|
Post by CS on Jan 29, 2018 18:45:22 GMT -6
If anything I made a hasty generalization because I'm not cherry-picking information. It's all the information I have. And instead of providing me with some sort of statistics that could prove me wrong or educate me you just attack the way I make my argument. I'm not saying anything is true, and it may be unfair of me to have the opinion that I have but this is the real world, not a debate. There hasn't been a good pee wee football league anywhere I have seen. Maybe it's the same for this lady or maybe she is just trying to make a name for herself on a hot-button issue. Only time will tell. I also never said that the magnitude doesn't have an effect. I said the argument is a moot point because the problem being addressed is repeated hits to the head not necessarily harder hits to the head. What they are saying is that by not allowing kids to play before 12 in most cases you are taking 5-6 seasons of hits off of the brain. By telling you that a causative relationship has not been proven, I am educating you. By challenging the logic of your assumptions, I am educating you. I'm making the point that uninformed assumptions/opinions are not "just as good or valid" as informed assumptions and opinions. I'm not saying don't have an opinion, just inform that opinion with facts, and formulate an opinion based on facts and logic, rather than a knee-jerk reaction (or a hasty generalization, as you aptly put it). Even the article you linked to says, "...the mechanisms that cause CTE and relationship to concussion, subconcussive injury and TBI remain poorly understood." (italics mine) Civil discourse (i.e., debate) is real world. Logic is real world. If I don't agree with something you say, or that you assume, my ability to tell you why in a calm and reasoned way is productive communication. I get it - CTE is a real hot-button issue right now. It's easy to get caught up in the hysteria. I'm a father and a grandfather, in addition to being a coach. I understand concerns about the health of players and player safety, and I share those concerns. I said as much in my initial response to your comments. I'm just saying that thinking things through and having real, reasoned discussion based on informed opinion is better than just fanning the flames with "hasty generalizations." I'll leave you with this food for thought though. Once they determine the there should be no football under age 12, how soon do you think it will be before someone will put 2 and 2 together and say that children are not adults until age 18? They can't form legally binding contracts until they are 18. By law, they are not, at least for most civil cases, considered legally liable for their behavior; their parents are. So, football shouldn't be allowed until a person reaches the age of majority. What would be the effect on the high school game? I'm not saying this will happen; it's just a logical extension based on the same line of reasoning that seeks to justify eliminating youth football. This whole thread has been filled with uninformed opinions and knee jerk reactions yet you don’t have a problem with those saying that kids won’t play football because they aren’t playing as kids. To be honest, I didn’t even make a knee jerk reaction. I just don’t agree that banning football before 12 is a bad thing, and I have witnessed nothing but terrible pee wee coaching. The fact is, I wasn’t saying something that you agreed with and that’s really all it was. To each his own, but don’t make it out like you were trying to “teach” me about anything.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 20:33:07 GMT -6
Note that such legisl'n wouldn't make it illegal for children to play football, only for adults to supervise them. But now that I've read it, it actually does purport to make it illegal for children under 12 to play tackle football in an organiz'n, but not illegal for the adults to organize it -- and there are no penalties for violation. So the legislator proposing it doesn't mean it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 20:43:18 GMT -6
Actually in most cases you'll be taking all of their seasons of football away, because more players play tackle football below that age than ever play above it. Anyway, even if you discount for the magnitude of impulse of the hit, then for those who do play for many years you'd achieve the same result of taking away seasons of hits by not allowing anyone over 12 to play. Oh the irony. Cog Dis is a nasty nasty thing. So...youth tackle doesn't retain #'s throughout HS and beyond?? Not most of them. More people play football as children than they do in HS or after. I think the same is true of baseball, though the ratio's probably not as high. Actually it's probably true of everything, considering how much free time children have.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 20:48:35 GMT -6
