Football and CTE

[sc49erfan15]

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I was thinking the same thing; I have a feeling it must count every year a player plays as a new "player". So if a high school has the same 50 players for four years, they must be counting it as 200 players... but that's just me guessing.  I don't see how it could possibly be as high as 1/7th.

 

Something like that has to be the reason.

 

A quick Google search shows the average number of students in a US high school was 752 in 2000. I would assume that number has increased, but for this argument, we'll leave it at 752. Assume 50% male, 50% female = 376 high school-aged boys. 376 x 0.14 = 52.64 average number of players per team.

 

You'll have small, football-crazy schools where 75% (ballpark figure) of boys play football... But what about the large schools? I went to a school that had almost 3,000 students and where football was very popular - there weren't 200 football players, and we had separate varsity, JV, and 9th grade teams.

 

Something isn't adding up there.

[IceCap]

The faulty math is just one of many flaws in Sykotyk's argument.

[Sykotyk]

5 hours ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

Do you have a figure for this? That sounds ridiculously high.

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.

 

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I was thinking the same thing; I have a feeling it must count every year a player plays as a new "player". So if a high school has the same 50 players for four years, they must be counting it as 200 players... but that's just me guessing.  I don't see how it could possibly be as high as 1/7th.

 

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.

 

23 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

Something like that has to be the reason.

 

A quick Google search shows the average number of students in a US high school was 752 in 2000. I would assume that number has increased, but for this argument, we'll leave it at 752. Assume 50% male, 50% female = 376 high school-aged boys. 376 x 0.14 = 52.64 average number of players per team.

 

You'll have small, football-crazy schools where 75% (ballpark figure) of boys play football... But what about the large schools? I went to a school that had almost 3,000 students and where football was very popular - there weren't 200 football players, and we had separate varsity, JV, and 9th grade teams.

 

Something isn't adding up there.

Read below. The numbers are the numbers. And I didn't even add the almost 30,000 that play 6/8/9-man football.

 

16 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The faulty math is just one of many flaws in Sykotyk's argument.

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.

[IceCap]

On 8/2/2017 at 10:41 PM, Sykotyk said:

Easy there. Maybe you should go check yourself for CTE before you start arguing numbers.

I'm not the one arguing that teenagers should be playing a brain-destroying sport. So no. I think my mental faculties are just fine, thanks.

 

Your problem is your knee-jerk reaction to facts that prove that football may not be something we should let children play makes me think you're either someone in a position to profit from football's continued popularity or you're just a big fan who doesn't want his football taken away. The former seems unlikely while the latter seems likely. So that's my starting point with your argument in this thread.

 

So basically I see you as someone who is willing to let children endanger the healthy development of their brains because you like your football. Sorry, that's not a position I can even go "well agree to disagree." You're letting one of your favourite sports drive you to the point where you're crying "alternative facts!" at a study that indicates that yeah. Playing football might cause significant brain damage. Arguing that children's brains being irreparably damaged is worth it because you like football is a dangerous position for you to take. One I can only view as heinous.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say "I oppose this as an educator," but I would like to say I oppose it as a decent person who doesn't believe schools should sanction smashing teenagers' brains into mush.

 

In short? Finding the NFL to be the good guys and the doctors and scientists to be the "snakeoil" salesmen in the CTE debate reeks of fandom desperation and anger.

 

And that's why I said your math was just one of many problems with your argument here.

[dfwabel]

NFHS didn't track national participation until the 1978-79 academic year. Numbers from that year and more can be found in a link within this linked article. The author extrapolated that each year, between 6.3 and 8% of HS played football annually. But that number is funky as NFHS doesn't really have a player database as they don't have player insurance to keep actual names with say, a policy number, like what USA Hockey would keep.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/1085272-players-football-remains-no-1-hs-sport-usa

 

As for the number of students enrolled and F/M ratios, those can be found from the US Dept of Ed.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_201.20.asp?current=yes

 

Keep in mind, there are places which still only run high schools as grade 10-12.

