Semi OT: Chris Henry's Brain Damage and Football
There are a few articles on ESPN today about Chris Henry (recently deceased Bengals receiver) being posthumously diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
"The doctors at the forefront of this important work -- Julian Bailes and Bennet Omalu -- say CTE causes behavioral changes. Substance abuse, violence, erratic and unpredictable behavior -- it's all straight out of the handbook.
Obviously, this has the potential to be used as a one-size-fits-all excuse for the bad boys of football. But at the least, it has to cause us to reassess our reactions to the sociopathic behavior of football players."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=keown/100629
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5333971
Pretty much, the article talks about how the physical nature of football might be developing brain damage at a much higher/more dangerous rate than ever thought. That a 26-year-old WR who sees contact almost never (the article guesses 25% of plays) and was never diagnosed with a concussion in college or the pros, had brain damage - what does this mean for Ray Lewis or other Lineman/Backers who make their living off of hitting people?
The big correlation in the article is that football may be as dangerous as boxing. Will this change how you view football?(with the athletes risking brain damage and all)
Do you have any solution ideas? I personally think that helmets can go a long way... I know there has been talk on this board about a few new helmets, but High Schools across the country can't always afford the new technology.
Thoughts? Ideas?
The key is protecting the kids. If you're playing in the NFL and understand the risks, then that's your decision to make, but I don't think I'd want my kid developing brain damage while he's still in high school. I have no idea how you go about that, considering I've never played football anyway, but there's gotta be something.
That the problem is the solid helmets. They encourage head hits. They say what we need is actually a soft helmet that provides all the same protection from glancing blows and problems in the pile up, but by the nature of it being soft, encourages people to lead with their shoulders rather than their heads.
That makes some sense. Although I'd be worried about the kids who don't even consider that, lead with their head anyway, and get hurt even worse.
Paradoxically, football has become more dangerous in some ways b/c of modern equipment. You don't see rugby players level each other in quite the same way that football players do, b/c they're not protected by helmets and shoulder pads.
I'd like to caution against that line of reasoning. I won't completely discount it, but in rugby union, there is no blocking off the ball. Additionally, because of the offsides rule, nearly all tackling happens from directly in front of you - there is little opportunity for a blind side hit. Even in the ruck, the contact has to come "through the gate," or directly in front of you.
Additionally, it's important to remember that leather helmets and padded uniforms came about because of the violent nature of football.
Injury and death rates were much higher when they played without helmets and pads, even after the flying wedge was outlawed.
If I'm not mistaken, in rugby, don't you have to wrap up a player with your arms for him to be considered down? That can help cut down on headhunting.
Yes. Or you risk being penalized/kicked out of the game. Form tackles below the shoulders are acceptable and if you don't wrap them up, they can just get back up and keep running with the ball.
Rugby players definitely level each other sometimes, but rugby contact is close and players are usually good about tackling without hurting themselves. I got a concussion in rugby but I can tell you it's because my opponent and I were so used to being torpedoes with helmets in football that we didn't think twice before colliding head-to-head.
You can't win with that helmut argument. If you go with soft helmuts, they will not provide all the same protection, it's impossible or they would be doing it already. And if you go with hard helmuts that the players believe will protect them from anything, they will lead with their heads.
The real answer, and it is not popular, is to not let little kids play contact football. Let them play flag football, at least until they are in high school. The problem with the current system is that if some parents hold their kids out until high school, those kids feel left out from what all their friends are doing and they are inevitably behind those who have been playing for years by the time they get to high school. If every kid could only play flag football until high school, all kids would be better off.
You can't win with that helmut argument. If you go with soft helmuts, they will not provide all the same protection,
You need to look more into material sciences. Today they have soft helmets that go nearly as hard as a polycarb shell for a split second at the moment of impact, as well as tons of other advances.
it's impossible or they would be doing it already.
Oh, that's silly, Orville! If it were possible to fly, somebody would already be flying.
I notice you did not provide a link to these fandangled new helmuts. If such helmuts exist and if they do not come with offsetting drawbacks that make them somehow impractical or less desirable, it seems to me they would already be in use at least at the pro level. Quarterbacks, in partcular, at the pro level are so well protected these days you can't even hit their legs. The owners would easily pony up $10,000 a helmut to prevent concussions, and if the owners didn't the multi-million dollar per year athletes would themselves.
I will keep an open mind. If these helmuts exist and they have been proven to be safer than what most college and pro football players wear today, please provide the link so I can see for myself.
The one I mentioned was actually designed for cycling, but the technology can translate. I'm not aware of any soft helmets currently approved for football, because the rules REQUIRE a solid helmet right now. But the concept that somebody would be doing it if it were possible is ridiculous.
Also, please, for the love of god, "helmets". Helmut is a German dude.