But we were discussing legisl'n by gov't, not an independent rules-making body. Whatever authority Hockey Canada has is by reput'n, not police power. It's the same w football, where at any given time a great many different rules codes exist. My point about HC is that as a National Body it proactively instituted these rules as opposed to having to be made to via Legislation. Something about taking responsibility or some such thing. Probably some antiquated notion. Useless to some, even. So we kinda ARE talking about HAVING to Legislate something that IS CONFLICTED and INCONSISTENT. Up here we have Football Canada as the umbrella for that sport just like Hockey...no player anywhere avoids registration and gets to participate...certainly with population & geography, it might be easier up here...though if every Province dug in with differing stances, there'd be similar issues, no doubt. But I guarantee you that if Football Canada stopped sanctioning tackle football for U14s, U12s, or whatever, the teams would not stop operating.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 29, 2018 21:17:47 GMT -6
Oh the irony. Cog Dis is a nasty nasty thing. So...youth tackle doesn't retain #'s throughout HS and beyond?? Not most of them. More people play football as children than they do in HS or after. I think the same is true of baseball, though the ratio's probably not as high. Actually it's probably true of everything, considering how much free time children have. Can't see how a shift to Flag until 15 (I also think that a rugby program for 13-15 to develop sound form tackling skills would be a positive element of evolution of the game/player dev.) would threaten the possibility of retaining more players than are already deciding to play HS...quite the opposite. It's a rare Adult activity foist upon children, and hardly scaled at all...I'd personally be hungrier and more prepared for the earned element of full contact, and ready to suffer lesson & drill to earn that privilege, too. Stunned that such a factor is lost on some.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 29, 2018 21:37:08 GMT -6
My point about HC is that as a National Body it proactively instituted these rules as opposed to having to be made to via Legislation. Something about taking responsibility or some such thing. Probably some antiquated notion. Useless to some, even. So we kinda ARE talking about HAVING to Legislate something that IS CONFLICTED and INCONSISTENT. Up here we have Football Canada as the umbrella for that sport just like Hockey...no player anywhere avoids registration and gets to participate...certainly with population & geography, it might be easier up here...though if every Province dug in with differing stances, there'd be similar issues, no doubt. But I guarantee you that if Football Canada stopped sanctioning tackle football for U14s, U12s, or whatever, the teams would not stop operating. It's a tough one to sort, it being a Minor hockey level comparison, while Midget & Junior (HS ages) apparently do contend with a few 'Outlaw' leagues (AAU) and use sanctions to keep them in check. northlondonhockey.ca/Articles/10861/IMPORTANT_INFORMATION_REGARDING_OUTLAW_LEAGUES/ That said, there have been age limits on body checking for over 30 years...conversely, the worst NHL teams at the moment are the ones that hit the most...but speed is killing it. Fighting is really declining (an adult element that children aren't allowed to engage in, imagine that!) overall, but it's still called Hockey and it continues to grow.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jan 29, 2018 21:50:35 GMT -6
I don't have a problem w/ it. IME...ONLY IME....I can tell the freshman apart who are experienced v. the ones who have never played before. But....I cannot tell the kids apart who have played youth for several years v. the kids who started in MS.
I myself never played FB until I was in 8th grade. Honestly never occurred to me. We moved and the 1st day I walked into my new MS (I was an extremely large 8th grader) the HFC asked me to play, so I did. Fell in love with it & had a pretty decent playing career.
I don't think playing sooner would have changed much if anything. Played over several kids who had been in the local youth league for years.
Again, JME.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 30, 2018 16:59:12 GMT -6
Not most of them. More people play football as children than they do in HS or after. I think the same is true of baseball, though the ratio's probably not as high. Actually it's probably true of everything, considering how much free time children have. Can't see how a shift to Flag until 15 (I also think that a rugby program for 13-15 to develop sound form tackling skills would be a positive element of evolution of the game/player dev.) would threaten the possibility of retaining more players than are already deciding to play HS...quite the opposite. It's a rare Adult activity foist upon children, You really believe that? That it's some bit of exotica that parents have somehow gotten their children to perform, rather than something children beg their parents to be allowed to do? Children have engaged in full contact sports since before there were human beings.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 30, 2018 17:12:13 GMT -6
I don't have a problem w/ it. IME...ONLY IME....I can tell the freshman apart who are experienced v. the ones who have never played before. But....I cannot tell the kids apart who have played youth for several years v. the kids who started in MS. And, when they get to varsity can you tell who did and didn't play youth football? I can't.
