🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Football.

It has been at the top of the mountain. Financially, it has been the driving force behind conference re-alignment. It's been the main engine for fund-raising for many universities... The NFL is a huge business.

But the demise of football is imminent. This week's news that autopsies of 111 NFL players' brains revealed CTE in 110 of them is the death knell for football.

Not today. Not next year. But it's coming.

The demise of football is certain. With the medical evidence mounting, it is undeniable that playing football is hazardous to your health.

Universities cannot continue to sanction a sport that is assured to cause a brain injury. If I was an NFL owner, I'd be looking to sell sell sell. The product that you sell is killing the people who create it. How do you manage the workman's comp liability for this?

So what does this have to do with Basketball?

Everything.

As football declines, the #2 sport will rise to take its place. Basketball is not only the #2 sport, but it is played by both sexes and it has global popularity. In short, the ceiling is much higher for basketball than football.

It's only a matter of time before the reality sinks in for the power 5 conferences. Once they get it, there will be a scramble for the schools with basketball pedigree.

My guess is that as early as 2020, the tide will be turning.. (apologies to Alabama) and by 2030, basketball will be the dominate athletic enterprise in universities and the NBA will eclipse the NFL in revenue and popularity.

This is good news for KU and the great basketball tradition we all love. It will be even more valuable and more coveted in the future.

Interesting topic.

I heard someone compare football now, to smoking in the 70s. Now that there is so much evidence, "no one smokes" he said. However, people do still smoke.

In my view, the more that there is evidence of CTE, etc., the more likely that the owners and league are protected. Just like with smoking -- the consumer (or participant) has knowledge. It is buyer beware. Who sues tobacco companies anymore? Everyone knows. The label says so. Folks proclaimed boxing was dead quite a while ago too, and it survives. And then we got a more violent version (MMA).

Now that doesn't mean participation in football won't drop. It already has. Youth leagues are way, way down. So the ripple effect may continue. But I don't see any high schools not able to field teams -- yet. So all of this is a very good point. Is it a matter of "when"?

Also, while it may seem good for CBB, remember, college sports lives off of football money, in large part. College sports would change significantly if CBB revenue was cut. While KU hoops is self sustaining, other programs that we would compete against aren't. But CBB would certainly take the center podium as you suggest of CFB died.

Heck, by 2030, the way our society is going in the gutter, MMA will transition to Roman Gladiator fights to the death. MMA is just a step above that. We have a lot to look forward to as our society continues its march backward down the path of incivility. Football is controlled violence. Moderate violence. When that goes, the extreme will take its place.

@HighEliteMajor Rollerball?

@bskeet Good points. Worldwide, though, I don't see basketball supplanting soccer.

I absolutely loathe it but soccer is going to be king. Sucks as it is boooooring. Football is waaaaay safer than what the gladiators did! I say let it roll. Hell start sacrificing the losing teams so the brain injuries don't matter. (Joking)

Kicker is there are more concussions in soccer than football. It's the routine every down hits that are the problem in football too much jarring the old noggin around. I don't know if there is a solution or if you just keep sending poor hungry athletes to kill them selves out there for our entertainment. I'm ok with that it's not like dog fighting- they have a choice.

If football dies it wont be because of the violent nature of the sport. Let's face it people love violence. Who hasn't slowed down at a traffic accident to get good a good look at the carnage?

No if football dies it will be because something better has come along or those people that think they know what's best for you and just hate free choice will turn the game into flag football.

I think so long as basketball is more TV friendly, it will be more popular than soccer in America. Soccer would have to allow TV timeouts for that to happen, but that would be like baseball not allowing guys to attend out of the batters box to tighten their batting gloves fifteen times between every pitch.

Football isn't dying anytime soon, at least not for reasons mentioned here. MMA is safer than boxing and has been for a long time now.

In soccer in developed nations, kids are banned from heading the ball until about 1e or 14 years old because of the impact on developing brains taking head shots with a soccer ball caused. I think football is headed for something similar. Maybe flag football or 7 on 7 through middle school and then don't allow kids to play full contact until they reach high school. Basic fundamentals also aren't taught much any more and I think that would make a huge impact as well teaching kids the proper way to wrap up and tackle.

Baseball. America's game.
I've always been a huge fan, especially a Royal's fan, but after having kids turned harder to baseball, hoping my kids would embrace the game.
I just hope the non-sport marketing wonks don't continue to destroy the game.
It has so much to offer, but requires patience from fans. It's better than soccer for no other reason than not allowing games to end in a friggin' tie.

What I like about the game is that I can actually relate to the players. Players don't have to have a freakish reach half a foot longer than their bodies, or the ability to deadlift half a ton. Some players even have a gut! Ha... It is definitely a game owned by skill over pure athleticism.

@drgnslayr Go, Bartolo!

@DoubleDD "or those people that think they know what’s best for you and just hate free choice will turn the game into flag football."

This is unfair. The full extent of the risk is still being discovered. "Those people" investigating this are trying to save possibly hundreds if not thousands of athletes from debilitating brain injuries suffered in teenage years and early adulthood. Perhaps the research will find a way to reduce injuries.

