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

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

New York lawmakers are considering a ban on tackle football for kids under 12

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...107795002/

As far as public policy arguments go, STDs have been rising off the charts since 2010. Ban sex.

If youth football were uniquely devastating to the population (or even comparable to many things we allow that harm us significantly), why are Americans not experiencing uniquely devastating dementia rates and so on compared to the many countries with "safe" sports?

The US has poor health overall, and that's primary because we stuff our faces and sit around with our faces in our phones instead of playing sports. You want to help the health of football players? Put a 250-pound weight limit on the NCAA and the pros and other sports.

As a life-long football coach I never thought tackle football for kids 12-U was a good idea.

First of all - have you seen kids 8-12 try to play tackle football?

Helmets are bigger than a lot of the kids, and there isn't much tackling (or blocking for that matter) going on. Just a lot of bumping and tagging.

Usually offense just gives ball to fastest or biggest kid and he either outruns or runs over defense.

I don't know if that requires a state legislature banning it though, especially since there is NO evidence that playing HS football much less youth leads to CTE or other degenerative diseases.

Political Overreach?

(10-31-2019 04:25 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  As a life-long football coach I never thought tackle football for kids 12-U was a good idea.

First of all - have you seen kids 8-12 try to play tackle football?

Helmets are bigger than a lot of the kids, and there isn't much tackling (or blocking for that matter) going on. Just a lot of bumping and tagging.

Usually offense just gives ball to fastest or biggest kid and he either outruns or runs over defense.

I don't know if that requires a state legislature banning it though, especially since there is NO evidence that playing HS football much less youth leads to CTE or other degenerative diseases.

Political Overreach?

I’ll say 8-9 tackle football makes little sense to me. 10-11 they can begin to understand advanced ideas and can play the game well. But I agree that making it a criminal offense to organize a football game between 11 year olds is extreme, while multiple obvious public health crises are even celebrated in popular culture.

A physician forced to retire at 42 because of dementia.

Some days now, Abraham feels as if he is surrounded by shards of his life. He remembers but not really. He comprehends but not completely. “I remember nothing about the birth of my daughter,” he said. “I remember nothing about my wedding. To know that I said things to hurt people, it’s like when you get drunk and you wake up and 'what the hell?’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/sport...l-cte.html

Dear Broncos,
My two cents is that there should be no organized sports until age fourteen. Most organized sports below that age have poor coaches, sometimes ill fitting equipment, and the players (in my opinion) really do not understand techniques, strategies, or the concept of play calling. I don't think any of the high school players from my era, suffered development issues, or any other problems because there was no little league at that time. Many received college scholarships, and some even went on to the professional ranks after college.

(10-31-2019 08:09 PM)WMUlaxer97 Wrote:  A physician forced to retire at 42 because of dementia.

Some days now, Abraham feels as if he is surrounded by shards of his life. He remembers but not really. He comprehends but not completely. “I remember nothing about the birth of my daughter,” he said. “I remember nothing about my wedding. To know that I said things to hurt people, it’s like when you get drunk and you wake up and 'what the hell?’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/sport...l-cte.html

The article says it's not about concussions but about repeated trauma, so why is the lead of the article all about how much he enjoyed getting concussions in high school and college with ridiculous drills?

I feel bad for the guy, but this is pure emotion. Until there's an actual study to determine the evidence of CTE in the general population vs. football and other sports and then incidence of symptoms or conditions associated to it, we can't really evaluate the issue.

And if CTE is all based on the volume of hits over time, why would we ban football for the lowest-velocity hits in little kids and not start by throwing the Giants and Jets in jail to protect themselves?

I think it should be obvious to anyone that playing football for a long time is going to cause physical injuries because of the nature of the game, and hitting your head a lot is going to damage it. I've had my bell rung and my head hit more in a no-hitting beer league lacrosse in the last year than I did in high school football. Should we ban youth lacrosse? I've hit my head in so many times and so many ways: trees, cars, furniture, young children, etc.

If we really cared about the health of kids under 12 we would ban e-sports because our sedentary lifestyles are going to kill a lot more kids than dementia ever will, especially as our average lifespan in America DECLINES because of the terrible ways we treat our bodies.

(10-31-2019 03:00 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  Ban sex.

They already have, it's called marriage.

(10-31-2019 10:12 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  I feel bad for the guy, but this is pure emotion. Until there's an actual study to determine the evidence of CTE in the general population vs. football and other sports and then incidence of symptoms or conditions associated to it, we can't really evaluate the issue.

This is the same argument that was made about smoking and associated cancer for years. It also is not dissimilar from the current arguments against the science of climate change.

(10-31-2019 10:12 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  I think it should be obvious to anyone that playing football for a long time is going to cause physical injuries because of the nature of the game, and hitting your head a lot is going to damage it. I've had my bell rung and my head hit more in a no-hitting beer league lacrosse in the last year than I did in high school football. Should we ban youth lacrosse? I've hit my head in so many times and so many ways: trees, cars, furniture, young children, etc.

I think that is the whole point. More to the point, the potential impact that head trauma has on the development (anatomical/electrical) of a young persons brain is exponentially more significant.

Look, the HS that I coach at does baseline concussion testing on ALL "impact potential" sports and offers it as an option to all others. I teach elementary physical education and exercise the exact same "return to play" protocol that we do at the HS level. We have no greater responsibility than to protect our children. Not coddle, protect. What a bunch of drunk adults do on a Tuesday night with lacrosse equipment is up to them :)

Honestly, I don't think that abolition is the answer and we also have to accept that, even with the best coaching and equipment, accidents will happen. That is true in all of life.

I do know this...I LOVE football! I don't want to see it go away. But, I love my kid more. I don't NEED to watch football. I never needed to play it, either. I NEED my son and daughter to have their best shot at a long life. That holds true for all of my students and all of my athletes. I don't want any knee-jerk reactions, but I am open to listening to options.

Bottom-line...

Per MajorHoople, this is political overreach.

Let parents - not government - make the decision.

Football is no more dangerous for 12U than soccer, skateboarding, or bike riding. But if a parent does not want their son, or daughter, to participate, that is their right. We do not need gratuitous government intrusion.

(11-01-2019 07:26 AM)GullLake Wrote:  Bottom-line...

Per MajorHoople, this is political overreach.

Let parents - not government - make the decision.

Football is no more dangerous for 12U than soccer, skateboarding, or bike riding. But if a parent does not want their son, or daughter, to participate, that is their right. We do not need gratuitous government intrusion.

If you REALLY want to start limiting concussions, eliminate competitive cheer and girls' lacrosse...but then you start to run into Title IX issues...

(10-31-2019 04:25 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  As a life-long football coach I never thought tackle football for kids 12-U was a good idea.

First of all - have you seen kids 8-12 try to play tackle football?

Helmets are bigger than a lot of the kids, and there isn't much tackling (or blocking for that matter) going on. Just a lot of bumping and tagging.

Usually offense just gives ball to fastest or biggest kid and he either outruns or runs over defense.

I don't know if that requires a state legislature banning it though, especially since there is NO evidence that playing HS football much less youth leads to CTE or other degenerative diseases.

Political Overreach?

Agreed... plus that overweight 10 year-old kid that always has to play the line because he has a "yellow strip" on his helmet will quit because he will never touch the ball. He may turn into a 6'4" wide receiver but no one will know because he stopped playing. This ties to the drop in football numbers from a previous thread. Plus most volunteer coaches don't teach proper tackling form. I would say flag football until middle school. Teach them to love the game and not get turned off before they are out of elementary school. Grand Haven has started flag football instead of tackle for U12 and their numbers are up. But please keep the government out of it!

(11-01-2019 07:26 AM)GullLake Wrote:  Bottom-line...

Per MajorHoople, this is political overreach.

Let parents - not government - make the decision.

Football is no more dangerous for 12U than soccer, skateboarding, or bike riding. But if a parent does not want their son, or daughter, to participate, that is their right. We do not need gratuitous government intrusion.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find significant data for ONLY 12 and under, but to say "football is no more dangerous" is statistically inaccurate when speaking specifically about concussions in youth sport. However, it is not the leader. A sample:

Rugby (4.18/1,000 AE)
Ice hockey (1.20/1,000 AE)
American football (0.53/1,000 AE)
Lacrosse (0.24/1,000 AE)
Football (or soccer) (0.23/1,000 AE)
Wrestling (0.17/1,000 AE)
Basketball (0.13/1,000 AE)
Softball & Field Hockey (Tie) (0.10/1,000 AE)
Baseball (0.06/1,000 AE)
Cheerleading (0.07/1,000 AE)
Volleyball (0.03/1,000 AE)

The data obviously does not change the overreach argument.

(11-01-2019 07:41 AM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(11-01-2019 07:26 AM)GullLake Wrote:  Bottom-line...

Per MajorHoople, this is political overreach.

Let parents - not government - make the decision.

Football is no more dangerous for 12U than soccer, skateboarding, or bike riding. But if a parent does not want their son, or daughter, to participate, that is their right. We do not need gratuitous government intrusion.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find significant data for ONLY 12 and under, but to say "football is no more dangerous" is statistically inaccurate when speaking specifically about concussions in youth sport. However, it is not the leader. A sample:

Rugby (4.18/1,000 AE)
Ice hockey (1.20/1,000 AE)
American football (0.53/1,000 AE)
Lacrosse (0.24/1,000 AE)
Football (or soccer) (0.23/1,000 AE)
Wrestling (0.17/1,000 AE)
Basketball (0.13/1,000 AE)
Softball & Field Hockey (Tie) (0.10/1,000 AE)
Baseball (0.06/1,000 AE)
Cheerleading (0.07/1,000 AE)
Volleyball (0.03/1,000 AE)

The data obviously does not change the overreach argument.

But the "research" with no control group says it's not concussions, but accumulated damage over time. So, either concussions are highly relevant or not, it can't be had both ways. If you're going to make a pro-science argument, then you need to have actual data to back your conclusion and not anecdotal evidence. Concussions are obviously not good and avoiding them is good.

And as far as anecdotal evidence goes, the health effects of smoking are obvious. The health effects of youth sports are not. I see far more obvious correlations involving other behaviors we would never regulate or ban in people I know who played football through high school and people I know who didn't.

My argument is this NY bill is a knee-jerk reaction, and how the CTE evidence has been presented is more advocacy, panic and attack rather than reform—itself a knee-jerk reaction.

My argument is also that football is obviously dangerous (more so at the highest levels), and if you love the game, you have to accept that. If you don't think the positives of football outweigh the risks, then you shouldn't love football. My argument is also that football is not nearly as dangerous as behaviors and activities that our culture actively encourages kids to engage in.

There are a lot of dangerous things kids can do, and will always do. Most of them are out of sight of parents or adults. There but for the grace of God am I alive after all of the crazy, stupid, and now laughable things I did as a kid, along with all of my buddies. For years now though the politicians, and even more so, the do-gooders of the world, have been trying to insulate children from "exposure" to anything potentially harmful. And as a result, there are no shortage of adults who very clearly reflect a lack of the toughness that prior generations had in spades. Im not saying that head injuries aren't something we need to reduce or eliminate, but policies drawn out of political correctness or made to satisfy the do-gooders tends to be short sighted, and lacks full and fair analysis.

life will always have risks and dangers. They start early, and continue until we die. Kids play games, and most of those games provide lessons valuable to intellectual, physical and spiritual development. Team sports are a great example of that. I played hockey throughout my childhood, and twice got knocked unconscious. It happened once playing intramural basketball too. I have had ringing in my ears for most of my adult like, and my jaw locks up every day until I open it wide to "crack" it. I'm sure those things were caused by my KO incidents, and while I would love to be able to remove those incidents from my life history, I wouldn't do so if it meant I wouldn't have participated in those sports growing up, because what I gained playing sports, or doing any of the other "life's experiences" I had as a kid, was far far greater than what it costs in terms of injuries or risks.

We cant legislate utopia, and the government isn't our daddy.

(11-01-2019 09:37 AM)brovol Wrote:  There are a lot of dangerous things kids can do, and will always do. Most of them are out of sight of parents or adults. There but for the grace of God am I alive after all of the crazy, stupid, and now laughable things I did as a kid, along with all of my buddies. For years now though the politicians, and even more so, the do-gooders of the world, have been trying to insulate children from "exposure" to anything potentially harmful. And as a result, there are no shortage of adults who very clearly reflect a lack of the toughness that prior generations had in spades. Im not saying that head injuries aren't something we need to reduce or eliminate, but policies drawn out of political correctness or made to satisfy the do-gooders tends to be short sighted, and lacks full and fair analysis.

life will always have risks and dangers. They start early, and continue until we die. Kids play games, and most of those games provide lessons valuable to intellectual, physical and spiritual development. Team sports are a great example of that. I played hockey throughout my childhood, and twice got knocked unconscious. It happened once playing intramural basketball too. I have had ringing in my ears for most of my adult like, and my jaw locks up every day until I open it wide to "crack" it. I'm sure those things were caused by my KO incidents, and while I would love to be able to remove those incidents from my life history, I wouldn't do so if it meant I wouldn't have participated in those sports growing up, because what I gained playing sports, or doing any of the other "life's experiences" I had as a kid, was far far greater than what it costs in terms of injuries or risks.

