Sykotyk

Members
  • Content count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

296 Excellent

About Sykotyk

Recent Profile Visitors

1,507 profile views
  1. 2017 High School Football

    At least Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia open the weekend of 8/18. Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania start the week of 8/25. And New York, which only pllays a 7-game season plus playoffs, starts 9/1.
  2. Football and CTE

    This is an incredibly PRO sports site. It would be quite odd, actually, to find not already banned members who are openly and defiantly against sports. But then again, that's indicative of the sample bias.
  3. Football and CTE

    And it's related to vice. You know you can give your children alcohol in your own home, right? Public drinking was the issue. Again, it came down to it being considered a 'vice' which is why alcohol is regulated after prohibition (also, because of vice). How would you ban it, then? The whole intent of overseeing bodies for athletics in this country came from rules and safety enforcement OF football. I'm just curious what legal framework you'd need to in order to ban administering an activity that you feel you can legally do on your own unsupervised and without any regard for safety. That's the twist in wanting to 'outlaw' it being organized, but try to defend that it can be legal in any other form. And CTE is based on repetitive and continuous sub-concussive hits to the head over many many years. You're using arguments that NFL players who have played sometimes dozens of years from youth peewee, middle school, high school, college, and NFL, all the while advancing through bigger and faster and more cutthroat competition at each level to the point they're making millions of dollars per season are suddenly on the same scale as a kid who played two or three years as a starter in high school in 20-30 forty-eight minute games. The risk of being involved in a car accident increases the more time you get in a car and for every mile you travel. Yet, the odds are the same whether it's one mile down the road from your house or 1000 miles away on vacation. The continued exposure to that risk ups your eventuality of being involved in an accident. But you still accept that risk even if you might die on your way home from work today, or running to the grocery store. NFL plays 16 games over 17 weeks, plus 3-4 playoff games at most, a couple preseason games for starters, etc. College plays 12 games, up to 15 for 60 minutes. HS plays anywhere from 8-10 regular season games, and depending on the state, up to 5 playoff games for state championship participants. And their games are 48 minutes and the majority of states have mercy rules that speed up the game or outright end it once the score gets out of hand. During a regular HS game, there is far fewer plays than in NFL or college. Kids are also generally smaller and overall slower on average. So, there is a big difference in outcome. These variables haven't even begun to be investigated. Logical extension of your conclusion. You want to set a line in the sand, and think that either side of the argument isn't going to try and move it one way or another. God forbid somebody argues that the intrusion of more prohibitions and rules against something guarantees that it makes it safer. Texting while driving is dangerous, but it's a byproduct of car driving being so much safer today than it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. Cars didn't even come with rear lap bands at one point. No airbags. Crumple zones, etc. Driving today became so exceedingly easy it became exceedingly boring. People texting aren't thinking they're 'risking their lives' to send a text because driving is so monumentally difficult. Automatic transmissions, ABS, traction control, lane guidance, collision avoidance, blind spot detection, auto-braking, side-impact airbags, safety and roll cages, etc. People will accept the level of risk they're comfortable with, no matter how safe you make it. Make it safer, they'll take more risks. People will walk right up to the edge of a cliff if there's a guard rail. Would they do it without it? Even though the result of falling off the cliff is just as severe. I'm not saying you want to, but there's certainly a subset of the population that think any organized, accounted athletic endeavor as barbaric. Even something like baseball. And if one sport gets banned, it wouldn't take long for them to use that same argument for the 'next worst offender'. That's why it's a slippery slope.
  4. Football and CTE

    UNC study from 1982-2011, there was 0.52 deaths per 100,000 participants in HS Football, and 0.35 deaths per 100,000 participants in HS Soccer. In 29 years of the study, 205 football players died. An average of 7 a year. I'm not sure if the NCAA has their statistics, but going over the Wikipedia article on player deaths, between 2015 and 2016, 10 were killed in car accidents (hopefully not while playing), 4 from a gun shot wound (two self-inflicted, one was apparently accidental discharge, other ruled suicide), and 7 had unknown or health complications. Either on or off the field. One was during off-season practice. Not one of them from direct impact trauma based on what I could find. When some people only read the headline of an article and base their entire opinion on that headline, I will take issue with it.
  5. Football and CTE