[Sykotyk]

5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm not the one arguing that teenagers should be playing a brain-destroying sport. So no. I think my mental faculties are just fine, thanks.

 

Your problem is your knee-jerk reaction to facts that prove that football may not be something we should let children play makes me think you're either someone in a position to profit from football's continued popularity or you're just a big fan who doesn't want his football taken away. The former seems unlikely while the latter seems likely. So that's my starting point with your argument in this thread.

 

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?

 

Quote

So basically I see you as someone who is willing to let children endanger the healthy development of their brains because you like your football. Sorry, that's not a position I can even go "well agree to disagree." You're letting one of your favourite sports drive you to the point where you're crying "alternative facts!" at a study that indicates that yeah. Playing football might cause significant brain damage. Arguing that children's brains being irreparably damaged is worth it because you like football is a dangerous position for you to take. Not one I view as anything but heinous.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say "I oppose this as an educator," but I would like to say I oppose it as a decent person who doesn't believe schools should sanction smashing teenagers' brains into mush.

 

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'.

 

 

Quote

In short? Finding the NFL to be the good guys and the doctors and scientists to be the "snakeoil" salesmen in the CTE debate reeks of fandom desperation and anger.

 

And that's why I said your math was just one of many problems with your argument here.

 

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.

 

 

4 hours ago, dfwabel said:

NFHS didn't track national participation until the 1978-79 academic year. Numbers from that year and more can be found in a link within this linked article. The author extrapolated that each year, between 6.3 and 8% of HS played football annually. But that number is funky as NFHS doesn't really have a player database as they don't have player insurance to keep actual names with say, a policy number, like what USA Hockey would keep.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/1085272-players-football-remains-no-1-hs-sport-usa

 

As for the number of students enrolled and F/M ratios, those can be found from the US Dept of Ed.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_201.20.asp?current=yes

 

Keep in mind, there are places which still only run high schools as grade 10-12.

 

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.

[IceCap]

10 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

You also conveniently completely ignored the numbers once you so vilified my argument of them.

You called the scientists who conducted a scientific study that displayed the dangers football has on the human brain snakeoil salesmen. 

You are in no position to play the "what about the numbers??" card. 

 

If you want me to talk about your numbers? Ok. Say 1/7 of the adult male population in the US played high school football. That means that, according to the studies on football's effects on the brain we already have, that a significant portion of that number has some form of brian damage. Maybe it's slight. Maybe in other cases it's severe.

Regardless? We as a society should be looking to limit the amount of head trauma we inflict upon ourselves and our children. 

Whereas you seem only interested in making excuses for the people who profit off of that trauma. For reasons that amount to you just liking your football. 

 

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Yep. You got me.

You've yet to do anything to convince me I misjudged you. 

 

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

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?

Well I've been a fan of both the NFL and the CFL for almost as long as I've been aware of sports. I watched both leagues ritually for years, went to my fair share of UWO games in uni, and got into Auburn football once I had a family connection there. Needless to say? I have a history of being a football fan. 

 

So no, I'm not looking to "cling" to any anti-football info that comes out. I still enjoy a lot about the game, and wish it were safer for the players who play it so I can continue to enjoy it without the the guilt that comes with knowing I'm watching men smash their brains to mush. 

We don't always get what we want though. I'm not in the habit of dismissing peer-reviewed scientific studies just because they don't conform to the narrative I want. 

 

The studies say what they say. And they say playing football, as it's currently played, is bad for the brain.

"But I like football" doesn't make these studies less accurate.

 

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

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.

The fact that their mental faculties were diminished as a result of playing seems to be something you're overlooking. 

Players looking to be fairly compensated because the league didn't fully divulge the risks of playing football aren't "just as bad" as the NFL looking out for their own self-interests. 

Labour looking for a fair shake is rarely "just as bad" as corporate looking to screw them over. 

 

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

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.

