Football and CTE

[Mac the Knife]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That’s great. But still, concussions aren’t the real problem. 

 

Yeah, they are.  No matter how entertaining a sport is, people tend to shy away from it once evidence that its participants are getting their brains scrambled for their amusement.  It's a reason why boxing went from top-tier sports property to comparatively non-existent.  It's why UFC's overall profile has dropped like a stone in just the past five years.  And it's why the NFL is on a slow march toward a similar fate.

[IceCap]

8 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

Yeah, they are.  No matter how entertaining a sport is, people tend to shy away from it once evidence that its participants are getting their brains scrambled for their amusement.  It's a reason why boxing went from top-tier sports property to comparatively non-existent.  It's why UFC's overall profile has dropped like a stone in just the past five years.  And it's why the NFL is on a slow march toward a similar fate.

You completely missed Goth’s point. 

[Gothamite]

That’s okay, the NFL has done a very good job muddying these waters. 

 

The point is that concussions are bad, yes. But even worse are the small sub-concussive hits that occur on every play and are themselves linked to CTE and the “brain scrambling” you mentioned.  

 

We’re seeing CTE in players who have never even been suspected of s concussion, players who never played a down after high school. The problem is potentially widespread and independent of concussions themselves, which must terrify anybody who makes their living in this sport. 

 

The NFL grudgingly talks about concussions but refuses to even acknowledge the problem of sub-concussive hits, which tells you joe deathly afraid they are. They’d rather steer the conversation back to concussions, where they at least have a hope of innovating the crisis away and thereby avoiding substantive change to the sport. 

 

So yes, a test for concussion is great. But it doesn’t actually do much for the sport’s looming CTE problem.  

[dfwabel]

On 2/15/2018 at 9:57 AM, Gothamite said:

 

That’s great. But still, concussions aren’t the real problem. 

This new test gets levels of both GFAB and UCHL1 which are the precursors for lesions which are related to both

Parkinson's and CTE. 

 

Docs were quick to refute the headline, but recognize that reduced radiation exposure via CT scans is a positive outcome.

 

On 2/15/2018 at 12:57 PM, Mac the Knife said:

 

Yeah, they are.  No matter how entertaining a sport is, people tend to shy away from it once evidence that its participants are getting their brains scrambled for their amusement.  It's a reason why boxing went from top-tier sports property to comparatively non-existent.  It's why UFC's overall profile has dropped like a stone in just the past five years.  And it's why the NFL is on a slow march toward a similar fate.

Where's another thread for it, but the reality for the UFC is that they ran out of stars in the last 30 months (suspension, retirement, legends getting beat) and cannot create new ones since they the sport is hard and fighters do lose and can get into losing streaks quickly.

[dfwabel]

NCAA settles CTE lawsuit filed by widow of Texas player
 

Quote

DALLAS (AP) — The NCAA has settled a lawsuit with the family of a former University of Texas football player that said the organization was responsible for his brain injuries and death decades after his playing career.

The lawsuit in Dallas was settled Friday after three days of trial. A court administrator confirmed the settlement but said no terms were released.

The widow of former Longhorns defensive lineman Greg Ploetz sought to hold the NCAA responsible for his health problems long after his playing career. Ploetz died in 2015 and Boston University researchers concluded he had extensive brain damage known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (stage 4).

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23806167/ncaa-wife-ex-texas-longhorns-dt-greg-ploetz-settle-cte-lawsuit

 

Quote

In her complaint against the NCAA, Hardin-Ploetz's attorneys wrote that her late husband "suffered numerous concussions and sub-concussive blows to the head" while playing at Texas, and that the NCAA's "failure to take effective action to protect [Ploetz] from the long-term effects of concussions and sub-concussive blows to the head while he played NCAA football" contributed to his death.

 

Ploetz, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, played defensive tackle and linebacker at Texas in 1968, '69 and '71. He was named Southwest Conference Defensive Player of the Year in his final season.

 

"During all times relevant to this complaint, the NCAA knew, or should have known, of the long-term dangers of concussions and sub-concussive blows to the head regularly suffered by intercollegiate football players," the complaint said. "The NCAA failed to initiate policies or rules necessary to protect Gregory Ploetz in the face of long-standing and overwhelming evidence regarding the need to do so.

 

[OnWis97]

Here's a story football lovers don't want to see...Wazzu QB who committed suicide had CTE.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23912205/washington-state-qb-tyler-hilinski-had-cte-parents-say

[Gothamite]

18 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Here's a story football lovers don't want to see...Wazzu QB who committed suicide had CTE.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23912205/washington-state-qb-tyler-hilinski-had-cte-parents-say

 

I suspect most "football lovers" will happily ignore it.  But I hope this tragedy finally makes a difference in opinions, because what the hell is this:

 

Quote

Mark Hilinski told "Today" that the medical examiner determined Tyler "had the brain of a 65-year-old, which is really hard to take."

 

and this:

 

Quote

 

Mark and Kym Hilinski have spoken to their younger son, Ryan, a high school quarterback committed to play at South Carolina in 2019, about the results of Tyler's autopsy. Ryan Hilinski told Sports Illustrated that while the information "scared me a little bit," he intends to continue playing.

 

"I'm all bought into football, of course," he said, "and I think Tyler would want me to do the same thing. I don't think he'd want me to stop."

 

Put those two statements together and , this has become a really hard sport to support.

[OnWis97]

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I suspect most "football lovers" will happily ignore it.  But I hope this tragedy finally makes a difference in opinions, because what the hell is this:

 

Anecdotally, I feel like comment sections are populated with a lot of people clinging to football primarily with flimsy rationales and assumptions.

 

Right now the only hope for football as we know it is if folks can be convinced that playing very young is a huge part of the culprit.  I'm sure that does play a role, but I don't know that waiting until age 16 or even  senior year of high school will do much more than mitigate a bit.  The writing is on the wall.

[pmoehrin]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Anecdotally, I feel like comment sections are populated with a lot of people clinging to football primarily with flimsy rationales and assumptions.

 

 

Well "I'm afraid of losing my coaching job" and "I don't know what I would do on Friday nights/Saturday/Sunday afternoons" come off as pretty selfish arguments, so those flimsy rationales and assumptions are all you have left.

 

The only pro youth football argument I've ever heard that I can somewhat get behind is concerning inner city programs. If kids weren't participating in these programs, they would be hanging out on the corner looking for something to do. And this sentiment has been echoed by many players who came from this environment.

 

They don't HAVE to play football, but I know there's a lot of areas especially down South, where football has sucked all the oxygen (funding) out of the room for anything else. You don't have much choice. Its either hit the gridiron or join a gang and it's why these areas are going to be the last ones to get rid of it.

 

It's not enough to just say no more football. You need to go after the system AND replace it with something else.

 

As for Hilkinski, it's dishearting and depressing, but I can't say I'm surprised by it either. I hope that people key in on the word FACTOR to mean precisely what it means. It played a part in his decision. That does not say it was the be all end all, nor does it mean side point you can go ahead and ignore.

 

His suicide could have been a long-time coming, something he only decided to do in the last 10 minutes of his life, or something in-between. We'll never know and its what makes this issue so complicated and frustrating to explore. There's just so much of a person's motivations you can infer based on their words and actions.

[dfwabel]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Here's a story football lovers don't want to see...Wazzu QB who committed suicide had CTE.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23912205/washington-state-qb-tyler-hilinski-had-cte-parents-say

Sports Illustrated has a documentary up with Tyler's family and accompanying long form story. While the doc is behind a paywall (first 7 days free), I suggest you at least read the story.

 

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/06/26/tyler-hilinski-suicide-washington-state-qb-cte

 

[Gothamite]

14 minutes ago, pmoehrin said:

The only pro youth football argument I've ever heard that I can somewhat get behind is concerning inner city programs. If kids weren't participating in these programs, they would be hanging out on the corner looking for something to do. And this sentiment has been echoed by many players who came from this environment.

 

They don't HAVE to play football, but I know there's a lot of areas especially down South, where football has sucked all the oxygen (funding) out of the room for anything else. You don't have much choice. Its either hit the gridiron or join a gang and it's why these areas are going to be the last ones to get rid of it.

