(01-18-2018 04:17 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I agree with both sides on this. What we do know is that football causes CTE. However that is based off the old football days when people had hard hits to the head and would play through concussions. Also the equipment was not the same. What we don't know is how football players will be effected with the new rules and a lot of less head contact with heads up football. We do not see nearly the same amount of big hits. Most plays now result in loss of progress or running out of bounds. With the rest being players taking slides or getting tackled at the waste.

You missed the point of the research. It isn't about concussions and big hits. Its about repeated hits and the brain sloshing around in the skull.

(01-18-2018 08:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 04:24 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:08 PM)forphase1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:52 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Football survived a presidential intervention because people were dying on the field. It will survive this.

I have no problem with people seeing these risks for what they are and saying it's too dangerous for them personally, but this sport will continue to be broadly popular, even if it might not have quite the same prominent place in our sporting pantheon it has now.

I don't know. I mean I HOPE you are right, but I'm not sure. After all, we are now a society that is outlawing dodge ball in order to protect our precious snowflake kids. I'm not sure how many primary schools (high schools, middle schools, etc) going forward will be willing to sponsor a sport that studies are showing is so damaging to kids. While I agree that adults should be able to chose risks (and then deal with the consequences) from a legal/insurance standpoint, youth football may be in serious danger. And if no youths are playing the sport, then the talent pool dramatically decreases. I love football, played it myself and watch it as often as I can. But I'm not sure that the future of football is quite as solid and secure as others on this thread are claiming.

Other than flag football, I think its pretty clear organized pre-middle school football should go away. With school budgets being what they are, MS football may start disappearing.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. Kids should not be playing in pads before they're old enough to really understand what the sport can do to them. Tackle football shouldn't start until sophomore year of high school with what we know now. But we will still have tackle football. People acknowledge risk in a lot of things and do those things anyway; football will be no different, even if the whole world devolves into a single giant nanny state.

While I agree....I grew up in an era when we played tackle football in the front yard with no pads. Everybody did. Millions played tackle football from 1960 to 2000 and very very few have CTE. At some point we are going to have to realize that life essentially leads to death. At some level, everything we do to survive in some way cumulatively contributes to our demise.

There are increasing levels of Alzheimers and dementia in the general population---maybe whatever genetic trait makes one more likely to get these congnative diseases makes one more likely to fall prey to CTE. Who knows?

The reality is---many people will get into a car this evening and some of them are going to die in a traffic accident. My guess is that number of traffic deaths in a year would dwarf the number of CTE cases we see in a year. Nobody is going to suggest car travel is finished. Granted, today one needs to travel in a car to survive economically--but lots of people engage in entertaining hobbies, activites, and sports that are potentially dangerous or even life threatening. That said, nothing wrong with knowing the risk and doing everything possible to minimize the risk of CTE (if thats even possible in a contact sport like football).

There's a difference between 3 on 3 tackle football in the front yard with your friends and organized ball with practices and games. Maybe a better chance of a broken arm, but significantly fewer head hits.

(01-18-2018 10:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:57 PM)panama Wrote:  Until you study incidences and rates of CTE in other sports and in the non athletic population all of this is conjecture.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Do you need a series of tightly controlled double-blind experiments to know that jumping off a 1,000 foot cliff without a parachute is likely to lead to serious injury or death?

Not everything needs to be validated by years of research to know it's true.

No...but after really reading the article Im a little skeptical of the findings.

1) They said the blows were sub-concussive. We have a full protecal to detect concussions in the NFL that doesnt work 100% of the time. How the hell do you know if a mouse is concussed?

2) They said the disease is present within 20 minutes. Rreally? That sounds very unlikely.

3) If it takes as little as they say to create the disease---darn near any blow can cause it and you'd have it almost immediately for the rest of your life. You'd think we would see nearly everyone diagnosed as having this disease by the time they were 10 years old.

I suspect there is more to it than this.

1) pretty obvious they can see by behavior or by cognitive tests.

Nothing new here...just BU making research money. everyone already knows it is about repeated sub concussive hits... why is this being treated as new info? anyone who is not aware of this...needs to grow a brain...


The BU researchers are histrionic attention hogs...

(01-18-2018 08:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 04:27 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 04:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This research at BU isn't as damning to football as it is to the perception of concussions to CTE. What's troubling is that it's the contact style, and perhaps the exclusivity to football that spotlights that sport.

I'm not sure about that. If I understand the article correctly the takeaway wasn't that concussions aren't actually as harmful as believed, but rather that number of concussions is a poor indicator of risk of brain damage because the motion required to negatively affect the brain happens at collisions of much less intensity than is required to produce a concussion. That's worse for football.

I said a while back that I have a feeling football will evolve to be strategically more similar to baseball. Since cumulative impacts are part of the issue, I can see rosters being expanded and, like pitch counts used in little legue baseball---football players will have "play counts". They will only be able to participate in "x" number of plays in a given game--meaning how you use your starters and other key players will become an important part of game strategy like it is in baseball. College rosters will be expanded under such a system and depth would be a major factor in every game.

I see it having to do this, among other things, or it just flat-lines in terms of participation. Younger generations, millennial parents...they are going to hate this sport with information like this. Play it one way, old-school, and your legs are gone. Play it in the modern way, and your brain turns into mush. It's not good.