    I quoted the article once. I can quote it for you again. Much less like to occur, and to a lesser degree of severity. Also, it's clear the length of time playing tackle football was the biggest indicator. Some of these kids start out playing tackle football as 5 or 6 years old. The one 27 year old that died had played 16 years. Those who JUST play high school and advance no further have a greatly different rate of CTE than those that continue beyond it. The problem is that they're still very light on quantifying the 'diminished faculties' related to CTE. And what that corresponds to non-football players percentage wise. That's an issue. My father is 65, never played football. He's horrible forgetful, short tempered, etc. Yet, I'm 99% certain he doesn't have CTE. So, if he has the same symptoms applied to CTE suffers, especially 'severe' suffers, then what percentage of the population does this compare to and what percentage of those with CTE would have developed those symptoms later on in life even if they had not played football? The NFL covered up concussions. That's the lawsuit they settled just recently, though it covered basically any brain health issue. CTE isn't from concussions. Repeated sub-concussive hits is what is claimed to cause CTE. Not concussions. Concussions, accumulated or even one time, can cause trauma, but that's not what causes CTE.
  6. Football and CTE

    Again, you're arguing about the NFL with regarding to HS Football. Bigger, stronger, faster, more games, year-round training, financial decisions impacting a players decision to 'play through pain' much more than high school, etc. that might skew their decision to even reveal they had head trauma. Regarding NFL, they covered up concussions, which isn't the argument about CTE. Even players have said they'd knowingly lie to staff about concussions because they wanted to keep playing. That seems to be 'implied consent' that they're willing to forgo their health for financial gain. As for CTE, this is an entirely knew diagnosis and is based entirely on repeated sub-concussive hits to the head. We don't know the prevalence, because you have to die before you can be diagnosed with it. I haven't seen the NFL denying CTE. After all the move 'Concussion' whitewashed a lot of the data conflating CTE and concussions, and the NFL's disdain for them. Please take a step back on comparing to tobacco and alcohol. The reason those are banned and heavily regulated is the same reason drugs are outlawed, porn can't be sold to minors, etc. It's a vice. And the dogooders of society want it eradicated from the entire population. But, adults are impossible to deny some vices. it's why prostitution is legal in Nevada outside Clark and Washoe counties. But, they can implore the prohibition from children simply because they children can't vote on it. The arguments about alcohol affecting teenagers has been used as an excuse for why to keep it, not the argument that started it. Marijuana is banned because it's 'bad for you', yet there's a big push to legalize it. But, it's a vice. Are you saying that football is a vice? And should be heavily regulated or banned because of it? As with all things regarding children, the parents are the ones legally entitled to make the decision. Even today, it's their call on whether to let their kid play or not play. Any sport or participate in any activity. That's parenthood. You're arguing to take that decision out of their hands because you don't like their conclusion. You really think banning the 'sanctioning' of football is really going to stop young boys and teenagers from 'banging into each other' in athletic pursuit? I played tackle football among friends as a little kid and it didn't take a state association to endorse it. We didn't even use pads, helmet, cleats or anything. Just running around a backyard with one worn out football. So be it. The question though, is what activities are out there that are prohibited by minors? Or would you accept football as being the first? What about Canadian Football? Rugby? Aussie Rules? Soccer? Boxing? Wrestling? Lacrosse? Riding in cars? The argument is that you're against something, so you want it banned. Fair enough. But you fail to realize the line you're trying to draw in the sand is most likely not where it will end up.
  7. Football and CTE

    The argument was about HS Football, not the NFL. Keep pace with the discussion. Ice Cap is conflating incidents of CTE in NFL players decades, in most cases, after they played under much different rules and equipment, with kids playing a few years of high school football.
  8. Football and CTE

