(09-30-2015 08:29 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't know if we're seeing a pendulum effect or if this is beginning to hit critical mass and we're about to see some chain reactions that will decimate the sport, but we're now seeing more and more articles about high schools disbanding football and participation rates of kids playing football at all levels are declining.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/sports...tball.html

Quote:There are no precise statistics on how many schools have shut down their football programs because of safety concerns, but a number of teams have been disbanded as participation in tackle football nationwide has declined amid rising awareness of concussions and other dangers.

Despite the popularity of college and professional football, the number of male high school football players has fallen to about 1.08 million this year, a 2.4 percent decline from five years ago.

Pop Warner, the largest youth football organization, has seen larger decreases. It has also been sued by a parent of a player who committed suicide at 25 and was found to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a brain disease linked to repeated head hits.

Kids will continue to play football as long as the NFL pays what they pay. It's the financial reward that kids want (also families).

Kids playing tackle football in 4th grade was never a good idea. Middle school seems like a good time to start.

They will play for the scholarships too, As most of them will be using the degree.

(10-01-2015 08:55 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Under where it says "Concussions."

"Rate among elite and recreational players similar to that in football and ice hockey."


"Collision, not heading, most likely cause."



Stats don't lie. As far as concussions go, soccer is just as bad if not worse than football.

The collisions are usually caused by people trying to head the ball.

Better to learn tackle football at an early age when the other kids are too small to hurt you much. Instincts are thus developed at an early age which serve well later when you're on the field with the big boys that hit hard. Note that many more kids go to emergency rooms due to bicycles than football. Soccer is a PC social disease.

Yea, I think college sports and the NFL will see the effects of this 10-15 years from now w/ the talent pool continuing to decrease. I think the D1 level programs will still continue to do well but the D2 & D3 level schools will start seeing schools closing down their football programs. At the HS level we'll continue to see schools shut down their programs and co-op with a neighboring program.

As far as international players, that pool would come from Canada, Mexico, and Japan with a trickle of Euro players. But I'm sure that Canada, Japan, and Europe would have a plethora of the same concerns our citizens have so perhaps that pool won't be as deep as we'd think.

At the end of the day, the NFL decline will take longer than the rest but we'll see talent drop-off; however, I'd imagine the fans will still be there and the TV deals for football will likely continue to rise. I don't anticipate everything going to flag football or rugby, even if those sports see a spurt in participation.

(09-30-2015 08:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Miko thanks for the link. I agree with you that -- right now -- it's unclear if we are observing a statistical blip in the road or something bigger and more important than that. But my honest hunch is that this is the beginning of a long-term decline for youth/HS-level football. In addition to the concussion-factor, the equipment is expensive and the individual families frequently have to subsidize the cost.

Just as an aside, I have 2 kids <6 yrs. old. Hanging out with other parents whose kids are in a similar age-range, I hear occasional comments that football isn't good for the health. Mike Webster's name has come up a couple of times. People are noticing this.

And yet women's soccer has a higher incidence of concussions. If there is a blip it is because of the several generations now preconditioned to have knee jerk reactions. That's not to say that football isn't dangerous, it is. But it is to say that the gullible and fickle public will simply regurgitate anything they hear on the tube. If parents were truly concerned about concussions they would keep their daughters from playing soccer. Statistically my absolute favorite sport is among the safest to play, baseball.

Before you say that I'm being reactionary Extreme Sports is more popular than ever on the liberal left coast and yet their injury rates make football look tame. Young parents are simply prone to get on the cliche bus and ride it till the tube tells them to stop.

If the surgeon general wants to help out then all sports permission slips would contain the latest data on statistical injuries, the kind, the severity, and the long term health effects and do so in bold print just above the signature line.

But no matter how you cut it you are far more likely to get killed by a moron texting and driving, or maimed by them than you are playing any sport, contact or otherwise. So why do those same parents give all their little crumb crunchers every up and coming tech device to distract them and then with cell phone in hand give them car keys at 16? Because we are a nation of hypocrites who are afraid of bucking trends and doing our own research on any issue. If trendy kills then we ignore it. If the trend says football hurts we get reactionary. We glorify gun violence with a murder every 30 or so seconds on the tube, encourage our kids to play Mortal Combat, and other such violent video games such as World of Warfare, and then go totally ape when real violence occurs. We perpetuate a somewhat outward prudishness toward sexuality but lace everything with if for the sake of garnering interest in products and glorify or vilify its extremes in society.