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Jan 30, 2018 17:49:22 GMT -6
Going back to the post that started this thread, I'm not a big fan of youth football OR politicians trying to legislate perceived problems in sports, but I'm wondering what everyone sees as the potential harm to the game. Is it because we're afraid kids who aren't exposed to tackle football at an early age won't want to play when they get to high school? Is it because we think they'll come to us devoid of the fundamentals they might've learned playing youth football? Or is it because we think it will add to the growing societal perception that football's a dangerous game and parents shouldn't let their kids play at any age? My guess is we all come to these questions with the biases formed by our own experience. For what it's worth, there wasn't any organized youth football in my neighborhood, but we didn't know what we were missing. Played tackle all the time without equipment, never thought twice about it, and couldn't wait to play when we got to high school. Discouraged my three kids from playing Pop Warner (too many Lombardi wannabes, and questions about kids being turned off before they were ready for contact). They all played soccer through eighth grade (we don't have middle school football) never thought twice about it, and couldn't wait to play football when they got to high school. I still have questions about the value of youth football vs. potential downside (skewed priorities, bad habits that have to be unlearned, Pee Wee "star" QBs who are going to have to learn to put their hand on the ground if they're going to play in HS). And the whole CTE thing scares the hell out of me ('cause whatever we think of the research to this point, hits to the head can't be good for you). But I still think high school football has real-life value ... and I can't wait to get to next season. Kudos to all you guys who care about our game.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jan 30, 2018 19:18:43 GMT -6
This isn’t about debating the benefits of youth football, it’s football being attacked by alarmist politics. This is the kind of stuff that slowly erodes the base of the game we all love and know is no where near as dangerous as some in the media and political realm want all the moms out there to think it is. I see what you’re saying and agree but if you look at all the rules changes and the emphasis on safer tackling techniques that state associations are pushing to make the game safer I don’t see youth leagues doing the same. Believe me, if every youth league was required to have coaches be certified I would be more on board but without the pay most places can only take who is willing to volunteer for the job. IMO this isn’t a horrible move and it’s sad that the the state legislation even has to get involved because nothing significant has changed in youth football. All youth football leagues...no background check... no certification(s)....no League. The Insurance Companies mandate this. Every single last one of them Nationwide. Its actually more difficult to fill positions now a day and that is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 30, 2018 19:43:12 GMT -6
I see what you’re saying and agree but if you look at all the rules changes and the emphasis on safer tackling techniques that state associations are pushing to make the game safer I don’t see youth leagues doing the same. Believe me, if every youth league was required to have coaches be certified I would be more on board but without the pay most places can only take who is willing to volunteer for the job. IMO this isn’t a horrible move and it’s sad that the the state legislation even has to get involved because nothing significant has changed in youth football. All youth football leagues...no background check... no certification(s)....no League. The Insurance Companies mandate this. Every single last one of them Nationwide. Its actually more difficult to fill positions now a day and that is a good thing. Well that’s good. What are the certs they have to get to be able to coach?
