Future of football--from StarTrib opinion page

Maroon92

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
757
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Interesting read-- if this guy and I am assuming the others who agree with him there would be no amateur football played by anyone under 18. He is calling for high schools to end football and colleges to scale back and gradually decrease the importance of it. In this article alone he calls for no Univ of Minnesota new football practice facility. He even calls out homecoming to be not centered around the football game.

In anyone's honest opinion-- does anyone think that football as a youth sport could actually be banned by legislation for fear of lawsuits in our lifetime?


http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/289643401.html
 

Interesting read-- if this guy and I am assuming the others who agree with him there would be no amateur football played by anyone under 18. He is calling for high schools to end football and colleges to scale back and gradually decrease the importance of it. In this article alone he calls for no Univ of Minnesota new football practice facility. He even calls out homecoming to be not centered around the football game.

In anyone's honest opinion-- does anyone think that football as a youth sport could actually be banned by legislation for fear of lawsuits in our lifetime?


http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/289643401.html

I hate this guy's smug attitude.
Yep no free will for people to do what they like in life, it's too dangerous.
I love that he leaves out girls soccer and hockey, also sources of numerous concussions.
F this guy. Football is certainly not for everyone, but it's a huge part of American culture and a good sport structurally to teach young kids about a lot of important life lessons.
The head injury obsession fad will pass as the sport figures out the best way to minimize it.
 

I could be wrong but doesn't competition cheer lead the country in concussions?
 

Hopefully they can figure out the head injuries issues. Meanwhile it is here and the sport will continue to dwindle in numbers until a solution occurs. It's a serious problem as head injuries affect your entire life.
 

Mom's will kill youth football. I feel that fundamentals and flag football should be played at young ages. You can learn a be very good by starting tackle football in 7th grade or later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 


Hopefully they can figure out the head injuries issues. Meanwhile it is here and the sport will continue to dwindle in numbers until a solution occurs. It's a serious problem as head injuries affect your entire life.

This. When Mike Ditka comes out and says he wouldn't let his son play football today, things are a little more serious than fans want to admit. As reported by that leftist, liberal, feminist Washington Times.

“If you had an 8-year-old kid now, would you tell him you want him to play football?” Mr. Ditka asks Mr. Gumbel.


“I wouldn’t. Would you?” Mr. Gumbel asks.


“Nope. That’s sad. I wouldn’t,” Mr. Ditka replies. “And my whole life was football. I think the risk is worse than the reward. I really do.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news..._source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz3Pi2Y9f9N
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


ajax.php
 

Mom's will kill youth football. I feel that fundamentals and flag football should be played at young ages. You can learn a be very good by starting tackle football in 7th grade or later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As a parent I am all for the expansion of flag football. I would like to see them back tackle up to 6th or 7th grade as opposed to 3rd grade like it is in many associations. Football is a great game and a wonderful team sport but kids are not ready for full pads at such a young age. Flag football teaches the fundamentals of the game while eliminating the contact that leads to the head and other body injuries.
 


I knew a girl who got a concussion playing HS basketball - it ended her career after her sophomore year. If we banned every sport that had the possibility of concussions, you would have to ban every sport: baseball, hockey, etc. Maybe golf, track and cross-country would be OK.
 



I knew a girl who got a concussion playing HS basketball - it ended her career after her sophomore year. If we banned every sport that had the possibility of concussions, you would have to ban every sport: baseball, hockey, etc. Maybe golf, track and cross-country would be OK.

Until one of the cross-country runners gets hit in the head by a golfball over at Les Bolstad.
 

I could be wrong but doesn't competition cheer lead the country in concussions?

I'm not sure either, but cheerleading is dangerous. I know what happened at Michigan this year, but the author made it sound like team doctors knowingly send injured players (including those with concussions) back into games. There is the clear potential for conflict of interest with what a team doctor might recommend and what is good for the player, but I have to think that is a rare event today.
 

Wishful thinking on his part: much better helmets, new protective rules, and the popularity of the sport, not to mention the huge financial bonuses that can accrue after college, will keep the sport alive, even if some parts of the country support it more than others. The TV audience will remain universal.
 

I was an insurance executive actively involved in Workers Compensation. I am very well versed in injury statistics and I know well, too well actually, the workings of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA). If any industry in the United States had the rate of serious injury that Division I college football has, the federal government would sue them and/or fine them out of existence.

I love college football, but I realize that the athletes playing the game do so at huge risk to their long term physical and mental well being. I'm not sure what that makes me, but it's probably not a good thing.
 



The day that they start banning football & other sports through legislation for fear of serious injury is the day that they should also start banning processed foods for fear of future harmful effects of high sugar, sodium, and cholesterol.

Modern life may be dangerous to you.
 