 

It's not enough to just say no more football. You need to go after the system AND replace it with something else.

 

Easy enough.  Baseball.  Soccer.  Flag Football.

 

Each has its own risks, but youth rules minimize the risk of CTE to kids, which is something contact football just can't ever do.

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 6/26/2018 at 1:44 PM, Gothamite said:

 

I suspect most "football lovers" will happily ignore it.  But I hope this tragedy finally makes a difference in opinions, because what the hell is this:

 

 

and this:

 

 

Put those two statements together and , this has become a really hard sport to support.

Most football fans will have no problem continuing to support a sport which has easily done more good than harm. Nobody is ignoring this tragedy, but we don't know the whole story. This just in, kids can suffer head trauma without playing football. We also don't know how much head trauma this young man had before even starting youth football. Did this person complain about head injuries, but was encouraged to keep playing?

 

Soccer has has a CTE factor, which is rarely reported. And there's the uncomfortable fact of countless former college players who have minimal or negligible damage from playing sport, and they played with inferior equipment. As I've said in my other posts, player safety is important, but there's no reason the game can't be made safer without changing the structure. In terms of actually abolishing real tackle football, Afghanistan has a better chance of sending an astronaut into space. Those of us who have experienced and seen the positive aspects of the sport will just double down on promoting the game. One of the many factors in favor of football is the international talent. Today's players are armed with more information about the possible long term risks, and if someone is old enough to join the military, then I have to respect their decision to play college football.    

[Kaz]

4 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Most football fans will have no problem continuing to support a sport which has easily done more good than harm.

 

Such as?  It's one thing to enjoy watching football, but at the end of the day it is just mindless entertainment for people on the weekends.  What "good" has the sport done that other forms of entertainment fail to provide?

 

4 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

One of the many factors in favor of football is the international talent.

 

[Mac the Knife]

1 hour ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Most football fans will have no problem continuing to support a sport which has easily done more good than harm. Nobody is ignoring this tragedy, but we don't know the whole story. This just in, kids can suffer head trauma without playing football. We also don't know how much head trauma this young man had before even starting youth football. Did this person complain about head injuries, but was encouraged to keep playing?

 

Soccer has has a CTE factor, which is rarely reported. And there's the uncomfortable fact of countless former college players who have minimal or negligible damage from playing sport, and they played with inferior equipment. As I've said in my other posts, player safety is important, but there's no reason the game can't be made safer without changing the structure. In terms of actually abolishing real tackle football, Afghanistan has a better chance of sending an astronaut into space. Those of us who have experienced and seen the positive aspects of the sport will just double down on promoting the game. One of the many factors in favor of football is the international talent. Today's players are armed with more information about the possible long term risks, and if someone is old enough to join the military, then I have to respect their decision to play college football.    

 

Sure, there are football fans who will have no problem continuing to support the sport, just as there are boxing and MMA fans who support theirs knowing full well that its participants are risking their short term health, their long term health, or even their lives for sake of their entertainment.  But as with the latter sports, the more and more consequences of participation in football are exposed, the less attractive the sport seems to play, or even to be entertained by.

 

There likely will never be an absolute way to attribute how much of a contributing factor playing football, rugby or soccer has with respect to brain damage.  But even based on what very preliminary data currently exists (e.g., CTE studies, incidences of ALS in proportion to the general population, even seemingly "normal" causes of death such as heart attacks and strokes), it's hard for anyone to say that the nature of football - its rules, its culture, and so forth - drastically need to be changed. 

 

The real question at issue is what form those changes should take.  I honestly wonder at times if a possible resolution is to reduce or even remove various types of padding and helmets, the development of which has perhaps given players something of a false sense of security. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I think the first step in the right direction is to take a step backward:  reverting to older definitions of what constitutes a tackle, and severely penalizing "tackle by collision."  In the 1909 Spalding Official Foot Ball Guide, it read:

Quote

"The players of the side not in possession of the ball must use their hands and arms in tackling the player who is carrying the ball."