    It also depends on your idea of personal responsibility. And what level of risk you feel is acceptable for someone to undertake before the burden on others offsets their own free will. For instance, sky-diving is legal. Yet, there are accidents. If sky-diving were the worst risk a person could take, there would be people demanding its prohibition due to being so 'risky' compared to 'not doing anything'. There's also CTE-related ailments that plague the other 6/7ths of males who didn't play high school football. The question becomes at what threshold it's an unacceptable probability. If 2 in 10 suffer similar ailments without playing football, while 4 in 10 who do play high school football suffer, is that acceptable? Unacceptable? As for my 'snake oil salesman', I said the people flouting the report as some sort of smoking gun. Find 111 people suspected of having CTE post mortem, and check to see if their suspicion was correct. Conflating a biased sample with the at-large pool is a bit disingenuous when that's the way it's being promoted. The vast majority of people will not even read the study or the recap of it. They'll see the headline and maybe the first line or two of the first paragraph and that's it. Were you okay with players regularly dying, getting paralyzed, knee, leg, hips, back, neck, shoulder, or hand problems later in life? Did you just passively accept those sacrifices for your entertainment but suddenly 'brain' is entirely off-limits? Yes, the NFL appears to have whitewashed and sunk previous research regarding concussions to protect themselves from their players suing them if they knew the NFL had prior knowledge they didn't divulge. HOWEVER, the vast majority of these CTE cases involved players participating PRIOR to more modern rules on handling brain trauma. It would take decades to study current players who only played under new brain trauma rules, equipment, etc. Because CTE can't be diagnosed until death. Hopefully they find a discernible way to pick it up via MRI, CT Scan, etc. Right now, they aren't. They say people suspected of having something had something. 99% of people suspected of having been shot were shot. Again, diminished compared to average. There's people out there with diminished faculties that didn't play football. What activity did they do that probably paid far less that led to that? We also know that all those players with CTE (because they're deceased) played under previous rules regarding brain trauma awareness and response. And we don't know how high it is. Here's a few quotes: Despite Sash’s young age, his family requested that his brain be examined for C.T.E. because he was showing uncharacteristic signs of confusion, memory loss and fits of anger. Their suspicions were confirmed. Dr. McKee said at the time that: “Even though he was only 27, he played 16 years of football, and we’re finding over and over that it’s the duration of exposure to football that gives you a high risk for C.T.E. Certainly, 16 years is a high exposure.” AND In addition to the 111 brains from those who played in the N.F.L., researchers also examined brains from the Canadian Football League, semi-professional players, college players and high school players. Of the 202 brains studied, 87 percent were found to have C.T.E. The study found that the high school players had mild cases, while college and professional players showed more severe effects. But even those with mild cases exhibited cognitive, mood and behavioral symptoms. So, the argument portrayed in the article is that, the length of time playing time is the biggest issue for CTE. You seem to be all over the place. Arguing against HS football due to the brains of long time NFL players 30-40-50 years after they played, arguing that level of CTE or cognitive function doesn't matter, even the slightest impairment is grounds for stopping any activity.
  9. Football and CTE

    Yep. You got me. Instead, you cling to the first shred of evidence that "football is bad" and shout it like a preacher on a street corner. Why would that be? The thing with 'extremes', is that every time you eliminate an 'extreme', it's just replaced by something that becomes the new 'extreme'. There will always be 'the worst thing you can do', no matter how many times you eliminate 'the worst thing you can do'. No matter how safe things become, no matter what safeguards you take, you will ALWAYS have "the most dangerous" activity, the deadliest "option", etc. It's the law of statistics. Eliminate football today, right now, it'll just move on to the next sport. The next activity in line for a little kneecapping. Because it now becomes the worst option. Look at car safety. It's magnitudes safer to drive a 2017 car than a 1950 car. And yet we're constantly seeing newer and more modern ways to 'protect' people while driving. Backup camera, side impact air bags, avoidance systems, auto-braking, etc. Eliminate one problem, a new problem takes the mantle as 'worst'. I'm not defending the NFL. The NFL is an entity looking out for its own best interests. Failing to accept that players accepted millions of dollars annually to play not just because of their skill but because it diminished and wore their bodies out at a much faster rate than the average populace seems to ignore that this is not a zero sum argument on your behalf. As for HS players, until CTE can even be diagnosed while you're still living, it's impossible to know the true extent of it. Especially when the 'risk of CTE' aren't compared to the average population that has those symptoms and issues without CTE. You also conveniently completely ignored the numbers once you so vilified my argument of them. NHFS accounts for HS athletics, and that's 9th through 12, no matter how the school is divided up on a district by district basis. Allen (TX) only does 9th grade at one building, and 10-12 at another, for instance. However, their numbers are figured based on 9-12th. Even then, counting participation of 3 years and dividing it by 4 would increase the percentage.
  10. Football and CTE