Edit: http://www.metaefficient.com/clothing/new-soft-helmet-turns-hard-in-crash-the-ribcap.html there's the bike helmet.
Ok, so they do not exist for football. And, at least in the link to the one you provided, it says nothing about them going hard and then soft again. It is a material that hardens on impact. Great, though that is not exactly how you described it initially and it is difficult to see how that makes it any safer than one that was hard to begin with. Additionally, in football, most plays result in multiple head to head contacts, so unless this helmet can switch back and forth amazingly from soft to hard over and over again in milliseconds, it needs a bit of work.
Edit: As a follow up, I went to the manufacturer's website and it says nothing about this cap being any safer than a traditional hard one. The benefits appear to be reduced weight and comfort (style and warmth, much like a wool cap).
So you're actually basing your argument now on the idea that since such a thing does not exist exactly as you think it needs to right now, such a thing cannot exist.
Are you a luddite, or a moron, or what?
I thought it was possible to have a debate with you using logic and facts without having to worry about you simply calling me names because you could not come up with anything better. I was wrong.
If you could defend your position...
Literally, your position is, "If you can't show it to me, it can't exist." That is a stupid position. There is no other word for it. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. That's OLD, OLD thinking.
New materials are in development ALL the time. Even if a football helmet like I've described is NOT available at the moment, there are a great number of well known materials that become very hard under stress. It's not difficult to imagine a helmet made from these materials.
Edit: http://www.livescience.com/technology/051204_ribcap.html There's a science article on the helmet material. It in fact goes so far as to describe an entire SUIT made of the same material. The overarching theme is quite simple: It does a good job of absorbing impacts and spreading them out (minimizing damage to hittee and hitter), and is so comfortable you forget you're wearing it, thereby reducing the number of people leading with their head.
There, now you can see it for yourself. Happy?
This link is to an article discussing the same technology and the same company as your first link. The primary (sole?) marketable product this company appears to have produced thus far is a wool-like ski cap that hardens on impact. Not only is this very different than a football helmet, but nowhere do they even claim it provides greater protection than a traditional hard ski helmet. The primary benefits of this technology appear to be style and comfort (lighter, warmer, etc) not greater safety over a traditional hard ski helmet.
They claim that this cap works by converting from soft to hard upon impact, thereby dispersing the force of the blow over a larger area than just the point of impact. But that is the same way a traditional hard helmet works. I expect that if they had tested and proven it to be safer than a traditional hard ski helmet, they would have mentioned it.
Moreover, this article is from 2005. That means either you are the first person who has thought of trying to apply this technology to football helmets or this company has tried and, despite the passage of five years, still has not successfully come up with anything superior to what football players wear today.
Will someone some day come up with a futuristic helmet that does exactly what you say it will -- act soft when soft is better and act hard when hard is better and switch back and forth seamlessly as to provide superior safety to football players? Maybe and maybe not. But such a helmet does not exist today (you admitted it yourself) and if pointing that out makes me "stupid" in your eyes, I can live with that.
Wouldn't a soft helmet that goes hard on impact negate the point of using a soft helmet (discouraging hitting with the head)? (I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something here, and I'd be very interested to hear the response if I am)
for a split second, and only at the exact point of contact. Not long enough or complete enough to become a battering ram.
The effect is to lessen a player's DESIRE to lead with the head, but not the protection should they purposely or accidentally do so. Therefore, you have to split the difference somewhere.
I think the helmet solution is simpler: have players wear those helmets with a shell of soft external padding over the plastic, as a few NFL players did. Then you have the same protection with a soft exterior that cushions the impact of a hit.
The hard shell of helmets produces more force on impact than a soft shell would. I don't understand why those soft outer shells that a few players wore went out of use. I don't think anyone ever suffered a concussion while wearing one. Yes, they looked silly, but if everyone would wear them, no one would care.
The solution is to not have your children play football.
Once the evidence starts piling up (and a high-profile player from the modern era, such as Troy Aikman, starts breaking down before our eyes), more and more parents will not permit their kids to play football and will funnel them into sports (baseball, soccer) which don't have a sport mortality rate in the low 50s.
So do you see football becoming like boxing? In that it becomes a niche sport that few participate in due to the dangers?
I personally believe that more American youths will play soccer and basketball in the coming years, even lacrosse (though I realize the health risks in all those sports), simply because football is going to get hammered for this, over and over again. So yes, the talent pool will decrease over time. Like we've talked about here, some potential football stars will play soccer (Sousa in reverse?) to protect themselves from turning into Mike Webster at age 50.
The tipping point? Like I said, either a modern star player mentally breaks down over time before our eyes (Aikman, Hoge, Steve Young, Dilfer), or a player dies on the field from a head shot.
At that point, I would imagine that Congress will interject into the sport and attempt to make it less dangerous, thereby making it less attractive as a spectacle.
