The decline of American football?

[Viper]

I brought this point up in the 2010 NFL season thread, but now ESPN's Patrick Hruby has taken it a step further: Not only is the NFL's crackdown on helmet-to-helmet hits likely to prove to be futile in preventing head injuries, but over the long haul, that issue will prove to be the sport's undoing. Not just the NFL, mind you, but the very sport of American football itself, starting at the grassroots level (which is why I gave the topic its own thread).

As Hruby puts it: "[T]he game's real crisis isn't helmets hitting helmets. It's football being football."

Three thoughts:

1) The problem, as Hruby and I see it, isn't that football fans will change their minds about accepting the brutal nature of the sport, it's that parents who aren't necessarily fans may reject it, and therefore not allow their kids to play organized football.

2) As I said in the NFL thread, I don't think this issue will kill the game outright, but it could reduce football to a regional sport that continues to thrive only in SEC country and other places where it has already achieved "religion" status.

3) Any number of other popular sports aren't exactly home free either. Baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and lacrosse have produced their share of head injuries too - maybe not quite as often as in football, but still enough to get the attention of the same people Hruby thinks will turn against football (i.e. parents, schools, trial lawyers etc., and I would add do-gooder politicians and activists to that list as well). Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid that just about any sport that requires protective headgear or involves any substantial amount of physical contact between competitors is going to become suspect, not just football.

[IceCap]

Safety in sports has always been reactionary in nature. The first goalie masks in hockey, for example, weren't developed until goalies got tired of getting hit in the face with pucks. No one looked at the game and said "I think I'll just avoid this whole puck to the face business and wear a mask from the start."

Same thing here. Head injuries have gotten worse, yes. As they get worse, however, the game will be forced to evolve to limit them. Gridiron football will survive this crisis. Sadly it's a matter of things getting so bad that the leagues are forced to take action.

[infrared41]

Safety in sports has always been reactionary in nature. The first goalie masks in hockey, for example, weren't developed until goalies got tired of getting hit in the face with pucks. No one looked at the game and said "I think I'll just avoid this whole puck to the face business and wear a mask from the start."

Same thing here. Head injuries have gotten worse, yes. As they get worse, however, the game will be forced to evolve to limit them. Gridiron football will survive this crisis. Sadly it's a matter of things getting so bad that the leagues are forced to take action.

My opinion is improved equipment is a real part of the problem. As protective equipment technology improves the ability to wield that equipment like a weapon increases. Obviously I don't have the stats in front of me and there's a very good chance this stuff wasn't reported back then but...were there as many concussions, head injuries, etc. in the NFL back in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's as there are today?

Again, I have no idea of the actual statistics but does Rugby have more concussions etc. than the NFL? I'm just wondering if the NFL made a move to less equipment if the players would be a little more reluctant to lead with their heads or throw their bodies around like projectiles? It sounds crazy to think that reducing protective equipment would actually make the game safer but I think it's a fair question.

[IceCap]

Safety in sports has always been reactionary in nature. The first goalie masks in hockey, for example, weren't developed until goalies got tired of getting hit in the face with pucks. No one looked at the game and said "I think I'll just avoid this whole puck to the face business and wear a mask from the start."

Same thing here. Head injuries have gotten worse, yes. As they get worse, however, the game will be forced to evolve to limit them. Gridiron football will survive this crisis. Sadly it's a matter of things getting so bad that the leagues are forced to take action.

My opinion is improved equipment is a real part of the problem. As protective equipment technology improves the ability to wield that equipment like a weapon increases. Obviously I don't have the stats in front of me and there's a very good chance this stuff wasn't reported back then but...were there as many concussions, head injuries, etc. in the NFL back in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's as there are today?

Again, I have no idea of the actual statistics but does Rugby have more concussions etc. than the NFL? I'm just wondering if the NFL made a move to less equipment if the players would be a little more reluctant to lead with their heads or throw their bodies around like projectiles? It sounds crazy to think that reducing protective equipment would actually make the game safer but I think it's a fair question.

I agree, improved helmets are making things worse. When I said that the game would evolve, I didn't mean in an equipment sense. I meant in "the way the game is played" sense.