It is cavalier to simply describe safety and health concerns as infringing on free choice. Kids playing football seldom have any idea of the risk, and coaches certainly don't focus on educating them; it is always "hit harder." Parents might be the ones making the choice, and I am sure most of the ones whose HS or college kids are paralyzed or brain-injured wish they had heeded the risks more carefully. Professional athletes at least get compensation and medical care, but 99% of pros suffering brain damage doesn't make you cringe at least? Most people have no doubt had no clue that the risks include more than knees, hips, wrists, fingers, and shoulders, or even the relatively rare Stingley type of spine injury ("that only happens out of a million tackles, so it won't happen to me"). If just ordinary games played today result in injuries discovered only years down the road, seems the choices made might be free but they aren't exactly informed.

Few people are advocating banning football anyway, so your attack seems pretty premature. And you might rethink it if the evidence shows these repetitive brain injuries can (as they seem to have already) result in future aberrant behavior, and aggression, including physical attacks, murder and suicide.

This research will help discover what the risks are in what is supposed to be a fun, not mentally incapacitating, sport. Why don't we get more info before we get upset at those do-gooders this time?

I've expected the patent of a concussion proof head armour and moreover full body armour for a while. Something that locks like a seatbelt with impact and better distributes shock. If they remove the concussion risk football will resurge.

I also think soccer will be king but basketball has the advantage of being a winter friendly sport. I dont think soccer is boring but they need to get rid of the stupid flops. Watched Barca vs Man U last night and stretches were unwatchable with fools rolling around on the ground after slight contact. I really like watching soccer footwork. It's beautiful and allows for a wider variety than what you can do with a basketball.

@approxinfinity The helmet has to stop the brain from moving somehow. Studies of boxers show that the brain can flatten out and the sheath gets torn on a sharp blow. It can suffer damage not only on the impact side but also on the other side where it gets secondarily squashed.

Perhaps a future player will look like Mr. Potato Head, with padding surrounding him, no discernible neck, and head covered by a full body width helmet made of several inches thick layers of the same material as pool noodles. The eyes could be cameras with viewing screens inside. Teams could have a lot of creative decorating schemes.

From the owners' perspective, they could start looking at technology that would allow trainers to just pull off and replace arms and legs as necessary.

@mayjay lolol fantastic :joy:

Football took a big hit when some of the players decided to kneel for our national anthem. It caused a fan concussion that left the sport in concussion protocol.

@mayjay This is an interesting discussion. Don't you think that with football, there is really full disclosure now?

For example, we know you can suffer the most horrific injury -- full paralysis. That the game is inherently violent. That every limb and bone could be broken, every muscle torn, every ligament/tendon severed -- and that is foreseeable, correct? And further, it is expected, really. Now we know that a brain can be severely traumatized by repetitive blows so that you die early, or suffer significant loss of function. We know the brain is not safe.

Amazing that was not really considered for so long.

As you said, we all know we can't really protect the brain.

Do you suspect further "Unknown, Unknowns" are out there, to quote Donald Rumsfeld.

I guess there could be -- like damage to the organs or something. But is any of that worse that what we know? What could be worse?

We have folks quitting the game. Seems like it's to the point of real "buyer (player) beware."

KUSTEVE said:

Football took a big hit when some of the players decided to kneel for our national anthem. It caused a fan concussion that left the sport in concussion protocol.

That's great!

@BeddieKU23 @KUSTEVE Not only is that great, it's correct -

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20171611/national-anthem-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games ↗

Go to ESPN.com. You'll see that the story is not on its front page, or on the front page of even the football section. Hmmm. Not shocking give the poll result thumps their communist loving hero.

@HighEliteMajor I think there is a huge difference between damage that people come to expect due to violent collisions (such as limb and joint injuries, concussions, or even spinal injuries), and what the research on brains is showing. 110 out of 111 with brain disease apparently caused by cumulative impacts over a career.

What people are willing to assume the risk of, I think, is the first type--from singular events that they hope won't happen to them (or their kids). What I doubt anyone knows yet is how this new research showing cumulative damage is related to simply playing the game over many years. No one knows that risk yet, and certainly not the parents of a kids having a scholarship dangled in front of him (and the coach dangling it probably doesn't, either). It would be premature to think the info is in.

I think the research has just begun, and the possibilities are wide open. We might learn that playing the game in college has fewer risks, for example, if the study of NFL players doesn't get confirmed by studies of brains of players who never played pro ball. Maybe it is longer careers that carry more risk. Maybe older brains are less likely to heal. Maybe certain positions are more prone to these injuries. And, unmentioned in what I have seen is whether the study had any way of determining if the deceased players were juicers--I would imagine that 'roid tage and CTE could have similar sources in brain tissue, but that is just speculation.

If I had a kid, I would want him to avoid fb. Basketball would be nice because of so many hundreds of schools giving schollies, but the talent required certainly has never climbed into my family tree. Baseball seems safest, or swimming, or who knows? My roommate in freshman year took fencing and has participated in the US national championships for his age group. I took bowling and have never accomplished anything in it.

Boxing is still a sport despite the clearly known risks of brain damage. But young boxers wear special protective headgear that, while not always effective, help soften the impact of a full strength (even if padded) blow to the head. As someone said, maybe they will discover that better gear in fb makes these injuries a chance rather than a near certainty.

We have all seen old NFLers limping or read about the who ones can't walk at all. Those guys we feel sorry for, but I think that there it is safe to say they knew their joints are vulnerable. We haven't seen too many, before Junior Seau, who have dramatically illustrated how radically differently brain injuries can affect someone's life.

