The Changing Face of Football in America

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,200
I've always wondered if they changed the materials of a helmet, would it help with the concussions? Right now, you basically have a hard plastic shell and a metal cage for a face mask, which gives players a false sense of protection, and they're more willing to throw their bodies head first at an opponent. The hard plastic is also less forgiving. If anyone has played football, you know how annoying it was for a coach to whack you with a whistle, or one of your buddies smacking the top of your helmet. Now imagine a 200 lb guy running full speed at you and hitting your helmet with his helmet. Just the sonic waves created by the hard plastic to plastic impact is damaging to your brain.

My idea is to keep the metal face mask, but extend it to "cage" the head. Have a memory foam type interior inside of the metal cage surrounding the head, another smaller layer of foam or air bladder type protection outside of the "cage", and rubber outer layer "wrap" all of it. It looks the same as current helmets, but much softer materials while still protecting your brain. Also, it's a lot lighter so you don't get those hard helmet to helmet sonic waves traveling through your helmet (and brain). I also think guys would be less willing to throw their heads first on tackles.
When was the last time you put on a football helmet? They have changed quite a lot over the last 20+ years
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,347
Location
Auburn, AL
This is probably behind a paywall but it is a really fascinating article on how football is changing in America in terms of demographics, geographics, and even how the sport itself is played from an early age.


The top line is that participation in football has been decreasing steadily for a decade.

Participation has fallen 17 percent since 2006, when more than 1.1 million boys played the sport, a larger decline than any of the other top 10 most popular boys’ sports. Participation in tackle football among kids ages 6 to 12 fell 13 percent from 2019 to 2022, according to annual survey data from the Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA).

In the last 10 years only 2 states have seen an increase in the number of youth playing football - AL and Miss. Even in TX participation has dropped 12% over the last decade.

An individual is much more likely to be playing football if they live in the South, Midwest, or Central Plains parts of the US, than if they live in the NE, Mid-Atlantic, or West Coast. The higher rates of football participation are almost exclusively in states with medium household incomes below the national average. The highest participation rates are in the Deep South.

Among kids and teens, White and Black males are playing tackle football at declining rates, while Hispanic boys increasingly take up the sport. In college, the proportion of White players is declining, and that of Black players rising, at faster rates than national demographic changes.

Participation from 2014 to 2022 by white kids has declined from 10% to 7.5%. Black participation has declined from 16% to 11%, Hispanic participation has increased from 4% to 7%.

At the college level the percentage of white football players has dropped from 55% to 44% while the percentage of black players has increased from 36% to 40%. The share of players who identify as multiple races has increased from 2% to 6%.

Overall they are seeing football being played much less in wealthier communities and rising in impoverished communities.

The other big change is the movement to flag football instead of tackle football across America (something that the NFL has supported with its NFL Flag program).

Eight states have sanctioned girls’ flag football as an interscholastic sport at the high school level, and as many as 20 more are considering similar steps. Flag football will be a sport at the 2028 Olympics.

In 2017 particpation in flag football surpassed tackle football in youth leagues for the first time - 1M vs 725K for kids 6-12.

Flag football is seen as less expensive, less dangerous, and more inclusive (there are many girls flag football leagues). It is also much more prevalent in wealthy, white communities.

When the Aspen Institute surveyed children in grades 3 through 12, it found that White children played flag football at a significantly higher rate than they played tackle, while the opposite was true for Black children.

6 states have introduced bills that would ban tackle football for children younger than 12. None of have passed yet.

The biggest driver for these changes is obviously CTE. Families from wealthier backgrounds are now largely encouraging their kids not to play tackle football, while poorer kids still see it as their best way out of poverty.

NFL has largely been trying to walk a tight rope to prevent continued declines in participation - encouraging flag football at an early age and then hoping to convert kids to tackle football later on.

“The future of football,” top NFL executives have declared publicly several times in recent months, “is flag.”

Some have questioned whether the NFL can ever completely reject youth tackle football, because of the implicit message it would send. “Banning tackle football for kids until high school becomes the warning label on the cigarettes,” documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon said during an Aspen Institute panel. “It will impact the way we see the game once we truly are honest about the way it impacts human beings of any age.”

These are just sort of the top line takeaways from the article. There is alot more in depth discussion if you can read it.
I had lunch with Gary Lee a few years ago. I asked if his kids were considering playing football.