 

The CFL's rulebook of 2016 states:

Quote

"Tackling is defined as the act of grasping or encircling a ball carrier with hands and arms."

 

The current NCAA rulebook gives the following definition:

Quote

"Tackling is grasping or encircling an opponent with a hand(s) or arm(s)."

 

Meanwhile, the NFL's 2017 rulebook definition deviates from this in a not insignificant manner:

Quote

"Tackling is an attempt by a defensive player to hold a runner to halt his advance or bring him to the ground."

 

109 years ago, colliding with a player in a fashion that brought him to the ground, with no attempt to use hands or arms in stopping the player's progress?  It was a foul.  In today's CFL and NCAA versions of the game?  It's a foul.  But in the NFL?  Not so much.

 

Granted the NFL redefining what a tackle is isn't going to single-handedly resolve all that ails professional football as a sport.  But rather than encouraging "human pinball," perhaps penalizing it as an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul (not Illegal Contact; I think only a UC foul would give it proper emphasis) would be a good place to start.

[Gold Pinstripes]

18 hours ago, Kaz said:

 

Such as?  It's one thing to enjoy watching football, but at the end of the day it is just mindless entertainment for people on the weekends.  What "good" has the sport done that other forms of entertainment fail to provide?

 

 

Football's positive contributions go well beyond entertainment. The list of poor and middle class high school players who were able to earn a scholarship, or walk on to a college is staggering. Thousands of former college football players have gone on to lead successful lives, partly due to the academics, and also due to the lessens playing football. Stuff like working with people with diverse backgrounds, teamwork, sacrifice, discipline, etc. etc., are 100% transferable to the real world. I'm absolutely floored anyone could deny this simple fact, and we're also forgetting to mention the economic benefits of the sport. Beyond the professional owners and players, many people profit from the sport. What sport pays the bills for sports like rowing at the collegiate level?   

 

Reason and logic will prevail over hysteria and overreaction. Smarter rules changes will make the game safer, along with improved technology. And the writers and others who would like to see the sport diminished or eliminated will lose in the end.

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Football's positive contributions go well beyond entertainment. The list of poor and middle class high school players who were able to earn a scholarship, or walk on to a college is staggering. Thousands of former college football players have gone on to lead successful lives, partly due to the academics, and also due to the lessens playing football. Stuff like working with people with diverse backgrounds, teamwork, sacrifice, discipline, etc. etc., are 100% transferable to the real world. I'm absolutely floored anyone could deny this simple fact, and we're also forgetting to mention the economic benefits of the sport. Beyond the professional owners and players, many people profit from the sport. What sport pays the bills for sports like rowing at the collegiate level?   

 

Reason and logic will prevail over hysteria and overreaction. Smarter rules changes will make the game safer, along with improved technology. And the writers and others who would like to see the sport diminished or eliminated will lose in the end.

Knew that was coming.

 

The whole "Football was the GI Bill before the GI Bill" concept. You might as well add, "if it wasn't for football, the FRD's Works Progress Administration would've built all those stadiums, along with dams, bridges, and roads and put people to work"...

 

Well tobacco is a crop which farmers can grow, yet that does not make it a proper way to earn a living.

[Gold Pinstripes]

17 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

Sure, there are football fans who will have no problem continuing to support the sport, just as there are boxing and MMA fans who support theirs knowing full well that its participants are risking their short term health, their long term health, or even their lives for sake of their entertainment.  But as with the latter sports, the more and more consequences of participation in football are exposed, the less attractive the sport seems to play, or even to be entertained by.

 

There likely will never be an absolute way to attribute how much of a contributing factor playing football, rugby or soccer has with respect to brain damage.  But even based on what very preliminary data currently exists (e.g., CTE studies, incidences of ALS in proportion to the general population, even seemingly "normal" causes of death such as heart attacks and strokes), it's hard for anyone to say that the nature of football - its rules, its culture, and so forth - drastically need to be changed. 

