The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

California is debating on banning tackle football for kids 11 and under.

Pessimists would look at this and see the eventual decimation and banning of the sport itself, even though the amount of money flowing into it is massive.

But the optimist says we need to start recruiting middle school players and get them to move to Michigan! Find a clever donor who wants to find a different way to invest that sweet sweet NIL money into a sports academy instead. And if those kids should be strongly encouraged to play for WMU...

But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

Banning cell phones for kids under 12 would be much more beneficial to their brains.

(01-11-2024 11:49 AM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Banning cell phones for kids under 12 would be much more beneficial to their brains.

Amen to that. It would put a huge dent in suicide rates, too.

California is a hellscape

Research shows an increased risk correlating to the actual length of time playing football. That's the idea cited behind the bill. Obviously still open to debate, but it's the same reason many states limit hitting in practice etc.

As for soccer, California (and some others I think) ban heading the ball under 12. The principle there is the same as saying you can play flag but not tackle football under 12, although it arguably is a bigger effect on the game when talking about tackling.

I'm not really trying to take a stance, but many questions in the OP are already answered.

There are 27 times as many people who drown annually in the Great Lakes than die from football world wide.

Anyone that says they won’t let their kid play football because of safety better damn well never take their kid to the beach.

(01-11-2024 12:28 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Research shows an increased risk correlating to the actual length of time playing football. That's the idea cited behind the bill. Obviously still open to debate, but it's the same reason many states limit hitting in practice etc.

As for soccer, California (and some others I think) ban heading the ball under 12. The principle there is the same as saying you can play flag but not tackle football under 12, although it arguably is a bigger effect on the game when talking about tackling.

I'm not really trying to take a stance, but many questions in the OP are already answered.

That's like saying those who drive more are at an increased risk of car accidents. But I actually looked up the studies. One is based on 42 NFL football players. 42. The other is based on telephone interviews of NFL players. Telephone calls. Not entirely objective, and both from the same source.

Making drastic changes in public policy based on one source is ridiculous. You can find a study that shows no correlation at all. Again, if safety were this important, again, why not ban high school football?

What about cheerleading? The concussion risk of cheerleading practice is comparable to football practice. Should California follow "the research" and ban cheerleading? Or how about banning cheerleading routines at cheerleading practices for girls 11 and under?

The point I am getting at here is this is not actual policy changes based on research. If there was, they would set an arbitrary acceptable concussion rate and ban everything above that, and it would include basically any school-sanctioned physical activity, and certainly every team sport. Hell, even golf will wreck your back eventually.

These are efforts conducted with the goal of banning football and searching for acceptable casus belli along the way. This is nothing like implementing the forward pass because scores of kids were actually dying from the sport.

Football participation is dying on its own. There was a great article in the Washington Post on HS participation rates in Michigan..... very discouraging.

While it doesn't need to be legislated, rec flag football through sixth grade has actually increased numbers for those districts that have that option. Grand Haven is a great example. No dads teaching the wrong way to tackle, yellow or blue dots, freaked out moms. etc. Just teaching them the game with the hopes that they will continue to play beyond middle school. Again, this seems to be working at Grand Haven as their numbers have increased.

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

(01-11-2024 10:43 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

And the argument is only backed by one activist institution with phone interviews using a small group of NFL players.

Being a young man involves repetitively banging your heads with siblings and playground equipment, if we're going to characterize the level of contact of 11 year olds as "head banging."

We've had youth football for generations now, and somehow American male life expectancy kept rising in the face of this deadly activity--until we started importing fentanyl.

Anyone who supports banning youth football but supports the more dangerous higher levels of football is a giant hypocrite. "Well, sure that NFL guy constantly leads with his head and has had 10 surgeries to date, but I like wasting my money gambling on his life. But little 80-pound Johnny getting tackled 4 times on a Saturday morning? We need to make that a criminal activity post haste!"

(01-12-2024 09:34 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 10:43 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

And the argument is only backed by one activist institution with phone interviews using a small group of NFL players.

Being a young man involves repetitively banging your heads with siblings and playground equipment, if we're going to characterize the level of contact of 11 year olds as "head banging."

We've had youth football for generations now, and somehow American male life expectancy kept rising in the face of this deadly activity--until we started importing fentanyl.

Anyone who supports banning youth football but supports the more dangerous higher levels of football is a giant hypocrite. "Well, sure that NFL guy constantly leads with his head and has had 10 surgeries to date, but I like wasting my money gambling on his life. But little 80-pound Johnny getting tackled 4 times on a Saturday morning? We need to make that a criminal activity post haste!"