[infrared41]

Safety in sports has always been reactionary in nature. The first goalie masks in hockey, for example, weren't developed until goalies got tired of getting hit in the face with pucks. No one looked at the game and said "I think I'll just avoid this whole puck to the face business and wear a mask from the start."

Same thing here. Head injuries have gotten worse, yes. As they get worse, however, the game will be forced to evolve to limit them. Gridiron football will survive this crisis. Sadly it's a matter of things getting so bad that the leagues are forced to take action.

My opinion is improved equipment is a real part of the problem. As protective equipment technology improves the ability to wield that equipment like a weapon increases. Obviously I don't have the stats in front of me and there's a very good chance this stuff wasn't reported back then but...were there as many concussions, head injuries, etc. in the NFL back in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's as there are today?

Again, I have no idea of the actual statistics but does Rugby have more concussions etc. than the NFL? I'm just wondering if the NFL made a move to less equipment if the players would be a little more reluctant to lead with their heads or throw their bodies around like projectiles? It sounds crazy to think that reducing protective equipment would actually make the game safer but I think it's a fair question.

I agree, improved helmets are making things worse. When I said that the game would evolve, I didn't mean in an equipment sense. I meant in "the way the game is played" sense.

I know. I was just using your post as a jumping off point to make my annual "get rid of equipment, improve football safety" argument.

[IceCap]

Ah, gotcha. Not to turn this into the other thread but....

I don't think getting rid of football helmets is the answer. I think it would do the trick, but from a PR perspective it would be a disaster. North Americans are just so used to seeing football being played in helmets. Getting rid of them would not go over well. What I think needs to happen is to use less advanced helmets. Go back to the models used during the 70s and 80s.

[infrared41]

Ah, gotcha. Not to turn this into the other thread but....

I don't think getting rid of football helmets is the answer. I think it would do the trick, but from a PR perspective it would be a disaster. North Americans are just so used to seeing football being played in helmets. Getting rid of them would not go over well. What I think needs to happen is to use less advanced helmets. Go back to the models used during the 70s and 80s.

Exactly.

[TopCat]

I think football will be totally gone within a few years. With all the recent campaigns about keeping your body healthy I don't see a place for football in the future.

[pianoknight]

I voted YES because while I don't think that this will be the death sentence for football, many parents will be concerned for the safety of their children, especially at the High School or Junior Varsity level. Here's the logic I think most parents will use:

1. There are 42 Professional (NFL & CFL) and 85 Semi-Pro football teams in North America (UFL, AFL, AIFA, APFL, CIFL, IIFA, IFL, SIFL).

2. There are currently about 650 college football teams across the nation.

3. For estimation purposes, we will assume there is at least one high school for about every 3000 people in the United States. Currently the United States population is 307,006,550, according to the US Census Bureau. That means there are approximately 100,000 high schools across the nation.

4. Assume that your child is the star quarterback for his high school. Statistically, his chances of making a college roster at ANY position are about 7% at best, and let's face it- he's probably not going to become a Defensive Nose Tackle or Left Guard. If he sticks with QB his chances drop to 0.6%

5. After four years, his chances of making it from college to semi-pro is 13%, while making it to the NFL or CFL is only 6%.

6. All told, the chance that your high school student will EVER EARN A PAYCHECK PLAYING FOOTBALL is 0.126%

7. The average person is 3x more likely to be murdered by firearm than to make it from high school to pro playing football.

---SO---

Why would a parent risk their child's safety for the slimmest margin of future success? Aren't they more likely to sign their kids up for karate or some other physical, but less damaging, sport?

[Saintsfan]

I still think there is a case for not using helmets in practice to improve technique. If players get back into the practice of using arms and shoulders more then heads.

[mania]

Safety in sports has always been reactionary in nature. The first goalie masks in hockey, for example, weren't developed until goalies got tired of getting hit in the face with pucks. No one looked at the game and said "I think I'll just avoid this whole puck to the face business and wear a mask from the start."

Same thing here. Head injuries have gotten worse, yes. As they get worse, however, the game will be forced to evolve to limit them. Gridiron football will survive this crisis. Sadly it's a matter of things getting so bad that the leagues are forced to take action.