I will always treasure my memory of Bo Jackson running over that jerk from Oklahoma into the end zone in that MNF between the Raiders and the Seahawks. But I will always wish he hadn't played in the NFL because I had hoped for more memories like his All Star game HR or his warning track throw to the plate. I know, his choice--but to me, our loss. Obviously not related to the brain issue, but it just emphasizes to me how much I hope to not read more about athletes of the past few decades and today becoming debiltated while relatively young by something unknown when they played.

I know it is a long answer, but to me it is complicated. I don't want to ban football, but I would like catastrophic injury insurance to be mandated at HS and above, so the choices people make can at least be adequately treated when the odds go sour.

What I see happening to football over time is parents keeping the kids out of it starting at young ages and then gradually that age will climb. Then a few high schools will get sued over brain injuries to students and schools will start dropping football. The combination will reduce the number of experienced players colleges can choose from. Kind of a domino effect basically from there until the pros are half guys that have played a couple years of football and who is going to pay big bucks to watch crappy games?

Those that want to ban football, you also need to look at soccer and hockey as well. Soccer players take repeated shots to the head from the ball, and ball is really hard, and they also bang heads regularly on jumps trying to head the ball. Soccer players have been known to have brain trauma as well from years of taking soccer balls to the head.

Hockey players also collide with each other, their heads get bounced off the boards and ice itself. Not to mention that players also are skating around on razor blades and we've seen players get accidentally slashed with skates in the past.

Football is not the only sport in the US that exposes its participants to repeated brain trauma so if football dies a death because of that, soccer and hockey will as well.

@Texas-Hawk-10 There is much more contact to the head in a football game than soccer or hockey. It's not even close.

@Texas-Hawk-10 soccer will just ban headers. They've already moved up the age where headers are allowed in youth soccer.

@HighEliteMajor ESPN doesn't care about Colin Caepernick. Whether he is loved or hated matters not to ESPN, only that he is either one or the other by their entire audience. Don't be fooled, ESPN never has a legitimate opinion, they're only in it for their ratings. They sow the seeds of discord to keep their audience in heated debate.

@HighEliteMajor False, signed someone who played football and soccer growing up.

@approxinfinity There's still plenty of places around the world where headers aren't banned at any age and there's plenty of headers going on during pick up games in the US from 13 year olds and younger.

I received more concussions playing 4 years of youth soccer than I did in 8 years of football, all of which were spent on the O and DLines.

So many interesting thoughts and comments from the community.

I agree with many of the observations and the insights.

I think I should clarify that my reason for posting is not to predict the demise of the NFL. I think the NFL will find ways to drive consumption of their product for years to come. There's too much money behind this -- it employs too many people and generates too much revenue to simply go away without a fight. And the stadiums... what to do with those stadiums?

But Someone mentioned tobacco as a analogous industry... That's probably fair in the sense that football is as synonymous with American culture today as smoking was to American culture in the 40s and 50s. The NFL will resist and it may take time for the demand to wane.. But the NFL will decline primarily because of the quality of the product -- the talent will be depleted.

And that leads to the main reason I posted this: because I believe the medical evidence will lead to 1) a reduction of kids who want to play the game, and 2) a chilling effect on the funding sources to public institutions such as public high schools and state universities. These constitute the pipeline for talent to the NFL.

State funds -- taxpayer's money -- cannot support actives that are known to harm students. The threat of lawsuits against the institutions could move up the chain to the states that are funding / supporting the sport. To continue to fund football would be akin to using state funds to put cigarette vending machines in schools and campuses.

Private schools and academies may continue to support football programs, and perhaps they will surge as a source of talent to professional football as the traditional sources dwindle. But that won't be enough to keep the sport at it's current level of prominence /dominance.

As Football declines, a void will be created. Basketball is already poised take it's place at every level. And when basketball becomes #1 in popularity (in College Athletics), it will also replace football as the #1 source for fund-raising a the collegiate level from alumni and donors.

Take THAT conference realignment! KU looks pretty good in this context.

@mayjay you are right that Soccer is the #1 sport worldwide. My point is that basketball has more global popularity than football and is poised to become increasingly popular around the world (see olympic sport, the number of foreign players in College and NBA... etc.)

If I was an investor, I would sell football and buy basketball.

@mayjay says : I would like catastrophic injury insurance to be mandated at HS and above, so the choices people make can at least be adequately treated when the odds go sour.

Why? I knew as a young man that football was full of danger. I had know doubt that I could be hurt at anytime. Football is Football. This isn't like smoking cigs in the turn of the century. Where you didn't know that it could cause a life ending cancer.

It's football. It's not rocket science. If you go slamming into some one multiple times there's a good chance you'll get hurt. Duh? And yes there are those that think they know what's best for you, and feel it's their right to enforce that upon you.

Dude if I want to drink a 64oz soda then that's might right. I don't need some left leaning liberal thinking they know what's best for me and enforcing their beliefs on me. (see New York)

If a person wants to play football then let them. Geez. Next thing you'll be telling me is I can't drink beer and play poker. Or tell me that I can't load up a shot gun and go out into the timber with my champion Weimaraner for fear of my safety. For the record we got attacked by a pack of coyotes one time. She killed two right were they stood, and injured another. The rest ran like scared cartoons. I didn't even have to fire a shot. Yet you will tell me how cruel I am to dogs, and how my life could've ended. And how hunting with dogs and carrying a fire arm is just plain bad.

