Future of football--from StarTrib opinion page

Donate To GopherHole

Iceland12 said:
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
Click to expand...

Not surprising that he wouldn't want his kids to play football. It has not been very long at all (maybe a generation or two) since parents pretty much universally discouraged their children from playing sports.

45 football players died between 1900 and 1905. And the number of people playing the game then would not even amount to a rounding error compared to today. The sport has survived and thrived thorough far, far more serious matters than this concussion issue.

The article linked in the OP is oozing with the writer's wishful thinking.
 

Maverick said:
Who is they? Moms?
Click to expand...

I am sure moms will be the most vocal crowd but as a Dad I am ok with my kids not playing football. Our main thing from day one with our kids was that they need to do something sports wise but as for the sport itself we have let them choose. We won't stop them if they want to try it (5th grader played this past fall and 1st grader wants to try flag next fall) but we also are not pushing them to play football.

During the 5th grade season we saw at least 2 kids get concusions and a couple other kids get injured to the point where they had to miss multiple games and practices. In all our seasons of soccer, baseball, and basketball up to this point I can probably count on one hand the number of kids that I have seen get injured beyond just a small bump or bruise. As I said before I love the game of football, but I won't be crushed if my kids decide to play other sports. As a parent I have no reservations about my 1st grader playing flag football next fall but if my oldest wanted to play again (he doesn't) I would have some reservations based on what we saw this past fall.
 

ncgo4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what is the leading cause of worker's comp disability? Life is dangerous. Look at the rates of morbidly and mortality in different fields. I'm not talking about the obvious dangerous professions, commercial fishermen, loggers, linemen. Even white collar fields have great risk of chronic disease such as overuse: back and neck problems, carpal tunnel; burnout leading to depression and suicide.

The urge to eliminate risk is understandable but life is dangerous. Was it Dylan or Axl Rose who said we'll be lucky to get out of life alive?
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing this dickhead wasn't too happy with how the midterm elections turned out.:p
Click to expand...

Just a hunch, but this "dickhead" is a professor of medicine at the U and probably is a hell of a lot more versed than what he's talking about than you are. Actually, I'm sure of it.
 



Iceland12 said:
You're not surprised that Mike Ditka wouldn't want his kids to play football?
Click to expand...

I'm not. Ultimately Ditka has made much more for himself as a media personality. That's what he has been now for decades. And it is a possibility that he could have done that without ever having played football.

Ditka said a couple years ago on television that he would have been a "President of IBM" if he hadn't been a football player/ coach.

Now that's a stretch, of course. I think football was, indeed, Ditka's calling. But like most intelligent people, Ditka realizes that the choices he made closed other doors and other paths, and that football isn't everything in life. He just happened to make choices that made it a huge part of his life.

It is also not surprising that any 75 year old man would see the game as incredibly violent. He has not played the game in 40 years. And in the time since he has seen so much.
 

i am going to keep my eye on the ivys. chicago eliminated football fifty years ago without it harming its brand much and certainly not harming its endowment. the ivys still play division i football because of the tradition. but as the baby boomers, who enjoyed football when the sport was much different, start dying off and the alumni base starts being dominated by people who care very little about football, i wouldn't be surprised to see those institutions start cutting back. perhaps they will not eliminate football (chicago plays division iii), but if the trend continues i can't imagine schools like those turning a blind eye to that kind of opinion.
 

I know what legislation would kill football. Limit football teams to the insurance pool covering football players. Rates would be astronomical and nobody would play the game. Seems far fetched, but it could very well be legislated. It wouldn't ban the sport but it would most certainly kill it.

I'm not advocating for that. But, since some people believe football couldn't be banished by legislation, they really don't have a clue how power can be exerted without upsetting the masses. Well, maybe not the last part. :cry:
 



A lot of Neanderthal grunting going on in this thread. It doesn't really matter about traditions and or how much you love to watch the game, it needs some change. Go ahead and blame it on politics if you want, but it really comes down to parents and kids not wanting to be involved in a sport with such a great chance of serous injuries.

The times have changed. Back when grandpa or dad played football the "toughest" player was a 6 ft tall, 220 lb fat kid. Now you have 6'2", 220 lb muscle bound kids that can run a 4.6 (hand timed). The human body can not handle those impacts and a little more foam or air pads in the helmet will not help.

Every high school football gave that I have attended usually has 5-12 guys standing on the sidelines with crutches or some sort of injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Delaying tackle football would help the sport. If a kid has a bad experience in 3rd grade and quits, chances are they won't play the game again. It's a dangerous sport and the repeated head trauma is the problem. Chances are a kid that plays 8-10 years as a 14-22 year old will be better off than a kid that plays 15-16 years of more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Some of you people don't get it. Concussion is only a part of the issue. The bigger concern are the constant collisions that occur on every play. Lineman collide hundreds of times per week due to practice and games. Every single collision rattles the brain and causes some damage. There is a cumulative, negative effect to the brain from all these collisions.

Play football at your own risk. Members of my family are forever banned. Hockey is a much safer sport. It does have concussions, but there it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of non-concussive collisions. There isn't a line of scrimmage where people smash into each other on every play in practice.

Soccer is also much more dangerous than people know due to all the non-concussive head collisions with the ball. Practicing headers is horrible for your brain.
 

Mulligan said:
Just a hunch, but this "dickhead" is a professor of medicine at the U and probably is a hell of a lot more versed than what he's talking about than you are. Actually, I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This "prof of medicine" is opining about PUBLIC POLICY. His opinion is NO more valid and deserves no more credence than yours or mine.
 



TruthSeeker said:
Some of you people don't get it. Concussion is only a part of the issue. The bigger concern are the constant collisions that occur on every play. Lineman collide hundreds of times per week due to practice and games. Every single collision rattles the brain and causes some damage. There is a cumulative, negative effect to the brain from all these collisions.

Play football at your own risk. Members of my family are forever banned. Hockey is a much safer sport. It does have concussions, but there it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of non-concussive collisions. There isn't a line of scrimmage where people smash into each other on every play in practice.

Soccer is also much more dangerous than people know due to all the non-concussive head collisions with the ball. Practicing headers is horrible for your brain.
Click to expand...

Hockey players check or take checks many more times a game than a typical lineman.
You got it right, play at your own risk. End of story. Done.
 

My 3rd grader played tackle this year and loved it. He's already looking forward to next season.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Some of you people don't get it. Concussion is only a part of the issue. The bigger concern are the constant collisions that occur on every play. Lineman collide hundreds of times per week due to practice and games. Every single collision rattles the brain and causes some damage. There is a cumulative, negative effect to the brain from all these collisions.

Play football at your own risk. Members of my family are forever banned. Hockey is a much safer sport. It does have concussions, but there it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of non-concussive collisions. There isn't a line of scrimmage where people smash into each other on every play in practice.

Soccer is also much more dangerous than people know due to all the non-concussive head collisions with the ball. Practicing headers is horrible for your brain.
Click to expand...

The science is pretty dicey on on mild TBI and CTE links to outward disease state, so far. Many of the studies are surveys of former players, with the obvious problems that go along with that, including leading questions, etc. there is also the polluting factor of former players colluding with the sharks for monetary reasons.

I am not an anti-science nutcase. I belueve global warming is real and human-caused and the science is overwhelming. We don't have that here, yet.

The following pretty much sums up the situation at the current time:

Some researchers advise caution when interpreting currently available data. There are no published epidemiological, cross-sectional or prospective studies relating to chronic traumatic encephalopathy. The current studies are primarily case reports and pathological case series. These types of studies may lack controls for observer bias, causality, or other risk factors. The existing literature is unable to account for changes caused by other factors such as aging, psychiatric or mental health illness, alcohol/drug use or coexisting dementia of other causes.
 



Mvgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are making stuff up. Schools don't see those gate receipts, they don't collect fees from anywhere near 160 participants. You have no idea all that goes into the budget. Football is not a stand alone budget.
 

Goldmember said:
I'm not. Ultimately Ditka has made much more for himself as a media personality. That's what he has been now for decades. And it is a possibility that he could have done that without ever having played football.

Ditka said a couple years ago on television that he would have been a "President of IBM" if he hadn't been a football player/ coach.

Now that's a stretch, of course. I think football was, indeed, Ditka's calling. But like most intelligent people, Ditka realizes that the choices he made closed other doors and other paths, and that football isn't everything in life. He just happened to make choices that made it a huge part of his life.

It is also not surprising that any 75 year old man would see the game as incredibly violent. He has not played the game in 40 years. And in the time since he has seen so much.
Click to expand...