It's time we set our standards for what it means to be civil, what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't, to expect free people to govern themselves with reason and informed positions, and to permit the progress of society upon the preponderance of evidence instead of the sensationalism of opinion.

But what the heck, that's my sensationalist opinion!

(10-04-2015 11:17 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Yea, I think college sports and the NFL will see the effects of this 10-15 years from now w/ the talent pool continuing to decrease. I think the D1 level programs will still continue to do well but the D2 & D3 level schools will start seeing schools closing down their football programs. At the HS level we'll continue to see schools shut down their programs and co-op with a neighboring program.

As far as international players, that pool would come from Canada, Mexico, and Japan with a trickle of Euro players. But I'm sure that Canada, Japan, and Europe would have a plethora of the same concerns our citizens have so perhaps that pool won't be as deep as we'd think.

At the end of the day, the NFL decline will take longer than the rest but we'll see talent drop-off; however, I'd imagine the fans will still be there and the TV deals for football will likely continue to rise. I don't anticipate everything going to flag football or rugby, even if those sports see a spurt in participation.

We are seeing it now CP. Not in numbers yet, but in quality. The techniques that could help prevent injuries and concussions are simply not taught because daddies coach pee wee and not trained athletes or coaches. That condition now extends to Jr High and High School athletics and when those kids who have never been coached in the fundamentals of form and technique, or of how to play positions, read defenses or offenses get to college a few weeks of Summer isn't enough to get them ready to play. It's hard to teach kids to think through a play. It's affected basketball and baseball as well. The champions today aren't necessarily the best collection of athletes as much as they are the best collection of kids with average to slightly above average physical talents who actually have learned how to think and play the games. IMO spreads with no defense are simply an extension of lazy or ill prepared high school coaches who simply put their best athletes in a few skilled positions and try to outscore the opposition, or do the same on the court with fast break only run & gun, or try to find two dominant pitchers and 4 power hitters but can't field, bunt, or think through situations on the diamond.

(10-04-2015 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO spreads with no defense are simply an extension of lazy or ill prepared high school coaches who simply put their best athletes in a few skilled positions and try to outscore the opposition, or do the same on the court with fast break only run & gun, or try to find two dominant pitchers and 4 power hitters but can't field, bunt, or think through situations on the diamond.

Not entirely. By and large, innovative offensive schemes in football have been developed by coaches who are trying to find a way to win games with rosters that have much less talent than their opponents. Spread-type offenses were first developed and widely used by coaches of small high school programs, as were the A-11 and the old run-n-shoot. There has always been a storyline in football, especially in high school and college, of big-time programs who mostly beat other programs with nothing more than a big talent gap, and coaches of less-talented teams trying to figure out a way to beat the big boys who rely on their stockpiles of raw ability.

Schools not offering football will only lead to more power football high schools like you see in Alabama. And if those no longer become an option it will lead to football leagues that don't have to follow government regulations.

If it were me I would prefer it to be with the schools then actually becoming a wide spread business.....

(10-04-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Miko thanks for the link. I agree with you that -- right now -- it's unclear if we are observing a statistical blip in the road or something bigger and more important than that. But my honest hunch is that this is the beginning of a long-term decline for youth/HS-level football. In addition to the concussion-factor, the equipment is expensive and the individual families frequently have to subsidize the cost.

Just as an aside, I have 2 kids <6 yrs. old. Hanging out with other parents whose kids are in a similar age-range, I hear occasional comments that football isn't good for the health. Mike Webster's name has come up a couple of times. People are noticing this.