Just keep drinking your expenses tea and believing you no better than those around you. As for me I'm drinking playing cards. Hunting with dogs, and yes if it comes up. I'll still play some tackle football.

@DoubleDD Yep, that football insurance idea is a leftist plot designed to interfere with your hunting rights.

If you would stay on topic, you would understand that I was proposing insurance as a way to save football, not ban it.

@DoubleDD come on man. Please don't load up your comment shotgun with birdshot. Let's take down the topic at hand, not people's tea drinking habits.

@approxinfinity For the record, I am an avid cofee drinker. Black. After all night study sessions in school, there was never creamer around, so we got used to it. Sure makes availability better.

We need BASKETBALL ........NOW. Too much time on our hands points out our differences. Man oh man, our front line looks skinnier than a one toothed man in a corn on the cob eating contest.

@KUSTEVE I love colorful analogies!

"Busier than a 1-armed paperhanger."

"Uglier than the north end of a south-bound mule."

"Dumber than a bag of rocks."

KUSTEVE said:

We need BASKETBALL ........NOW. Too much time on our hands points out our differences. Man oh man, our front line looks skinnier than a one toothed man in a corn on the cob eating contest.

That's 2 great one's this week.

@Texas-Hawk-10 It is absolutely absurd to compare head trauma in a football game to a soccer game. Nearly every football play, multiple players are creating contact with their head. A common tackling/blocking technique, to avoid use of the top of the helmet, is to lead with the facemask. Keep the head up. Still, multiple aggressive contacts with the head on every football play.

That said, there are clearly links to CTE and soccer. It's just a matter of degree, and football is a far more violent game.

@approxinfinity It obvious that the ESPN has a leftist agenda. It was interesting how the poll result was buried. I only found because it was linked from another site. I can give you multiple liberal commentators on ESPN that offer social commentary, but how many offer a counter opinion? That's the MSM. Cursory attempts at balance. Sage Steele gets demoted, Michele Beadle promoted. Obvious.

@mayjay

Here is the problem with insurance. On paper is sounds like someone cares and it's great. Yet the problem is insurance costs money.

Yes at first it would be free of course but at some point it would become mandatory.

So somebody has to pay. One or Two things are going to happen. You will eliminate the "poor" from being able to play the game. Or you will add even more taxes to the middle class.

Why can't we just leave it alone? If you don't like football don't watch it. People always want to tweak and changed something they don't like.

Just don't watch.

@DoubleDD I love watching football. I don't love watching families with paralyzed or brain-injured kids going into bankruptcy because they cannot afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care. I don't like taxpayers having to support the family when they lose their jobs because they have to stay home to care for their injured. I don't like watching the cost of medical care going up because hospitals end up with uninsured patients arriving in trauma centers. And I don't like watching other kids in a family not being able to have opportunities because the family was wiped out by a single catastrophic injury.

Why oppose insurance for catastrophic injury as a condition to play a dangerous sport? Banks require insurance for businesses to prevent foreseeable losses that might result in bad loans. Medical professionals get insurance because mistakes can have drastic consequences. Mortgage and car loans require insurance to protect the collateral from being destroyed by accident. Carnivals need insurance--yes, getting on a ride might be dangerous, but the reality is that riders still go on them and some get injured and die. Why should the rider bear all the costs of that? Mandating insurance protects the rider, the business, and society.

When an organization, say the NFL or the NCAA or even a state high school league, benefits from putting on entertainment that puts participants at major risk, it is fair to expect them to foot the bill. Stadiums and their spectacles galore require investment, even HS football coaches routinely get huge salaries, and that money seems readily available.

In any event, your comment led me to this article discussing how some college sports organizations are moving toward mandated coverage but many gaps remain:

https://www.noodle.com/articles/when-student-athletes-get-injured-who-pays134 ↗

I don't see why HS sports should be different.

@mayjay Catastrophic insurance is a great idea. In fact, school districts could take out policy that covers all of its athletes. It would of course be a secondary policy that covers costs above what primary insurance would, thus not as expensive. It would be a big budget cost, though.Personally, I think it would be worth it.

Simply having insurance doesn't substantially change the risk assessment for parents. My youngest is a senior and heading into his last season of high school football. He loves it, learns from it, and it is a part of his life. But I hold me breath on every tackle he makes, and every play he's involved in. Varsity high school football is a man's game.

@HighEliteMajor I honestly don't believe there is a liberal media bias from ESPN because I consider them to be shameless opportunists. Their voiced opinions align with liberal bias because they believe that deliberately biased content will maximize their profits. Just as I don't believe they give a poop about Duke, but use strongly pro Duke language and selection of topics, I believed they handled Caepernick in a similar manner. So yes, I have no doubt that their garbage can have the appearance of a bias of any rediculous flavor on any given day, and I'm sure it's possible to find trends. However, they don't believe a word they are saying, they want you polarized and they want you enraged. If you deeply disagree then they have you on the hook just as much as if you strongly agree.

Regarding ESPN's leanings: I don't know if they lean left or right. But they do have a conflict of interest when it comes to issues like CTE that threaten the #1 revenue-generating sport.

Don't expect them to become a source of information on the topic or a critic of the sport.

@approxinfinity @HighEliteMajor

I actually never watch any opinion content on ESPN and filter out comments during broadcasts that wander into political subjects.

