? The average non-football person who doesn't read until that sentence about needing more research could easily take away that an NFL career is a death sentence by CTE when it probably is not. We understand that & the researchers do to, but in most news stories I've listened to, seen or read that is not mentioned. That is why this has been regarded as "fake news" by groundchuck & others earlier in the thread. Most people remember the headlines, especially if they already have pre-conceived notions or agendas. Do we need to be very cognizant of limiting contact & collisions...YES. Is every football player, especially those that don't go past an 8-9 year career going to have CTE...I'm not sure...probably not as others have pointed out otherwise there would be millions of men who played HS & College Football with CTE. For every story of that 1 guy who had it for sure by age 25 or 30 there are 10000+ who didn't. Football is risky. Let's be up front about that, but also let's be up front about the value it has in teaching young men delayed gratification of how to work hard for months as part of a team throughout the off-season(s) towards a long term goal (9-14 games) and most importantly how we now minimize the risks associated with it. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 27, 2017 9:46:14 GMT -6
Nope. They just conduct the studies that make them. Should they not do the studies? Fantom, You are smarter than this. Maybe read what I was responding to fully before fighting a battle that doesn't exist in relation to the comments I made. NC1974 said that WE need to embrace these studies and not discount them. I simply stated that if the studies weren't so one sided & AT TIMES, seemingly for personal gain as much as they are for helping kids I would be much more open to learning about them. I then stated several examples of what I was intending through my comments, like MORE studies including several sports, non athletes (gen pop) etc. I think I made the case pretty clear for those who took the time to read everything, that I was open to studies, but feel AT TIMES they are simply TARGETING FB when they should be TARGETING what CAUSES CTE. FB is not the CAUSE. Head trauma seems to be the cause. So target ALL sports that include head trauma & maybe this will feel a bit less like a witch hunt. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 27, 2017 9:46:57 GMT -6
Coachklee, I can't speak to every headline out there, but the NPR headline that started this thread was this: Study: CTE Found In Nearly All Donated NFL Player Brains www.npr.org/2017/07/25/539198429/study-cte-found-in-nearly-all-donated-nfl-player-brainsGoing back to my original point, the NPR article was not sensationalized nor did it claim that the sky is falling on football. So if we react to an objective article such as this one by blowing it off, we lose credibility IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 27, 2017 9:54:49 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying. My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it. I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study. It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing. ...but that is not the way media is covering it...the headline is "99% of NFL Players Die With CTE", not "99% of NFL Players WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD CTE Die With CTE". What about the thousands that didn't donate their brains because they didn't have symptoms? The average non-football person who doesn't read until that sentence about needing more research could easily take away that an NFL career is a death sentence by CTE when it probably is not. We understand that & the researchers do to, but in most news stories I've listened to, seen or read that is not mentioned. That is why this has been regarded as "fake news" by groundchuck & others earlier in the thread. Most people remember the headlines, especially if they already have pre-conceived notions or agendas. Do we need to be very cognizant of limiting contact & collisions...YES. Is every football player, especially those that don't go past an 8-9 year career going to have CTE...I'm not sure...probably not as others have pointed out otherwise there would be millions of men who played HS & College Football with CTE. For every story of that 1 guy who had it for sure by age 25 or 30 there are 10000+ who didn't. Football is risky. Let's be up front about that, but also let's be up front about the value it has in teaching young men delayed gratification of how to work hard for months as part of a team throughout the off-season(s) towards a long term goal (9-14 games) and most importantly how we now minimize the risks associated with it. The tricky part coach, is that if you try to go the route I have underlined, it can easily be argued that those things can be achieved from participating in other sports/activities. |
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 27, 2017 10:25:51 GMT -6
...but that is not the way media is covering it...the headline is "99% of NFL Players Die With CTE", not "99% of NFL Players WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD CTE Die With CTE". What about the thousands that didn't donate their brains because they didn't have symptoms? The average non-football person who doesn't read until that sentence about needing more research could easily take away that an NFL career is a death sentence by CTE when it probably is not. We understand that & the researchers do to, but in most news stories I've listened to, seen or read that is not mentioned. That is why this has been regarded as "fake news" by groundchuck & others earlier in the thread. Most people remember the headlines, especially if they already have pre-conceived notions or agendas. Do we need to be very cognizant of limiting contact & collisions...YES. Is every football player, especially those that don't go past an 8-9 year career going to have CTE...I'm not sure...probably not as others have pointed out otherwise there would be millions of men who played HS & College Football with CTE. For every story of that 1 guy who had it for sure by age 25 or 30 there are 10000+ who didn't. Football is risky. Let's be up front about that, but also let's be up front about the value it has in teaching young men delayed gratification of how to work hard for months as part of a team throughout the off-season(s) towards a long term goal (9-14 games) and most importantly how we now minimize the risks associated with it. The tricky part coach, is that if you try to go the route I have underlined, it can easily be argued that those things can be achieved from participating in other sports/activities. That is true. I suppose I'm guilty of seeing football as a more demanding sport in terms of the off-season commitment for only 9-10 guaranteed games. That same commitment could easily be devoted to another, supposedly safer (or even actually safer) team sport. |
