|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 10:24:48 GMT -6
Wait till you get a load of what he said! Here comes the Calvary even if its a little late. The thread will probably get deleted, but I would argue that Fedora's comments at ACC Media Day did much more damage than saving. Equating increased concern with head injury to "the country going down" and essentially using the "fake news" deflection regarding research isn't saving anything. The fact that not only are his comments being slammed by sports journalists (who need football for their job) but also ex players such as Marcus Spears is telling. To try and not make this a worthless and locked thread, I would suggest that youth/HS coaches look at this as a stellar example of what NOT to do. However, what can that group of coaches (and all coaches in general) do to overcome a few tone def and irresponsible comments from guys like Fedora whose comments essentially fan the flames of the issue ("Management" not making players aware of potential risks) ? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 10:44:29 GMT -6
The thread will probably get deleted, but I would argue that Fedora's comments at ACC Media Day did much more damage than saving. Equating increased concern with head injury to "the country going down" and essentially using the "fake news" deflection regarding research isn't saving anything. The fact that not only are his comments being slammed by sports journalists (who need football for their job) but also ex players such as Marcus Spears is telling. To try and not make this a worthless and locked thread, I would suggest that youth/HS coaches look at this as a stellar example of what NOT to do. However, what can that group of coaches (and all coaches in general) do to overcome a few tone def and irresponsible comments from guys like Fedora whose comments essentially fan the flames of the issue ("Management" not making players aware of potential risks) ? my take? He told the hard. truth. His statement was not just about football. Just my take away. The truth? That a decline of the country (whatever that means) would occur because we didn't play a certain sport? That's "the truth" See, that is the problem with the over emotional hype. It doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is like when parents blame a loss on not being "fired up" instead of on not having a solid year long s&c, high standards, discipline program etc. A much more useful approach would be to simply recognize risks and harp on the increased measures to improve safety. Blurting out "FAKE NEWS" is counter productive. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2018 11:10:39 GMT -6
The truth? That a decline of the country (whatever that means) would occur because we didn't play a certain sport? That's "the truth" See, that is the problem with the over emotional hype. It doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is like when parents blame a loss on not being "fired up" instead of on not having a solid year long s&c, high standards, discipline program etc. A much more useful approach would be to simply recognize risks and harp on the increased measures to improve safety. Blurting out "FAKE NEWS" is counter productive. every rule change made in name of safety has lacked logic and scrutiny in reason For example? |
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Jul 20, 2018 11:11:02 GMT -6
The truth? That a decline of the country (whatever that means) would occur because we didn't play a certain sport? That's "the truth" See, that is the problem with the over emotional hype. It doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is like when parents blame a loss on not being "fired up" instead of on not having a solid year long s&c, high standards, discipline program etc. A much more useful approach would be to simply recognize risks and harp on the increased measures to improve safety. Blurting out "FAKE NEWS" is counter productive. every rule change made in name of safety has lacked logic and scrutiny in reason A serious question, even if it might seem ridiculous to some: Do you mean that you want to go back to no forward pass and how it was before Roosevelt? Or which era of rules makes most sense to you? Asking just to make it easier for me to understand and have a good discussion |
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Jul 20, 2018 11:21:01 GMT -6
A serious question, even if it might seem ridiculous to some: Do you mean that you want to go back to no forward pass and how it was before Roosevelt? Or which era of rules makes most sense to you? Asking just to make it easier for me to understand and have a good discussion the rule changes stemming from cte/concussion hysteria which lacks logic and scrutiny. I'm sorry, I know I'm dumb as a rock, could you be a little more specific? |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jul 20, 2018 11:35:42 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock......