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 30, 2018 19:45:03 GMT -6
Fair enough but that’s my experience and the conclusion I’ve come to. The one league without youth football dominates football in their divisions (7 of the 10 schools have state titles, 6 have multiple) and probably more appropriately has significantly more kids involved in middle school and high school. With many places scurrying to get numbers up, youth middle and high school numbers dropping, I’ve made the leap to believe a stronger argument for giving kids alternatives to tackle football in the second grade. So I don’t see finding alternatives to tackle football at young ages to be a bad thing, legislation isn’t the answer but doing the same thing isn’t either. if our weight program isn’t getting results or our defense can’t stop option I’m going to find those that are getting results or are getting stops, ask questions, take the information and see what fits. You make your conclusions, I’ll make mine but mine won’t be to keep doing the same thing because I’ve been told or always assumed that’s the best way to do it. I know guys in that league always get asked how they are so successful, how they get so many kids out, etc and that’s usually one of their answers (and many of those coaches worked somewhere else previously so it’s not the only thing they’ve ever known). Not trying to change anyone’s mind just sharing my thoughts and experiences, To each his own. What about the hundreds or thousands (?) of successful high school programs nationwide that do have youth football in their areas? How do you account for them? What about the thousands of programs that do have youth football and aren’t successful? Wonder what the percentage of those are in comparison to the successful ones...gonna be a very high percentage but somehow youth football is no longer the factor in that situation? Only when a factor when a team is successful? you and me aren’t going to agree and that’s fine. I’m saying, from my experience, there are very few schools in this state that don’t have any youth football but have MS and HS. Out of those schools, there is a disproportionate amount that have higher involvement numbers and much higher success. They have more kids involved for a ton of reasons but the lack of youth football is the biggest, no one run off no one burned out everyone hungry to keep playing. again, clear we won’t agree. I don’t agree with legislating but I 100% agree that alternatives should be looked at. It’s foolhardy not to question and look at other options and/or improving the way we do it now.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 30, 2018 19:52:21 GMT -6
I see what you’re saying and agree but if you look at all the rules changes and the emphasis on safer tackling techniques that state associations are pushing to make the game safer I don’t see youth leagues doing the same. Believe me, if every youth league was required to have coaches be certified I would be more on board but without the pay most places can only take who is willing to volunteer for the job. IMO this isn’t a horrible move and it’s sad that the the state legislation even has to get involved because nothing significant has changed in youth football. All youth football leagues...no background check... no certification(s)....no League. The Insurance Companies mandate this. Every single last one of them Nationwide. Its actually more difficult to fill positions now a day and that is a good thing. You can't debate some guys with facts, Mahonz. With some people, if they haven't experienced it firsthand, it doesn't exist/never happened. Like I said upthread, until someone puts 2 and 2 together and decides that football isn't good for ANY children (meaning up to the age of 18), some folks will keep their heads in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 30, 2018 20:02:24 GMT -6
What about the hundreds or thousands (?) of successful high school programs nationwide that do have youth football in their areas? How do you account for them? What about the thousands of programs that do have youth football and aren’t successful? Wonder what the percentage of those are in comparison to the successful ones...gonna be a very high percentage but somehow youth football is no longer the factor in that situation? Only when a factor when a team is successful? you and me aren’t going to agree and that’s fine. I’m saying, from my experience, there are very few schools in this state that don’t have any youth football but have MS and HS. Out of those schools, there is a disproportionate amount that have higher involvement numbers and much higher success. They have more kids involved for a ton of reasons but the lack of youth football is the biggest, no one run off no one burned out everyone hungry to keep playing. again, clear we won’t agree. I don’t agree with legislating but I 100% agree that alternatives should be looked at. It’s foolhardy not to question and look at other options and/or improving the way we do it now. Where are these thousands you refer to? I don't know what state you're in, but your original statement referred to ONE program. Now it's "most of the schools in your state?" Come on man... Where's the logic in assuming that football is dangerous for kids under 12, but not for ages 13-17? You really think that high school ball isn't next?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 30, 2018 20:20:39 GMT -6
What about the thousands of programs that do have youth football and aren’t successful? Wonder what the percentage of those are in comparison to the successful ones...gonna be a very high percentage but somehow youth football is no longer the factor in that situation? Only when a factor when a team is successful? you and me aren’t going to agree and that’s fine. I’m saying, from my experience, there are very few schools in this state that don’t have any youth football but have MS and HS. Out of those schools, there is a disproportionate amount that have higher involvement numbers and much higher success. They have more kids involved for a ton of reasons but the lack of youth football is the biggest, no one run off no one burned out everyone hungry to keep playing. again, clear we won’t agree. I don’t agree with legislating but I 100% agree that alternatives should be looked at. It’s foolhardy not to question and look at other options and/or improving the way we do it now. Where are these thousands you refer to? I don't know what state you're in, but your original statement referred to ONE program. Now it's "most of the schools in your state?" Come on man... Where's the logic in assuming that football is dangerous for kids under 12, but not for ages 13-17? You really think that high school ball isn't next? There are plenty of successful HS programs that don't have dedicated youth programs. But you didn't answer my earlier question. You talk about good programs that have youth programs. Don't their opponents also have youth programs?
