Why isn’t youth football a big sport around here?

[Anonymous]

We have tackle football in SE Fairfax County. We also have flag. Not sure where you are, OP, but it’s here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

How many schools around here offer skateboarding, hockey and equestrian? Cheerleading and gymnastics aren't even remotely popular (nor are hockey and equestrian for that matter) in this area. I'd love to see what status you have for basketball being as dangerous as football. I'm still waiting to here what equally dangerous sports people around here are having their kids to

I was in high school here 30 years ago and all the popular girls were cheerleaders (and all the cheerleaders were popular girls). I know that's not your point but it's fascinating.

Not anymore. The popular girls are playing now, not cheering for the boys

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

How many schools around here offer skateboarding, hockey and equestrian? Cheerleading and gymnastics aren't even remotely popular (nor are hockey and equestrian for that matter) in this area. I'd love to see what status you have for basketball being as dangerous as football. I'm still waiting to here what equally dangerous sports people around here are having their kids to

I was in high school here 30 years ago and all the popular girls were cheerleaders (and all the cheerleaders were popular girls). I know that's not your point but it's fascinating.

Not anymore. The popular girls are playing now, not cheering for the boys

Lol no.

I don't know where your kids go to school, but the soccer and lacrosse girls seem to a lot more popular than the cheerleaders at my kids' school

[Anonymous]

In Virginia, high school football is a way of life.

[Anonymous]

This is the sad manifestation of CTE while still alive("Iron" Mike Webster - CTE patient "zero" and Gene Adkins interview):



▶PLAY VIDEO



Iron Mike Webster: Patient Zero in the NFL's "League of Denial" (Part 1 of 9) | FRONTLINE



▶PLAY VIDEO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

I totally agree. But until girls soccer leagues starting requiring soft padded helmets to play, the reality is that those athletes are at the same risk as the boys that play tackle football.

So the parents that don't let little Larlo play tackle (and boast about it on DCUM) but do let Larla play soccer are just fooling themselves.

My point ISN'T that since girls soccer also poses a similar risk, then tackle football is safe.

It's that parents are doing a poor job of risk assessment by prohibiting tackle football but allowing other activities that have a similar risk profile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

This. 100% this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

The girls soccer is dangerous because of contested headers. Unless you ban head balls, I don't see how you make it safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

No. Unfortunately, poorer, less-educated people are not yet aware of the risk of CTE. Hence, youth tackle football being a popular sport in PG County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

If you want to get rid of concussions in football, get rid of the helmets. I know it's counterintuitive, but it would do the trick. Teach them to tackle differently. One reason the concussion rate is so high is the helmets themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

The girls soccer is dangerous because of contested headers. Unless you ban head balls, I don't see how you make it safer.

Ban headers (which would probably make people furious) or require something similar to rugby helmets, which which make make headers less effective and people would object to "the look"

Heck, we were watching college softball last night and it amazed me that some of the pitchers still dont wear face masks. No way, they'll get the older athletes to wear the helmets. It has to start at the youth level.

But the reality is that youth tackle football is trying to take steps to reduce head injuries. The helmet technology has improved greatly over the past few years. Youth soccer has done almost nothing.

It's entirely possible that girls soccer will have a high concussion rate than tackle football within 5-10 years.

And again, I'm NOT saying that tackle football risk is exaggerated. I am saying that other sports should be getting the same scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

I’m in N Arlington and my DS and a lot of the sporty kids at school do play in a flag football league (in addition to other sports throughout the year). A friend of mine near Bethesda has a son who plays flag football and lacrosse. These are wealthy families, so definitely not just a sport for the “poor” or “uneducated” as some PPs suggest.

It does tend to draw in the pretty competitive sports-loving kids. I’m less inclined to let mine play tackle, but he really loves the sport and I need to research it more compared to other risks we let him take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People around here think football is for poor people. They cite CTE and concussions while driving their kids to equally dangerous sports.

like what?

Lots of sports are equally or more dangerous than football. Cheerleading, gymnastics, basketball, boxing, skateboarding, hockey, equestrian...

Also this: " new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found that girls who play high school soccer are at nearly the same risk for traumatic brain injuries as boys who play high school football"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2019/11/07/the-concussion-gender-gap-why-girls-suffer-more-head-injuries/?sh=5a2f4e026937

But meanwhile, DCUM has a whole forum dedicated to soccer.

The hate on youth tackle football is rooted in classism and racism, lets be honest. The posts on this thread prove it. People say they are "too educated" to let their kids play, and that the tackle football isn't really a thing in the DMV (go check out Saturday afternoons in PG county; youth football is doing great there), but they really mean that they don't want to associate with either poor white or black people.

And then they drive to their soccer tournaments where little Larla has virtually the same risk

How many of those girls ended up with CTE?

Who knows? How many youth football players will end up with CTE? We also don't know that, given the changes to helmets/safe tackling that have been implemented in the last 10 years.

The point isn't whether football is dangerous; it very clearly is. The point is that the smug parents that condemn football families but let their daughters play soccer should probably take a moment to reflect.

The difference in risk is not as great as they like to tell themselves

The difference is that football is inherently dangerous. Regardless of the protective gear and precautions, it will always be dangerous because what makes it dangerous, tackling and other contact is what makes it football. You take that stuff out and you have flag football.

In soccer, while girls concussion rates are almost as high as football players, the football players still have those high rates wearing helmets!

In addition, the boys soccer concussion rates is significantly lower. So it’s unlikely that it’s the sport that is the issue, and that girls soccer playing, training, etc. can still be changed to make it safer, as the article also discusses. I don’t think that’s the case for tackle football.

If you want to get rid of concussions in football, get rid of the helmets. I know it's counterintuitive, but it would do the trick. Teach them to tackle differently. One reason the concussion rate is so high is the helmets themselves.

I'm actually not sure I buy that argument. Most people think the concussions happen on the big 'hit stick' tackles. But it happens more so from the routine frequent contact on the line and routinely engaging a blocker (on defense) or a tackler (on offense); its not just the ball carriers that get the concussions. It's the offensive/defensive line, and the TE/LBs. That head to head contact will happen regardless.

I think the next step is to make the outside of the helmets softer. Soft exterior / Hard Shell / Soft interior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in N Arlington and my DS and a lot of the sporty kids at school do play in a flag football league (in addition to other sports throughout the year). A friend of mine near Bethesda has a son who plays flag football and lacrosse. These are wealthy families, so definitely not just a sport for the “poor” or “uneducated” as some PPs suggest.

It does tend to draw in the pretty competitive sports-loving kids. I’m less inclined to let mine play tackle, but he really loves the sport and I need to research it more compared to other risks we let him take.

But those kids playing flag and lacrosse don't play tackle? So I'm not sure how that refutes PP's point