And yet women's soccer has a higher incidence of concussions. If there is a blip it is because of the several generations now preconditioned to have knee jerk reactions. That's not to say that football isn't dangerous, it is. But it is to say that the gullible and fickle public will simply regurgitate anything they hear on the tube. If parents were truly concerned about concussions they would keep their daughters from playing soccer. Statistically my absolute favorite sport is among the safest to play, baseball.

Before you say that I'm being reactionary Extreme Sports is more popular than ever on the liberal left coast and yet their injury rates make football look tame. Young parents are simply prone to get on the cliche bus and ride it till the tube tells them to stop.

If the surgeon general wants to help out then all sports permission slips would contain the latest data on statistical injuries, the kind, the severity, and the long term health effects and do so in bold print just above the signature line.

But no matter how you cut it you are far more likely to get killed by a moron texting and driving, or maimed by them than you are playing any sport, contact or otherwise. So why do those same parents give all their little crumb crunchers every up and coming tech device to distract them and then with cell phone in hand give them car keys at 16? Because we are a nation of hypocrites who are afraid of bucking trends and doing our own research on any issue. If trendy kills then we ignore it. If the trend says football hurts we get reactionary. We glorify gun violence with a murder every 30 or so seconds on the tube, encourage our kids to play Mortal Combat, and other such violent video games such as World of Warfare, and then go totally ape when real violence occurs. We perpetuate a somewhat outward prudishness toward sexuality but lace everything with if for the sake of garnering interest in products and glorify or vilify its extremes in society.

It's time we set our standards for what it means to be civil, what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't, to expect free people to govern themselves with reason and informed positions, and to permit the progress of society upon the preponderance of evidence instead of the sensationalism of opinion.

But what the heck, that's my sensationalist opinion!

The problem is not simply concussions themselves. The chronic traumatic encephalopathy is the real issue that gets the majority of the press. Yes, concussions are a significant factor, but I think the larger issue is the nature of the sport itself where people are getting hit, not concussed, but still are getting the brain rocked in the skull and thus bruised. This is the issue, and it's the concern for parents above and beyond concussions. Women's soccer may have more concussions, but it doesn't have the long term trauma effects of repeated contact from tackling and blocking.

(10-05-2015 08:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Miko thanks for the link. I agree with you that -- right now -- it's unclear if we are observing a statistical blip in the road or something bigger and more important than that. But my honest hunch is that this is the beginning of a long-term decline for youth/HS-level football. In addition to the concussion-factor, the equipment is expensive and the individual families frequently have to subsidize the cost.

Just as an aside, I have 2 kids <6 yrs. old. Hanging out with other parents whose kids are in a similar age-range, I hear occasional comments that football isn't good for the health. Mike Webster's name has come up a couple of times. People are noticing this.

And yet women's soccer has a higher incidence of concussions. If there is a blip it is because of the several generations now preconditioned to have knee jerk reactions. That's not to say that football isn't dangerous, it is. But it is to say that the gullible and fickle public will simply regurgitate anything they hear on the tube. If parents were truly concerned about concussions they would keep their daughters from playing soccer. Statistically my absolute favorite sport is among the safest to play, baseball.

Before you say that I'm being reactionary Extreme Sports is more popular than ever on the liberal left coast and yet their injury rates make football look tame. Young parents are simply prone to get on the cliche bus and ride it till the tube tells them to stop.

If the surgeon general wants to help out then all sports permission slips would contain the latest data on statistical injuries, the kind, the severity, and the long term health effects and do so in bold print just above the signature line.

But no matter how you cut it you are far more likely to get killed by a moron texting and driving, or maimed by them than you are playing any sport, contact or otherwise. So why do those same parents give all their little crumb crunchers every up and coming tech device to distract them and then with cell phone in hand give them car keys at 16? Because we are a nation of hypocrites who are afraid of bucking trends and doing our own research on any issue. If trendy kills then we ignore it. If the trend says football hurts we get reactionary. We glorify gun violence with a murder every 30 or so seconds on the tube, encourage our kids to play Mortal Combat, and other such violent video games such as World of Warfare, and then go totally ape when real violence occurs. We perpetuate a somewhat outward prudishness toward sexuality but lace everything with if for the sake of garnering interest in products and glorify or vilify its extremes in society.