    1,083,617 total male high school football players. I'm actually even favoring that 1/4th of football participants are equally distributed among 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade. Even though it probably skews heavily toward 11th and 12th participation rates higher than 9th or 10th. Read below. The numbers are the numbers. And I didn't even add the almost 30,000 that play 6/8/9-man football. Easy there. Maybe you should go check yourself for CTE before you start arguing numbers. 1,083,617 male high school football players (2014-5) (per http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/PDF/2014-15_Participation_Survey_Results.pdf ) 270,904 rough estimate graduate each year (if participation distribution is equal by year) 3,500,000 total graduates expected from public and private high schools in 2016-17 school year (per https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 ) 1,750,000 rough estimate are male (dropout rate is last reported as 6.5% for 2014, which tends to favor male, but odds are if you drop out, you didn't play HS football or have the grades to be eligible) So, 270,904/1,750,000 = 15.48% which is just over 1 in every 7 males. Factor in dropout rate, 1/7 would be about right. Margin of error, it's somewhere between 1/6 and 1/8. Still a considerable number no matter how many other unaccounted factors contribute.
  11. Football and CTE

    Reported # of HS Football players in the country by year, divided by the four years of eligibility to participate. Total number of annual graduates nation wide, roughly half of which are male. 1,083,617 male high school football players (2015) (per http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/PDF/2014-15_Participation_Survey_Results.pdf ) 270,904 rough estimate graduate each year (if participation distribution is equal by year) 3,500,000 total graduates expected from public and private high schools in 2016-17 school year (per https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 ) 1,750,000 rough estimate are male (dropout rate is last reported as 6.5% for 2014, which tends to favor male, but odds are if you drop out, you didn't play HS football or have the grades to be eligible) So, 270,904/1,750,000 = 15.48% which is just over 1 in every 7 males. Factor in dropout rate, 1/7 would be about right. Margin of error, it's somewhere between 1/6 and 1/8. Still a considerable number no matter how many other unaccounted factors contribute.
  12. Football and CTE

    And if 1/7th of the entire male population in this country over the past 50 years has played at least high school football--many in much looser regulations with regard to brain trauma and hits to the head--wouldn't we be able to see a direct and obvious problem with those people? Plus, CTE isn't about concussions or 'getting your bell rung', it's about continuous and regular sub-concussive hits to the head. Whiplash effect on the base of the brain attached the the brainstem, etc. At least that's the argument about CTE now with regard to high school football. It isn't the decleating blindside hit that does it, but the hundreds of scrimmage plays between linemen. The linebacker lowering the shoulder into the runner, etc. If we've had 50 years of helmet-wearing football history, the plethora of former players should be quite obvious in their mental acuity, emotional distress, etc compared to 'normal' people who never played. At least that's what CTE research is telling us, or at least having us believe. Is having a kid sit the moment they appear to have suffered a concussion going to save them from CTE compared to what was done in the 80s or 90s? Who knows. Wait until the kid born in 2002 dies in fifty years, cut out his brain, study it, and decide whether he got CTE or not. In the end, we really are taking educated guesses on what may or may not improve safety because the only way to know for certain is to examine the remains postmortem, and that won't be done for most, hopefully, for several decades.
  13. Football and CTE