 

The real question at issue is what form those changes should take.  I honestly wonder at times if a possible resolution is to reduce or even remove various types of padding and helmets, the development of which has perhaps given players something of a false sense of security. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I think the first step in the right direction is to take a step backward:  reverting to older definitions of what constitutes a tackle, and severely penalizing "tackle by collision."  In the 1909 Spalding Official Foot Ball Guide, it read:

 

The CFL's rulebook of 2016 states:

 

The current NCAA rulebook gives the following definition:

 

Meanwhile, the NFL's 2017 rulebook definition deviates from this in a not insignificant manner:

 

109 years ago, colliding with a player in a fashion that brought him to the ground, with no attempt to use hands or arms in stopping the player's progress?  It was a foul.  In today's CFL and NCAA versions of the game?  It's a foul.  But in the NFL?  Not so much.

 

Granted the NFL redefining what a tackle is isn't going to single-handedly resolve all that ails professional football as a sport.  But rather than encouraging "human pinball," perhaps penalizing it as an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul (not Illegal Contact; I think only a UC foul would give it proper emphasis) would be a good place to start.

 

Collisions in football are as natural as the wind, and you'll see thousands of empty seats and massive declines in TV ratings if the foundation of the sport is eroded. The game simply doesn't need to be drastically changed when smarter options are available. One easy way to reduce both wear and tear and catastrophic injuries is to encourage coaches to pull players from games earlier when the outcome is already decided. Instead of looking for ways to dilute the product, let's find solutions. And it's worth repeating, football is a 100% voluntarily activity, and college/pros are more informed about the risks than ever before. There was a recent study about not playing youth football until age 12, a parent can still enter their child to the sport and gain the positive benefits many others have enjoyed.

 

    

[Gold Pinstripes]

1 minute ago, dfwabel said:

Knew that was coming.

 

The whole "Football was the GI Bill before the GI Bill" concept. You might as well add, "if it wasn't for football, the FRD's Works Progress Administration would've built all those stadiums, along with dams, bridges, and roads and put people to work"...

 

Well tobacco is a crop which farmers can grow, yet that does not make it a proper way to earn a living.

So let me get this straight, the legions of former youth, college, and pro players who have commented on the positive aspects of playing the sport were all part of some giant conspiracy to keep football around? Don't think so, as usual the people will win out. And I haven't even talked about the thousands of former players turned coaches who have made tangible differences in the lives of young people.

[dfwabel]

10 hours ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

So let me get this straight, the legions of former youth, college, and pro players who have commented on the positive aspects of playing the sport were all part of some giant conspiracy to keep football around? Don't think so, as usual the people will win out. And I haven't even talked about the thousands of former players turned coaches who have made tangible differences in the lives of young people.

What about the back end after the playing days? The years of struggle with life due to the pre-existing conditions and the medical burden placed upon loved ones.

 

Issues such as addiction to painkillers or the lack of mental health support are two of the issues which football turns a blind eye to.

[Gothamite]

On 6/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, Gold Pinstripes said:

Collisions in football are as natural as the wind, and you'll see thousands of empty seats and massive declines in TV ratings if the foundation of the sport is eroded.  

 

If that's true, then the sport deserves to die.  But I don't think it is.

 

On 6/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, Gold Pinstripes said:

The game simply doesn't need to be drastically changed when smarter options are available. One easy way to reduce both wear and tear and catastrophic injuries is to encourage coaches to pull players from games earlier when the outcome is already decided.

 

So you'll save a few starters from a couple plays at the end. 

 

How will you protect them during the first 3 1/2 quarters of the game? .And how will you protect those players who enter the game in their place?

 

The sport is fundamentally flawed.  The problem arises from the collisions that come from every single play.  "Catastrophic injuries" is a red herring.  

 

On 6/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, Gold Pinstripes said:

And it's worth repeating, football is a 100% voluntarily activity, and college/pros are more informed about the risks than ever before.

 

This is the biggest LOL of all.  Colleges and the NFL continue to stonewall research and obfuscate.  If we are indeed "more informed than ever before," it's despite the hard work of those entities.  And "more informed" is not "properly informed"; given all the lies, half-truths and misdirection.  There's no legitimate argument that players and parents are giving truly informed consent.