My opinion is improved equipment is a real part of the problem. As protective equipment technology improves the ability to wield that equipment like a weapon increases. Obviously I don't have the stats in front of me and there's a very good chance this stuff wasn't reported back then but...were there as many concussions, head injuries, etc. in the NFL back in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's as there are today?

Concussions at the time weren't reported... but as far as brain damaged former players, odd behavior that would likely be traced to CTE's... yes. There absolutely were/are (for those still living). The NFL's reluctance to pay for treatment for these players has been a huge, albeit under-reported, issue with the NFLPA and NFL Alumni.

Again, I have no idea of the actual statistics but does Rugby have more concussions etc. than the NFL? I'm just wondering if the NFL made a move to less equipment if the players would be a little more reluctant to lead with their heads or throw their bodies around like projectiles? It sounds crazy to think that reducing protective equipment would actually make the game safer but I think it's a fair question.

A study done by the B.C. Injury Research in Canada says rugby injuries come at almost three times the rate as those in football and soccer. But another study performed by the Eastern Suburbs Sports Medicine Centre in Sydney and the Australian Rugby Union found that while head injuries were most common in the collection of games they studied ? adding up to 25 percent of all injuries ? three-quarters of those injuries were lacerations, while only 19 percent were concussions.

Disputed results, but it's not exactly a fix-all.

[The_Admiral]

I voted YES because while I don't think that this will be the death sentence for football, many parents will be concerned for the safety of their children, especially at the High School or Junior Varsity level. Here's the logic I think most parents will use:

1. There are 42 Professional (NFL & CFL) and 85 Semi-Pro football teams in North America (UFL, AFL, AIFA, APFL, CIFL, IIFA, IFL, SIFL).

2. There are currently about 650 college football teams across the nation.

3. For estimation purposes, we will assume there is at least one high school for about every 3000 people in the United States. Currently the United States population is 307,006,550, according to the US Census Bureau. That means there are approximately 100,000 high schools across the nation.

4. Assume that your child is the star quarterback for his high school. Statistically, his chances of making a college roster at ANY position are about 7% at best, and let's face it- he's probably not going to become a Defensive Nose Tackle or Left Guard. If he sticks with QB his chances drop to 0.6%

5. After four years, his chances of making it from college to semi-pro is 13%, while making it to the NFL or CFL is only 6%.

6. All told, the chance that your high school student will EVER EARN A PAYCHECK PLAYING FOOTBALL is 0.126%

7. The average person is 3x more likely to be murdered by firearm than to make it from high school to pro playing football.

---SO---

Why would a parent risk their child's safety for the slimmest margin of future success? Aren't they more likely to sign their kids up for karate or some other physical, but less damaging, sport?

Good stuff. If parents want to instill admirable values of effort and teamwork, there are other, safer outlets for that than football. Eventually, the NFL will just be overgrown kids looking for a way out of poverty in Mississippi and Alabama, more so than it already is.

[oddball]

Y'all are over-reacting to this like the news stations do in Southern California when there's drizzle. It becomes "Storm Watch 2010" and that's all the news is for a little drizzle. This is something that will be forgotten about 1:01 pm EST on Sunday when the games start. Do you realize how much everyone is over-reacting to a non-story. Sure, and illegal hit (whatever that is) is illegal. Guess what? On every play there are probably 2-3 flagrant penalties just along the line between the linemen that don't get called. The issue isn't concussions, the issue is players today have no clue on how to play the game and have no fundamentals. You will always and have always had concussions and you can't stop them completely. What this is really about is money. See, the NFL is bringing attention to itself to get people talking and to sell those greatest hit videos. It's all about money and attention for the NFL. All these "illegal" hits will be on the year end highlights and videos that the NFL sells, and lo and behold how many other illegal hits don't get called but end up on the videos.