So here's the problem. You're essentially saying "we shouldn't be too hasty. We don't know how bad or extensive this potentially dangerous brain condition is, so we should totally be ok with letting teenagers risk it!"

That's just...well backwards, really. We know playing football increases the risk of brain injury. Even among people who haven't played a down since high school. 

 

All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be in the business of letting teenagers engage in a sport where the risk for brain damage is as high as it appears to be with gridiron football. 

[OnWis97]

12 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't have (or want) kids.  But if I did, this would not make a bit of difference.  The burden of proof would be on the football establishment that playing high school football would not jeopardize my kid's future...not on me to prove the danger.  This is  perfectly rational response to what is most likely a very real danger.  Sports are valuable in a kid's development...thank goodness there are so many.  (An no, people giving up football because of CTE concerns is not going to lead to the death of basketball, golf, tennis, etc.)

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

You called the scientists who conducted a scientific study that displayed the dangers football has on the human brain snakeoil salesmen. 

You are in no position to play the "what about the numbers??" card. 

 

If you want me to talk about your numbers? Ok. Say 1/7 of the adult male population in the US played high school football. That means that, according to the studies on football's effects on the brain we already have, that a significant portion of that number has some form of brian damage. Maybe it's slight. Maybe in other cases it's severe.

Regardless? We as a society should be looking to limit the amount of head trauma we inflict upon ourselves and our children. 

Whereas you seem only interested in making excuses for the people who profit off of that trauma. For reasons that amount to you just liking your football. 

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

You've yet to do anything to convince me I misjudged you. 

 

Well I've been a fan of both the NFL and the CFL for almost as long as I've been aware of sports. I watched both leagues ritually for years, went to my fair share of UWO games in uni, and got into Auburn football once I had a family connection there. Needless to say? I have a history of being a football fan. 

 

So no, I'm not looking to "cling" to any anti-football info that comes out. I still enjoy a lot about the game, and wish it were safer for the players who play it so I can continue to enjoy it without the the guilt that comes with knowing I'm watching men smash their brains to mush. 

We don't always get what we want though. I'm not in the habit of dismissing peer-reviewed scientific studies just because they don't conform to the narrative I want. 

 

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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The studies say what they say. And they say playing football, as it's currently played, is bad for the brain.

"But I like football" doesn't make these studies less accurate.

 

They say people suspected of having something had something. 99% of people suspected of having been shot were shot.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The fact that their mental faculties were diminished as a result of playing seems to be something you're overlooking. 

Players looking to be fairly compensated because the league didn't fully divulge the risks of playing football aren't "just as bad" as the NFL looking out for their own self-interests. 

Labour looking for a fair shake is rarely "just as bad" as corporate looking to screw them over. 

 

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?

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

So here's the problem. You're essentially saying "we shouldn't be too hasty. We don't know how bad or extensive this potentially dangerous brain condition is, so we should totally be ok with letting teenagers risk it!"

That's just...well backwards, really. We know playing football increases the risk of brain injury. Even among people who haven't played a down since high school. 

 

We also know that all those players with CTE (because they're deceased) played under previous rules regarding brain trauma awareness and response.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be in the business of letting teenagers engage in a sport where the risk for brain damage is as high as it appears to be with gridiron football. 

 

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.

[Gothamite]

Well okay, you got me. 

 

How much brain damage do you think is an acceptable level for high school kids?

[rams80]

3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

How much brain damage do you think is an acceptable level for high school kids?

 

They only need enough brain cells to do the blue collar jobs that have been forever automated out of existence.

[Rockstar Matt]

I'm just dumbfounded there's actually someone defending the NFL and football with this particular issue, despite the mounting evidence suggesting football is a very dangerous sport to play. 

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, Rockstar Matt said:

I'm just dumbfounded there's actually someone defending the NFL and football with this particular issue, despite the mounting evidence suggesting football is a very dangerous sport to play. 

Typically, they are the same people who want every new football league announced to succeed due to their sheer bloodlust for the sport.