Incidentally, the article cited about the "CK effect" on fb viewing didn't say anything at all about the overall effect on NFL viewership. In fact, it said that of respondents who reported that they watched fewer games, 26% cited CK as the reason, 24% cited off-field stuff, and 20% said too many commercials.

Here is the kicker: That group, the ones who watched less, was only 12% of the >9,000 poll respondents. More than twice as many, 27%, reported watching more NFL games than before, and over 60% reported no change.

So, the poll showed more viewership in total, and only a quarter of the decliners cited CK & Co. Hard to see this as a huge threat.

The study is pretty flawed, anyway, because it is a select group of fans who responded, i.e., people "who attended either one football, basketball or hockey game" (without any indication whether those were amateur or pro events). That certainly cannot be considered a poll of NFL viewers, which would be more interesting. How they obtained their sample is also a big question--going to the gates at a number of games? Questionnaire to ticket buyers? Phone survey, rejecting people who didn't?

I would speculate that people who go to games might be more resentful of CK because such fans experience the anthem ritual routinely. On the other hand, maybe nonattendees would be more likely to see the broadcast of the protests as interfering with tuning in, so they might switch away. To HGTV or somewhere.

I agree the issue was made more of than it deserved. Another protest--big deal, let it go. Protest against the protest--big deal, let it go.

I just want to watch football and then turn off ESPN when the talk shows begin.

@mayjay The "poll" will always reach the conclusion the pollster wishes. Those in charge of the poll make sure of it.

@KUSTEVE JD Power is about the most reputable poll out there. As noted, this one is essentially not probative of anything except what we might have guessed: some viewers were turned off, and most didn't care. It probably wasn't even a poll focused on CK. Might well have been a minor statistical sidelight from a poll designed to find out trends regarding viewership of NFL games among people who attend sports vs those who don't.

@KUSTEVE I don't agree. Polls on ESPN are meant to incite debate. The result is arbitrary.

People still smoke today, true enough. But look at the age of the people that smoke. It's usually not younger people. It's actually somewhat surprising to see someone under 30 smoking now. The TV campaigns and awareness have worked, not so much with older demographics, but for kids born in the 1990's, they generally think smoking cigarettes is gross.

The same thing is going to happen with football. It won't happen overnight, because football is still very popular right now. But the 20-somethings right now that are going to have kids may not let their sons play football, so instead of having 90 kids trying out for varsity in 15 years, there may only be 60. Instead of having 12 teams in a youth league in eight years, there may only be 8 or 10. Numbers have already slipped a bit for youth participation. Not by a large degree, but ever so slightly.

It's a slow erosion.

@approxinfinity It took me a long while to realize that practically every poll you read is an engineered narrative. Kaep kneels...the NFL viewership drops 25%, period. No amount of dishonest polls will change that.

@KUSTEVE I don't know where you got that number, but all other sources say it was down 8% last year, and Forbes (a conservative publication, by any measure) did not mention CK in its analysis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briangoff/2017/01/23/nfls-missing-million-viewers/ ↗

Most sources cite the election as a factor, noting it went down 11% in 2000 and 6% in 1996. Debates, and the Cubs in the World Series, really cut into prime-time games. After the election, viewership went back up, to within 1% of 2015.

@bskeet

I am so glad to see you post this.

From the moment I saw the results of the brain scanning research ten years ago that even minor traumas accrue into long term brain damage, especially alzheimers, etc., I believed football should be ended.

Next, once brain research reputedly focused somewhat more specifically on football some years back (someone fill me in here if and what the findings actually have been) and reputedly showed that even minor helmet impacts rocked the brain in its cranial hammock enough to create the minor traumas that would accrue to brain damage in middle and old age, I was even more confident football was done, even though the massive revenues and sunk costs would create an inertia that would prevent it from being quickly marginalized and then ended.

I have been writing about the hope for the end of football for years now.

So: how, what and when will end it?

It will never end completely, same as boxing, cock fighting and dog fighting will never end completely.

It will largely end, when we decide to raise the costs of engaging in the production of it to the point that the net benefits diminish enough that the producers look to other actitivies to produce.

That means that to save large numbers of our young from becoming punch drunk old fools for the sake of generating entertainment and entertainment revenues, we have to:

a.) educate the kids, and especially their parents, about how the sport injures them;

b.) find a better sport for them to engage in that vents the aggression that football does;

c.) find other ways for universities to make money;

d.) encourage legislation and court precedents that spike up the damages in class action suits to be paid by those producing the sport;

e.) encourage coverage of other less harmful sports to redirect the amoral TV outfits;

f.) find the amoral petroshoeco outfits a new market for petro shoes and petro athletic equipment uniforms.

Fail to do all of the above, just ensures that football will take longer than it needs to to disappear.

One other possibility would be to get the universities, petroshoecos, and Pentagon to lobby to start D1 robo-football as part of a testbed and R&D subsidy for developing T-2 terminators platoons to replace bio--soldiers with robots-soldiers.

But I'm against this approach, because very shortly rob-armies would slaughter most of humanity except for the private oligarchy.

Alas, this may be the most likely scenario.

Post Script: As a layman, I have no idea, what level the neuroscience is at regarding explaining and quantifying the extent and risk of loss of brain function due to repetitive impacts players receive in football. But I suspect there may be enough research amassed to make certain kinds of scientifically based remarks on the risks.