[FiddySicks]

Rather than destroy football as we know it, as some seem to think could happen, why don't they just teach kids how to properly tackle? It's really that simple. Don't take helmets away, just teach kids to properly :censored:ing tackle. I don't know as much about it as I do football, but just look at hockey. Big hits are a part of the game but if you're an idiot and check someone into the boards while they're looking away from you it's a boarding penalty and is often a game misconduct because of the likelihood of injury. Same should be done for football and leading with your head. Of course the nature of each game brings in different scenarios and techniques but if you know how to properly tackle someone head injuries shouldn't happen no matter what kind of equipment you're wearing. And I don't buy the argument that the helmet makes it seem like leading with your head is safe. If it was taught from the very beginning levels that leading with your head is as punishable as fighting on the field, even if it was a a highlight reel hit, this problem wouldn't exist. And in the pro levels do the same thing. If you're an idiot like James Harrison was, give up a paycheck and take a timeout. If you're a REALLY big idiot, like Todd Bertuzzi was (sorry, couldn't find a candidate in football that fit as well as Bertuzzi), expect a police escort out of the building.

[Viper]

Y'all are over-reacting to this like the news stations do in Southern California when there's drizzle. It becomes "Storm Watch 2010" and that's all the news is for a little drizzle. This is something that will be forgotten about 1:01 pm EST on Sunday when the games start. Do you realize how much everyone is over-reacting to a non-story. Sure, and illegal hit (whatever that is) is illegal. Guess what? On every play there are probably 2-3 flagrant penalties just along the line between the linemen that don't get called. The issue isn't concussions, the issue is players today have no clue on how to play the game and have no fundamentals. You will always and have always had concussions and you can't stop them completely. What this is really about is money. See, the NFL is bringing attention to itself to get people talking and to sell those greatest hit videos. It's all about money and attention for the NFL. All these "illegal" hits will be on the year end highlights and videos that the NFL sells, and lo and behold how many other illegal hits don't get called but end up on the videos.

You missed the whole point of the article, and of this thread. The people who buy those videos are already loyal fans of the game. That's not who the NFL has to worry about alienating. It's society at large, including a lot of folks who don't necessarily know or care much about the game, and have never played it themselves (including, I might add, 99.9% of mothers of the would-be next generation of NFL players), but do care about its potential for head injuries. Like it or not, one way or another those people will have a say in the future of the game too. The NFL's helmet-hit crackdown was at least as much a general-public PR move as it was a safety measure.

[NJTank]

Its just the continued campaign to make America weaker. Football has been football for years and in the past the hitting was rougher and more aggressive and nasty. Closing lining use to be legal for crying out loud. Its too much hand wringing that has created a situation where we are all too cautious. Just allow it to thrive as it was and ban hits to the head and just realize injuries are part of the game and get over it. People who play football will make the choice and that stop trying to baby everyone.

[rams80]

Its just the continued campaign to make America weaker. Football has been football for years and in the past the hitting was rougher and more aggressive and nasty. Closing lining use to be legal for crying out loud. Its too much hand wringing that has created a situation where we are all too cautious. Just allow it to thrive as it was and ban hits to the head and just realize injuries are part of the game and get over it. People who play football will make the choice and that stop trying to baby everyone.

I'm just going to throw this out there.

If we do succeed in cutting down some of the long term negative health effects of football, it probably would help to drop overall health costs a little. Which would be a good thing.

[IceCap]

Its just the continued campaign to make America weaker.

Operation Maple Hammer is proceeding as planned.

[NJTank]

Its just the continued campaign to make America weaker.

Operation Maple Hammer is proceeding as planned.

No its not Canadians running this operation.

[Viper]

Its just the continued campaign to make America weaker. Football has been football for years and in the past the hitting was rougher and more aggressive and nasty. Closing lining use to be legal for crying out loud. Its too much hand wringing that has created a situation where we are all too cautious. Just allow it to thrive as it was and ban hits to the head and just realize injuries are part of the game and get over it. People who play football will make the choice and that stop trying to baby everyone.

Alas, it is not that simple. (It never is, is it?) This isn't so much about the people who play football now, it's about the people who will be playing football 20-30 years from now. Or, to be more precise, people who won't be playing football 20-30 years from now because when they were kids back in the 2010s, their parents decided the sport was too dangerous for them and steered them into other sports. Or into piano lessons or acting or whatever.

We can argue until we're blue in the face that head injuries are part of the game, and we'd be absolutely right about that. But as I said in the thread subtitle, that's exactly the problem. Saying that head injuries are part of the game is like saying that the risk of getting killed is part of war. But then, why do you suppose so many people are anti-war?