Ditka can barely formulate a coherent sentence; no way in hell this dude would be paid as a commentator without ever playing football.

What's driving Ditka and his generation is trying to tap in on the billions of dollars CURRENTLY being generated. Funny I don't recall them (60's, 70's and 80's players) being concerned with injuries and compensating the football players before them....who played for less money.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Some of you people don't get it. Concussion is only a part of the issue. The bigger concern are the constant collisions that occur on every play. Lineman collide hundreds of times per week due to practice and games. Every single collision rattles the brain and causes some damage. There is a cumulative, negative effect to the brain from all these collisions.

Play football at your own risk. Members of my family are forever banned. Hockey is a much safer sport. It does have concussions, but there it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of non-concussive collisions. There isn't a line of scrimmage where people smash into each other on every play in practice.

Soccer is also much more dangerous than people know due to all the non-concussive head collisions with the ball. Practicing headers is horrible for your brain.
Click to expand...

You make some great observations but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Much to the chagrin of others I have lobbied for college football players having representation. Currently they have no say in player safety, rules and most importantly.....how many times the have to hit in practice. As some have said; "if they don't like it, don't play" is their only recourse.

The NFL and NFLPA came to agreement on the number of contact practices allowed prior to the start of the season and during the season.

Injuries in Youth football? I can tell you what the real problem is and the solution but some won't like
it.

1. Place limits on the number of times kids can carry the football to 12-15 times a game. I have seen coaches give the ball to the same player 25 times a game! That's a awful lot of hits per game/season.

2. Allow coaches to cut kids (said you wouldn't like it). Every year parents bring/force a little jimmy out for football. Little jimmy don't like football, don't like contact and has no intention on tackling or blocking (refer back to 1.) anybody. This can be a real danger to little jimmy and whoever the poor kid is with the football. Football is not the place to "toughen" your kid up. Kids develop (or not) their physicality at their own rate.

3. Should really be number one; coaches must be certified. It's absolutly horrifying to observe what some of these youth coaches are teaching or not teaching! I have seen coaches spend the entirety of each practice going over plays versus teaching the correct techniques.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
You make some great observations but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Much to the chagrin of others I have lobbied for college football players having representation. Currently they have no say in player safety, rules and most importantly.....how many times the have to hit in practice. As some have said; "if they don't like it, don't play" is their only recourse.

The NFL and NFLPA came to agreement on the number of contact practices allowed prior to the start of the season and during the season.

Injuries in Youth football? I can tell you what the real problem is and the solution but some won't like
it.

1. Place limits on the number of times kids can carry the football to 12-15 times a game. I have seen coaches give the ball to the same player 25 times a game! That's a awful lot of hits per game/season.

2. Allow coaches to cut kids (said you wouldn't like it). Every year parents bring/force a little jimmy out for football. Little jimmy don't like football, don't like contact and has no intention on tackling or blocking (refer back to 1.) anybody. This can be a real danger to little jimmy and whoever the poor kid is with the football. Football is not the place to "toughen" your kid up. Kids develop (or not) their physicality at their own rate.

3. Should really be number one; coaches must be certified. It's absolutly horrifying to observe what some of these youth coaches are teaching or not teaching! I have seen coaches spend the entirety of each practice going over plays versus teaching the correct techniques.
Click to expand...


Let me expand on what people don't want to hear - 12 deaths last year of high school football players due to force of impact injuries.
30,000 hospitalizations last year. 62% of injuries occur during practice. 70% of youth athletes leave sports by age 13. Main reason: adults.

I think if we adults let kids be kids, more kids would be playing sports that are safe and keep them active. Football hurts and I think many would drop out if given a fair opportunity and not having a coach whisper into their ears "You would be a quitter!" There are other sports they could play that would spare them injuries. Coaches push young bodies too hard.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
You make some great observations but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Much to the chagrin of others I have lobbied for college football players having representation. Currently they have no say in player safety, rules and most importantly.....how many times the have to hit in practice. As some have said; "if they don't like it, don't play" is their only recourse. The NFL and NFLPA came to agreement on the number of contact practices allowed prior to the start of the season and during the season. Injuries in Youth football? I can tell you what the real problem is and the solution but some won't like it. 1. Place limits on the number of times kids can carry the football to 12-15 times a game. I have seen coaches give the ball to the same player 25 times a game! That's a awful lot of hits per game/season. 2. Allow coaches to cut kids (said you wouldn't like it). Every year parents bring/force a little jimmy out for football. Little jimmy don't like football, don't like contact and has no intention on tackling or blocking (refer back to 1.) anybody. This can be a real danger to little jimmy and whoever the poor kid is with the football. Football is not the place to "toughen" your kid up. Kids develop (or not) their physicality at their own rate. 3. Should really be number one; coaches must be certified. It's absolutly horrifying to observe what some of these youth coaches are teaching or not teaching! I have seen coaches spend the entirety of each practice going over plays versus teaching the correct techniques.
Click to expand...

I agree with #1 and #3 but I dislike cutting kids at the youth level even though I understand why you believe that would help. Some kids come out for football (and other sports) to be a part of something. Kids also don't develop physically or mentally the same way. I would prefer to keep the numbers and continue to teach the fundamentals as well as the basics of the system while the gets develop. I also believe kids that are cut at the youth level (ages 7-13) are more likely to get bullied by their peers. We used to have a "club basketball" program designed for 11-13 year old kids with a cut system unless we had the numbers for 2 teams. We have found the kids that didn't make it often quit basketball altogether and were often picked on, not always but quite often. I think most coaches would agree that it's always better to have a lot of kids participating and the focus is fundamentals and fun.
 

As a society we tend to overestimate the risk of death or injury. What is the rate of CTE in former high school or college players?

Like many things, this is a slippery slope. Pretend we have coliseum-style gladiator competitions. Obviously there will be an outcry over the rate of death and injuries. The sport is banned. Next is American football, the sport is banned. Then hockey, then soccer, then basketball because God forbid, there is a risk of injury and even concussion.

What is an acceptable rate of injury? Do the benefits of team sports outweigh the (small) risk of long- term side effects?

Most of us have probably had low grade concussions as young boys rough housing, playing hockey without helmets, downhill skiing, etc. anyone in a car accident, falling off a bike, etc probably suffered a low grade concussion. I guess we're all doomed to memory loss, depression, and blowing our heads off.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
What is an acceptable rate of injury? Do the benefits of team sports outweigh the (small) risk of long- term side effects?
Click to expand...

I've had a bad back all my life due to a high school football injury.

It was worth it.

Without football to act out my anger I would have wound up with a criminal record like ALL of my friends at the time. Football saved me as it has many other kids like me.
 

Our high school has 160 participants grades 9-12 on average. Some years more and yes, football does have a stand alone budget. Crowds at the large schools are minimum 2,000-3,000 on Fridays. Some conferences charge 6 for students and $8 for adults. Facts not fiction.
 

5% of Pop Warner football players receive serious injury from the sport. Serious injury follows this definition.
Serious injury is defined as “a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.”
Click to expand...

Rug, meet broom.
 

lakesgopher said:
I agree with #1 and #3 but I dislike cutting kids at the youth level even though I understand why you believe that would help. Some kids come out for football (and other sports) to be a part of something. Kids also don't develop physically or mentally the same way. I would prefer to keep the numbers and continue to teach the fundamentals as well as the basics of the system while the gets develop. I also believe kids that are cut at the youth level (ages 7-13) are more likely to get bullied by their peers. We used to have a "club basketball" program designed for 11-13 year old kids with a cut system unless we had the numbers for 2 teams. We have found the kids that didn't make it often quit basketball altogether and were often picked on, not always but quite often. I think most coaches would agree that it's always better to have a lot of kids participating and the focus is fundamentals and fun.
Click to expand...

Because of safety concerns I believe at some point football should not be a "participation" sport (after 3rd or 4th grade?) There are other sports options for kids like running or soccer that is safer and or better suited as a "participation" option.
 

Dean S said:
Let me expand on what people don't want to hear - 12 deaths last year of high school football players due to force of impact injuries.
30,000 hospitalizations last year. 62% of injuries occur during practice. 70% of youth athletes leave sports by age 13. Main reason: adults.

I think if we adults let kids be kids, more kids would be playing sports that are safe and keep them active. Football hurts and I think many would drop out if given a fair opportunity and not having a coach whisper into their ears "You would be a quitter!" There are other sports they could play that would spare them injuries. Coaches push young bodies too hard.
Click to expand...

I had to re read this; great points.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom