Because touch football is lame. I had to play it in PE class as a kid but we sure as heck never played it by choice. Blocking and tackling is integral to football it’s like asking people to play ice hockey without skates or with all their teeth.
The Valdosta program, according to the cites you provided, is paying NOTHING towards the costs of this multipurpose stadium, although they are the primary user. They are not in fact self-supporting unless they are paying at least fair market value towards their use of the stadium. They are being subsidized by the taxpayers of Valdosta.
If the taxpayers of Valdosta want to subsidize the team, fine. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with people falsely asserting that the program pays for itself, when the reality is that it requires a subsidy from tax dollars.
The article to which I linked in post #52 says, “[Rick] Darlington, who also is the school’s athletics director, doesn’t teach a class. While he’s paid $87,500 a year, average teacher pay in the Valdosta City Schools system ranks among the bottom third in the state…” [Darlington was the head coach then, although he’s apparently no longer in that position.]
Since he doesn’t teach a class, he should not be getting his salary from the school district, by your own logic. So where’s it coming from?
The various articles to which you and I linked have talked about the booster club giving him a truck allowance and paying bonuses, etc., but nothing about his base salary.
Do you have a cite that says who paid that $87K salary? (Not a naked assertion, but a real substantiated black-and-white statement from someone in authority.)
If you can actually provide a cite that proves your thesis, please provide it. Everything so far provided says that Georgia high school football consumes a great deal of Georgia tax money.
Right, but my point is that, since it’s been said in this thread that football would end up replaced with sports like soccer or lacrosse, why not the similar sport that keeps the tactics and the times and so on but without the brain scrambling? Hasn’t even been considered.
Is it really that bad?
Football is also big b/c it bring in $$$ for the schools and colleges a pro football.
That varies depending on the state. For example Iowa:
Doctor Jackson, I will tell you that in my own person experience it’s more normal than not for at least one, and usually two, coaches on the school payroll to not be “teachers” in the sense of “are the teacher of record for a class”, even though they are “teachers” in the sense of “are classified as teachers in the payroll”. There’s nothing underhanded or illicit about this. Sometimes, the job is Head Football Coach/Athletic Director, which means that in addition to the football duties, the coach is organizing athletics for the school–which means making coaching assignments, filling out truly mind-boggling amounts of paperwork, dealing with eligibility issues, scheduling things, etc. etc. My last school had 1150 kids and we had a person like this, plus a dedicated Coach/Female Athletic Director to organize that side of the program. At a larger school, there would be even more people who had exclusively coaching duties.
I really think you are mis-reading your own cites. Booster clubs and ticket sales provide the garnish for football programs–and it’s a lot of garnish. High School football would be a very different game without those. But the underlying infrastructure, the salary and facilities, are paid for by school systems using tax dollars.
As a way to pass the time on a pleasant summer day or at Thanksgiving with the family it’s not that bad. But as a spectator sport touch football is about as exciting as the wallpaper at the dentist’s office. I’d rather play basketball, a sport I don’t particularly care for and am horrible at, than play touch football. Blocking and tackling are fundamental aspects of football and if they’re removed the sport suffers. But on the flip side I think if changes aren’t made to make football safer then it will go the way of boxing.
I’d like to see more attention paid to the non-brain injury risks of football.
For instance, there’s the phenomenon of “bulking up”, which sportswriters casually allude to as though it was a harmless necessity for playing at a high level.
A couple days ago there was a story in the local paper about a high school player who made it into a Division I program, and was promptly advised by the coaching staff that he needed to add 40 pounds. I am :dubious: about what healthy ways exist to do this, even if one is not tempted to add anabolic steroids to the mix. As to what all the extra weight does to knees and other overloaded parts of the skeleton, that’s another story.
More ironies - there’s a guest column by a Jets player, D’Brickashaw Ferguson, on the efforts of the Jets training staff to have the players ‘eat right’. The guy weighs 300 pounds, but the “nutritionists” are worried about feeding him only non-GMO foods.
There’s a sickness here.