How about we spin it this way:
HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2018 11:51:10 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock...... How about we spin it this way: HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL? Do what is best for YOUR CHILD. Parents are obligated and have every right to raise their child as they see fit. I fully realize I am not changing minds nor am I about to change mine. I don't understand why people go on social media then say "I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind". Why post it then? |
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Jul 20, 2018 11:55:29 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock...... How about we spin it this way: HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL? Do what is best for YOUR CHILD. Parents are obligated and have every right to raise their child as they see fit. I fully realize I am not changing minds nor am I about to change mine. Well, that's not true. I woke up this morning thinking that I liked most of the new rules, but this made me think a little bit more. I am mostly positive still to them, since I see it as the lesser of 2 evils, but I will be more vocal now about making the rules more reasonable. Result of a good discussion between two adults should lead to that IMO, so thank you |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 12:19:49 GMT -6
Heading toward a lock...... How about we spin it this way: HOW DO YOU ANSWER PEOPLE WHO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOTBALL? Do what is best for YOUR CHILD. Parents are obligated and have every right to raise their child as they see fit. I fully realize I am not changing minds nor am I about to change mine. But this is about changing EVIDENCE over time, and discrediting evidence that is used to help people make up their minds (that you won't change) That is the problem. The EVIDENCE should be used to change minds and minds should change based on evidence. Keep in mind that at one time, the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe and flat. The idea that "I am not about to change my mind " is counter productive if not outright dangerous. If someone approaches you with concerns, and your reply is "do what you think is best" I don't think you will reach your desired outcome with a good success rate. The facts are this : 1) The brain rattling around in the skull or direct impacts to the brain increase chances of brain injury. 2) Life features activities that can lead to #1. 3) Football is one of those activities that can lead to #1. Thumping ones chest and saying that attempts to address these facts will lead to the downfall of the country (still not sure what that means) certainly doesn't seem to be an example of the cavalry. The other thing to keep in mind is that your attitude seems to be counter productive to your own desired outcome. Saying that these changes don't matter essentially is saying football is so dangerous that nothing can be done. As you mentioned in another thread, it seems like you support the idea that football just be banned, because it is hopeless. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 20, 2018 13:49:39 GMT -6
OK, I'll chime in.
What he said was stupid. Especially about the country going down (talk about delusions of grandeur).
With that said, & I cannot speak for the OP but what I have felt for a long time is that the research / media storm over CTE and football is way disproportionate to the actual risks / rewards that FB presents. Furthermore, it's treating FB unfairly b/c slamming FB makes for greater headlines than slamming any other sport.
For example, boxing, MMA, soccer, hockey, lacrosse all have times when repeated blows to the heads occur. But FB is the bigger story. I'll take it a step further when I say that CTE Believe 100% will also be proven to be PART of the natural aging process/ wear & tear that comes with life (falling down, getting into a fight, rough housing, etc).
My point in all of this is that it was stupid to say.....but the average lifespan of an NFL player and those who live active lifestyles in general is longer than that of those who are more sedentary.
I think CTE is a real issue but I think FB has become the WHOLE story when it should only be a small part of it.
JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by coolhandluke on Jul 20, 2018 14:01:06 GMT -6
Recent quotes attributed to Larry Fedora, famed World History teacher:
“Don’t you know the reason why that there Roman Empire fell was because they quit cracking heads and eating raw meat and gun powder. They got soft I tell you...”
“The reason why them Russians were so successful against them Krauts was they was just tougher, they probably ran gassers everyday. Nevermind that they lost about 20 million or so”
“ The reason why that there Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Empire collapsed was cause ol Rocky Balboa whipped that dirty cheating Russian in Moscow, on Jesus’s birthday no less. I didn’t have nothin good to do with that glasnost or perestroika or that that Afghan war.”
|
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 20, 2018 14:06:55 GMT -6
Well, that's not true. I woke up this morning thinking that I liked most of the new rules, but this made me think a little bit more. I am mostly positive still to them, since I see it as the lesser of 2 evils, but I will be more vocal now about making the rules more reasonable. Result of a good discussion between two adults should lead to that IMO, so thank you if people stop playing game for safety I am ok with that. But I am outright opposed to changing fundamentally just to appease. If enough people stop playing because of safety, the game will die. Fedora's comments about the science being unsettled are correct, but IMO, his tone and other comments are not helping our cause. If I'm a parent who is thinking about letting my kid play, I want to hear a coach acknowledge that cte is a legitimate concern and even though the science is unsettled, we are doing everything we can to proactively protect our players. I can relate to how he feels, but I think comments like this hurt us. |
|
|
|
Post by 50slantstrong on Jul 20, 2018 15:28:36 GMT -6
He’s right.
The people creating the CTE hysteria have a definite agenda. And it’s not safety. If they did, football would not be the first sport they’d go after.