So: one small place to start would be to require a warning label be placed on every item of football equipment, and on every ticket, and be run on every TV screen when football is being shown that reads some thing like the warning for cigarettes, only directed to football and brain damage.

To reiterate, I am only imagining here. I don't know what the actual stats would indicate.

Nevertheless, televisions and television content are reputedly designed to induce our brains to produce an alpha wave-dominated state wherein we are increasingly receptive to suggestions in the visuals and the content. I am therefore optimistic that overtime something like the following might have positive impact. Imagine this fictionalized surgeon general's warning...

Surgeon General's Warning: Football is bad for your health. Scientific research indicates that sufficient brain damage can occur from even minor repetitive impacts typically encountered by all that play the game to significantly increase a player's risk of experiencing significant loss of brain function later in life.

Don't know if it could be scientifically supported, or not, but what if it could be?

@jaybate-1.0 If TVs and Facebook, both of which are horrible for our brains, can go without warning labels, fb may be in the clear....

@mayjay

Nope. Football appears to be a goner. You of all persons, redirecting with face book and the internet, or not, should recognize this. Economies of scale as TV and internet content first Balkanize nationally and then converge globally will get it sooner or later, even if brain damage doesn't.

Oh, what the heck. Nothing is set in stone. It might be in the clear. It might not be. Rock Chalk!

I am really trying to get better at this self-doubting and qualification. ;-)

And yet people sign up for the military without millions of dollars to entice them. No way football with it's billions of dollars in income goes away anytime soon. As long as there are hungry people without the intellegence, opportunity, and/or the drive to make their millions elsewhere there will be players. For some it's the only way out of poverty. For others it's a way to get your aggression out legally.

I don't want my boys to play football, but I doubt I could stop my youngest (22 months old). He's aggressive and will need a proper outlet.

As much as we claim to love our players most really don't care about their well being other than how it affects the team.

People love violence, whether or not you do or approve. There will always be a thrill doing something dangerous. This rush is addictive to some/most/all? There will always be an audience for things such as Football, Boxing, MMA, skateboarding, motocross, Jackass type stunts, Kimbo Slice style street fights, Bum Wars, faces of death, etc... it keeps getting worse...

Doesn't make it right, it just is.

@mayjay

I don't think anybody wants to see someone get hurt. At least I know I don't. Yet there is a danger in everything we do. You can't eliminate it. Yea you may decrease the odds, or even have some form of Insurance to cover your injuries. However just mandating something like High Risk Insurance would kill the game and not only that but take another rung out of the ladder of success.

You speak of High Schools being responsible to cover those students who would participate in case of a bad injury?

1. Majority of High Schools are not privately owned. They are owned and ran by the state. Their revenue sources are generated from tax payers. Meaning in order for a High school to field a team the revenue source must go up. Hence the taxpayer would have to pay the bill.

2. Sadly if High Schools are forced to pick up the bill for insuring said kids. High Schools in low income areas will be forced to drop the game altogether.

3. Once you move the line or force a certain plan of action. Like forcing High schools to pay for insurance coverage on football players. Then the debate will begin what about the baseball players, basketball players, and even the wrestlers? As history has shown move that line and it will be moved again and again. Meaning at some point High Schools in low income areas would indeed have to drop sports all together.

4. The thing about football is not just playing the game. Yet it gives so many youths discipline, structure, and a chance at a free education at the next level. The goal maybe to make it to the pros and ink that million dollar contract. Yet in the journey a lot these kids do get an education they other wise wouldn't have gotten.

You start messing around with something because you think it's too dangerous? You might just close the doors on a lot hopes and dreams.

As for the NFL? The players have a union they can fight for what you propose if they wish.

I'm glad you like a good cup of joe. I too like my coffee. PS I know you drink tea. Admit it. :grinning:

@DoubleDD Here in the south, sweet tea is the big thing. Don't drink that, either. Now, just once in a while, say every two months, I have an unsweetened iced tea at McD's if I am avoiding Diet Coke.

I know, you are saying, "Ha! I knew it! Gotcha!"

(slinks away in shame....)

!0_1501286812160_upload-b732dcb5-7762-4596-a15d-e1056fbe4dea ↗ https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ61VCulSkP45KTxPQJhRUbSNdzJBbB6thYOjEasEC9RPa-EtRYQ ↗

I promise to be good.

@mayjay

Tell ya the truth I've been trying to drink more tea myself. They say it's better than pop. Momma has been getting after me here lately with my health. I tried to tell her I'm just big boned.

I don't think she's buying it?

@drgnslayr I was about to write what you did! I was chagrined to look at friggin espn the other day and see nothin but friggin football and friggin NBA.

MLB is to blame I think. Their national network FOX doesn't televise a postseason game until the World Series. During the stretch run as pennant races heat up they've stopped doing the one game of the week they've done for years.

The other national network for baseball, friggin espn does no postseason games. I can't imagine a league commissioner like friggin Selig and friggin manfred allowing their sport to be treated so poorly.

It was an interesting original post. CTE will kill the sport I think and the violence of football just gets worse as players headhunt without impunity. Or is it with impunity? I forget! No I didn't play football! Anyways college hoops lives on and for that I'm thankful to be a Jayhawk!

OMG

I was sharing this debate on this subject with my wife. She said, "you know how you can protect the Football players from getting hurt?" I'm like what?