I have been thinking something like this for a while now. I can see it becoming a spiral. The fewer whites play the sport, the fewer whites will take an interest. White fans will migrate away, as they have from basketball. (My guess is probably to hockey; I don’t think soccer will ever be accepted as fully American.)
Not that pro football will die: but it will shrink and become less a part of the general culture. Like basketball, it will become a “black thing,” and only on the periphery of awareness of most whites.
One way of dealing with the liability chill would be for states to enact laws similar to Colorado’s Ski Safety Act. Just push through a law that inoculates high-schools, coaches, etc. from liability over inherent risks of the activity, and define head injury (or pretty much any other injury) as an inherent risk.
If you take the lines of out American football, you will greatly reduce head injuries.
If you take the scrums out of rugy, you will greatly reduce spinal injury paralysis.
That leaves you with seven-a-side rugby or soccer/football, neither of which have much appeal to to slow, overweight, children.
Perhaps some effort should be put into coming up with a sport that will appeal to kids who want to play a knock-about type of game, but are not built for aerobic activity. What type of activity will appeal to kids on the lines or kids in the scrum? It’s that, or continue with the status quo and have their brains scrambled or spines broken, or cut out lines and scrums and let the fat little fuckers wander away from athletics into a life of diabetes and heart attacks.
I hear this all the time and it’s so wrong that it’s had to believe that people still buy into it. Paraphrased, it;s “I never watch the NBA or go to games, but let me tell you all about it.” You and your friends may not like the game, but you can’t extrapolate from that anecdote to what is actually going on. There are more white players in the League than there were a few years ago, and that’s not even counting the Euros. The stands are close to full and they’re full of middle-aged white guys with their kids.
NBA TV ratings are up 60% from their lows in the mid 00’s. Whatever your friends think and do and say, they are not representative of the country as a whole. Not to mention the World. NBA basketball is wildly popular in many parts of Europe, South America, and Asia. It is by far the most popular American sport outside of the USA. Football doesn’t even register.
Agree with the above. I couldn’t give two hoots about basketball, but I’ve always heard the NBA characterized as white millionaires in the stands watching black millionaires on the court. IOW, the spectator corps is very far from all-black.
I’m a mid-level NFL fan. I don’t care in the slightest what color anybody is. Heck, you can hardly tell half the time; they’re pretty well hidden under all that gear.
And I don’t follow the soap opera, just the games themselves. So whether it’s Bubba or BraShawn who got in trouble with the law last weekend doesn’t matter to me.
Perhaps the increasing concern for head injuries will reduce the number of over-protected suburbanites growing up to be pro football players. But I’ll wager that former suburban kids are a pretty tiny minority of current NFL players. Such that even them disappearing entirely isn’t going to change the racial or social background makeup of the NFL much.
So you’re saying urban and rural parents won’t worry about their kids health. Ok.
If someone has trouble with aerobic activities then football isn’t a good sport for them. Even a big fat lineman needs to be able to explode off the line of scrimmage in order to block or go past the guy in front of him. And from personal experience I can tell you that a big lineman who can’t move quickly is not a great asset to your team. During practice every player will be made to sprint a few 20s, 40s, and even 100s and coach often found the time to have us run a mile or two at the end of practice.
Wrestling might be a good sport for those who are into the rough and tumble but don’t want the added risk of brain damage. But wrestling is a pretty aerobic sport.
Flag football. No blocking or tackling permitted.
Cheerleading is growing as a separate sport and has more men (lucky) in it.
There’s been a lot of discussion of the supply side, and of course that’s a factor. But you could have half the talent pool and still put on exciting games.
I’m not a spectator sport watcher, but I figured the demand side might be more important. Fewer kids playing American football as teens would tend to reduce the fan base when they gain adulthood. I figured this would be a 50+ year process.
I’ll go all out and make a prediction. The 2035 Superbowl will have worse ratings than the 2015 Superbowl. Substantially worse. Caveat: I don’t know what I’m talking about.
So? Make the NFL play flag football or touch football. Problem solved.
You’re welcome, NFL! 
Personally, I don’t need blocking and tackling in my life. And boxing could be made a lot safer if they would just make people only do slap fighting instead of hitting with fists. It would be far more entertaining, too.