Violence in football is unnecessary and counterproductive

Submitted by MonkeyMan on January 27th, 2019 at 5:34 PM

Watching the pro bowl was fun and revealing. It was basically a game of tag football and every bit as entertaining as the regular violent version of the game. 

Many say that w/o the violence that people wouldn't watch. If violence sells so well, then why is boxing nowhere close to being the number one watched sport? I think people watch football for the athleticism, visual beauty, and unpredictability. Taking away powerful hits seems to not change the game at all.

The fake "violence sells" belief is killing the sport. People are backing out due to concussion fears, little league teams are collapsing, high school participation is plummeting, TV rating and fan attendance is crashing. 

A less violent version of the sport is easy to install. Just let the linemen play as usual and reduce the play of the skill players to tag (per an official's whistle). The worst hits are the ones that happen to the skill players anyway.

Those that do not evolve, die off.

Don

January 28th, 2019 at 10:56 AM ^

If you want to get rid of the "unnecessary violence" in college and pro football, then the easiest and fastest way to do it is to go back to these:

old helmet.jpg

You'd see a rapid reduction in players leading with their heads and an overall reduction in the "big hits" and a corresponding increase in old-school tackling: grabbing the guy with the ball around the legs or lower body and dragging him down.

Football will always be a collision sport and violence is inherent in that, but it doesn't have to be played the way it is today. 

Panther72

January 29th, 2019 at 7:39 PM ^

This thread won't change football one bit. It is a tackle sport. Strategy and danger make it so popular. We have other strategy  and skill sports in baseball and basketball. But football is violence punctuated with a strategy meeting.