It's not really about dying, it's about dementia and behavioral disorders later in life. Again, I'm not really sure if I agree with legislating this but your habit of misrepresenting arguments to debate things is really grating.

By the way, your use of the phrase "activist institution" is DEEPLY ironic, lol.

(01-12-2024 01:36 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(01-12-2024 09:34 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 10:43 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

And the argument is only backed by one activist institution with phone interviews using a small group of NFL players.

Being a young man involves repetitively banging your heads with siblings and playground equipment, if we're going to characterize the level of contact of 11 year olds as "head banging."

We've had youth football for generations now, and somehow American male life expectancy kept rising in the face of this deadly activity--until we started importing fentanyl.

Anyone who supports banning youth football but supports the more dangerous higher levels of football is a giant hypocrite. "Well, sure that NFL guy constantly leads with his head and has had 10 surgeries to date, but I like wasting my money gambling on his life. But little 80-pound Johnny getting tackled 4 times on a Saturday morning? We need to make that a criminal activity post haste!"

It's not really about dying, it's about dementia and behavioral disorders later in life. Again, I'm not really sure if I agree with legislating this but your habit of misrepresenting arguments to debate things is really grating.

By the way, your use of the phrase "activist institution" is DEEPLY ironic, lol.

Women experience dementia at greater rates than men. So, is it going to take another 150 years of tackle football for this silent epidemic costing millions of men their mental faculties to show up?

What's really grating is your "I'm not sure, but..." bit while just repeating what you've heard with zero skepticism.

(01-12-2024 09:34 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 10:43 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

And the argument is only backed by one activist institution with phone interviews using a small group of NFL players.

Being a young man involves repetitively banging your heads with siblings and playground equipment, if we're going to characterize the level of contact of 11 year olds as "head banging."

We've had youth football for generations now, and somehow American male life expectancy kept rising in the face of this deadly activity--until we started importing fentanyl.

Anyone who supports banning youth football but supports the more dangerous higher levels of football is a giant hypocrite. "Well, sure that NFL guy constantly leads with his head and has had 10 surgeries to date, but I like wasting my money gambling on his life. But little 80-pound Johnny getting tackled 4 times on a Saturday morning? We need to make that a criminal activity post haste!"

Please. this is incredibly well studied at this point, and there is no harm in having kids start bashing their heads off things at an older age. Death is not the only negative outcome from football.

https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury...pacts.html

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/study-t...ine-later/

(01-12-2024 07:29 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(01-12-2024 09:34 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 10:43 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 11:46 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  But I have a real question: why banning youth football? High school football is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and college above that. Why not ban high school football? What's the argument here? The concussion rate for other sports like soccer is comparable to football: why not ban soccer for children under 12?

The argument is that American football affects youth brain development due to repetitive contact to the head. In other youth sports you can bang a head, but it’s not repetitive. Older players hit harder but brains are more developed.

And the argument is only backed by one activist institution with phone interviews using a small group of NFL players.

Being a young man involves repetitively banging your heads with siblings and playground equipment, if we're going to characterize the level of contact of 11 year olds as "head banging."

We've had youth football for generations now, and somehow American male life expectancy kept rising in the face of this deadly activity--until we started importing fentanyl.

Anyone who supports banning youth football but supports the more dangerous higher levels of football is a giant hypocrite. "Well, sure that NFL guy constantly leads with his head and has had 10 surgeries to date, but I like wasting my money gambling on his life. But little 80-pound Johnny getting tackled 4 times on a Saturday morning? We need to make that a criminal activity post haste!"

Please. this is incredibly well studied at this point, and there is no harm in having kids start bashing their heads off things at an older age. Death is not the only negative outcome from football.

https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury...pacts.html

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/study-t...ine-later/

Sigh. Exactly this. You are just spamming links without reading the studies. Neither of those are control-group studies that address cognitive function... One says kids hit their heads more in tackle than flag football. Duh. They paid money to determine that?

The second study is such cherry picking it isn't even worth addressing, but since you find the headline convincing... According to the study, those who played 11 years or more of football lived 3 and half years longer. Therefore, I will declare that youth football adds years to your life.

Why do you want to rob prospective youth football players of nearly 4 years of their life? Don't you care about their health?!?!?!??

Apparently the legislation was too liberal for even Gavin Newsome as he has vetoed it.