The article is kind of confusing. Based on the diagrams and some of the quotes, it sounds like there's some confusion over "any kind of hit" and what it spells for football. One place says a high leaping tackle, the image looks like the kind of hit one takes at high speed from the side (like a QB taking one from the blind side), and in other places, it seems more aligned to hit intensity. So, what's the importance of speed and location? Can it be something officiated or coached to avoid?

the solution is to play soccer with nerf balls...

(01-19-2018 12:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You guys sound like apologists for the tobacco industry. Attempting to talk your way around damning evidence.

Really? Before this week the prevailing thought was that concussions cause CTE. Now it's repeated blows. And we don't know that CTE is the cause of the problems players are having because apparently nearly all players have it and yet all aren't experiencing the symptoms that has led to research. But you think more research is not warranted. Wow

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It is always interesting how BU times the release their research reports.....

Typically it is Super Bowl week....but of course BU has no agenda against football... and no axe to grind.

I'd like to see a study that analyzes whether there is a correlation between advances in protective gear and equipment and CTE. I only have anecdotal evidence, but it tends to show that helmets and shoulder pads can be used like a weapon and athletes play more recklessly with "better" protective gear.

What do studies show concerning CTE and rugby?

(01-19-2018 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 01:07 AM)forphase1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 03:40 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:43 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:39 PM)forphase1 Wrote:  If this is accurate, then football as we know it may not exist in 20 years.

Or Soccer, basketball, lacrosse.....actually all sports in general then. Even some occupations.

You're right, those sports may be in serious trouble.

The question I have is how has boxing managed to survive this long considering repeated hits to the head is pretty much what boxing is.....

Boxing is a shell of what it used to be, partly because in many places in the country all the boxing gyms have closed or been converted to something different. This clearly isn't the ONLY reason that boxing has fallen from being one of the core American sports (along with baseball and horse racing), but it's certainly part of the reason. And I never said football would cease to exist. I said it may cease to exist as we know it. Football will always be played at some capacity. But it's ability to be the number one spectator sport and be the 'king' of the American sport landscape may be in danger, along with the way it's currently played at all age levels. It will be very interesting to see how things go forward from here.

One factor to keep in mind is insurance and liability. In the past 20 years in my part of the world we've seen 2 go cart tracks and a few skating rinks close down due to insurances/legal claim issues. I'm afraid that the costs of insurance and the risk of future lawsuits will make many local school boards and municipalities rethink their commitment to football, certainly at the pre-high school ages and perhaps high school as well. While some 7x7 and AAU type leagues may pick up some of that slack, after a generation or two you may see the public interest in football being similar to what it is for boxing...sure we tune in for the 'big' event, but on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis, boxing isn't something the average sports fan often thinks about, or goes out of their way to watch. I fear the same future for football, unless studies such as this one end up being proven wrong.

I agree on the liability issue. Thats something thats lying out there in the weeds.

I dont know if boxing is a great example. In the 1970's---the average NFL guy wasnt making alot more the Joe Six Pack in the stands. Boxing was doing fine in the 1970's. Boxing talent basically started drying up in the late 1980's. That was about the time that salaries in the NFL and NBA began to explode and those guys began to become huge marketing conglomerates with shoe contracts and such. Essentially, the athletes boxing needed (230 pound lighting quick guys) began gravitating to football and the NBA and boxing became a talent starved sport. Why get your head bashed in to make corrupt boxing king pins like Don King rich when you can play football or basketball and become just as rich.

Part of boxing problems were Don King and Bob Arum. Instead of one champ, you had 3 or 4 in each division, WBA, WBO, WBC and maybe others, each connected to a promoter. Interest dropped even if the promoters got more in the short term for calling something a championship bout.

(01-19-2018 11:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 08:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 04:27 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 04:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This research at BU isn't as damning to football as it is to the perception of concussions to CTE. What's troubling is that it's the contact style, and perhaps the exclusivity to football that spotlights that sport.

I'm not sure about that. If I understand the article correctly the takeaway wasn't that concussions aren't actually as harmful as believed, but rather that number of concussions is a poor indicator of risk of brain damage because the motion required to negatively affect the brain happens at collisions of much less intensity than is required to produce a concussion. That's worse for football.

I said a while back that I have a feeling football will evolve to be strategically more similar to baseball. Since cumulative impacts are part of the issue, I can see rosters being expanded and, like pitch counts used in little legue baseball---football players will have "play counts". They will only be able to participate in "x" number of plays in a given game--meaning how you use your starters and other key players will become an important part of game strategy like it is in baseball. College rosters will be expanded under such a system and depth would be a major factor in every game.

I see it having to do this, among other things, or it just flat-lines in terms of participation. Younger generations, millennial parents...they are going to hate this sport with information like this. Play it one way, old-school, and your legs are gone. Play it in the modern way, and your brain turns into mush. It's not good.

The article is kind of confusing. Based on the diagrams and some of the quotes, it sounds like there's some confusion over "any kind of hit" and what it spells for football. One place says a high leaping tackle, the image looks like the kind of hit one takes at high speed from the side (like a QB taking one from the blind side), and in other places, it seems more aligned to hit intensity. So, what's the importance of speed and location? Can it be something officiated or coached to avoid?

I remember back when I was in HS and saw someone over 30 or 40 limping or favoring a knee, I always assumed they were former football players.