Very scary numbers from Boston University's CTE study: 110 of 111 pr and 48 of 53 college players brains examined showed CTE.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo...519161001/
The article goes on to ask how long parents will continue to allow their children to play. We do know there is a steady decline in youth leagues like Pop Warner, which in CA is pretty much the last football league (the Coyote Creek chapter is trying crowd funding to keep going as middle class families pull out, and with it their donations - but this is merely my local anecdotal evidence FWIW). CTE is the primary driver of the trend.
This is the biggest long term issue facing football in college. Probably nothing for the next four or five years, but major changes coming. (In my opinion we are looking at the last dozen years of the sport as we know it)
In many places in the country, football are not offered until you are in high school. Having Pee Wee football is wrong. The danger, and the kids are still growing and may not have the bones as strong at 8 year olds. Many injuries including knee injuries could sideline the kid for the rest of his life.
No. I came out ok and I played then....ok, bad example.
It would be interesting to do the same studies on males who did not play football, these numbers without a base to compare them to are incomplete.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No. If you tell kids they can't play football they will go out and play anyway, with NO helmets and NO supervision. A better plan is to put rules in place to minimize their risk. Most leagues have weight limits but maybe they should be more restrictive. Equipment that actually fits would be another good rule. I've seen kids with helmets that are too big, pads that are too big or too small.
I think one question to be studied is how much impact it takes to damage the brain when the mass and speed of the kids is small - meaning that pee wee football could be safe and damage not happening until the teen years when the kids are much bigger.
In pee wee we bounced off each other.
By junior high it was a different story. I remember three hits in High School from guys who went on to play at ECU and UNC. Thousands of hits, but these were different. These guys were big and fast and the contact was in the open field with them having a head of steam. After one of them I exited the field on their side and remember thinking "how did they get over here"
I barely remember how to calculate force but I think the difference between pee wees and college players is something like 24-1 meaning that impacts between the pee wees is very small but that with added size and speed the force of the impacts rise exponentially. I suspect the little kids could bash each other all day and suffer little damage, but once you get to 12 and older you start to take hits that do cause damage.
(07-30-2017 02:34 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: [ -> ]It would be interesting to do the same studies on males who did not play football, these numbers without a base to compare them to are incomplete.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I agree, but it seems that a clear pattern would be apparent if significant numbers of K-12 players over the years had suffered CTE.
(07-30-2017 01:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]In many places in the country, football are not offered until you are in high school. Having Pee Wee football is wrong. The danger, and the kids are still growing and may not have the bones as strong at 8 year olds. Many injuries including knee injuries could sideline the kid for the rest of his life.
This, don't offer tackle football until middle school and even then, limit the amount of contact in practice. Do that at high school level practice as well.
(07-30-2017 12:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Very scary numbers from Boston University's CTE study: 110 of 111 pr and 48 of 53 college players brains examined showed CTE.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo...519161001/
The article goes on to ask how long parents will continue to allow their children to play. We do know there is a steady decline in youth leagues like Pop Warner, which in CA is pretty much the last football league (the Coyote Creek chapter is trying crowd funding to keep going as middle class families pull out, and with it their donations - but this is merely my local anecdotal evidence FWIW). CTE is the primary driver of the trend.
This is the biggest long term issue facing football in college. Probably nothing for the next four or five years, but major changes coming. (In my opinion we are looking at the last dozen years of the sport as we know it)
Teach kids how to tackle.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
(07-30-2017 02:52 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2017 02:34 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: [ -> ]It would be interesting to do the same studies on males who did not play football, these numbers without a base to compare them to are incomplete.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I agree, but it seems that a clear pattern would be apparent if significant numbers of K-12 players over the years had suffered CTE.
But we don't know how many non-football players have it, without data we could say everyone has it to some extent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
C2,
In California there is almost no pre HS football left. It's rapidly dying out. HS teams still fill up, but they are not overflowing with 100+ players anymore, more like 60 on varsity. The pool is definitely thinner and drying out here. I think there is still another 5 years or so before it becomes an issue here.
CTE is pretty low for the general public. The correlation with football is very high. It can happen in soccer with heading. As a result that is being deemphasized in US youth soccer. CTE is related as much to small repetitive impact as it is to major blunt force of a football head hit. In football it's like heading the ball nearly every play due to the collisions.
The science is becoming so strong that the lawsuits are going to be increasingly hard to fight off, much as the cigarette industry faced (I see similar coming for the Marijuana industry - another story). This is going to force regulation and huge insurance bills. I can see High Schools pulling out first and then D-II and D-III colleges rather than face escalating insurance premiums and the risk of legal claims -- it's not worth risking the health of the University for athletics that are not big time.
The problem with football is it is based on collisions, and many of them every play. Perhaps eliminating pads and helmets might change the game, since it would discourage violent impacts. But that would essentially morph it into a form of rugby (like Australian Football sort of is). It's coming, the question is how long until it comes.
flag football until high school. where you have better trained coaches and equipment.
number of kids playing is dropping pretty quickly in this area as well
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(07-30-2017 04:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]FOOTBALL AND SOCCER.
If football goes down, we're taking soccer with it.
The risks involved in football are certainly something to be concerned about. It's also a big money business not only for the NFL but for major colleges too. The game is either going to have to become safer or its popularity is going to decline due to a lack of qualified athletes but it's a double edged sword because any changes in the nature of the game could turn away audiences as well. There are socioeconomic factors at play too as upper and middle class families steer their sons away from the sport and only the poor, hoping for scholarship opportunities and pro careers are willing to take the risk.
Will America remain in love with football and keep demand up or is the sport on a precipitous decline? I just don't see soccer or lacrosse ever capturing public interest the way football has for the past 120 years.
I love watching football and have for 45 years. Loved playing it as a youth as well.
But from what we now know about the head trauma, I'd never play it and wouldn't allow my kids too, either. Messing with your brain, nothing is worth that.
(07-30-2017 04:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]C2,
In California there is almost no pre HS football left. It's rapidly dying out. HS teams still fill up, but they are not overflowing with 100+ players anymore, more like 60 on varsity. The pool is definitely thinner and drying out here. I think there is still another 5 years or so before it becomes an issue here.
CTE is pretty low for the general public. The correlation with football is very high. It can happen in soccer with heading. As a result that is being deemphasized in US youth soccer. CTE is related as much to small repetitive impact as it is to major blunt force of a football head hit. In football it's like heading the ball nearly every play due to the collisions.
The science is becoming so strong that the lawsuits are going to be increasingly hard to fight off, much as the cigarette industry faced (I see similar coming for the Marijuana industry coming - another story). This is going to force regulation and huge insurance bills. I can see High Schools pulling out first and then D-II and D-II colleges rather than face escalating insurance premiums and the risk of legal claims -- it's not worth risking the health of the University for athletics that are not big time.
The problem with football is it is based on collisions, and many of them every play. Perhaps eliminating pads and helmets might change the game, since it would discourage violent impacts. But that would essentially morph it into a form of rugby (like Australian Football sort of is). It's coming, the question is how long until it comes.
How do you know CTE is lower in general public?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
(07-30-2017 04:39 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2017 04:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]FOOTBALL AND SOCCER.
If football goes down, we're taking soccer with it.
You best believe that, watching grass grow is superior to soccer except World Cup.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Studies are showing that CTE is just as bad in soccer. However, I agree not playing football till 7th grade.