|
|
|
Post by cc on Jul 27, 2017 10:28:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jul 27, 2017 10:44:53 GMT -6
Fascinating..... There is much to be learned about the brain and CTE.... I think the big thing with this information and articles is to remember: Brain trauma is bad, as a coach of a collision sport there is a greater risk of head trauma so we must minamize the risk of this. We can do this with equipment, instruction, and our frequency of collision... This will limit the risk of brain trauma and in turn limit the number of injuries our athletes have. We have altered: How we block How we tackle How often we hit How we return kicks How we attack defenseless players How long we practice How we instruct without pads and with pads The equipment we have purchased How we have trained our lower level coaches All due to this research, I can state with full confidence we are better in all of those area's of instruction many times due to necessary changes and the goal to prevent head trauma. The goal for coaches (on my staff at least) is to keep researching keep learning, keep making the game better, safer and our instruction safer.... |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 27, 2017 10:45:50 GMT -6
just when I was getting comfortable blaming my irrational anger on CTE....... |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 27, 2017 11:50:12 GMT -6
just when I was getting comfortable blaming my irrational anger on CTE....... Yep. Not surprised at all. This is the kind of point I was trying to make above. Maybe they start doing this regularly w/ general pop the football "witch hunt" will die down. Doubt it though. The general pop suffering from this is not as sensational as the NFL "knowingly endangering their cattle". |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 27, 2017 14:24:32 GMT -6
Scientists don't write the headlines. Nope. They just conduct the studies that make them. To get headlines so they can get funded or additional funds!! That is a gross generalization and possibly unfair sometimes, but there is truth in it. |
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Jul 27, 2017 14:35:48 GMT -6
One extra note in this discussion: The players they are talking about is prior to the focus of safe tackling. I bet I was not the only person taught to tackle the guy with my head in front of the person because they could not "run through my head".
This has been on the rise within recent years, and there have been a lot of rule changes the last 10 years. (Pepperidge Farm remembers the Wedge for KOR and wedge breakers) We have to see that most players that this study must have been on played in the 90's and prior. The game is changed and safety wise it is for the better.
Us coaches doing a heck of a job teaching safe mechanics we will never see the fruit of our labor, only our players. And I believe we are making a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Jul 27, 2017 16:46:03 GMT -6
The thread on this topic from last March. coachhuey.com/thread/76540/uzma-samadani-reward-youth-schoolI've also tried to gather some YouTube videos on this topic. www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmlWmhCMSpjoFVMgoLixnkv-13bFQyeaEOne of the statements that Dr. Samadani has made is that CTE is in people who never show symptoms/dementia and who never had concussions/played football, it's part of how we humans are made. My grandmother, I don't think ever played in the NFL, had dementia for quite some time before she passed. And no, I'm not trying to trivialize a very serious issue. This is my recap of the video from the above thread. Ok, I went back and watched it again and have some times where things are said that are possibly of interest. Now, don't do the sound-bite thing here, you have to listen to this and really get into it. 01:55 - Insurance, liability coverage for football, will be demise of football, not football itself. 03:20 - Being on a playground, as a youth, is as dangerous as playing football. 04:34 - Biggest causes for brain injuries - accidents (cars, snowmobiles, ATV's, vehicles), homicide, suicide. Says that 11 teenagers die every day from texting and driving. 05:30 - Starts talking about concussion and types of damage and such. 12:20 - There is a higher probability of suicide within 9 years once you have a brain injury. As kids stop playing sports the suicide rate is increasing. Would expect that football players would have a higher rate of suicide but they don't, they are fitter, have better social networks, more friends... 14:58 - Increased sports participation decreases suicide risk. 16:37 - The media are reporting/implying that a connection has been directly linked from concussions (football) to dementia (alzheimer's disease). Biggest factor for dementia is sedentary life style which leads to high blood pressure. 17:33 - Football has not been proven to be a risk factor for dementia. 18:30 - Starts the CTE discussion. 20:50 - No clinical description for CTE, it is something that is found under the microscope, you can have CTE and never show any symptoms at all. You cannot be diagnosed with CTE based on your symptoms. 23:48 - CTE is present in normal folks and in dementia patients. Changes in the brain (CTE) does not mean symptoms (dementia) 26:37 - Does football cause dementia? No, it does not by itself. Football is not a causal factor for developing dementia. There is no compelling evidence that football is related to dementia. 28:15 - Why the media obsession with football/concussion/dementia? Scientists have to justify their research (grants) and companies are looking for profit. 40:30 - Starts a discussion on her workplace and the number of football players in high positions, doctors that let their kids play, that kind of thing. Overall - Brain injuries are bad, regardless of how they occur. Football does not have a direct link to causing dementia. Treat the injuries - change tackling, reduce hitting, get the kids out of the game. Read more: coachhuey.com/thread/76540/uzma-samadani-reward-youth-school#ixzz4o4gVPSwU |
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 31, 2017 20:16:19 GMT -6
Coachklee, I can't speak to every headline out there, but the NPR headline that started this thread was this: Study: CTE Found In Nearly All Donated NFL Player Brains www.npr.org/2017/07/25/539198429/study-cte-found-in-nearly-all-donated-nfl-player-brainsGoing back to my original point, the NPR article was not sensationalized nor did it claim that the sky is falling on football. So if we react to an objective article such as this one by blowing it off, we lose credibility IMO. ...I agree about blowing it off. However, what % of NFL brains does the average reader think is donated? What % of these brains were donated from players that played in concussion denial era or earlier? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 31, 2017 20:33:54 GMT -6
Coachklee, I can't speak to every headline out there, but the NPR headline that started this thread was this: Study: CTE Found In Nearly All Donated NFL Player Brains www.npr.org/2017/07/25/539198429/study-cte-found-in-nearly-all-donated-nfl-player-brainsGoing back to my original point, the NPR article was not sensationalized nor did it claim that the sky is falling on football. So if we react to an objective article such as this one by blowing it off, we lose credibility IMO. ...I agree about blowing it off. However, what % of NFL brains does the average reader think is donated? What % of these brains were donated from players that played in concussion denial era or earlier? More importantly, how many brains that were donated were from individuals who were experiencing CTE symptoms. NC1974 a truly objective article would have framed it that way. Rather than using percentages (where 99% is a VERY sexy number) they article could have framed the story as : Out of 20,000+ ex professional football players 112 donated their brains to this study. The majority if not all of those 112 complained of having symptoms related to CTE. Brain exams confirmed the plaque associated with CTE in 111 of those brains. That said, the NFL is not doing itself (and therefore the sport) any favors by reportedly pulling out of its agreement to help fund research. Lets face it, the NFL is going to go the route of the tobacco companies when it comes to head trauma. |
|
|
|
Post by option1 on Aug 1, 2017 5:08:59 GMT -6
...I agree about blowing it off. However, what % of NFL brains does the average reader think is donated? What % of these brains were donated from players that played in concussion denial era or earlier? More importantly, how many brains that were donated were from individuals who were experiencing CTE symptoms. NC1974 a truly objective article would have framed it that way. Rather than using percentages (where 99% is a VERY sexy number) they article could have framed the story as : Out of 20,000+ ex professional football players 112 donated their brains to this study. The majority if not all of those 112 complained of having symptoms related to CTE. Brain exams confirmed the plaque associated with CTE in 111 of those brains. That said, the NFL is not doing itself (and therefore the sport) any favors by reportedly pulling out of its agreement to help fund research. Lets face it, the NFL is going to go the route of the tobacco companies when it comes to head trauma. This is a good point. The sport would not cease to exist if the obvious was stated by the highest level of the game, just like millions of people still smoke after those facts were revealed. The NFL could save time by admitting that at the very least "running into hard things with your body increases the likelihood of head trauma." At the same time why would the NFL spend money for research? What exactly is being researched? I'm a slow blinker but even I could almost undoubtedly predict what the research findings would be, and that is, if you run into hard things with your body you increase the likelihood of brain trauma. Free of charge. There's nothing to hide. The cure, from a football standpoint, is unlikely because people will still choose to play football. I don't understand the point to all this. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lunch Pail on Aug 1, 2017 5:49:38 GMT -6
I get really frustrated that our game is under so much attack. And the worst part is that I feel like it's under attack by people who have zero interest in actually improving the game. They feed off of this paranoia for ratings and clicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Aug 1, 2017 6:51:45 GMT -6
More importantly, how many brains that were donated were from individuals who were experiencing CTE symptoms. NC1974 a truly objective article would have framed it that way. Rather than using percentages (where 99% is a VERY sexy number) they article could have framed the story as : Out of 20,000+ ex professional football players 112 donated their brains to this study. The majority if not all of those 112 complained of having symptoms related to CTE. Brain exams confirmed the plaque associated with CTE in 111 of those brains. That said, the NFL is not doing itself (and therefore the sport) any favors by reportedly pulling out of its agreement to help fund research. Lets face it, the NFL is going to go the route of the tobacco companies when it comes to head trauma. This is a good point. The sport would not cease to exist if the obvious was stated by the highest level of the game, just like millions of people still smoke after those facts were revealed. The NFL could save time by admitting that at the very least "running into hard things with