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 30, 2018 20:34:46 GMT -6
Where are these thousands you refer to? I don't know what state you're in, but your original statement referred to ONE program. Now it's "most of the schools in your state?" Come on man... Where's the logic in assuming that football is dangerous for kids under 12, but not for ages 13-17? You really think that high school ball isn't next? There are plenty of successful HS programs that don't have dedicated youth programs. But you didn't answer my earlier question. You talk about good programs that have youth programs. Don't their opponents also have youth programs? That's not what coach is saying. He's literally saying that this one program he in his state doesn't have youth football in their area, and THAT is the reason they are so dominant. Then he extended that to "most of the programs in his state." He literally took a personal anecdote and made it some universal truth. I didn't make an assertion. I responded to his. I asked him, in response to his assertion, how do you account for the hundreds or thousands of successful programs that do have youth football in their area? I was pointing out his lack of logical thinking. It's completely ILLOGICAL to take one case and say that, somehow, THE REASON THAT THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO YOUTH PROGRAM. That's just false.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 30, 2018 21:12:37 GMT -6
Can't see how a shift to Flag until 15 (I also think that a rugby program for 13-15 to develop sound form tackling skills would be a positive element of evolution of the game/player dev.) would threaten the possibility of retaining more players than are already deciding to play HS...quite the opposite. It's a rare Adult activity foist upon children, You really believe that? That it's some bit of exotica that parents have somehow gotten their children to perform, rather than something children beg their parents to be allowed to do? Children have engaged in full contact sports since before there were human beings. Now Now, You're not That old, Bob. But kudos for the trolling, usually that is for the younger set. You've avoided making sense in two replies, now, so let's leave it at that. Scaling aspects of gameplay with age progression and retention trends will appear certain ways depending on how you skew your logic on the topic. Kids aping adults is hardly exotica, though adults not scaling the activity appropriately is retardica.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 30, 2018 21:18:19 GMT -6
Going back to the post that started this thread, I'm not a big fan of youth football OR politicians trying to legislate perceived problems in sports, but I'm wondering what everyone sees as the potential harm to the game. is it because we think it will add to the growing societal perception that football's a dangerous game and parents shouldn't let their kids play at any age? That's it. It reinforces the idea that American football's strictly a spectator, not a participant, sport -- that nobody should play it for fun, only for the enjoyment of people watching you.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jan 30, 2018 21:39:45 GMT -6
Fvcking Illinois...the state is $15 billion in the red, has the worst pension crisis in the nation, and is hemorrhaging residents so quickly that we are on pace to lose a Congressional rep for the 3rd census in a row and this is what the General Assembly in Springfield cares about.
Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jan 31, 2018 8:17:04 GMT -6
All youth football leagues...no background check... no certification(s)....no League. The Insurance Companies mandate this. Every single last one of them Nationwide. Its actually more difficult to fill positions now a day and that is a good thing. Well that’s good. What are the certs they have to get to be able to coach? USA Football has a Program, the CDC has a Program as do a few States. Some local League require some EMT basics. My League requires a few Clinics that every Head Coach must attend. One in particular includes Rules, Ethics and Integrity which I believe is the most important and certainly the most abused. I have taken the USA Football Certifications. Given enough bananas a Monkey could pass this test but at least its forced learning and making coaches more aware their surroundings. It covers hydration, concussion awareness, emergency procedures, tackling techniques, blocking techniques, practice organization, fitting equipment and the like. Watch a video, answer some multiple choice questions and keep trying live until you pass. I have been coaching youth football for the most part since 1983 and today's coaches are far more informed than ever before. Its simply up to them to apply this information which IMHO 95% will happily do. We all understand that our Sport is under attack and that adjustments are necessary in order to survive. A Government Mandate is not surviving.
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Jan 31, 2018 8:50:58 GMT -6
The problem with CTE studies is that they are not randomly selecting the samples. So if a study says that 30% of high school football players have CTE, that means nothing unless we know what % of the general population has CTE. The BU doctors admit this and that they are assuming that between 10-99% of NFL players have CTE. Having CTE does not mean that their must be negative health effects.
