Warnings Sound for College and Pro Football

[GreenLantern]

Recently, Colorado hired Mel Tucker, a new football coach, previously from the University of Georgia. Tucker had run a football program that had seen at least a half-dozen former players (including 2 NFLers) kill themselves. Others have severe post-concussion problems.

In his introductory speech, Coach Tucker said that the "name of the game is hit, hit H_I_T." He preaches the old fashion style of pigskin religion.
Expressing concern about football's concussion controversy, a couple of Colorado's regents voted against Coach Tucker's $14.75 million contract.

"I thought we could play football safely with better rules and equipment...I don't believe it can be played safely anymore."

Recently Boston University found evidence of degenerative brain disease in 99 percent of brains obtained from deceased NFL players and 91 percent of of college football players. Unlike NFLers, college football players who experience head trauma are not eligible for worker's comp or disability as they are not employees.

The more you pad a player, the more aggressive and stupid they play. We're better off padding the goal posts.

Should incoming freshmen be required to read warnings such as the Boston University report before starting their football career? Before you say no, keep in mind that colleges have outlawed tobacco use which has a lower fatality rate.

No freshman player ever declined to sign a health waiver

What do I predict will happen within the next few decades?
The ultimate outcome will be dictated by M-O-N-E-Y. When the well runs dry, colleges and universities that promote football will drop it like a hot potato. The networks - ABC (and its subsidiary ESPN), CBS and NBC pay a fortune for the rights to broadcast college football. When they start to feel the pressure from sponsors, who are being pressured by consumers to stop advertising during football games, then the value of the broadcast rights will fall. When the cut from the rights fees that goes to the various conferences (ACC, Big 10, SEC etc.) drops, the weakest links in those conferences will feel it the most. Without the TV subsidy, football becomes even more of a losing proposition at schools like Tulane. If the schools don't see the sense in dropping football for reasons of the health of their "student athletes", they will certainly understand the financial implications.

Much of this is paraphrased from an article in today's newspaper. Here's a link to the full piece which is behind a pay wall. (Liberals like me pay to read trash such as the NYTimes ):

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/spor ... e=Homepage

[anEngineer]

It's interesting that American football has been played for over 100 years and only recently has this become a problem. It would seem that until about 30 years ago, football was being played by athletic guys with particular skills. They just went out there and played. What changed? There are a couple of things we can point to. First, the equipment made it easier to hit and be hit much harder without obvious increases in bone and joint injuries. Second, as the money began to increase significantly, schools had more money and incentive to condition, develop, hone players into football machines. They became bigger, faster, stronger and the results of the momentum formula (mass x velocity) is getting to the critical stage. Thirty years ago, there were almost no 300+ lb players. The 1982 Redskin sweathogs averaged 273 lbs across the line (NFL players). Third, with national TV coverage brought by cable TV, we have the search for the big hits that get players on ESPN.

So what's the solution? You can't really control conditioning and training, nor could you justify doing it. You can't make the equipment less safe. One thing that has changed the game to make it more violent is hitting in open space (the passing game). The running game, by it's nature, is a slow motion, pile up process. The increased emphasis on the passing game that "sells the tickets" would seem to be an obvious source of the harder hits. Is football willing to go back to rules that aren't slanted to benefit the passing game? I doubt it, but I believe there is a correlation there for something that can be controlled through the rules.

[GreenLantern]

Although I agree with most everything anEngineer said, there are many, many case studies from over 30 years ago that show this is not a recent thing, but has dramatically worsened for the reasons he documented.

As far as the running game being a 'slow motion pileup', consider Earl "Tyler Rose" Campbell. Now confined to a walker or wheelchair, Campbell suffered a narrowing of the spine which contributed to four back surgeries...and eventually a dependance on pain killers and alcoholism. "I think if I'd gotten a real physical like they do now, CAT scans and everything, probably I wouldn't have been able to play." When the technology matures to accurately detect CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in live patients, I would guess that Earl the Pearl will be a classic example of brain injury from subconcussive hits.

I remember at the Dome watching one of the few games Campbell played for the Aints (picked up by the 'Bum' hisself). Earl took a handoff and broke into the clear for what appeared would be a 40-yard touchdown run, only to be easily overtaken by a plodding defensive tackle. Father time remains undefeated.

You're right though: bigger, faster, stronger has exacerbated the injury problem. I think those factors combined with the illusion of safer equipment results in the problem described by Dr. Ballantine: "The more you pad a player, the more aggressive and stupid they play."

[wave97]

It's interesting that American football has been played for over 100 years and only recently has this become a problem. It would seem that until about 30 years ago, football was being played by athletic guys with particular skills. They just went out there and played. What changed? There are a couple of things we can point to. First, the equipment made it easier to hit and be hit much harder without obvious increases in bone and joint injuries. Second, as the money began to increase significantly, schools had more money and incentive to condition, develop, hone players into football machines. They became bigger, faster, stronger and the results of the momentum formula (mass x velocity) is getting to the critical stage. Thirty years ago, there were almost no 300+ lb players. The 1982 Redskin sweathogs averaged 273 lbs across the line (NFL players). Third, with national TV coverage brought by cable TV, we have the search for the big hits that get players on ESPN.

So what's the solution? You can't really control conditioning and training, nor could you justify doing it. You can't make the equipment less safe. One thing that has changed the game to make it more violent is hitting in open space (the passing game). The running game, by it's nature, is a slow motion, pile up process. The increased emphasis on the passing game that "sells the tickets" would seem to be an obvious source of the harder hits. Is football willing to go back to rules that aren't slanted to benefit the passing game? I doubt it, but I believe there is a correlation there for something that can be controlled through the rules.

You couldn't consistently use the top of your head as a battering ram until helmet technology progressed from cotton webbing to complete cushioned support in the early 70's with Riddell helmets. The worst helmets of all were the Bike helmets of the 80's & 90's. Those helmets not only had padding, but also had an air-filled "crown" that was inserted between the pads. Those helmets must have weighed 15ibs and you could have demolished the interior walls of buildings.
There are no rules that can prevent head on head collisions on the line of scrimmage. Mothers & Fathers are choosing not to let their kids play football & they're right - the future of football is bleak.