Gary said he discouraged it. “I had to play”, he said. ‘It was a way out, for me. My kids don’t have that pressure. I wanted them to play soccer. Football … is a very violent game.”
 

ThatGuy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,029
Location
Evergreen, CO
I've always wondered if they changed the materials of a helmet, would it help with the concussions? Right now, you basically have a hard plastic shell and a metal cage for a face mask, which gives players a false sense of protection, and they're more willing to throw their bodies head first at an opponent. The hard plastic is also less forgiving. If anyone has played football, you know how annoying it was for a coach to whack you with a whistle, or one of your buddies smacking the top of your helmet. Now imagine a 200 lb guy running full speed at you and hitting your helmet with his helmet. Just the sonic waves created by the hard plastic to plastic impact is damaging to your brain.

My idea is to keep the metal face mask, but extend it to "cage" the head. Have a memory foam type interior inside of the metal cage surrounding the head, another smaller layer of foam or air bladder type protection outside of the "cage", and rubber outer layer "wrap" all of it. It looks the same as current helmets, but much softer materials while still protecting your brain. Also, it's a lot lighter so you don't get those hard helmet to helmet sonic waves traveling through your helmet (and brain). I also think guys would be less willing to throw their heads first on tackles.
There have been some interesting advances in helmet technology over the past 5-6 years.

While none have changed the standard helmet format, many have developed new impact materials to address the heavy collisions. VICIS was doing some really good things, but ran into funding issues - related to the difficulty of getting creature-of-habit football players to switch helmets.

Windpact has also tried to make some strides in that area.

Still, I think the answer has to be in something that incentivizes a change in behavior. You need to convince players to feel less invincible, not more - and a safer helmet that makes it easier to hit without damage does exactly the opposite thing.

In skydiving, we have a concept called Booth's 2nd Law, which states: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." It's held true since it was posited some 40-50 years ago. I see similar behavior exhibited by football players. The challenge isn't necessarily making the gear safer as it is doing something that corrects the risk homeostasis a player feels when surrounded by increasingly effective gear. How you solve that, no one knows.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,408
There have been some interesting advances in helmet technology over the past 5-6 years.

While none have changed the standard helmet format, many have developed new impact materials to address the heavy collisions. VICIS was doing some really good things, but ran into funding issues - related to the difficulty of getting creature-of-habit football players to switch helmets.

Windpact has also tried to make some strides in that area.

Still, I think the answer has to be in something that incentivizes a change in behavior. You need to convince players to feel less invincible, not more - and a safer helmet that makes it easier to hit without damage does exactly the opposite thing.

In skydiving, we have a concept called Booth's 2nd Law, which states: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." It's held true since it was posited some 40-50 years ago. I see similar behavior exhibited by football players. The challenge isn't necessarily making the gear safer as it is doing something that corrects the risk homeostasis a player feels when surrounded by increasingly effective gear. How you solve that, no one knows.
The NFL suspended the Steeler safety for basically “targeting” though the NFL doesn’t use that word, for the season, ejected in the game and the last 3 games of the season.

Basically that is the approach that will take the head shots out of the game.
 

L41k18

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
177
I had lunch with Gary Lee a few years ago. I asked if his kids were considering playing football.

Gary said he discouraged it. “I had to play”, he said. ‘It was a way out, for me. My kids don’t have that pressure. I wanted them to play soccer. Football … is a very violent game.”

Doesn't his son play for Tech?
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,197
I've always wondered if they changed the materials of a helmet, would it help with the concussions? Right now, you basically have a hard plastic shell and a metal cage for a face mask, which gives players a false sense of protection, and they're more willing to throw their bodies head first at an opponent. The hard plastic is also less forgiving. If anyone has played football, you know how annoying it was for a coach to whack you with a whistle, or one of your buddies smacking the top of your helmet. Now imagine a 200 lb guy running full speed at you and hitting your helmet with his helmet. Just the sonic waves created by the hard plastic to plastic impact is damaging to your brain.