Just wrap them up in bubble wrap.

God I love that woman.

@HighEliteMajor and here I was thinking I didn't like ESPN because most of their staff is annoying as crap, forced to be opinionated, and usually underinformed about the sports and sporting teams they cover... I am willing to concede that the mandated lean is liberal. Either way, it's obnoxious.

@wissox

Yes... football is a definite negative for the ol' noggen.
I think technology with safety will improve, as well as the rules, but there is no way stop the total risk.

Having said that... I don't believe the sport will vanish anytime soon.

To put in perspective, since I have two toddlers I look at what is in food and snacks, especially designed for kids. Most of those products are full of toxins that do everything from inspire cancer to shrink the brain. Yet... I don't see those products being pulled off the shelves, now or anytime soon.

So life moves on... and every year there are tragedies exposed in the media about head trauma from playing football. Sometimes youth will perish. People will be sad for a couple of days then will flip to the next game.

I didn't care when I was young. I thought I was invincible. Boy was I wrong! And I pay the price now and I'm sure in the future. It has made me reevaluate sports and safety and will try to direct my kiddos to a safe path.

Who am I to talk? I haven't banned games like football from my own TV.

I guess there are certain dangers that just exist out there and will continue to exist. Meanwhile, it has given me new admiration for the game of baseball. And the long, long seasons gives me a fix as long as all other sports I watch together.

@drgnslayr The long season of baseball now runs into the too short season of college hoops! IMHO stretch out the dance a little longer. Make quarterfinals a best of three or something like that over the course of a week. Home court advantage will be given to the team with the better record. That should help us in the elite 8!

Politics are killing my sports entertainment here more than on ESPN...

@mayjay I didn't realize you were in a fight with her- my apologies then.

Entertainers of all kinds and pro athletes have a wonder opportunity to use their platforms to help many organizations by raising millions of dollars. NBA player Taj Gibson gives $20G to family of slain Brooklyn mom. Small example. If Ck was at a Chiefs game, I'm ignoring him. Not keeping me from watching and sometimes enjoying😳 My team. I'm sick of espn too, I just get the updates on my favorite teams, pretty much ignore the rest.

An interesting topic forsure, my wife currently doesn't want my son to play football (he's only 2) but it would be hard for me to tell him no. I'm hoping bye the time he gets old enough to play they have made some advances in the safety department. I personally think that the CTE is more of a risk for guys that end up playing professional, I played it growing up and got 2 concussions playing basketball (Legs took out from under me while in the air for a rebound, head first to floor) but 0 from football. In terms of going anywhere I highly doubt it. People dating back to ancient times love destruction, we all cheer for the hard hits. I agree that tackle football shouldn't be played til middle school at the earliest but at the same time I played tackle as kid on the play ground with my older siblings. The other thing is that most of these players know the concussion risk, it has been highly debated and followed the last decade. If it it was me, I'd play if for nothing else to make the millions they make so I could take care of my family. The Kaepernick thing has hurt the NFL for oblivious reasons for starters he was raised in money and grew up better than just about anyone I've ever met(I grew up poor, living in trailers and duplexes without A/C and hot water and drinking sugar water, for a few examples. I know the media claims poor white people don't exist but here I claim BS), praising a guy like Castro is a level of stupidity seldomly matched. Racism will never be completely dead and I'm not saying things are perfect but we've come along ways. Pointing fingers doesn't help anyone, work together.

@KUSTEVE She and Ann Coulter have always been out to get me. So I paid a Delta passenger to take Ann's seat.

@kjayhawks "(Legs took out from under me while in the air for a rebound, head first to floor)"

Funny, I was never in danger of that type of concussion. My danger came from trying to jump as high as about 4 inches into the palm of a guy holding it flat over my head and laughing at me.

Watch. More. Basketball.

mayjay said:

@kjayhawks "(Legs took out from under me while in the air for a rebound, head first to floor)"

Funny, I was never in danger of that type of concussion. My danger came from trying to jump as high as about 4 inches into the palm of a guy holding it flat over my head and laughing at me.

Was Ann Coulter, who is 6 foot tall, the one holding the ball over your head? It would certainly explain a lot.

@JayHawkFanToo Sorry it took a while to respond, not in a good technological place right now.

I see the CK protest as harmless. It didn't keep him from doing his job. I do understand you have some (a lot!) responsibility to your employer, but for protest to make any difference, it has to be done in a way that draws attention in some way, right? If he'd just made a statement at some point, it'd have been barely noticed. So he did something that got noticed. Without hurting a soul.

I do agree with a lot of what you write. I am generally pretty conservative and despise the left media and hollywood do gooders who like you say, us platforms that may be at the wrong time. I haven't read the Laura Ingraham book, sounds interesting.

Sorry @bskeet for hijacking the interesting topic. Kind of took on a life of its own obviously. Been a good discussion on both topics.

@wissox

But it was not harmless; it costed the 49ers, his employers, a lot of money and the League as a whole a great deal of viewership and by extension, money. Remember that his stunt during the National Anthem was not the only thing he did, he also showed to a team press conference wearing a Castro t-shirt and wore socks to practice with pigs dressed as police officers. He really went out of his way to insult a lot of fans.