The vast majority of humans that live into their late 60s or beyond will die with cancer in their body. However, for the vast majority of these, the cancer will have had no negative influence on their health.
Several of you have mentioned something along the lines of... repeated hits to the head can't be good. However, the point should be that we need evidence that it is actually bad. It is possible that in many football players there is no effect and that in many others the effect will be minor and inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 31, 2018 8:52:57 GMT -6
Well that’s good. What are the certs they have to get to be able to coach? USA Football has a Program, the CDC has a Program as do a few States. Some local League require some EMT basics. My League requires a few Clinics that every Head Coach must attend. One in particular includes Rules, Ethics and Integrity which I believe is the most important and certainly the most abused. I have taken the USA Football Certifications. Given enough bananas a Monkey could pass this test but at least its forced learning and making coaches more aware their surroundings. It covers hydration, concussion awareness, emergency procedures, tackling techniques, blocking techniques, practice organization, fitting equipment and the like. Watch a video, answer some multiple choice questions and keep trying live until you pass. I have been coaching youth football for the most part since 1983 and today's coaches are far more informed than ever before. Its simply up to them to apply this information which IMHO 95% will happily do. We all understand that our Sport is under attack and that adjustments are necessary in order to survive. A Government Mandate is not surviving. I totally agree. Thank you for coming on here with information and not a lesson on debate that doesn't need to be had. If you listen to the Coach and Coordinator podcast the HC at Webb City, MO talks about youth football in depth and what he does to help those coaches. His method may not help some coaches around the country but I think if the pee wee program is affiliated with the school system then it is a good model to help run a successful youth program.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 31, 2018 9:32:48 GMT -6
USA Football has a Program, the CDC has a Program as do a few States. Some local League require some EMT basics. My League requires a few Clinics that every Head Coach must attend. One in particular includes Rules, Ethics and Integrity which I believe is the most important and certainly the most abused. I have taken the USA Football Certifications. Given enough bananas a Monkey could pass this test but at least its forced learning and making coaches more aware their surroundings. It covers hydration, concussion awareness, emergency procedures, tackling techniques, blocking techniques, practice organization, fitting equipment and the like. Watch a video, answer some multiple choice questions and keep trying live until you pass. I have been coaching youth football for the most part since 1983 and today's coaches are far more informed than ever before. Its simply up to them to apply this information which IMHO 95% will happily do. We all understand that our Sport is under attack and that adjustments are necessary in order to survive. A Government Mandate is not surviving. I totally agree. Thank you for coming on here with information and not a lesson on debate that doesn't need to be had. If you listen to the Coach and Coordinator podcast the HC at Webb City, MO talks about youth football in depth and what he does to help those coaches. His method may not help some coaches around the country but I think if the pee wee program is affiliated with the school system then it is a good model to help run a successful youth program. Heaven forbid if we learn how to think logically.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 31, 2018 9:37:51 GMT -6
I'm not sure war is what I would call it but unfortunately if our sport isn't willing to try different things to make the game safer than we will see more of this. I know that a lot of coaches are changing the way they teach tackling and trying to have less contact in practice, but there are still things that just need to change. In a lot of places, there isn't a national youth football association and it's just put together by the towns. There is a league close to the school I'm at now that has football start in 1st or 2nd grade which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. Plus the coaching in most cases is just some dad who used to play and teaches old techniques.