We cant legislate utopia, and the government isn't our daddy.

In grade school, we played "Smear the Queer" at recess.

One kid would run with a football and pretty much the entire playground would chase him for a "pile-on." He would periodically throw away the football, another kid would eagerly pick-it-up and start running until he was either tackled & piled-on, or threw the ball away to another kid.

Made no sense, but it was fun.

If the kids still do it, I'm sure it has a new name, which would be appropriate.

(11-01-2019 09:48 AM)GullLake Wrote:  

(11-01-2019 09:37 AM)brovol Wrote:  There are a lot of dangerous things kids can do, and will always do. Most of them are out of sight of parents or adults. There but for the grace of God am I alive after all of the crazy, stupid, and now laughable things I did as a kid, along with all of my buddies. For years now though the politicians, and even more so, the do-gooders of the world, have been trying to insulate children from "exposure" to anything potentially harmful. And as a result, there are no shortage of adults who very clearly reflect a lack of the toughness that prior generations had in spades. Im not saying that head injuries aren't something we need to reduce or eliminate, but policies drawn out of political correctness or made to satisfy the do-gooders tends to be short sighted, and lacks full and fair analysis.

life will always have risks and dangers. They start early, and continue until we die. Kids play games, and most of those games provide lessons valuable to intellectual, physical and spiritual development. Team sports are a great example of that. I played hockey throughout my childhood, and twice got knocked unconscious. It happened once playing intramural basketball too. I have had ringing in my ears for most of my adult like, and my jaw locks up every day until I open it wide to "crack" it. I'm sure those things were caused by my KO incidents, and while I would love to be able to remove those incidents from my life history, I wouldn't do so if it meant I wouldn't have participated in those sports growing up, because what I gained playing sports, or doing any of the other "life's experiences" I had as a kid, was far far greater than what it costs in terms of injuries or risks.

We cant legislate utopia, and the government isn't our daddy.

In grade school, we played "Smear the Queer" at recess.

One kid would run with a football and pretty much the entire playground would chase him for a "pile-on." He would periodically throw away the football, another kid would eagerly pick-it-up and start running until he was either tackled & piled-on, or threw the ball away to another kid.

Made no sense, but it was fun.

If the kids still do it, I'm sure it has a new name, which would be appropriate.

We did that too! I think its a very old game, and the word "queer" wasn't referring to homosexual, but rather the more traditional meaning of the word. It was kind of like a rugby scrum, and you weren't supposed to pitch the ball before getting tackled, but after you dragged some tacklers long enough that you weren't considered a wuss. If you were doing things right, you ended up with torn pants and shirt, and some blood, but mostly from scuffed knees and elbows. A broken bone wasnt necessarily desired, but nobody could deny that you were pretty cool for the next few weeks if you did break an arm and had a cast to prove it.

Check out changes in youth fb for
USA Football and Pop Warner.

(11-01-2019 09:37 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  My argument is this NY bill is a knee-jerk reaction, and how the CTE evidence has been presented is more advocacy, panic and attack rather than reform—itself a knee-jerk reaction.

My argument is also that football is obviously dangerous (more so at the highest levels), and if you love the game, you have to accept that. If you don't think the positives of football outweigh the risks, then you shouldn't love football. My argument is also that football is not nearly as dangerous as behaviors and activities that our culture actively encourages kids to engage in.

You'll get no argument from me that this is knee-jerk. You're talking to a public school teacher. You wanna live in a world full of knee-jerk legislating childhood away, come to my school.

Dangerous "more so at the highest levels" is a little more nuanced. There are obviously greater forces involved. However, I think it is relative to the type of injury. Getting a concussion once the brain has fully developed as an adult has a different level of significance relative to a brain injury of a still developing child. Please keep in mind, I am only speaking in the context of brain injuries...nothing else.