My idea is to keep the metal face mask, but extend it to "cage" the head. Have a memory foam type interior inside of the metal cage surrounding the head, another smaller layer of foam or air bladder type protection outside of the "cage", and rubber outer layer "wrap" all of it. It looks the same as current helmets, but much softer materials while still protecting your brain. Also, it's a lot lighter so you don't get those hard helmet to helmet sonic waves traveling through your helmet (and brain). I also think guys would be less willing to throw their heads first on tackles.
Except this will not prevent concussions, which happen inside the skull, not outside where the padding is.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,018
Except this will not prevent concussions, which happen inside the skull, not outside where the padding is.
The next innovation in football helmets will look something like this
3E77376C-FDE0-4420-99A6-AAE91BBF6584.jpeg


Here’s an accompanying article to go with the photo: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...n-games-along-with-position-specific-helmets/

The NFL has required players at certain positions to wear the “Guardian Caps” in offseason practices, and the article suggests they could be worn in games soon. Most colleges and some high schools now also use them during practices, and according to studies; the lower the level of play the more reduction in head injuries they produce.

Regardless of whether or not these specific devices start seeing in-game action, the next generation of football helmets will almost definitely include a soft, padded outer shell. It may require teams to go away from the traditional logo-ed helmet look if it strays too far away from the traditional buckets, but will go a long way for player safety.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,798
Son played ol in college and has coached texas high school for 25 years. Has been big school and now is doing good work a very small school. Soph kids get to play out of necessity, but they have never played tackle football. Their tackling is all hands and a group thing. By sr year they are good. He is very strict about using the head. .
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,401
The next innovation in football helmets will look something like this
View attachment 15362

Here’s an accompanying article to go with the photo: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...n-games-along-with-position-specific-helmets/

The NFL has required players at certain positions to wear the “Guardian Caps” in offseason practices, and the article suggests they could be worn in games soon. Most colleges and some high schools now also use them during practices, and according to studies; the lower the level of play the more reduction in head injuries they produce.

Regardless of whether or not these specific devices start seeing in-game action, the next generation of football helmets will almost definitely include a soft, padded outer shell. It may require teams to go away from the traditional logo-ed helmet look if it strays too far away from the traditional buckets, but will go a long way for player safety.

That was the inspiration behind my idea. The thick rubber outer shell gives the NFL the ability to put their logos on the new designed helmet. I would love to see a study on the impact of the hard plastic shell's role in causing concussions. Some of the practicing engineers on here can chime in on the energy displacement using the hard plastic shell (reinforced standard internal helmet bladder) versus the softer rubber shell (reinforced by air bladder on top of internal metal "skeleton" and memory foam).

The "softer" helmet also serves as a deterrent for guys to use their heads as a weapon, or lead with the helmet. Prevention is key.
 

buzzn3

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
104
I've always wondered if they changed the materials of a helmet, would it help with the concussions? Right now, you basically have a hard plastic shell and a metal cage for a face mask, which gives players a false sense of protection, and they're more willing to throw their bodies head first at an opponent. The hard plastic is also less forgiving. If anyone has played football, you know how annoying it was for a coach to whack you with a whistle, or one of your buddies smacking the top of your helmet. Now imagine a 200 lb guy running full speed at you and hitting your helmet with his helmet. Just the sonic waves created by the hard plastic to plastic impact is damaging to your brain.

My idea is to keep the metal face mask, but extend it to "cage" the head. Have a memory foam type interior inside of the metal cage surrounding the head, another smaller layer of foam or air bladder type protection outside of the "cage", and rubber outer layer "wrap" all of it. It looks the same as current helmets, but much softer materials while still protecting your brain. Also, it's a lot lighter so you don't get those hard helmet to helmet sonic waves traveling through your helmet (and brain). I also think guys would be less willing to throw their heads first on tackles.
Not googling the sources right now, but I believe there have been several studies/proposals to reduce the protective equipment in football, especially the helmets, in order to make it safer. Basically revert to something closer to rugby, re-emphasizes safer tackling techniques since players wouldn't be flying around using their heads as battering rams, etc. That of course, brings up the question as to whether rugby is seeing a lower occurrence of CTE (if it's even being monitored)/other serious injuries and whether that's even a remotely valid theory (again, would have to go dig up the articles).
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,071
Not googling the sources right now, but I believe there have been several studies/proposals to reduce the protective equipment in football, especially the helmets, in order to make it safer. Basically revert to something closer to rugby, re-emphasizes safer tackling techniques since players wouldn't be flying around using their heads as battering rams, etc. That of course, brings up the question as to whether rugby is seeing a lower occurrence of CTE (if it's even being monitored)/other serious injuries and whether that's even a remotely valid theory (again, would have to go dig up the articles).