I think we will be seeing more and more kids playing soccer in the next 2+ decades.
As much as I'd love for my 5-year old son to play football as he gets older and maybe one day be a part of the Michigan recruiting class of 2024, I would not be overly upset if he didn't play due to the long-term dangers involved.
I would not be overly upset if he didn't play due to the long-term dangers involved.
I agree. As it turns out, banging your head against things over and over again is bad for you.
This is a football country. Football has overtaken baseball and is more popular than basketball (just look at how much those sports mattered in recent conference realingment). And soccer, well, WC notwithstanding, it is just not going to replace football.
Maybe Congress will do something, but I can't remember the last time Congress did anything unpopular simply because it was the right thing to do. It is unfortunate, but it is up to the parents to do this community by community. I am not optimistic, but it is up to the parents to drive this kind of change (e.g., like MADD and drunk driving). Assuming that a high profile athlete or two having health problems is going to change the status quo is pretty much a guarantee that nothing will change.
Well, the US also used to be a baseball country, and then a basketball country. I'm not sure how this problem will be addressed but the more often these types of studies come out, the more likely parents will hold back their kids from playing football. And that could very well transition our country onto celebrating another sport.
How about boxing? Who would have thought that in the late 70s that boxing would one day be so irrelevant? Hell, boxing in 1978 was definitely more popular than the NBA and probably close to the popularity of the NFL.
If I interviewed 100 people who were self-proclaimed "sports fans," probably 90 of them could tell me who won the Super Bowl last year. And the other 10 would probably say, "Oh yeah! I remember that" when you told the correct answer.
Probably 75 could tell me who won the national championship in basketball. Probably 70 could tell me who won the NBA title and probably 50 could could tell me who won the WS (maybe more since it was the Yankees).
How many could tell me who the heavyweight champ was?
Exactly. Just because something is popular now means nothing. Football is the king of sports in America right now, but there's nothing that says that has to remain past tomorrow. Very few people will allow their kids to become boxers now, which is a huge part of the reason for boxing's decline. Football is not immune. They cannot push through just because they're football. If their sport has serious long-term consequences, then people will gravitate towards other sports. The more clear it becomes, the more people who will leave the sport.
Pay per view killed boxing.
My dad and I watched boxing all the time. Ali, Frazier, Sugar Ray, olympic boxing ... Then all but the olympics went pay per view for outrageous fees, and the olympic boxing went back channel in lieu of gymnastics or something (maybe beach volleyball, which is a good trade).
We stopped watching.
Go have a look at how many kids these days are playing in soccer and baseball leagues (male AND female) when they are between the ages of 5-10, as compared to the number of boys playing football. If you don't think that will affect the future trends of sports popularity, I've got nothing for ya.
I remember reading an old SI article from the late 70s, where the author made similar claims about how soccer was America's game of the future and football a thing of the past. He talked about how Pele and the NASL had caused youth soccer to take off, and that since soccer was a safer game, parents would send their kids to soccer fields rather than football fields. Thirty years later, we're still asking the question of whether soccer matters in America.
I think that the boxing argument is a good one, but we should also realize how vested in our culture football is. I myself wasn't allowed to play football till the age of ten, and a lot of my teammates in high school were similar.
My point is, the concerns and the trends have appeared ominous for football for a generation. That said, it's also a fair point that like boxing and baseball, just because football is the top dog right now doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
I love the game and hope it will be, and when I have kids if they want to play I'll be proud to sign them up. And like my ma did, I'll caution them to be safe out there.
Well, if you were to ask the 30-40 million Hispanic citizens of this country whether soccer matters, as well as the 10-15 million youth soccer players whether it matters (as well as their parents), I think you'd get a different answer regarding what sport is going to be most popular in this country in 40 years' time.
40 years ago, it was baseball. Now, it's football. In the future, the demographics indicate it will be soccer. Get on board.
I personally think that the answer is yes, soccer matters - and it took thirty years to get to fifth place on the national consciousness. But my point is that the "demographics" have indicated this for some time. The demographics did NOT indicate that hockey would explode in popularity, to the point where 25% of NHL players are American (as opposed to <5% thirty years ago).
Likewise, even though baseball isn't the most popular game in the country anymore, MLB is still raking in money, and youth baseball still has plenty of participants. Football could go the route of boxing from the late '70s, or it could go the route of football in the late '70s. No need to ignore the possibility that you could be wrong - there's room for both soccer and football in America. Get on board.
Is there are any proof that participation in youth football has already or will soon see a dropoff? Though there are plenty of good, logical reasons for parents to not allow their children to play football, football culture is so strong in many parts of this country that I think the risk of injury simply won't matter to most football parents any more than it already does. In other words, I suspect most parents who would prevent their kids from playing football due to fear of injury already do so, and the mounting evidence that it's bad for the brain will have impact on few enough of the other parents in the future that the dropoff will be small.
What will kill football's popularity is when the government steps in and bans it from middle and high schools. There is already so much money in football, though, that that day is still far off.
Just speculation, of course.
One could even argue that football, from a pure talent standpoint, is at its peak right now and will slowly diminish when the real risks of football will continue to be revealed. Some parents will eventually just not allow their sons to play football and pursue other sports. It's interesting to see if this does indeed happen where the talent pool will disseminate.
The players that today are dying and showing brain damage spent their playing days before the modern emphasis on excellent safety equipment. We may find that the current generation of kids just getting started don't suffer the same level of negative effects because the equipment, the focus on, and monitoring for concussions is better, and so on.
People used to not wear their seat belts in cars because there was a large chance of the gas tank catching fire in a collision, so they wanted to be thrown clear. As the safety design of cars improved, people started wearing them.
Which group of players are you including Chris Henry in? I'm pretty sure he used good equipment at WVU and the NFL, he was a WR, and he had brain scarring. Not sure this helps your argument.
that I've seen major talk on big time redesigns for equipment and so on. I actually mean like, players that might be coming INTO college in the next couple of years.
If equipment is being designed that can protect football players from headhunting by players like Taylor Mays (or the hit that broke Anquan Boldin's jaw 3 years ago), I'm all for it.
I highly doubt any equipment can protect players from those kind of hits.
But it should reduce it to the point that it becomes the rare oddity, which, at that point, every job has its rare oddity risks.
I agree. I love football, at least watching, and it sucks to think that this sport is at its peak but it may be. Growing up in a2, I knew quite a few football alum, both younger and older. And the one thing that always stood out when I talked to older alum (40+) was that they said although they loved playing football, if they had to go back and do it again, they most likely wouldn't play the sport. These were the same guys who had trouble just getting out of bed everyday without some sort of pain and many of these guys didn't even go pro.
High school seasons are 9-12 games. Absolute most demanding possible schedule in NCAA D1A is 15 games over 16 weeks - much more typical is 13 games over 17-18 weeks.
Minimum NFL season is 16 games over 17 weeks, and some teams can play 20 games in 21 weeks. You don't hear about ex high school and college football players having problems, but you do hear about it in the pros. And they're talking about going to an 18 game season now.
Quite frankly, if they feel like the money is worth an 18 game season, the union needs to demand that the league aggressively monitors the health of their players, and forces them to sit out when neccessary. Yes, the NFL hits are more violent, and yes plastic pads and helmets may contribute to more violent hits. But I think that the ridiculous length and pace of an NFL season is a huge factor that is rarely talked about.
To the OP, this doesn't change how I view football. I still think that high school and college football are safe because of the short season with bye weeks, and the smaller size of players. However, the NFL is quick becoming modern gladiatorial games, and this just affirms that belief.
The amount of games is not the solitary issue. Games when combined more importantly with full contact practice is the bigger issue. Many many times players get "dinged" or there "bell rung" which is a consussive event, and counts in decreasing thresold; yet the player is fighting for a position, and doesnt report it, the coaches are unaware of it and or do not have proper training to evaluate it and have the players sit.
Lets face it, if coaches were required to sit players that fell in to any of these catagories they would be tossing the pigskin amongst themselves and the players would be i street clothes.
Your argument omits a key point about the NFL season:
There are four preseason games.
So the real total is even higher. And yes, I understand that starters don't play the entire game in ANY preseason game, and are lucky to see more than a few snaps in the fourth preaseason game.
But making the NFL regular season longer is not adding additional games, it is taking them from the preseason.
So... net-net, only a little bit more drain on these players' bodies.
This is a sad story for all involved, but unfortunately it is a cost associated with "violent" sports like football. I'm sure different helmets, better mouth gaurds, and other improvements in equipment will help somewhat, but basic physics say that one 200+lb guy running at 15 MPH getting hit by another 250+ lb guy running in the opposite direction is going to cause damage to both of their bodies, both internally and externally. Plus, there have been studies shown that offensive-defensive linemen are also succeptible to such injuries because of the sudden stopping/starting involved in battling at the line. The nature of the game makes it impossible to not have these micro traumas one almost every play.
The only way I see the concussion issue really being addressed is that a third-party evaluates players after every game to determine if they suffered a concussion or some other trauma during the past game, and if so, they must remain out of play for some period of time. Players are not going to admit they are hurt, and there is too much pressure on everyone involved to act objectively in the best interests of the players. Beyond some wholescale change in approach, players just have to understand that if they decide to pursue the riches associated with football, you run the risk of brain damage and other neurological issues down the line. They already tacitly accept the chance of physical injury; the mental side is just another aspect of this sacrifice that is coming to light.
Yeah, that's a cost fewer and fewer parents will let their children sustain as we go forward and these stories continue to crop up.