I won’t read the STRIB so I don’t know if this got mentioned but did the cost of fielding football teams get mentioned in this article as an issue? Like most things, it probably comes down to money. In the end, the cost of funding/participating in football as well as hockey is what will probably kill these sports.

Football and hockey are expensive compared to most other sports and a huge drain on high school budgets. Soccer, cross-country, track, etc. cost a fraction of what it takes to suit up a football or hockey team (yes, all those non-revenue sports at the U that are killing men’s football, basketball and hockey but more on that later). Factor in that school funding in general is inadequate for most districts, it begs the question of whether sports and in particular football and hockey should be funded at all?

Let’s face it if schools wanted to save money, one could probably make a good case that athletics and in particular football and hockey should get cut and leave it to clubs to offer these activities. At present, many school districts charge a flat participation fee per student regardless of the sport. And although no sport makes money, the cost for say a track or basketball singlet is nothing compared to outfitting a football or hockey player. If schools start to charge participants what it really cost to play, then football and hockey are in even bigger trouble. If this happens or they become club sports only, then many kids will get priced out of playing. Factor in concussions and the cost to address this issue such as better helmets and now we have just made these already expensive sports more costly.

I’ll find it quite ironic if anyone suggests that the cost to participate in high school football and hockey should be the same as any other sport and then turnaround and bitch on the “PiPress-Gophers-target-of-federal-gender-equity-complaint-due-to-new-facility” thread that revenues from these sports should not support the other athletic programs. Maybe all that TV and seating revenue from college football and hockey should be used to offset the true cost of their high school feeder programs? If college football and hockey would do this, then by all means, cut the other athletic programs.
 

I simply can't take it anymore....and the comments section again in the
strib, we're definitely headed (if not already there) to being the biggest
bunch of sally's in the entire country.
Scrap football forever. GOOD GRIEF, how did our older brothers, dads
and grandpas ever get by?! You'd think that people even 20 years ago
all died off because they road bikes after dark, drank from the garden
hose, climbed trees, and for Pete's sake, played football..
 

Until one of the cross-country runners gets hit in the head by a golfball over at Les Bolstad.

Well, one of my dad's good friends from high school got hit in the temple by a golf ball out on the course...
...and died 3 days later.
So Golf is out....
 

I won’t read the STRIB so I don’t know if this got mentioned but did the cost of fielding football teams get mentioned in this article as an issue? Like most things, it probably comes down to money. In the end, the cost of funding/participating in football as well as hockey is what will probably kill these sports.

Football and hockey are expensive compared to most other sports and a huge drain on high school budgets. Soccer, cross-country, track, etc. cost a fraction of what it takes to suit up a football or hockey team (yes, all those non-revenue sports at the U that are killing men’s football, basketball and hockey but more on that later). Factor in that school funding in general is inadequate for most districts, it begs the question of whether sports and in particular football and hockey should be funded at all?

Let’s face it if schools wanted to save money, one could probably make a good case that athletics and in particular football and hockey should get cut and leave it to clubs to offer these activities. At present, many school districts charge a flat participation fee per student regardless of the sport. And although no sport makes money, the cost for say a track or basketball singlet is nothing compared to outfitting a football or hockey player. If schools start to charge participants what it really cost to play, then football and hockey are in even bigger trouble. If this happens or they become club sports only, then many kids will get priced out of playing. Factor in concussions and the cost to address this issue such as better helmets and now we have just made these already expensive sports more costly.

I’ll find it quite ironic if anyone suggests that the cost to participate in high school football and hockey should be the same as any other sport and then turnaround and bitch on the “PiPress-Gophers-target-of-federal-gender-equity-complaint-due-to-new-facility” thread that revenues from these sports should not support the other athletic programs. Maybe all that TV and seating revenue from college football and hockey should be used to offset the true cost of their high school feeder programs? If college football and hockey would do this, then by all means, cut the other athletic programs.

Schools rarely charge the same for football as they do for other sports in the metro. Football generates revenue for many schools and districts. $20,000 gates on Friday nights cure many deficits. Hockey on the other hand doesn't have a chance due to the cost of ice.
 

I love watching football, specifically Gopher football, but football in general.

It has a fundamental problem though. On every play, 9 guys (linemen) smash into each other...repeatedly...all game long. No other sport has that, not hockey, not soccer, not lacrosse. Many sports have physical play and individual players might get hit 1-2 times per game. Not in football though. In football it's dozens of times. The repeated collisions, often head-jarring, are not a good thing. Like ncgo4 above, I like football and I'm not sure what that makes me.

I don't believe in legislation banning sports, but I do support expansion of flag football for younger kids and even then I suspect football will be on a downward trajectory over the next couple decades.
 