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, Rockstar Matt said:

I'm just dumbfounded there's actually someone defending the NFL and football with this particular issue, despite the mounting evidence suggesting football is a very dangerous sport to play. 

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.

 

 

[Rockstar Matt]

4 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

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.

 

 

 

That's why I attached football as a whole and not just the NFL. Try to keep up. Around 14 high school and collegiate athletes die every year playing football (most of them due to impact trauma). Kids simply don't die playing other non-contact sports at that kind of rate. Furthermore, the general population simply doesn't have CTE as we only began to detect it in professional boxing initially (else we'd have seen it as a common human aliment), then slowly began to realize that football players displayed similar symptoms. Humans simply do not have CTE unless they've played in a contact sport, American Football among them.

 

If you're willing to ignore that, then that's on you. But don't attempt to berate others because your opinion is not the consensus and judging by your posts, you're aware of that fact. 

[Sport]

8 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

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.

 

 

 

Except they've found CTE in recently deceased college and high school players. It's not just old guys in old equipment that played for a long time. 

 

In addition to CTE being a real thing caused by playing football - the other side of this issue is that the NFL spent years denying the science and not telling their employees about all the risks involved even though they were aware. If your game is going to result in this condition for a hefty percentage of participants then the participants at the very least need to know about that so they can make an informed decision about whether they participate. For years the league withheld that information and went to great lengths to discredit the science. That's the organization you're going to bat for right now. 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Normally when there's nothing better on TV in the middle of summer, I'll watch some preseason football out of curiosity. I skipped last night's game, in part because of reading up on this thread.

[C-Squared]

In the near future, youth football will be drastically changed for the sake of safety. All that is missing is the conclusive, wide-scale scientific data needed to elicit demand for those changes. The most scientific way to reach said changes is to base decisions off well-developed & properly-framed scientific data, not limited data presented anecdotally, simplified to strip away context, using a sensationalized cross-section of data to guide people towards a predetermined conclusion. One side may be guilty of not applying existing data in a reasonable manner; the other of improperly framing existing data & distorting data to fuel non-researched conjecture.

 

This recent study shows no statistical difference in cognitive function and depression between high school football players and non-players from the 1950s, a cross-section now old enough to exhibit long-term effects. This study notes that the current game may or may not be more dangerous (common sense: it is), but provides a crucial measuring stick. If future studies reveal an uptick in cognitive issues and depression as the game evolved (my admittedly quazi-baseless assumption: it will), the answer may be to simply restore some elements of the 1950s game (Clotheslines? No. Equipment modifications? Maybe.) Both studies are important, but, in terms of providing honest data that elicits real change, studying large amounts of living people may be more effective than dissecting the most damaged 0.00005% of athlete brains and clumsily applying that data to everyone.

[dfwabel]

17 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

In the near future, youth football will be drastically changed for the sake of safety. All that is missing is the conclusive, wide-scale scientific data needed to elicit demand for those changes. The most scientific way to reach said changes is to base decisions off well-developed & properly-framed scientific data, not limited data presented anecdotally, simplified to strip away context, using a sensationalized cross-section of data to guide people towards a predetermined conclusion. One side may be guilty of not applying existing data in a reasonable manner; the other of improperly framing existing data & distorting data to fuel non-researched conjecture.

 

This recent study shows no statistical difference in cognitive function and depression between high school football players and non-players from the 1950s, a cross-section now old enough to exhibit long-term effects. This study notes that the current game may or may not be more dangerous (common sense: it is), but provides a crucial measuring stick. If future studies reveal an uptick in cognitive issues and depression as the game evolved (my admittedly quazi-baseless assumption: it will), the answer may be to simply restore some elements of the 1950s game (Clotheslines? No. Equipment modifications? Maybe.) Both studies are important, but, in terms of providing honest data that elicits real change, studying large amounts of living people may be more effective than dissecting the most damaged 0.00005% of athlete brains and clumsily applying that data to everyone.

Trying to justify your case as if one is Big Tobacco circa 1980 is no real plan.