your body increases the likelihood of head trauma." At the same time why would the NFL spend money for research? What exactly is being researched? I'm a slow blinker but even I could almost undoubtedly predict what the research findings would be, and that is, if you run into hard things with your body you increase the likelihood of brain trauma. Free of charge. There's nothing to hide. The cure, from a football standpoint, is unlikely because people will still choose to play football. I don't understand the point to all this. It's the same reason car companies study cars running into walls head on. Yes, we know it's not good for the car but they do it anyway because it helps them design cars that are safer. Thanks to all this CTE business we have better diagnosis, actual concussion protocols, and guidelines for returning to play. We realize that repeated subconcussive head hits are more of a problem than the big blow which has ushered in new blocking and tackling methods as well as tools and awareness about limiting contact in practice. I'm sure people had no idea that inhaling coal dust was unhealthy until people started to get sick. It's easy to say in the face of current knowledge that X wouldn't be good for us but did you really think it or give it any thought 15-20 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Aug 1, 2017 9:20:17 GMT -6
Another article questioning the process. www.torontosun.com/2017/07/27/conclusion-drawn-in-boston-university-cte-study-troubling-toronto-neuropathologistCouple of comments from the article: Bottom line, Hazrati said, is this: “None of these post-mortem brain autopsies are going to solve the CTE (mystery), at all. You cannot solve the cause of CTE by looking at brains of deceased people.” As yet, there is no way to detect CTE in the living. “That first step is not solved yet — whether there’s a definitive link to concussions,” Hazrati said. “So how can you even think about who’s the most susceptible? Who’s not? What age is the worst? Just looking at these brains (posthumously), you cannot say any of that. It’s just impossible at this point.” --------------------- Researchers compared the cognitive function of 52 living, retired former male Scottish international rugby players — who’d suffered an average of a whopping 14 concussions apiece — against 29 non-rugby players of similar age. “There were no significant associations between number of concussions and performance on cognitive tests,” the study found. What’s more, although “persisting symptoms attributed to concussion” were more common in rugby players who’d suffered more than nine concussions apiece, “these symptoms were not perceived to affect social or work functioning.” |
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Aug 1, 2017 9:35:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Aug 1, 2017 13:20:48 GMT -6
tothehouse - In another thread I stated we've dropped from 65 or so last year to 45 this year. -20 and I don't know why. We were successful last year, I expected to remain steady or increase. But we dropped ~25-30% of the team. Concussions is one of the issues.
I was talking with a news photo lady yesterday, her son plays for our rivals. Her son got one last year so she knows the fear of it. I was able to talk with her about the injury/concussion fear and she was unaware of the materials that are out there.
That's why I think it's so critical for everyone in this profession to prepare ourselves for the conversations that will come with scared parents. If we can't at least offer a reasonable, well researched, position on the concussion situation then we will continue to lose parents and kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Aug 1, 2017 13:45:12 GMT -6
Coach - We have no JV team this year. From 1985 to 2001...we didn't lose a JV game (in league).
There are other factors besides concussion in play with our situation, but I firmly believe concussion fears is on top of the list...if not...right there.
I'd like to see our school district, principal, AD publically address the situation. Maybe have a forum in the theatre. Bring in local doctors, etc. and educate the parents. Kid not eating and coming home from football with a headache...is not a concussion. Kid is hungry. These kinds of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 1, 2017 13:47:27 GMT -6
Coach - We have no JV team this year. From 1985 to 2001...we didn't lose a JV game (in league). There are other factors besides concussion in play with our situation, but I firmly believe concussion fears is on top of the list...if not...right there. I'd like to see our school district, principal, AD publically address the situation. Maybe have a forum in the theatre. Bring in local doctors, etc. and educate the parents. Kid not eating and coming home from football with a headache...is not a concussion. Kid is hungry. These kinds of things. Better make sure that you get the right doctors. |
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Aug 1, 2017 14:03:09 GMT -6
tothehouse - In another thread I stated we've dropped from 65 or so last year to 45 this year. -20 and I don't know why. We were successful last year, I expected to remain steady or increase. But we dropped ~25-30% of the team. Concussions is one of the issues. I was talking with a news photo lady yesterday, her son plays for our rivals. Her son got one last year so she knows the fear of it. I was able to talk with her about the injury/concussion fear and she was unaware of the materials that are out there. That's why I think it's so critical for everyone in this profession to prepare ourselves for the conversations that will come with scared parents. If we can't at least offer a reasonable, well researched, position on the concussion situation then we will continue to lose parents and kids. Would you please PM that to me or point out I'm a knuckle-head & you already posted / found it here on Huey. |
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Aug 1, 2017 14:13:40 GMT -6
You're right fantom. I've heard it both ways in the community. It's probably a good idea to have both sides there. Why? To prove that not a lot is known. More studies need to be done, etc.
|
|