    Those wanting to do the study already knew what they were looking to find. Hence confirmation bias. Yes, it's also selection bias. Just because they state that in the report doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because most of the people in this thread discussing this report seem to gloss over it. I heard two talking heads on the radio going "oh wow, 99% of all NFL players have CTE" and it's clearly obvious they missed that point. Which is exactly the problem with studies such as these. The data may be 'sound', but the portrayal of that data directs people the exact way they want. Over 1,000,000 kids played high school football in 2014-15 school year. If you figure even an equal disbursement between 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades, that's 250,000 football players finishing 12th grade every season. 3.4-3.5 million students graduated the 2014-15 school year. If roughly half are males, that's 1.75 million males graduating each year. Which means at minimum, 1 in every 7 males are or have played high school football. Just by today's participation rate. The number is plausibly higher in the past. Where's the long term study recognizing CTE in the 6/7 who didn't play football (and whether they played any other high school sports), and the 1/7 who did, and their results based on whether they did play post-high school football. And also how much pop warner, etc they played prior to high school football. And as I asked before, what is the notable brain function loss. Not just that it's present, but quantify it. And what portion of the non-CTE diagnosed population has similar or worse brain function compared to those studied that DO have CTE. Science is all about classifying things. You can label 'hypertension' based on the cuff readout of your blood pressure, yet there's no guarantee someone with high blood pressue WILL have a heart attack, heart disease, etc.. Just that they're more susceptible to those ailments. And yet no guarantee those WITHOUT high blood pressure from eventually getting a heart attack, heart disease, etc. The cutoff between what is or isn't 'hypertension' is purely a number derived from data. It's not a guarantee of outcome. Just a likelihood of an outcome. The debate about CTE seems to imply that all these players would have been Einsteins if not for playing football. Or at least that's the way the public seems to be digesting the information. Show me the IQ drop, reaction times, decrease in mathematical accuracy, anger issues, attention spans, etc of those labeled CTE compared to 'healthy' people.
  14. Football and CTE

    The most likely option outside football is the other football. NBA, MLB, or NHL aren't once-a-week-build-up type sports. Baseball is near every day. It's not live or die on every play. Basketball is 80 or so scores a game? NHL is on ice with skates, and constant back and forth flow of the game. If anything comes close, it's Rugby, which has zero footprint in the U.S. at a professional level. Soccer at least has more of a 'once a week, build up interest through the work week' setup. As for NFL and CTE, the problem is the confirmation bias of this study. 111 people thought they or their loved ones had CTE and had their or their loved ones' brains donated to be studied. 110 of 111 people suspecting they have a broken arm probably really do have a broken arm. Two things I legitimately want to know: 1. Is there any breakdown of what era these deceased played, for how long, two-way or platoon, what position, when did they start playing, how long did they play. 2. What exactly is the decrease in brain function on a comparable level. My grandmother never got tackled in her life, and yet by her 70s, she was horribly forgetful, confused, etc. If we're baselining a 70-year-old's brain function compared to what they had in high school, rather than the function of an average 70-year-old's. And, the big issue is: is it worth it to the players? If you're going to get $14 million in less than a decade and you accept your back, knees, feet, hands, shoulders, etc might not be at the level of someone your age when you're in your 40s, 50s, 60s, etc,... is it worth it? Isn't the same logic applicable to brain function? These players weren't blathering idiots strapped to wheelchairs being spoon-fed peas for their last few decades. Stop acting like the money isn't part of the equation. I know former players who are no longer collecting pay for playing are loving these lawsuits because it's their chance to take in more money from the NFL. However, if they had it to do over again. Go back 20 years and not play at all and not collect any money at all... would it be worth it to just get a 9-5 job making $50k/year and be in 'good health'.. or as good health as the average American is in from working a 9-5 desk job. And lastly, if any 'advancements' in game play safety are determined today, there still is no way to test for CTE until death. We're judging modern play on past safety and health protocols. If Junior Seau killed himself from CTE, he did so based on experiences from HIS time playing, not today. So to say "Oh, kids today shouldn't play because their brains might be mush by the time they're 60 because someone who started playing 30 years ago did isn't really helping. It's snake oil salesmanship.
  15. NFL 2017 changes?

    White can work, but it has to be against a color-jersey opponent. No white v. silver/gold/light gray, etc.