If I am making a presentation to clients and one of my employees starts making political statements that result in lost work, he would be at the very least suspended or fired on the spot. I suspect most of us are in the same spot. He was hired to play football not make political statements and he was not doing the first part well so he did the second...me thinks to use as an excuse for potentially not getting his contract renewed. Keep in mind that he had already lost the starting spot to0 former MU players Blaine Gabbert who had been a huge bust at Tampa and in his last season there he played only three games, finishing with just one touchdown and seven interceptions.

@JayHawkFanToo

To me you're describing effective protest!

wissox said:

@JayHawkFanToo

To me you're describing effective protest!

Yep, he effectively protested himself out of the NFL.

@JayHawkFanToo He's already made millions of dollars, and people are still talking about him and why he was protesting almost a year later. His protest was effective regardless of whether or not someone agrees with his position or methods because the discussion is still going on.

Watch. More. Basketball.

All-- I have attempted to 'fork' this topic.

That doesn't mean "stick a fork in it".. rather it means split the topic as the conversation has wandered into new territory. The new post is called "Colin Kaepernick's protest and it's impact on the NFL"

I have moved it to the General Discussion section..

Also-- my apologies that not all of the posts were moved when I forked it. I could not scroll to select all of the posts, and it looks like once it's created, there's no way to move posts across topics.

Ravens player (John Urschel) battling for starting job retires from NFL to finish Ph.D at MIT

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ravens-player-battling-for-starting-job-retires-from-nfl-to-finish-ph-d-at-mit/ ↗

"In a 2015 post on ThePlayersTribune.com, Urschel wrote that he envied former 49ers linebacker Chris Borland, who retired after just one NFL season because of concerns about head injuries. Urschel explained that he played football, despite his promising mathematics career, because "I love the game."

@wissox

I like the idea of making the Final Four more games!

An interesting article here that football participation has dropped again this year at the high school level.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2726124-report-shows-continuing-drop-in-high-school-football-players?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool ↗

That's a big deal. Football will remain the biggest participant sport because you can't have 50 kids on the basketball team even if you have 12 each on a freshman team, a sophomore team, a JV and a varsity. Right now its just a 1% decline. Youth football participation has declined even more, from around 3 million in 2010 to less than 2.2 million in 2015.

That's a 25% drop in youth participation. If that erosion continues (even if it slows to only 2% or so), football is in real trouble because less kids playing at the youth level means less kids going out in high school. Those kids will end up playing other sports - basketball in the midwest and upper midwest, soccer on the coasts, baseball in the Sunbelt, even hockey in the upper plains and northeast.

The clock is ticking. It's probably two decades out, but the clock is definitely ticking.

@justanotherfan

yep.. My guess is 2030 NFL falls to second place.

Part of the precipitous drop will be from the impact of the talent migration you mentioned...

Athletes that used to be WR or TE are now Forwards in the NBA.. The NBA (and other sports) get better as the most talented athletes move from football to less dangerous sports. Track and field should be interesting.. Tennis... Swimming...

@bskeet

I think it takes longer, just because the erosion is a long way off. It's coming, no doubt, but it will take a while. For example, the drop in youth participation is mostly at the younger levels (8-10 year olds, as opposed to 12-13 year olds). That means those kids, who are just now turning 12 and 13, aren't even in high school yet since the study was just a couple of years ago.

The big high school drop is still two years away, maybe even three. After that, the numbers will probably continue to erode, but at a lesser rate.

High school participation is roughly 40% of what youth participation is (basically, the best 40% from youth teams keep playing into high school). With youth participation down to around 2m now, we can expect high school participation to drop under 1m in the next year or two, and down to around 850,000 by 2023 or 2024 (when the kids that are 8-10 years old now get into high school).

The question is what happens with the kids that are younger than that right now? What happens with the kids that are too young to even consider football - the ones that are not even in school just yet? They won't even be in high school for another decade or more. If their youth participation (basically five or six years from now) drops under 1.5m, that's proof that football is dying.

Football survives now because it is part of the culture. Kids are used to going to high school games on Friday night, playing youth games or watching college games on Saturday afternoons, or NFL on Sundays. It's how pretty much all of us grew up. It was just part of the Fall routine. But if all of a sudden those Fall Saturday mornings are filled with soccer games, or swim and track meets, or tennis tournaments, or volleyball matches for the vast majority of kids, things change. But even that isn't until 2027 or so at the earliest at the high school level, which means its another 6 years before that wave gets to the end of college.

This article is a parody of what it would take to destroy the talent level in the NBA. https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/3/5772796/nba-y2k-series-finale-the-death-of-basketball ↗

It's funny, but look how long it takes to completely decimate the NBA talent - from 2014 all the way until nearly 2030 before the talent level caved in so badly that the end was visible on the horizon. That's 15 years from the time the talent pipeline from college completely dries up. We are at least 15 years away from being 15 (or so) years away from being able to see the end in sight. I would say 2050 may be the day of reckoning, though sooner if more health issues come out before then.

http://www.kwch.com/content/news/?article=439220983 ↗

New helmets

!0_1502371271469_FootballAriailW.jpg ↗

We have a crappy paper but a brilliant editorial cartoonist.

@Crimsonorblue22

That new helmet reminds me of this

At least one ESPN announcer (former college champ and 5 year NFL) is backing up criticism with action, likely to cost him a lot of money. Resigning because of the unique danger of brain injuries.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/sports/espn-ed-cunningham-football-concussions.html?referer= ↗