Reply to Big game? Who cares - The NFL, and football in general is worthless.

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "Big game? Who cares - The NFL, and football in general is worthless."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are some valid points hidden in that looney-tune rant,

But people loose all credibility when they say that 'football is dying'

It's not.  It's thriving.  And post-pandemic, youth football participation is increasing.

the game is changing and its locked in as the nation's top sport[/quote]

Talk about losing credibility - you claim that youth participation is increasing when it's declining:

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-01-24/youth-football-participation-declining-amid-safety-concerns

And it will continue to do so - the talent pipeline is drying up as informed parents who understand the real risks to long term brain health opt for more sensible options for sport.

They(NFL) are making a hard pitch for flag football, which I'm sure is increasing, and they are pitching this to woman, which by any measure is welcomed but at the same time only shows how desperate they are.

They game will still need to substantially and fundamentally change more if it is to remain viable in the long term.

[/quote]

Gee, I wonder what was happening in the 21-22 school year that may have caused football participation to plummet.

Locally, football is increasing:  fredericknewspost.com/sports/level/high_school/numbers-are-up-in-football-programs-across-the-county/article_aab5a040-a674-5b6a-af8b-a1ce3c4d4d78.html

For the first time in years, schools are actuallying having to cut players.[/quote]

It's not what it appears.  If you read the article completely, you'll find:

[i][b]" [...] For one, school enrollments are increasing dramatically across the board ahead of reclassification next year.

Oakdale, which straddled the line between Class 2A and 3A for a long time, is now pushing 4A status. So are Linganore and Frederick High, two longtime 3A schools, and Thomas Johnson, which used to be a 4A school before dropping to 3A. [...]"[/b][/i]

So the "increase" in the numbers in this particular small, local instance(Fredrick Co. MD) of perceived increase, is due not to the increase of popularity or interest, it is due to an increase in overall enrollment in the school system, school populations are in some cases almost doubling in size in a very short period of time.  In other words, the data need to be normalized or looked at on a "per-capita" basis.

Overall on a larger scale nationally youth participation in contact football has been trending down, not just during COVID, but it's now been trending down for about 15 years and there is no end in sight.  Which of course makes sense since there is much better awareness overall of the adverse impact on long term brain health due to the repeated sub-concussive blows that are at the very core nature of the game - there's just no getting around that fact.

[/quote]

Sigh.

Overall, [b]ALL[/b] of youth sports is experiencing a decline.  Not just football.  It was something like a 15% drop in participation in youth sports in the last 10 or 15 years.

[b]I don't know why I always let you trigger me.  I know you're a troll that looks for any reason to hate on football, but I always respond.  I need to do better at ignoring your posts[/b][/quote]

This,

Not sure why this person routinely goes to multiple different threads to troll on football, but its honestly pretty sad and pathetic.

It's no secret that families that let their kids play tackle know the risk, and accept the risk.  It's also no secret that most families report that they are satisfied with their decision.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with threads like this?  Feel superior to other parents bc you have a higher risk tolerance?  Is that the endgame?[/quote]

Do they really [b]know[/b] the risk they are accepting, though? ... not to mention they aren't really "accepting risk" they are exposing their child to unnecessary risk of impaired long-term brain health would be the more truthful way to phrase it.

Also, not directly related to this discussion but worth mentioning is that people are generally awful at understanding/estimating risk:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/smarter-living/why-youre-probably-not-so-great-at-risk-assessment.html

Findings from a paper published in 2017:

[i][b]Led by Drs. Jesse Mez and Dan Daneshvar, the authors examined a case series of 202 former American football players, finding CTE in 99% of the NFL players studied, 91% of the college football players, and 21% of the high school players. This paper received widespread global attention as it put a spotlight on the burgeoning research into the issue of CTE in football players. [/b]
[/i]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28742910/

[/quote]

[b]FYI - I'm a risk manager[/b] :)

Also, research shows people tend to both overestimate AND underestimate risks, often based off their personal biases.  Basically, we generally approach risk from an emotional state of mind, not a logical/practical one.

Which is what both of us are doing right now.

But to answer your question, yes, most people are aware of the injury risks of tackle football.  Those that allow their children to do likely underestimate the risk.  Those that say no based off the risk are likely overestimating it.  Especially those that say no to football out of risk of injury but allow other contact sports.  People think that is a good mitigation; a small reduction based on switching sports would be considered an ineffectual mitigation.[/quote]

Fair enough :)

I think you are more the exception than the rule.

To be clear, I'm not talking about injury risks in general, which I would agree are fairly well known and understood - I'm talking about the much more recent knowledge and understanding of the risks of impact of [b]long-term brain health/damage[/b], which I would argue aren't particularly well known and understood but the public in general and parents specifically.

Since this is an "injury" that is not immediate in its impact, like a broken bone, sprain, torn ligament, and also only now beginning to be understood, I think most people don't understand it and thus aren't able to really judge the risk.

In looking at the numbers available, which I summarized above, they found brain damage in over 90% of college players and over 20% of high school players.  I don't think you can say it's an emotional based argument - over 20% of the brains of those you play just at the high school level had evidence of long term brain damage due to this participation.

It's my supposition that most parents don't really understand this and therefor aren't making a fully informed evaluation of the risk to their sons.

And since this is a direct threat to the business of the NFL, they will(and have) do anything to obscure and downplay the risk.

And true to form, in their handling of care and compensation of former players suffering from long-term brain damage from their time in the NFL there have been disparities along racial lines in the treatment that they receive.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics