Brains and football

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
Here's a brief on recent research on the effects of football on brain development and brain disease:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-parents-be-afraid-to-let-their-kids-play-football/

Short article: so far the results are inconclusive, but alarming. And parents are reacting to that. Missing data = comparisons with brain damage in soccer. Problem = the more conclusive this gets - and the big epidemiological studies in train now will tell us more fairly soon - the more likely it will be that football will find itself with smaller and smaller numbers of kids playing. And, hence, college age players. And, hence, fans.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,613
takethepoints said:
Here's a brief on recent research on the effects of football on brain development and brain disease:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-parents-be-afraid-to-let-their-kids-play-football/

Short article: so far the results are inconclusive, but alarming. And parents are reacting to that. Missing data = comparisons with brain damage in soccer. Problem = the more conclusive this gets - and the big epidemiological studies in train now will tell us more fairly soon - the more likely it will be that football will find itself with smaller and smaller numbers of kids playing. And, hence, college age players. And, hence, fans.
Click to expand...

Progress toward the serious injury issue is to limit the size of the players. Injury levels go way down when the players are much more near the same size (weight), and are smaller. That hurts participation of very large players but opens the door for many times more smaller players (resulting in a faster and more exciting game). It also will better level the talent among teams.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,047
danny daniel said:
Progress toward the serious injury issue is to limit the size of the players. Injury levels go way down when the players are much more near the same size (weight), and are smaller. That hurts participation of very large players but opens the door for many times more smaller players (resulting in a faster and more exciting game). It also will better level the talent among teams.
Click to expand...
What size do you limit them to? Is it a height restriction? Weight? What about strength, does that need to be limited too? What about speed?

I could be wrong, but I don't hear too much about lineman getting concussions, but I've seen plenty of 6 ft 185 lb DB's get their clock cleaned.

Better safety equipment is needed, not limiting the size or speed of players. Do you really want to watch undersized slower players when you know far bigger and better athletes exist? Because women's sports already exist
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
yeti92 said:
What size do you limit them to? Is it a height restriction? Weight? What about strength, does that need to be limited too? What about speed?

I could be wrong, but I don't hear too much about lineman getting concussions, but I've seen plenty of 6 ft 185 lb DB's get their clock cleaned.

Better safety equipment is needed, not limiting the size or speed of players. Do you really want to watch undersized slower players when you know far bigger and better athletes exist? Because women's sports already exist
Click to expand...

It’s easy. Ban the forward pass. Two platoons. And anyone over 160 lbs.

Injuries = 0.
 

GSOJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
249
I love football, but if I were the parent of a child today, I would be encouraging my children to play sports other than football. I suspect I would be in good company.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,613
yeti92 said:
What size do you limit them to? Is it a height restriction? Weight? What about strength, does that need to be limited too? What about speed?

I could be wrong, but I don't hear too much about lineman getting concussions, but I've seen plenty of 6 ft 185 lb DB's get their clock cleaned.

Better safety equipment is needed, not limiting the size or speed of players. Do you really want to watch undersized slower players when you know far bigger and better athletes exist? Because women's sports already exist
Click to expand...

I would challenge the statement that smaller players are slower. The opposite is true with obvious exceptions. I certainly agree with the better equipment issue.

I don;t think we are anywhere close to needing weight limits but the trajectory of football (injuries threatening the game) is not good. When the time comes for drastic measures to save the game IMO weight limits are one leg of a solution to cut down on injuries. Another consideration is the health of the player. A player 6' 4" will be more healthy long term being 260 lbs vs 350. Also there are vast numbers of talented (smaller) great athletes available to help even the playing field with recruiting. The extremely large and exceptionally talented players are few and wind up helping the factory programs maintain their total dominance in the game. Change is coming, maybe later than sooner, but I am suggesting one possible direction for the change.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,917
takethepoints said:
Here's a brief on recent research on the effects of football on brain development and brain disease:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-parents-be-afraid-to-let-their-kids-play-football/

Short article: so far the results are inconclusive, but alarming. And parents are reacting to that. Missing data = comparisons with brain damage in soccer. Problem = the more conclusive this gets - and the big epidemiological studies in train now will tell us more fairly soon - the more likely it will be that football will find itself with smaller and smaller numbers of kids playing. And, hence, college age players. And, hence, fans.
Click to expand...
In Chapel Hill they didn’t field a high school football team in 2018 due to lack of players. The other high school didn’t field a team a few years ago. They are getting huge numbers for soccer which is played in the fall and pulls kids away from football. Most parents are putting their little kids into soccer at very early ages rather than pee wee football.
 
GCdaJuiceMan

GCdaJuiceMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,969
g0lftime said:
In Chapel Hill they didn’t field a high school football team in 2018 due to lack of players. The other high school didn’t field a team a few years ago. They are getting huge numbers for soccer which is played in the fall and pulls kids away from football. Most parents are putting their little kids into soccer at very early ages rather than pee wee football.
Click to expand...

Must be different geographically. GHSA 100% played in the spring (while I was in school). Curious to know what the reasoning is for playing in the fall.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,917
GCdaJuiceMan said:
Must be different geographically. GHSA 100% played in the spring (while I was in school). Curious to know what the reasoning is for playing in the fall.
Click to expand...
Been that way since I moved here in 1974. Soccer was way bigger here than in atlanta back then. Lacrosse is the spring sport in North Carolina other than baseball. Girls soccer in the fall.
 

White_Gold

GT Athlete
Messages
314
Location
Dahlonega
takethepoints said:
Here's a brief on recent research on the effects of football on brain development and brain disease:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-parents-be-afraid-to-let-their-kids-play-football/

Short article: so far the results are inconclusive, but alarming. And parents are reacting to that. Missing data = comparisons with brain damage in soccer. Problem = the more conclusive this gets - and the big epidemiological studies in train now will tell us more fairly soon - the more likely it will be that football will find itself with smaller and smaller numbers of kids playing. And, hence, college age players. And, hence, fans.
Click to expand...

Epidemiological studies are garbage.

I haven't read up on it recently, but IIRC they were finding CTE in people that never played sports.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
White_Gold said:
Epidemiological studies are garbage.

I haven't read up on it recently, but IIRC they were finding CTE in people that never played sports.
Click to expand...
Why don't people smoke as much as they used to? Because epidemiological studies showed such clear linkages between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. No need for a RCT when the results are that strong. We found the causal mechanisms later. It would be nice if you could conduct an RCT for the connection between CTE and sports. But that would be unethical and, on top of that, the big studies, if done correctly, will tell us what we need to know.

One of the doctors thinks they already have. The reasoning is simple. We know that people who play contact sports have a higher incidence of CTE. CTE is incurable and untreatable. Therefore, don't play contact sports, especially when you are get big enough to make the physics dangerous. Unless, of course, you want to take the risk. Is this clearly supported by the evidence so far? No. Is it a defensible position? Yes.
 
Top