is football doomed?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

q & a with matt taibbi at men's journal. this came up:

The NFL is a thriving multibillion-dollar business, but evidence is accumulating that all these concussions players suffer are causing long-term damage to their mental health. Where do you see this going? Will the NFL of the future be a flag-football league? —Ken

I think we have to accept the fact that in the long run, football is doomed. The problem is that there’s no way to legislate truly safe play without destroying the game. The whole point of the sport is to have 300-pound gland freaks running into each other at full speed, and you can’t have that without scores of serious brain injuries, and really, a civilized society can’t allow that just because football happens to be really cool and gets awesome ratings.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), America is not completely civilized, and the immediate response is almost certainly going to be some kind of bogus investigatory commission formed by the league that will 1) add new 10-yard penalties for such crimes as “hitting a defenseless ballcarrier”; 2) invent a fancy-looking concussion-preventing helmet that in reality won’t do shit; and 3) suppress research into the brain function of retired players and/or whip up competing bogus studies that show large majorities of ex-players still able to play Connect Four and operate a TV remote after as many as 20 concussions.

Those measures should buy us at least another 10 to 15 years of great NFL action, so don’t worry yet.

[EagleFan]

I think this is an overreation to the new wave of penalties. Granted I have expressed that I dislike some of the new penalties this year but in th elong run there needs to be something done but I don't think it will change it that badly.

It will be like the NHL. A few rule changes which at first look extreme and some will complain. Then the players will adjust and the fans will no longer notice.

The biggest issue facing the league is that the players are larger, faster and stronger than ever. That means that the collisions are more violent then ever. This trend is probably not going to change which means it will get worse and they need to get in front of this before it gets to the point where it would seem like they are tearing the league down just to fix it.

[larnott]

[tarcone]

I work with a guy who played college football in the 70s. He was getting headaches because he led with his head when blocking. His doctor told him to get a special helmet. It was filled with water. Which I thought made sense. The water would cause the energy of the hit to disperse. My friend said it worked, he stopped getting headaches, but it was very heavy.
Someone will invent a helmet that prevents head injuries. Give it a few years.

[RedKingGold]

Who is Matt Tabbai and why should I care about his opinion?

[rowech]

It's simple to fix this problem by doing two things:

1. Weight limits (325?) to the players just like Wrestling or something similar. There's no way every position should be the same size but when you have 6-6, 350 on a field with 5-10, 190 you're going to have problems. People will say no way and I undrstand but it would help a lot.

2. Widen the field to open things up a lot more to prevent some of these guys launching to tackle. If you open it up and a guy knows that if he misses he gives up 20 extra yards because nobody's right behind him, it prevents him from launching and he'll wrap up instead.

[sterlingice]

Matt Taibbi's an interesting writer. He's done some of the best, if not the very best, on the 2008 Financial Crisis. Unfortunately, it's been for Rolling Stone because none of the mainstream financial media really wants to address the true structural issues since their bills are paid by the same companies that helped cause this mess.

I don't know about football being doomed. But I think EagleFan has it right- there will be a point where the rules will be drastically changed and the phrasing "it would seem like they are tearing the league down just to fix it" is excellent.

SI

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Matt Taibbi's an interesting writer. He's done some of the best, if not the very best, on the 2008 Financial Crisis. Unfortunately, it's been for Rolling Stone because none of the mainstream financial media really wants to address the true structural issues since their bills are paid by the same companies that helped cause this mess.

yeah, and he's also a passionate sports fan. his nfl draft guide is good reading also.

[MacroGuru]

I don't know...I think the solution is out there for the helmet and concussion issue..

Tech Innovator: A Soft-Sided Football Helmet - BusinessWeek


I also feel though, that a lot of the new players do not strap their helmet up tight enough...I notice that with all the damn helmets flying all over the place in college and NFL.

[cougarfreak]

Get rid of helmets, or facemasks, guys will either stop leading with their heads, or experience that kind of hit once, and quit.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by rowech

It's simple to fix this problem by doing two things:


2. Widen the field to open things up a lot more to prevent some of these guys launching to tackle. If you open it up and a guy knows that if he misses he gives up 20 extra yards because nobody's right behind him, it prevents him from launching and he'll wrap up instead.

CFL? Seriously though, someone should do a comparison study on major injuries/and or concussions between the two leagues.....

[Lathum]

Meh, people had the same concerns about NASCAR and it is doing fine.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

CFL? Seriously though, someone should do a comparison study on major injuries/and or concussions between the two leagues.....

Apples and oranges. The athletes in the NFL are on such a different level.

[RainMaker]

Has there really been a lot of real studies showing NFL players living horrible lives? Not to crap on the "conussions are the end of the world" stuff that has proliferated the media, but I don't see a lot of former football players dropping dead. Sure there have been stories about former players who have had problems, but I don't think it's the norm by any means.

I'd disagree with Taibi. There is just too much demand for the sport and in reality, we don't care about these guys. Sure we'll give a half hearted ovation when a guy gets up off the turf, but I doubt any of us are making sure these former players are doing well after their playing days are over. They are entertainment and we just want to feel like the league is doing something to make it safer.

But I do agree with the notion that the sport is just going to get more and more dangerous. Players will continue to get bigger, stronger, and faster. I do think there is one thing you can do to fix a lot of problems right now. Weight limits. I'm sorry, but we don't need 350 pound linemen. We don't need 275 pound linebackers. Lets put a weight limit for each position and I guarantee injuries will drop.

[RainMaker]

One other thing that I feel is overlooked in football. Why don't coaches/teams get called out for causing injuries? It's humorous how every week we hear about protecting quarterbacks by basically making rules that don't allow you to do much to them. But why aren't teams called out for not protecting their QB? How about leaving in an extra blocker? Or running a shorter route? It's funny to me how people complain about a hit to the QB but not about the fact that the team basically left him out there to die by sending 5 guys out for a pass.

The same goes for QBs who lead their wide receivers over the middle and into tough spots. Austin Collie's concussion was caused by a shitty throw by Peyton Manning who put his receiver in a very dangerous spot. So if we're going to bitch about injuries, how about we call out Manning and the Colts for running that route and putting Collie in that position? It's sort of like sending a roofer up on to a house with a rickety old ladder that is falling apart. Then bitching about how dangerous roofing is when that ladder causes him to fall off and break his neck.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i see it both ways. we tolerate boxing/mma but millions of schoolchildren don't play those sports.

the chris henry thing was pretty damning imo. if a study comes out that some level of brain damage is unavoidable under football's current rules i can see parents denouncing football as a scholastic sport.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

i see it both ways. we tolerate boxing/mma but millions of schoolchildren don't play those sports.

the chris henry thing was pretty damning imo. if a study comes out that some level of brain damage is unavoidable under football's current rules i can see parents denouncing football as a scholastic sport.

There is a bit of a difference between fighting and football. In fighting you don't get put in a position to be crushed by a defender flying in the opposite direction. In fighting you are in control of protecting yourself. Additionally, the risk has not increased in those sports as the athletes get better because their ability to defend increases at the same rate. There is no bigger and stronger issue, stronger maybe but with weight classes the fighters are pretty close in size in a fight.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The same goes for QBs who lead their wide receivers over the middle and into tough spots. Austin Collie's concussion was caused by a shitty throw by Peyton Manning who put his receiver in a very dangerous spot. So if we're going to bitch about injuries, how about we call out Manning and the Colts for running that route and putting Collie in that position? It's sort of like sending a roofer up on to a house with a rickety old ladder that is falling apart. Then bitching about how dangerous roofing is when that ladder causes him to fall off and break his neck.

James Harrison is a dirty player and his wallet is 75K lighter because he crushed Massaquoi who was running a shitty crossing route against a zone. And thrown a ball that never should have been made.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by stevew

James Harrison is a dirty player and his wallet is 75K lighter because he crushed Massaquoi who was running a shitty crossing route against a zone. And thrown a ball that never should have been made.

So you agree James Harrison is a dirty player then?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Meh, people had the same concerns about NASCAR and it is doing fine.

Other than declining attendance, declining ratings, declining revenue, and declining sponsorship.

[FF]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I also feel though, that a lot of the new players do not strap their helmet up tight enough...I notice that with all the damn helmets flying all over the place in college and NFL.

You may be noticing that because some of these newer helmets are made to break away

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

There is a bit of a difference between fighting and football. In fighting you don't get put in a position to be crushed by a defender flying in the opposite direction. In fighting you are in control of protecting yourself. Additionally, the risk has not increased in those sports as the athletes get better because their ability to defend increases at the same rate. There is no bigger and stronger issue, stronger maybe but with weight classes the fighters are pretty close in size in a fight.

well, no. my point was that as a society we accept that old fighters become jelloheads. it's sanctioned barbarism between consenting adults who (on some level) know the implications.

football is apple pie. 5/6 year olds strap up and continue through hs and college.

now if a study comes out that says any collision over a certain mph can cause brain damage then contact football as a youth sport is fucked.

[Suicane75]

I've never played any football outside of recreational but it would seem to me that a lot of this could be solved if players had to tackle with their actual arms. It seems to me that in the past decade it has somehow become ok to make a "hit" rather than to attempt a "tackle".

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

also:
as i understand it helmets can help with the impactive side of concussions but do nothing to prevent the impulsive(sudden change of direction) and that's really where the trouble is.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But I do agree with the notion that the sport is just going to get more and more dangerous. Players will continue to get bigger, stronger, and faster. I do think there is one thing you can do to fix a lot of problems right now. Weight limits. I'm sorry, but we don't need 350 pound linemen. We don't need 275 pound linebackers. Lets put a weight limit for each position and I guarantee injuries will drop.

I disagree here totally, weight limits would not have a significant impact on reducing concussions. Concussions are suffered more frequently by skill players taking high velocity hits in space. You tell me how often you see a 320 pound lineman crush a safety downfield or light up a running at a high enough rate of speed to do significant damage?

Yes linemen do get concussions, but receivers, DB'sand QB's are at a higher risk. Receivers because they are not prepared for impact, QB's get almost as many concussions from slamming their heads on the ground (Again not braced for a hit) as they do from taking a straight up hit (when again they would not be braced for contact) and DB's get a lot of concussions from shitty tackling form. diving at runners legs and taking a knee to the side of the head.

Sorry, weight limits are not going to stop this and they are also not going to stop a Linebacker that runs a 4.5 from concussing a back that runs a 4.4. Those concussions are caused by speed and it doesn't matter if weight 240 or 200, you will generate more than enough velocity running at those speeds at either weights to cause a concussion.

Originally Posted by FF

You may be noticing that because some of these newer helmets are made to break away

They are not designed to break away, that would result in great injury risk to the spinal cord, not to mention exposed heads. We equipped our high school players with Revolution helmets this year. The design on these and a lot of the other new lightweight helmets is improved technology in the padding as well as a redistribution of it inside the helmet, with more to the side and back areas. The Revolution also has an extended jawline that protects the players from contact under helmet and inflatable cells in addition to the memory foam type padding that allow a tighter, more customizable fit.

A big problem at the high school level in years past was helmets that did not fit as snugly to the head of every player and I imagine that would apply to college and even some NFL players as well in the past. The reason you see more Helmets fly off has to do with how they are secured. Again using the Revolution as an example, new helmets have the dual straps placed at different angles, so again the head is held more securely from the jaw line and there is not as much movement inside the Helmet on impact. You will see a lot of players that don't have all 4 straps secured because it is not as comfortable as only having 2, which defeats the entire purpose of the design. That is why they fly off more.

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I've never played any football outside of recreational but it would seem to me that a lot of this could be solved if players had to tackle with their actual arms. It seems to me that in the past decade it has somehow become ok to make a "hit" rather than to attempt a "tackle".

This brings me to my greatest pet peave as a Coach. TECHNIQUE!!! I call it the sportscenter effect. What highlight's make the news or sports shows more than anything else in Hoops? Dunks. How about Baseball? Homeruns maybe. Football? People love to see the high impact, bonejarring hits that draw gasps from the crowds.

This trickles all the way down to High School where every year I have to teach kids who already have 4,5,6 years of Football under their belts to tackle again and how many great form tacklers can you really name in the NFL? Everybody wants to decleat another player, so they fly in head down or launch themselves like missiles instead of perfecting a solid base and fit and running their feet through the tackle instead of leaving their feet right before impact. You can produce impressive looking hits by tackling correctly, but do it in a safer way since there is no helmet to helmet, crown under the jawline or crown to the side of the helmet.

Obviously you will never eliminate concussions or stop helmet to helmet blows which will still happen even when that is not the intent because the game is played at high speed. But proper technique and wearing your equipment the way it was meant to be worn will help.

Football will be fine, the technology is in place, the treatment and recognition of concussions is significantly better and hopefully coaches and players will work to be more technically sound and take full advantage of advances made in equipment.

Besides, the game has been here before....

Schools of Hard Knocks - NYTimes.com

[Ksyrup]

Why can't we just accept that it's a dangerous game and the participants go into it knowing full-well that they could die or end up immediately or down the road with serious quality of life issues, and just leave it at that, and let them play the game? Those that don't want to, can take up other sports. Those that do will be well-compensated for the risks they take. Maybe force the league/players to set aside a huge pot of money for medical issues for retirees (as they've been discussing for the past couple of years). Just play the damn game the way it was meant to be played - no one is going into this thinking they will never get hurt.

At least at the professional level, I don't see why this is an issue. I'd agree that with kids and probably up to college, there is a bigger picture issue to consider. But grown men knowingly taking a dangerous job for high pay? What's so unique about that, that we should change the nature of the job in the name of safety?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I've never played any football outside of recreational but it would seem to me that a lot of this could be solved if players had to tackle with their actual arms. It seems to me that in the past decade it has somehow become ok to make a "hit" rather than to attempt a "tackle".

I think I made this point in another thread, but when you watch some random game from 1982 or something (and there is or was a bunch of full-length games on youtube from around that time), it does seem like there's a lot more tackling and a lot less launching. Yes, you get the odd play where a guy throws a hit that would get him suspended today, but mostly, the game seemed amazingly clean. Even a guy like Ronnie Lott wasn't launching head first into guys.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Why can't we just accept that it's a dangerous game and the participants go into it knowing full-well that they could die or end up immediately or down the road with serious quality of life issues, and just leave it at that, and let them play the game? Those that don't want to, can take up other sports. Those that do will be well-compensated for the risks they take. Maybe force the league/players to set aside a huge pot of money for medical issues for retirees (as they've been discussing for the past couple of years). Just play the damn game the way it was meant to be played - no one is going into this thinking they will never get hurt.

At least at the professional level, I don't see why this is an issue. I'd agree that with kids and probably up to college, there is a bigger picture issue to consider. But grown men knowingly taking a dangerous job for high pay? What's so unique about that, that we should change the nature of the job in the name of safety?

We don't tolerate dangerous jobs in any industry as much as we used to, let alone one as visible as pro football player.

But the issue is money, and only money. The NFL believes (and I'm sure they have the medical opinions/research/ect. to back it up), that we're getting dangerously close to an on-field fatality, or to multiple instances of paralysis. The league could survive a death, maybe two, but if they ever had multiple death/paralysis instances in a short period of time, they industry would cripple. It may seem silly to worry about that when we haven't had an on-field incident like that for a while, but they obviously don't want to wait until then. If you believe the game is getting ore dangerous, which the NFL obviously does, it's a lot easier to deal with whiney fans than the aftermath of a disaster.

[Ksyrup]

We tolerate plenty of dangerous jobs. We don't tolerate forcing people to work in dangerous conditions, but that's not the same thing. The NFL is dangerous entertainment, and it always has been. I don't have a problem with them trying to make the game safer, I would just prefer they do it without changing the rules.

I think death/paralysis would be awful, but we've seen it before and I pretty much expect someone to get paralyzed nearly every weekend I watch a game and am amazed when no one gets hurt more seriously than they are. And it's been that way for at least 30+ years of my own viewing.

Death - to some extent that's a luck factor more than anything. That dude for the Lions who got hurt years ago came pretty close to dying on the field. But you have to imagine that with all the technology and precautions that are taken at the field, if someone's going to survive a potential deadly hit, their chances are better today than at any other time.

Football's just different that most sports, and certainly of the big 3 in the US. The whole point of the game is violence. When you try to minimize or eliminate (in the case of QBs) the violence, you change the game.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The whole point of the game is violence.

If that's true football probably is doomed.

The last time safety concerns caused signficant changes in how the game was played, we ended up with the forward pass. Which turned out to be a good thing. The game will always have to evolve.

I'm sure there were people then that hated that break from tradition, but the game was on a path it couldn't possibly sustain, and the NFL thinks it's on that same path now.

[Draft Dodger]

DOOMED

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

If that's true football probably is doomed.

The last time safety concerns caused signficant changes in how the game was played, we ended up with the forward pass. Which turned out to be a good thing. The game will always have to evolve.

I'm sure there were people then that hated that break from tradition, but the game was on a path it couldn't possibly sustain, and the NFL thinks it's on that same path now.

That's adding additional gameplay elements, not changing the fact that you hit and tackle the opponent.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

I think I made this point in another thread, but when you watch some random game from 1982 or something (and there is or was a bunch of full-length games on youtube from around that time), it does seem like there's a lot more tackling and a lot less launching. Yes, you get the odd play where a guy throws a hit that would get him suspended today, but mostly, the game seemed amazingly clean. Even a guy like Ronnie Lott wasn't launching head first into guys.

No doubt about it. And it's not just straight on tackling, how many times we do see a guy launch himself at a ball carrier who is down or going down. It never gets called but it happens dozens of times every week and serves no purpose.

They need to somehow enforce arm tackling, and if it means making shoulder to shoulder contact a penalty then so be it. That or make above shoulder contact that doesn't involve a grasp a penalty. There is no reason at all for above shoulder contact that doesn't involve the arms.

[MCK]

I blame EA & Madden. That HIT STICK has influenced players to do the same thing on the field.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

No doubt about it. And it's not just straight on tackling, how many times we do see a guy launch himself at a ball carrier who is down or going down. It never gets called but it happens dozens of times every week and serves no purpose.

They need to somehow enforce arm tackling, and if it means making shoulder to shoulder contact a penalty then so be it. That or make above shoulder contact that doesn't involve a grasp a penalty. There is no reason at all for above shoulder contact that doesn't involve the arms.

Rugby has the shoulder to knees rule..Nothing above the shoulder/armpit and nothing below the knee. It promote's proper tackling and less injuries that way.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

No doubt about it. And it's not just straight on tackling, how many times we do see a guy launch himself at a ball carrier who is down or going down. It never gets called but it happens dozens of times every week and serves no purpose.

They need to somehow enforce arm tackling, and if it means making shoulder to shoulder contact a penalty then so be it. That or make above shoulder contact that doesn't involve a grasp a penalty. There is no reason at all for above shoulder contact that doesn't involve the arms.

Stop offensive players from fighting for extra yards. You're hit and wrapped, you're whistled down. No need for extra guys to hit you on the way down to try and stop you from turning over in the guy's grip and getting that extra lunge for a couple of yards.

Make it illegal for any offensive player to lower their head prior to impact.

Ban the shallow crossing route.

Eliminate the five yard no contact rule so that DBs can actually cover guys down the field.

For years the NFL has handicapped defensive players. It seems like the best way to effectively counter it is to play zone and then try to force the ball out when it arrives. If you make it where man coverage is more obtainable and limit the need for zone defense, I think a lot of these bone jarring collisions go out with it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Stop offensive players from fighting for extra yards. You're hit and wrapped, you're whistled down. No need for extra guys to hit you on the way down to try and stop you from turning over in the guy's grip and getting that extra lunge for a couple of yards.

That's just glorified two-hand touch, is it not? Fighting through tackles and getting extra yards by 2nd and 3rd effort, or breaking free of a sure tackle and running for big yards are all part of the thrill of football games, IMO.

Make it illegal for any offensive player to lower their head prior to impact.

Is that not a basic human instinct to brace for an impact? I mean hell, when I'm sitting on my couch and I see a big collision coming, I instinctively lower my head in anticipation of a big hit. How would you legislate against instinct? Lowering your head/body is part of the act of trying not to get tackled - how would you explain/teach that in a game where you need 10 yards for a 1st down and you need to score more points than the other team, you should stay upright and allow yourself to be tackled instead of doing whatever you can to gain that extra yard?

Ban the shallow crossing route.

User beware. Or risk/reward.

Eliminate the five yard no contact rule so that DBs can actually cover guys down the field.

I would be fine with this as a tactical point, except scoring would probably go down, right?

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's just glorified two-hand touch, is it not? Fighting through tackles and getting extra yards by 2nd and 3rd effort, or breaking free of a sure tackle and running for big yards are all part of the thrill of football games, IMO.



Is that not a basic human instinct to brace for an impact? I mean hell, when I'm sitting on my couch and I see a big collision coming, I instinctively lower my head in anticipation of a big hit. How would you legislate against instinct? Lowering your head/body is part of the act of trying not to get tackled - how would you explain/teach that in a game where you need 10 yards for a 1st down and you need to score more points than the other team, you should stay upright and allow yourself to be tackled instead of doing whatever you can to gain that extra yard?



User beware. Or risk/reward.



I would be fine with this as a tactical point, except scoring would probably go down, right?

I don't just mean instinctive lowering of the head. NFL running backs use their helmets like battering rams.

For the record, I agree with all your comments. I was just pointing out a few things that would make the game a lot "safer" to play.

My point is this: If you want to reduce violence and collisions, you can't just let the offense do whatever they want and then shake your finger at defenders and expect them to make all the adjustments.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

No doubt about it. And it's not just straight on tackling, how many times we do see a guy launch himself at a ball carrier who is down or going down. It never gets called but it happens dozens of times every week and serves no purpose.

They need to somehow enforce arm tackling, and if it means making shoulder to shoulder contact a penalty then so be it. That or make above shoulder contact that doesn't involve a grasp a penalty. There is no reason at all for above shoulder contact that doesn't involve the arms.

I know what you are saying Suicane, I just hate the terminolgy "arm" tackling

The arms are involved but if you want to break tackling down to it's purest proper (and safe) form, the right technique starts with the feet.

You hear coaches say all the time to get low, drop your shoulder, bend your knees, etc, etc. In truth these things all can lead to injury, since doing anyone them individually can result in your head in a bad position, your spinal cord at risk, or your collarbone subject to contact it can't withstand.

Tackling correctly utilizes arms to wrap, but it starts with the feet. If players are taught to "bend" at the ankles before impact it automatically drops their butts, aligns their knees over their feet and shoulders over their knees. You teach them to hit off center on head on contact and look through the top of their helmets as they rip their arms through the ball carrier and drive their hips upward into him. This directs the impact in an upward manner and elevates the runner instead of centering the impact in a more condensed spot. (chest, Head, etc)

The result is effective, safe tackling for both the defender and ball carrier and it still looks pretty from the stands. Will it be done this way everytime? No, but drilling it into kids early makes it a habit. You can work this in 3/4 to full contact setting with youth and HS teams a lot more than you can in College or the NFL where there is little to no full speed contact after pre-season camps.

Position coaches at higher levels still teach this type of technique, but if you don't practice it enough it doesn't become habit and lets face it, pro players will revert back to the the style that gets them noticed (launching themselves into players and going high) and in the end nobody will say anything to them. Sure they get fined, but those fines are like parking tickets are to your average middle class person.

The change has come with the way players play the game, but will it? When a player is laid out by one of these hits and lays motionless on the field you see both teams concerned, kneeling, praying, consoling each other, you would think that would have a lasting effect but it doesn't. So why would fines and position coaches riding your ass to use better technique make a difference if staring at another player down and out from one of these hits doesn't? It won't because money, ego and the built in nature to do anything you need to hold on to your job as a world class athlete won't let it.

Sorry that I went way off topic with my tackling clinic here, but I guess my point is the players know how to tackle, but they choose not to do so safely and no matter what you do to make them, it is still ultimately their choice and there are really no deterents strong enough to change that mindset. No matter what rules you put on or how much you improve gear players will still play the game in a reckless fashion because it intimidates opponents and puts money in their pockets.

[Greyroofoo]

Everything is doomed on December 21, 2012

[BillJasper]

Eliminate zone defense?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Everything is doomed on December 21, 2012

Damn you, always the bearer of bad news.....BYU only has one more shot at a BCS bowl!

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Damn you, always the bearer of bad news.....BYU only has one more shot at a BCS bowl!

They have a second shot at being named to one... they won't get to play the game but they can still be named to it...

[molson]

Wow, so the last college football game ever played in the history of mankind is is likely to be either the 2012 Beef 'O Brady's St. Petersburg Bowl or perhaps the 2012 R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl. That's kind of a shame.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Has there really been a lot of real studies showing NFL players living horrible lives? Not to crap on the "conussions are the end of the world" stuff that has proliferated the media, but I don't see a lot of former football players dropping dead. Sure there have been stories about former players who have had problems, but I don't think it's the norm by any means.

Extensive studies. It is well documented that NFL players have a much shorter life expectancy than normal and are more prone to arthritis and dementia than norm. I read a study a few years ago that broke down the life expectancy of players by position. Offensive linemen had a life expectancy in the mid-50s.

I think he's right that head injuries could mean doom for the NFL, but for different reasons. Make no mistake that this is coming up now ahead of the collective bargaining agreement ending. The NFLPA has been making head injuries a point in negotiations, and the NFL is trying to win in the court of public opinion that they are doing something. I fully expect that once negotiations begin to break down, the NFLPA will start rolling out former players with dementia disorders and who can't walk as evidence they need more money.

But I think the bigger danger to the NFL is that head injuries could be like nicotine for Big Tobacco. I imagine over the next decade we will learn that the NFL and owners knew more than they have admitted thus far about the health impact of playing football. It's just a matter of time before a group of former players who feel wronged take the the NFL to court regarding their injuries.

I'm somewhat surprised at this point that at every level of football from pee-wee to the pros that you don't have to sign a waiver saying that whatever happens to you on a football field is at your own risk.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by molson

Wow, so the last college football game ever played in the history of mankind is is likely to be either the 2012 Beef 'O Brady's St. Petersburg Bowl or perhaps the 2012 R+L Carriers New Orleans bowl. That's kind of a shame.

Yeah but you have to figure that there'll be a hell of a party in New Orleans

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Extensive studies. It is well documented that NFL players have a much shorter life expectancy than normal and are more prone to arthritis and dementia than norm. I read a study a few years ago that broke down the life expectancy of players by position. Offensive linemen had a life expectancy in the mid-50s.

I think he's right that head injuries could mean doom for the NFL, but for different reasons. Make no mistake that this is coming up now ahead of the collective bargaining agreement ending. The NFLPA has been making head injuries a point in negotiations, and the NFL is trying to win in the court of public opinion that they are doing something. I fully expect that once negotiations begin to break down, the NFLPA will start rolling out former players with dementia disorders and who can't walk as evidence they need more money.

But I think the bigger danger to the NFL is that head injuries could be like nicotine for Big Tobacco. I imagine over the next decade we will learn that the NFL and owners knew more than they have admitted thus far about the health impact of playing football. It's just a matter of time before a group of former players who feel wronged take the the NFL to court regarding their injuries.

I'm somewhat surprised at this point that at every level of football from pee-wee to the pros that you don't have to sign a waiver saying that whatever happens to you on a football field is at your own risk.

was that print or online? i'd love to look at that.

what's interesting to me is how often head injuries are used as a defense in court. guy gets in a fender bender on monday beats his wife on friday and the 2 are often correlated. absence of sympathy/empathy is one of the symptoms of some concussions. scary.

[Abe Sargent]

These hits are a natural consequence of the NFL's desire to make this a passing league. Now people are running full force into each other in positions that increase the likelihood of harm. When you play in space, you go faster and are more likely to spear people. If you reduce the field by moving back to a running game, this stuff will be reduced in degree and number.

The league wanted this, now they have to deal with it.

[Ksyrup]

It's all Don Coryell's fault.

[Tekneek]

It isn't new that there are kids having to give up contact sports due to concussions. The more we learn about the long term consequences of concussions on the brain, the less all of this seems like a good idea. They really should take it seriously. If they are found to be cooking the books on this, ala what the tobacco companies did in regards to nicotine/smoking in past decades, then they run the risk of losing what they care about most (lots of money) someday in the future.

As a person who has had 1 documented concussion, and of the "mild" variety, I can safely state that things are not the same as they were before. I have more headaches than I did before, and more of them are severe than before. My memory has not been the same as before. It changed a lot of things for me, and it was many months before the neurologist could be convinced I was symptom free. I suppose some people have them and just get completely better, but it wasn't that way for me.