I once heard former Bears All-Pro Alex Brown say he's not letting his son START to play football until he's 16 because, in his opinion, there's nothing his kid can learn about the game at age 9 that he can't learn at 16. Maybe it's flag football and other means of limiting contact at young ages when the brain is still developing, but if football dies off (which isn't happening anytime soon) it will be because parents decide it's not worth their kids' health, not because of legislation.
 

Wishful thinking on his part: much better helmets, new protective rules, and the popularity of the sport, not to mention the huge financial bonuses that can accrue after college, will keep the sport alive, even if some parts of the country support it more than others. The TV audience will remain universal.

Ditka, along with a number of former players, have expressed the concern that better helmets may have been a major caus of brain injuries in football. By making the helmets safe, it's encouraging players to lead with their heads.


newreply.php
 

I hate this guy's smug attitude.
Yep no free will for people to do what they like in life, it's too dangerous.
I love that he leaves out girls soccer and hockey, also sources of numerous concussions.
F this guy. Football is certainly not for everyone, but it's a huge part of American culture and a good sport structurally to teach young kids about a lot of important life lessons.
The head injury obsession fad will pass as the sport figures out the best way to minimize it.

Well he's in the camp that says the nanny state MUST make the best decision for you since you are not capable. I'm from the camp that says let the individual make his/her own choice on what's best for their body. You can't argue the numbers in football are way down. What we'll see a lot more of is kids playing flag football until the high school level, which is fine.
 

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing this dickhead wasn't too happy with how the midterm elections turned out.:p
 

Schools rarely charge the same for football as they do for other sports in the metro. Football generates revenue for many schools and districts. $20,000 gates on Friday nights cure many deficits. Hockey on the other hand doesn't have a chance due to the cost of ice.

Just making stuff up? Few schools charge more, and never enough to cover all costs. There is not a school making money on football, except maybe two, and their revenue would be less than $20,000. No school district is anywhere near a structurally balanced budget in athletics and activities.
 

The safety concerns will hurt non "hotbed" areas like Minnesota where football isn't a way of life like in Texas, Florida, and California.
 

I once heard former Bears All-Pro Alex Brown say he's not letting his son START to play football until he's 16 because, in his opinion, there's nothing his kid can learn about the game at age 9 that he can't learn at 16. Maybe it's flag football and other means of limiting contact at young ages when the brain is still developing, but if football dies off (which isn't happening anytime soon) it will be because parents decide it's not worth their kids' health, not because of legislation.

Not sure about those thinking delaying tackle football until the kid is older is a solution. The injuries are coming when players are bigger, faster, and stronger. It's the prospect of what might happen that is stopping parents from letting sons participate in the first place; not the fact they might get hurt when they're 9 or 10. But, no matter what this guy says or how he says it, there is a problem here. Numbers of participants continue to go down. Things change. Boxing, horse racing, and rowing used to be huge spectator sports in the United States--much more popular than professional football at least.
 

Just making stuff up? Few schools charge more, and never enough to cover all costs. There is not a school making money on football, except maybe two, and their revenue would be less than $20,000. No school district is anywhere near a structurally balanced budget in athletics and activities.

You're incorrect. Check the fees of the of the Lake, South Suburban, and Suburban East conferences. Average gate receipts are $80,000 for 4 home games + 160 participants at roughly $240 per participant would exceed a typical HS football budget.
 

The day that they start banning football & other sports through legislation for fear of serious injury is the day that they should also start banning processed foods for fear of future harmful effects of high sugar, sodium, and cholesterol.

Modern life may be dangerous to you.

Football aside, they SHOULD be doing this already.
 

Not sure about those thinking delaying tackle football until the kid is older is a solution. The injuries are coming when players are bigger, faster, and stronger. It's the prospect of what might happen that is stopping parents from letting sons participate in the first place; not the fact they might get hurt when they're 9 or 10. But, no matter what this guy says or how he says it, there is a problem here. Numbers of participants continue to go down. Things change. Boxing, horse racing, and rowing used to be huge spectator sports in the United States--much more popular than professional football at least.

Expanding flag football and delaying the start of tackle won't solve all of football's problems but I believe it would increase the number of kids that are playing the game and would eliminate a lot of parents fears about getting their kids involved in football. I have three boys and football has never been a huge interest for them and we have not encouraged it because as much as I love the game as a fan I am more then happy to see my kids playing baseball, basketball, and yes even Soccer, where the threat of SERIOUS injury is significantly lower. All sports have risk of injury on some level.

We live in the south metro and the numbers in the youth associations for football have been in steady decline while the numbers for soccer have been off the charts and keep on getting bigger every year. Soccer isn't a threat to football in this county on the college and pro levels but at the youth level it just might be.
 




Top Bottom