Rugby is a contact sport. On any given "play" only one target is going to experience a collision with the exception of rucking and accidental collisions. You cannot "block" in rugby except in a ruck situation. A Scrum which is what the football line of scrimmage comes from only happens in certain situations and it is not a collision event you start by getting entangled and you push each other.

On the whole over an entire game of rugby you may take 2-3 big hits with an upwards of 10-15 if you are a full (equavelent to a QB).

Tackling isn't what causes higher CTE rates.
Blocking is. Epecially now that hands can be used. Now on every play you have massive head to head hits along the line of scrimmage by all the linemen. Your Running backs blockign typically use their heads too. And on any given play you have atleast 10 collisions happening at some point in the play. The tackle is not the issue.

7 on 7 full tackle would see less head collisions than a quarter of full 11 on 11.

Here is the strange thing. They have done studies and these studies show that there are rates of CTE within Soccer, and even long distance running.

CTE is possibly caused by Anaerobically pushing your body and operating where oxygen has to be relocated away from your brain. But the evidence is not conclusive. Impacts may just be something that makes it manifest faster.
 

gte447f

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,160
Rugby is a contact sport. On any given "play" only one target is going to experience a collision with the exception of rucking and accidental collisions. You cannot "block" in rugby except in a ruck situation. A Scrum which is what the football line of scrimmage comes from only happens in certain situations and it is not a collision event you start by getting entangled and you push each other.

On the whole over an entire game of rugby you may take 2-3 big hits with an upwards of 10-15 if you are a full (equavelent to a QB).

Tackling isn't what causes higher CTE rates.
Blocking is. Epecially now that hands can be used. Now on every play you have massive head to head hits along the line of scrimmage by all the linemen. Your Running backs blockign typically use their heads too. And on any given play you have atleast 10 collisions happening at some point in the play. The tackle is not the issue.

7 on 7 full tackle would see less head collisions than a quarter of full 11 on 11.

Here is the strange thing. They have done studies and these studies show that there are rates of CTE within Soccer, and even long distance running.

CTE is possibly caused by Anaerobically pushing your body and operating where oxygen has to be relocated away from your brain. But the evidence is not conclusive. Impacts may just be something that makes it manifest faster.
The last bit about anaerobic exercise is interesting. I haven’t heard this before. Thanks for mentioning it. Any sources? I guess I can try googling.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,200
The last bit about anaerobic exercise is interesting. I haven’t heard this before. Thanks for mentioning it. Any sources? I guess I can try googling.
I wonder then if they have looked at CTE in powerlifters/world's strongest man types? I would think they have a ton of anaerobic events but relatively few head impacts, seems like a good point of comparison to test that idea.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
10,062
Location
Oriental, NC
Rugby is a contact sport. On any given "play" only one target is going to experience a collision with the exception of rucking and accidental collisions. You cannot "block" in rugby except in a ruck situation. A Scrum which is what the football line of scrimmage comes from only happens in certain situations and it is not a collision event you start by getting entangled and you push each other.

On the whole over an entire game of rugby you may take 2-3 big hits with an upwards of 10-15 if you are a full (equavelent to a QB).

Tackling isn't what causes higher CTE rates.
Blocking is. Epecially now that hands can be used. Now on every play you have massive head to head hits along the line of scrimmage by all the linemen. Your Running backs blockign typically use their heads too. And on any given play you have atleast 10 collisions happening at some point in the play. The tackle is not the issue.

7 on 7 full tackle would see less head collisions than a quarter of full 11 on 11.

Here is the strange thing. They have done studies and these studies show that there are rates of CTE within Soccer, and even long distance running.

CTE is possibly caused by Anaerobically pushing your body and operating where oxygen has to be relocated away from your brain. But the evidence is not conclusive. Impacts may just be something that makes it manifest faster.
Thanks for posting the info about rugby. It was intersting. I just finished reading Playing With the Enemy, a book about the 1995 World match between South Africa and New Zealand.

I question the part about studies showing a connection with CTE and long distance running. You can take any group sufficiently large enough and find evidence of almost anything. That does not indicate a casual relationship.

You stated "They have done studies... ." Can you provide a link to one of those studies? I find this part of your post very surprising and would llike to see how those studies were done.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,737
Top