I honestly don't believe that football should be played before you are twelve anyway. While I agree with some of what you said above, specifically with respect to our willingness to change the way we do things as coaches, the portion that I have highlighted is just a baseless assumption. Are there some dad coaches that fit that mold? Sure. Many? Based on the sheer number of kids playing youth football, I'd say that's probably correct. Most? I'm not sure you have the actual statistical backing to substantiate that statement. MANY youth football organizations (including teams, leagues, and national associations) require their coaches to be USA Football certified. Is that a guaranteed solution? No, but it is a good place to start. Add to that that MANY youth coaches regularly attend coaches clinics, lurk on forums like this one, watch film, spend out of their own pockets for books, DVD's memberships, etc., and your characterization doesn't really hold water. Go over to Dumcoach.com and you'll find a whole community of youth football coaches who are dedicated to honing their craft.There is no data that I am aware of that points to playing youth football resulting in CTE. In fact, in all of the high profile cases of which I am aware, the individuals played college or professional football or both. Now I'm no physicist, but I was in school the day we learned that Momentum = Mass x Velocity. Both mass (size and weight) and velocity (speed) increase the older and more physically developed the players get; this creates an exponential increase in momentum. Given that, which level of football is more likely to cause the larger collision? A bunch of second graders, or a group of weight trained, grocery-depleting, testosterone filled 12th graders? I know where I'd put my money. Does that mean we should eliminate high school football? The point I'm making is that eliminating football before age 12 won't accomplish squat. Let's stick to what we can control: teaching proper technique, controlling the level of contact, and anything else that places the safety of the players first and foremost. Blaming one group or another is counter-productive. coachsmyly, you must have missed this entire paragraph in my initial response to your post.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jan 31, 2018 9:45:25 GMT -6
USA Football has a Program, the CDC has a Program as do a few States. Some local League require some EMT basics. My League requires a few Clinics that every Head Coach must attend. One in particular includes Rules, Ethics and Integrity which I believe is the most important and certainly the most abused. I have taken the USA Football Certifications. Given enough bananas a Monkey could pass this test but at least its forced learning and making coaches more aware their surroundings. It covers hydration, concussion awareness, emergency procedures, tackling techniques, blocking techniques, practice organization, fitting equipment and the like. Watch a video, answer some multiple choice questions and keep trying live until you pass. I have been coaching youth football for the most part since 1983 and today's coaches are far more informed than ever before. Its simply up to them to apply this information which IMHO 95% will happily do. We all understand that our Sport is under attack and that adjustments are necessary in order to survive. A Government Mandate is not surviving. I totally agree. Thank you for coming on here with information and not a lesson on debate that doesn't need to be had. If you listen to the Coach and Coordinator podcast the HC at Webb City, MO talks about youth football in depth and what he does to help those coaches. His method may not help some coaches around the country but I think if the pee wee program is affiliated with the school system then it is a good model to help run a successful youth program. What is surprising...or really kinda sad...is that this debate always includes football coaches attacking our game due to some preconceived notions that tackle football is somehow a bad thing. Tackle football is never a bad thing...at any age until actual studies about CTE and how it relates to tackle football players no longer conflict and prove out as fact. I personally believe CTE as it relates to the NFL is quite possibly self inflicted. Considering atmosphere, lifestyle, steroids, play at all costs, non use of certain equipment and the like....these are things that do not exist at the lower levels as the standard when it comes to playing tackle football. Even the NFL is now changing their stripes dramatically but it might be too late. Damage is done. Anyway....I would think all football coaches would at least be all for promoting this game regardless. I have coached 5/6 year olds as well as Adult Pro Indoor Arena...and I must admit the 5/6 year olds were a TON more fun. I also coached 12/13 flag every winter when I lived in the desert. Flag is exponentially more dangerous than tackle will ever be. Its the only time as a coach where I honestly worried about injury all the time. Flag is simply not the answer if safety is the only concern. Football is an aggressive Sport and its impossible to take the aggression out of football. Im now hearing about youth League concepts whereas the players are dressed in shells but playing flag. Too me that sounds like playing tackle football with less protection...just like the NFL did for 75 years.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 31, 2018 10:05:55 GMT -6
But I still think high school football has real-life value ... and I can't wait to get to next season. Here's part of the problem. This implies that the value of football only applies to HS kids? What about my kid, who had TERRIBLE HS coaching, and gained pretty much nothing of value from HS football? He gained a lot from football, just all before he hit clown college in 10th grade. The problem with being okay with this law (and I'm not saying you are, this is more a general comment) because it won't impact HS football is that you're saying football isn't valuable until HS, so the kids who play youth but don't play in HS don't matter. There are plenty of outstanding athletes who play both youth football and soccer in the fall, and eventually pick soccer as they hit middle school or HS. Those kids are better for having played football, and if left until 12, they probably would have never played.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 31, 2018 21:24:37 GMT -6
There are plenty of successful HS programs that don't have dedicated youth programs. But you didn't answer my earlier question. You talk about good programs that have youth programs. Don't their opponents also have youth programs? That's not what coach is saying. He's literally saying that this one program he in his state doesn't have youth football in their area, and THAT is the reason they are so dominant. Then he extended that to "most of the programs in his state." He literally took a personal anecdote and made it some universal truth. I didn't make an assertion. I responded to his. I asked him, in response to his assertion, how do you account for the hundreds or thousands of successful programs that do have youth football in their area? I was pointing out his lack of logical thinking. It's completely ILLOGICAL to take one case and say that, somehow, THE REASON THAT THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO YOUTH PROGRAM. That's just false. Actually didn’t say “one program” I was talking about a league. As in 10 teams, 8 without youth ball, only 1 with youth ball has a title, 6 without have multiple titles. its actually not illogical at all to look at why one public school LEAGUE with no move ins dominates the state in their divisions every single year and to find differences between that league and other leagues. That’s called logical to actually find reasons. The major difference from an athletic standpoint is no youth football. I get it is uncomfortable to question if the way you’ve always accepted is the only way to be successful (while ignoring all the schools that do it that way that are unsuccessful and simultaneously discrediting the few schools that do it another way and find uncommon success at a higher clip) but to call something false just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false at all. So, yes, I made an assumption based on anecdotal evidence and actual data. Most states are dominated by a handful of teams meaning the majority of teams are not as successful (which is where I asked why youth football is only a reason for successful teams being successful but is neglected when confronted w schools that aren’t successful and are losing kids in droves). In this state, there is pretty much one league that doesn’t have youth football and they dominate. As a percentage, those schools are much much more successful. Sidebar, never claimed the safety of football at any given age, but I do think there are better answers to “saving” football then refusing to look at the way we’ve always done things. from an earlier post “The one league without youth football dominates football in their divisions (7 of the 10 schools have state titles, 6 have multiple) and probably more appropriately has significantly more kids involved in middle school and high school. Read more: coachhuey.com/thread/80111/war-on-football?page=2#ixzz55p2jQl1C
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 31, 2018 21:37:49 GMT -6
What about the thousands of programs that do have youth football and aren’t successful? Wonder what the percentage of those are in comparison to the successful ones...gonna be a very high percentage but somehow youth football is no longer the factor in that situation? Only when a factor when a team is successful? you and me aren’t going to agree and that’s fine. I’m saying, from my experience, there are very few schools in this state that don’t have any youth football but have MS and HS. Out of those schools, there is a disproportionate amount that have higher involvement numbers and much higher success. They have more kids involved for a ton of reasons but the lack of youth football is the biggest, no one run off no one burned out everyone hungry to keep playing. again, clear we won’t agree. I don’t agree with legislating but I 100% agree that alternatives should be looked at. It’s foolhardy not to question and look at other options and/or improving the way we do it now. Where are these thousands you refer to? I don't know what state you're in, but your original statement referred to ONE program. Now it's "most of the schools in your state?" Come on man... Where's the logic in assuming that football is dangerous for kids under 12, but not for ages 13-17? You really think that high school ball isn't next? Answered your questions in a previous post (just above). You misread as I wasn’t talking about one school nor was I talking about most schools not having youth ball...it’s one league and most schools in that league don’t have youth ball but dominate schools from other leagues, their size and often times bigger, that do have youth football and typically far less participants. The state is Ohio. Never did I talk about safety, that’s a whole other rabbit hole of arguments I don’t feel like getting in to. while there are going to be people that want to get rid of football at the youth, MS, HS, college, and pro level I don’t equate changes (again, not a fan of legislation) to the youth format as a domino to football falling apart. That’s purely an assumption some are making, that if there was no youth tackle football high school football wouldn’t exist. By using a league that doesn’t have youth football as a case study, the findings of that study would prove or strongly suggest that assertion is patently false. but, again, you aren’t going to agree and that’s fine. There are other ways to do it though and doing it the same way because that’s how it’s always been done even though the output isn’t the same (number of participants) as it once was isn’t how I operate.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 1, 2018 8:21:56 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other?
And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program.
|
|