I know anecdotes are not data, however: I have heard so many mothers of small boys over the last few years say to me that they will absolutely forbid their sons to play football because of the danger.
From what I’ve been able to glean from the news articles and other stuff, the main brain injury risk in football is due to the accumulation of sub-concussive impacts over time- that’s predominantly why you see ex-pro players who played in positions with a lot of head hits being diagnosed with CTE- linebackers, running backs and linemen, with a handful of receivers and quarterbacks. By way of comparison, Troy Aikman with his seven concussions is probably overall less likely to suffer CTE as a result of his football career than say… teammates Mark Stepnoski © or Charles Haley (LB), strictly due to the fact that Stepnoski and Haley likely banged heads hard with someone on EVERY down, and very frequently in practice, and past a certain point in his career, the only time Aikman was having a helmet-helmet hit was when he was being sacked, which doesn’t even compare to the numbers of hits that Stepnoski and Haley were having.
Also, this head-leading style of play seems to be something that grew out of the plastic-shelled helmet and facemask introduction in the 1950s, and has been compounded by bigger, faster players and different helmet designs from the 1960s that minimize skull fractures, but tend to increase concussions.
So I think what’ll happen is that the sport will change to be more rugby-like, or it’ll go the way of boxing and become irrelevant. I’d like to think that the NFL and NCAA would get together and change the rules and equipment to prevent CTE, even if it makes the game considerably less violent, but I have my doubts, and suspect that the NFL owners will likely just try to milk the game for all they can while they can, and will run the sport into the ground.
I expected this thread to have been initiated by the study which was just posted a few days ago–but no one has mentioned it:
Study: Tackle football risks increase in players who start earlier
Club sports, such as AAU, are really something interesting these days. AAU football already exists, but only includes kids up to about middle school. If (or rather when) it expands to high school, I still see high school football sticking around. AAU and club sports are more expensive. I know club baseball costs can get out of control pretty quickly with league fees, equipment and travel accommodations. I suspect football would be even more expensive.
Fears of head injury risks will not deter parents from letting their kids play football. It’s anecdotal, but just watch 5 minutes of Friday Night Tykes and get a load of these parents.
Not in our lifetimes.
I agree. It will deter some parents, but not all. I live in a fairly non-football area, and even here for every parent with a middle school-age boy who said no to football, there’s another parent who is letting their kid play. And some of those are parents who were saying “no way will my kid play” five years ago. There are certainly more parents keeping their kids out than ten years ago, but it’s not enough to kill the sport (yet).
My brother was a teacher in a small (tiny) burg in WI.
In the early 80’s he asked me for ideas for high school athletics because the district was having trouble paying the insurance on football.
Yes, I DID suggest soccer - they had a soccer program, but it was not promoted nearly as much as the football program.
So, the OP has the right idea.
I just suggest that the popularity of soccer in the last 20-30 years is not entirely without financial motives.
A soccer field and a football field look a whole lot alike - if we can raise a generation to think “soccer” instead of “football”, the cost of goals, balls and uniforms will be dirt cheap.
Hate to tell you this but the Super Bowl has been consistently the highest ranking TV event of the year and according to THISSunday’s Super Bowl had the highest ratings ever. Whereas the championships for baseball and basketball have remained mediocre. Granted those sports dont also have good halftime events.
I just heard the latest Radiolab podcast which focuses on football this week. There was an interesting story which included comments on the effect of traumatic injuries on younger players.
Wont happen. Soccer is too 1-dimensional meaning its all in the feet plus kids often want a different sports experience.
What I’m seeing with soccer is yes, its popular with young kids because 1. any little kid can do it 2. its pretty much non-injury and 3. its cheap like you mentioned.
However what I see is by around age 10-12 many kids if they are not totally soccer nuts, or the top players getting alot of playing time, are bored with it, or there body types wont work with it (ex. too chunky or tall) and want something more aggressive so they switch to hockey, lacrosse, or sometimes if allowed - football. Soccer provides the basic athletic skills for those sports and in the case of football - those fast, quick moving soccer players really make good running backs.
Baseball, basketball, tennis, swimming, wrestling, and golf are also there but those sports require more private coaching or in the case of basketball, a kid having the height.
On athletic fields:
A modern athletic field, the ones with the astro turf, are now designed to be multi-sport. Meaning football, soccer, or lacrosse. Also somewhat for band performances. The lines are printed on and they need to mowing, no reseeding, have no mud, and require little maintenance. Games are never rained out and I’ve seen them in use nearly every night.
Sorry, since the first part and majority of your post was a visceral “I don’t like it and they spend too much money on it” that is what I addressed. Can one get injured playing football? Sure. My son played both football and baseball. He was injured twice, both broken bones, both while playing baseball. Should we just do away with all contact sports?
I was referencing schools of which I have personal knowlege (Georgia, mostly) and cites are easy to find:
I am honestly shocked that other states use more than token public funds for HS football.
The thing is, I can remember reading articles like this 15, maybe 20 years ago. It’s not like awareness of the risks has just sprung up recently.
Maybe things will change going forwards, but what is the difference now?
(I’m seriously asking, as I don’t live in the US)
It isn’t going to shift to club play for a number of reasons. #1, 98% of HS players never play another game after graduation. They don’t get the volume nor severity of hits that a college/pro player racks up over a career. I just don’t see a lot of liability for High Schools. The guys who have problems after long careers will sue the college or the NFL - that’s where the money is.
-
Moving to club ball does nothing to reduce risk.
-
Divorcing it from the High School will kill the sport. Attendance would drop by 90%, as would revenue. A HS soccer game will draw about 200 students and family members plus another 50 for the visitors. A club game among the highest level players (far, far, better than even the best High School teams) will draw 50 total. The reason club teams tell their best players to not play in HS is because the risk of injury is much higher playing against less skilled players who are clumsy and don’t know the proper tackling techniques. They are trying to protect the players who might be getting college scholarships.
Look at some of those cites, though.
“In Hall County and Gainesville schools, the only taxpayer money spent on sports is funneled into teachers’ coaching supplements.” Those supplements are more than a million bucks a year ($1,111,572 in 2008-09 school year). I’d consider that more than “token” right there.
The Valdosta article notes that they had $469,000 in revenue and a $49,600 profit. Oh, but their stadium upgrade ($7.5 million) came straight out of sales tax revenue.
At Buford, they budget $88,000 from the athletic booster club for sixteen sports teams. The school offers 22 varsity sports (plus nine at the middle school); who pays for the others? It sounds like they are supplementing the taxpayer-funded sports budget, and I’d about bet that the most expensive program (probably football) by itself costs much more than $88K.
Um, even the less-skilled HS soccer players should not be tackling their opponents. :dubious:
Huh??
Football players (American meaning of the term) tackle each other as part of the game. What set of soccer rules permits tackling opponents? (or did you get your sports mixed up?)
ETA: Tackling the ball (soccer style) is quite a bit different than tackling the opponent (football style).
No, what I’ve heard is they dont want them to pick up a bad habit from a school coach who may or may not really know what they are doing.
I think your forgetting other reasons for club teams. For example a club team separates itself from the politics of school sports. Meaning a kid doesnt get more playing time just because their parents are on the school board.
Another is many kids from a school with a weak program in say basketball, will want to play with a club team where they can get better exposure.
Finally as a club team school rules dont apply meaning a kid cant get kicked off the football team because of a bad math grade.
No shit. Poorly executed (soccer) tackles are where most injuries occur.
You know, running around on grass on cleats and kicking a leather sphere into a soccer goal is a “goal.” So is slap-shotting a rubber puck into a net while skating on ice in blades. “Tackle” is not a word defined by American football. It is pre-dated by soccer by a century.
Is there any reasonable way of changing football (i.e. a rule change, and/or possibly an equipment change) that would reduce the risk of brain injury?