It's time we set our standards for what it means to be civil, what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't, to expect free people to govern themselves with reason and informed positions, and to permit the progress of society upon the preponderance of evidence instead of the sensationalism of opinion.

But what the heck, that's my sensationalist opinion!

The problem is not simply concussions themselves. The chronic traumatic encephalopathy is the real issue that gets the majority of the press. Yes, concussions are a significant factor, but I think the larger issue is the nature of the sport itself where people are getting hit, not concussed, but still are getting the brain rocked in the skull and thus bruised. This is the issue, and it's the concern for parents above and beyond concussions. Women's soccer may have more concussions, but it doesn't have the long term trauma effects of repeated contact from tackling and blocking.

I know the point of this thread is about head trauma, but it's not all about concussions either. All of the wear and tear builds up on a body over time. Knees with ACL surgery never bend quite the same way, nor do shoulders that have had rotator cuff surgery throw quite the same way. They may for the first few years, but 10, 15-20 years down the road, not so much.

We only get one set of tires in this life, when the tread wears down, you can't just go buy another set.

(10-05-2015 08:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 08:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Miko thanks for the link. I agree with you that -- right now -- it's unclear if we are observing a statistical blip in the road or something bigger and more important than that. But my honest hunch is that this is the beginning of a long-term decline for youth/HS-level football. In addition to the concussion-factor, the equipment is expensive and the individual families frequently have to subsidize the cost.

Just as an aside, I have 2 kids <6 yrs. old. Hanging out with other parents whose kids are in a similar age-range, I hear occasional comments that football isn't good for the health. Mike Webster's name has come up a couple of times. People are noticing this.

And yet women's soccer has a higher incidence of concussions. If there is a blip it is because of the several generations now preconditioned to have knee jerk reactions. That's not to say that football isn't dangerous, it is. But it is to say that the gullible and fickle public will simply regurgitate anything they hear on the tube. If parents were truly concerned about concussions they would keep their daughters from playing soccer. Statistically my absolute favorite sport is among the safest to play, baseball.

Before you say that I'm being reactionary Extreme Sports is more popular than ever on the liberal left coast and yet their injury rates make football look tame. Young parents are simply prone to get on the cliche bus and ride it till the tube tells them to stop.

If the surgeon general wants to help out then all sports permission slips would contain the latest data on statistical injuries, the kind, the severity, and the long term health effects and do so in bold print just above the signature line.

But no matter how you cut it you are far more likely to get killed by a moron texting and driving, or maimed by them than you are playing any sport, contact or otherwise. So why do those same parents give all their little crumb crunchers every up and coming tech device to distract them and then with cell phone in hand give them car keys at 16? Because we are a nation of hypocrites who are afraid of bucking trends and doing our own research on any issue. If trendy kills then we ignore it. If the trend says football hurts we get reactionary. We glorify gun violence with a murder every 30 or so seconds on the tube, encourage our kids to play Mortal Combat, and other such violent video games such as World of Warfare, and then go totally ape when real violence occurs. We perpetuate a somewhat outward prudishness toward sexuality but lace everything with if for the sake of garnering interest in products and glorify or vilify its extremes in society.

It's time we set our standards for what it means to be civil, what we should tolerate and what we shouldn't, to expect free people to govern themselves with reason and informed positions, and to permit the progress of society upon the preponderance of evidence instead of the sensationalism of opinion.

But what the heck, that's my sensationalist opinion!

The problem is not simply concussions themselves. The chronic traumatic encephalopathy is the real issue that gets the majority of the press. Yes, concussions are a significant factor, but I think the larger issue is the nature of the sport itself where people are getting hit, not concussed, but still are getting the brain rocked in the skull and thus bruised. This is the issue, and it's the concern for parents above and beyond concussions. Women's soccer may have more concussions, but it doesn't have the long term trauma effects of repeated contact from tackling and blocking.

Miko I grasp your distinction, but women's soccer hasn't been around long enough to know the long term consequences of play. If you start with pre teen girls soccer and extend through high school to college and onto international play the results may be rather dramatic. We won't know until those women hit their 50's most likely.