What Fedora said won’t sit well with people but I commend him for being real. The country could use more people like him and less ivory tower yahoos.
|
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 20, 2018 15:30:29 GMT -6
But this is about changing EVIDENCE over time, and discrediting evidence that is used to help people make up their minds (that you won't change) That is the problem. The EVIDENCE should be used to change minds and minds should change based on evidence. Keep in mind that at one time, the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe and flat. The idea that "I am not about to change my mind " is counter productive if not outright dangerous. If someone approaches you with concerns, and your reply is "do what you think is best" I don't think you will reach your desired outcome with a good success rate. The facts are this : 1) The brain rattling around in the skull or direct impacts to the brain increase chances of brain injury. 2) Life features activities that can lead to #1. 3) Football is one of those activities that can lead to #1. Thumping ones chest and saying that attempts to address these facts will lead to the downfall of the country (still not sure what that means) certainly doesn't seem to be an example of the cavalry. The other thing to keep in mind is that your attitude seems to be counter productive to your own desired outcome. Saying that these changes don't matter essentially is saying football is so dangerous that nothing can be done. As you mentioned in another thread, it seems like you support the idea that football just be banned, because it is hopeless. We have no idea what football does Again hysteria. Do you believe repeated hits to the head will lead to positive, negative, or neutral health outcomes in those who experience such trauma? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 15:57:02 GMT -6
He’s right. The people creating the CTE hysteria have a definite agenda. And it’s not safety. If they did, football would not be the first sport they’d go after. What Fedora said won’t sit well with people but I commend him for being real. The country could use more people like him and less ivory tower yahoos. I would say that the PUBLIC is the one with concerns. I am not sure if the word hysteria is appropriate. The science is just reporting the findings. The media may indeed be looking for big stories, but when you have NFL greats such as Warner, Favre, Bradshaw, Aikemen all saying they would not want their kids to play football, well, thats a story. I will be honest, some of you coaches here sound like tobacco ad men and executives in the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 19:41:47 GMT -6
I would say that the PUBLIC is the one with concerns. I am not sure if the word hysteria is appropriate. The science is just reporting the findings. The media may indeed be looking for big stories, but when you have NFL greats such as Warner, Favre, Bradshaw, Aikemen all saying they would not want their kids to play football, well, thats a story. I will be honest, some of you coaches here sound like tobacco ad men and executives in the 60s. why is boxing still legal then? Or hockey? Then why is one still coaching if you believe in the science. I am still waiting for them to stop a natural disaster in its tracks. Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. |
|
|
|
Post by 50slantstrong on Jul 20, 2018 20:03:38 GMT -6
He’s right. The people creating the CTE hysteria have a definite agenda. And it’s not safety. If they did, football would not be the first sport they’d go after. What Fedora said won’t sit well with people but I commend him for being real. The country could use more people like him and less ivory tower yahoos. I would say that the PUBLIC is the one with concerns. I am not sure if the word hysteria is appropriate. The science is just reporting the findings. The media may indeed be looking for big stories, but when you have NFL greats such as Warner, Favre, Bradshaw, Aikemen all saying they would not want their kids to play football, well, thats a story. I will be honest, some of you coaches here sound like tobacco ad men and executives in the 60s. And there are NFL greats saying parents should have the choice to let their kids play tackle football. That argument works both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 20:19:53 GMT -6
I would say that the PUBLIC is the one with concerns. I am not sure if the word hysteria is appropriate. The science is just reporting the findings. The media may indeed be looking for big stories, but when you have NFL greats such as Warner, Favre, Bradshaw, Aikemen all saying they would not want their kids to play football, well, thats a story. I will be honest, some of you coaches here sound like tobacco ad men and executives in the 60s. And there are NFL greats saying parents should have the choice to let their kids play tackle football. That argument works both ways. I don't follow. While I know there has been some fringe legislative attempts to ban youth football, those have (and rightly so) received little support correct? I don't think acknowledging the data and evaluating risk is the same as promoting the banning of the sport. My point is simply saying "well, I don't believe it, I don't care what you show me. This is an attack on football, and an attack on America " doesn't seem to be a responsible attitude for coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 20, 2018 20:45:54 GMT -6
Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. flip them all the bird. Tell them when you see hard comprehensive evidence, which they are lifetimes away from having, to come talk about the safety of contact sports. Internally, fb should do everything it can to rid of people who denigrate the game of football. But this cowering to " public pressure" by changing the game of fb at its core? F--- that. If kids no longer want to play? Fine. If parents come to the conclusion that fb is to dangerous? Fine. I can deal with market forces saying fb is no longer, but for fb to cower at accusation with no real evidence is banana land. I don't want to convince people to play This is a dangerous and violent game. I am not interested in making it for everybody. Do you still do Oklahoma drill and have full contact live practices on the regular? Do you teach bite the ball? Do you teach 3 points of contact for OL? If you don't: why not? |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2018 20:47:31 GMT -6
Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. flip them all the bird. Tell them when you see hard comprehensive evidence, which they are lifetimes away from having, to come talk about the safety of contact sports. Internally, fb should do everything it can to rid of people who denigrate the game of football. But this cowering to " public pressure" by changing the game of fb at its core? F--- that. If kids no longer want to play? Fine. If parents come to the conclusion that fb is to dangerous? Fine. I can deal with market forces saying fb is no longer, but for fb to cower at accusation with no real evidence is banana land. I don't want to convince people to play This is a dangerous and violent game. I am not interested in making it for everybody. I was still playing when they cut out cut blocking and people said that they were changing the game to the core. It didn't. Exactly what rules changes are changing the game to the core this time? |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 20, 2018 20:58:05 GMT -6
Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. flip them all the bird. Tell them when you see hard comprehensive evidence, which they are lifetimes away from having, to come talk about the safety of contact sports. Internally, fb should do everything it can to rid of people who denigrate the game of football. But this cowering to " public pressure" by changing the game of fb at its core? F--- that. If kids no longer want to play? Fine. If parents come to the conclusion that fb is to dangerous? Fine. I can deal with market forces saying fb is no longer, but for fb to cower at accusation with no real evidence is banana land. I don't want to convince people to play This is a dangerous and violent game. I am not interested in making it for everybody. Grad17, If we flip everyone the bird, we are going to be turning prospective players away from the game. As far as I know, we’re hurting for numbers across the country. Are you not experiencing this problem in your region? |
|
|
|
Post by coachfitz on Jul 20, 2018 21:01:36 GMT -6
Adapt or fall by the wayside.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 21:16:08 GMT -6
Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. flip them all the bird. Tell them when you see hard comprehensive evidence, which they are lifetimes away from having, to come talk about the safety of contact sports. Internally, fb should do everything it can to rid of people who denigrate the game of football. But this cowering to " public pressure" by changing the game of fb at its core? F--- that. If kids no longer want to play? Fine. If parents come to the conclusion that fb is to dangerous? Fine. I can deal with market forces saying fb is no longer, but for fb to cower at accusation with no real evidence is banana land. I don't want to convince people to play This is a dangerous and violent game. I am not interested in making it for everybody. If nothing else, please take this to heart, as it is not an attempt to insult or belittle. You are not good at forming a persuasive argument that can get everyone pulling in the same direction. That skill will become invaluable to you as a coach as your career grows, so for your own benefit, you might want to work on that a bit. You talk here about "changing the game of FB at its core" Can I ask, what exactly is the core? Because just a few posts above you seemed to be most distraught at the change of a kick off rule, emphasis on using the head as a weapon or a target, emphasis on eliminating gratuitous hits on defenseless players (kill shots for lack of a better word) and limits practice time and contact in practice. Those are the core elements of football? I think one could make a better argument that legalizing the forward pass was a much greater change to the core of football than anything you seem to be upset with here. So you are saying you would rather see football dwindle on the vine and die than modify because change somehow makes you feel less ______ (tough, masculine, manly?) Do you smoke? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that smoking increases risk to cancer. Do you wear a seat belt? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that not wearing a seat belt increases risk. Do you text and drive? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that texting and driving increases risk. Do you believe the earth is round? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that the earth is not flat. See, here is the beauty of science. It is not faith based. Whether you believe it or not does not change it. But the thing is that there may never be "enough hard comprehensive evidence" to sway someones belief, just as there are people who still say that smoking doesn't increase a risk because their Gran Gran lived to 94 and smoked 2 packs a day, that they have driven without a seatbelt and been in a wreck and were still safe, etc. etc. Going full circle with this, I just hope you see that your mindset actually will probably hurt the thing you keep claiming to love in the long run. It almost sounds like the story of Solomon and the baby here, with you being the other woman who is fine with the baby being cut in half. As far as the "flip them all the bird"... clearly you see the irony here right? That these men who played the way you are glorifying are now broken are saying "hey, in hindsight... I wish I would have known the info" Your reply is "screw you old man... " Come on? EDIT--- and you do realize that most of the comments you are making would fit in perfectly when the game legalized the forward pass right? So in theory, the "core of the game" that you keep praising isn't really the core of the game, but rather an already changed game? |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2018 21:18:07 GMT -6
I was still playing when they cut out cut blocking and people said that they were changing the game to the core. It didn't. Exactly what rules changes are changing the game to the core this time? you can't hit here, there or over here...logic and scrutiny says blocking and tackling is well on its way to being banned. I played rugby, too. In rugby you're also not allowed to hit people here and there. I've never heard anybody describe rugby as soft. |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 20, 2018 21:25:27 GMT -6
I was still playing when they cut out cut blocking and people said that they were changing the game to the core. It didn't. Exactly what rules changes are changing the game to the core this time? you can't hit here, there or over here...logic and scrutiny says blocking and tackling is well on its way to being banned. Is there a specific rule change that you feel is changing the "game of football at it's core"? I ask because some of the proposed changes can be and gave been implemented in a way that doesn't change the actual game at all. Things like, requiring less days of full contact practices during the week, mandating doubles be structured in a way so you are not having 4-6 hours of live contact in one day etc. From a safety and public relations perspective, being able to tell parents that we: structure practice to minimize contact, teach techniques that reduce the use of the head, have a concussion protocol etc, are all things that are going to help save this sport, much more than flipping people the bird. |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 20, 2018 21:31:23 GMT -6
Do you still do Oklahoma drill and have full contact live practices on the regular? Do you teach bite the ball? Do you teach 3 points of contact for OL? If you don't: why not? we do all of it. If you are till teaching bite the ball, I would respectfully suggest that you are contributing to the demise of the game. I would all suggest upping your malpractice insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 22:02:01 GMT -6
If nothing else, please take this to heart, as it is not an attempt to insult or belittle. You are not good at forming a persuasive argument that can get everyone pulling in the same direction. That skill will become invaluable to you as a coach as your career grows, so for your own benefit, you might want to work on that a bit. You talk here about "changing the game of FB at its core" Can I ask, what exactly is the core? Because just a few posts above you seemed to be most distraught at the change of a kick off rule, emphasis on using the head as a weapon or a target, emphasis on eliminating gratuitous hits on defenseless players (kill shots for lack of a better word) and limits practice time and contact in practice. Those are the core elements of football? I think one could make a better argument that legalizing the forward pass was a much greater change to the core of football than anything you seem to be upset with here. So you are saying you would rather see football dwindle on the vine and die than modify because change somehow makes you feel less ______ (tough, masculine, manly?) Do you smoke? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that smoking increases risk to cancer. Do you wear a seat belt? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that not wearing a seat belt increases risk. Do you text and drive? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that texting and driving increases risk. Do you believe the earth is round? Because one could make an argument that there is "no real evidence" that the earth is not flat. See, here is the beauty of science. It is not faith based. Whether you believe it or not does not change it. But the thing is that there may never be "enough hard comprehensive evidence" to sway someones belief, just as there are people who still say that smoking doesn't increase a risk because their Gran Gran lived to 94 and smoked 2 packs a day, that they have driven without a seatbelt and been in a wreck and were still safe, etc. etc. Going full circle with this, I just hope you see that your mindset actually will probably hurt the thing you keep claiming to love in the long run. It almost sounds like the story of Solomon and the baby here, with you being the other woman who is fine with the baby being cut in half. As far as the "flip them all the bird"... clearly you see the irony here right? That these men who played the way you are glorifying are now broken are saying "hey, in hindsight... I wish I would have known the info" Your reply is "screw you old man... " Come on? Science is man made. Science cannot get the weather correct in many cases. Peace and equality has been a pursuit of mankind for billions of years and it hasn't come close. My persuasion skills suck. But they don't involve surrender. And you are proud of that last fact? "Involving surrender" What does that even mean? Is it Surrendering to take in new information and change opinions? So, I guess your kids don't get water breaks either, since that would be surrendering. You don't seem to really understand what is being communicated here do you? Mankind..hasn't really been around for billions of years. Peace and equality hasn't really been a pursuit of mankind either. And nothing about that particular statement really seems to apply. Regarding weather, again, you do understand that no one (of consequence) is making the claim "playing football will lead to CTE". It is not a 100% thing, obviously, because there are people walking the earth that played football who are in the later stages of life and exhibit no symptoms of CTE. You seem to want a 1:1 correlation, and that simply is not what is being discussed. It isn't like gravity. It isn't "If the jar rolls of the table will it fall", it is "if the jar falls off the table, will it break" Two different scenarios there. Lastly, again, since you seem to really care about this topic, I would advise you not to really speak on it. You do yourself a disservice. What is worse is that you do OTHERS a disservice. The Solomon story I referenced seems to apply even more. You started this thread in praise of Fedora and comments that it seems a vast majority of stakeholders found detrimental to current situation. I would suggest that if you really think you (and Fedora) are right, that both you and he would be better served by not saying anything. |
|
|
|
Post by coolhandluke on Jul 20, 2018 22:02:28 GMT -6
When I was a boy, boxing was really big in my hometown and I wanted to be a part of it. My dad said no. When I asked him why he mentioned all the head injuries boxers take and did not want that for me. I am hearing parents say the same thing about football today. We can either adjust or go the way of boxing. Now in my hometown, all those gyms have closed down.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2018 22:03:47 GMT -6
When I was a boy, boxing was really big in my hometown and I wanted to be a part of it. My dad said no. When I asked him why he mentioned all the head injuries boxers take and did not want that for me. I am hearing parents say the same thing about football today. We can either adjust or go the way of boxing. Now in my hometown, all those gyms have closed down. But at least those gyms didn't surrender!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Football42 on Jul 21, 2018 0:55:33 GMT -6
I have a theory about football and society that I think correlates with Fedora's comment about football and America... this is purely self indulgent and very much a free writing exercise for me (so I apologize if this is out of place) but the CTE debate notwithstanding, I found his comments about the military and football re-igniting a common theme I have ruminated on for years now as a former player and current coach...
Football is a metaphor for war. It can be viewed through the lens of our society's collective conscience acting out the aggressive, violent, tribal, and territorial aspects of war. War over pigskin may seem like a silly thought to many, but without that drama unfolding on the gridiron, without football, how does that collective energy play out?
Football can be utilized as an outlet... for individuals to learn about themselves.. how to grow and learn, manage our own aggression, anger, emotions, and build positive, mutually beneficial relationships with those around us... just as much as it is an outlet for those who love to watch and cheer on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday... let go of the stresses form their daily lives and let 'em rip. Pent up aggression and hostility mirroring our political, cultural, racial climate all come roaring out in fanatic support for THE TEAM, THE BATTLE, THE VICTORY, THE CHAMPION ... THE CITY, THE LEAGUE, THE NATION, etc...
If people are revoked of this outlet on both an individual and collective scale, I tend to agree with Fedora.. our divide will continue to grow, and political, religious, cultural, and racial strife will continue to foment into more and more conflict.. in the same breadth, if young boys are not afforded the the vehicle that football can be for many of them- a construct of structure and discipline where they can find their true selves by pushing through physical, mental, social, and cognitive obstacles to live up to their highest capabilities as a man, husband, father and leader in the face of adversity and challenge ..... what can we offer them in the case that football goes by the wayside?
Because I see a society where boys are being conditioned to believe in themselves less, give into instant gratification and turn their back on hard work, make excuses in the face of adversity, and recoil into antisocial behavior more than ever before.
We need football.. and it hurts to see this game that has given so much to so many of us - yes - under attack... and I appreciate all the voices in here hashing it out on the most important issues facing our sport as we move forward.
I just came here trying to find resources and advice on writing a good welcome letter for our media guide but am enthralled in this thread.
Thanks for the great discussion!
|
|
