Junior Seau dead at 43

[Bucksfans1and2]

Get rid of helmets on the defense to get rid of leading with the head. Only give helmets to the offense. Maybe just leather helmets for the defense too.

I can't tell if this is serious or not

[LUKE23]

Get rid of helmets on the defense to get rid of leading with the head. Only give helmets to the offense. Maybe just leather helmets for the defense too.

[Newz]

I don't agree with it at all... but I do know a few people who think that bringing back leather helmets would be a good idea.

[Marley2Hendrix]

Again, I'm pretty pro-protection and am in support of a lot of this stuff. Not allowing kids under 18 to participate? That may have to come with some research. I was hit by probably 2 NFL caliber players and a handful of college players.

You'll probably all have a good laugh given my recent musings on the Bucks board and say that I'm delusional, but in all reality, I think most HS kids don't have this issue. Let me re-phrase that. Most kids that don't play past HS probably see this on a MUCH smaller scale. There aren't many 6'4, 270 lb linebackers looming. I realize that a kid's head may not be as prepared at those ages either, but I think the NFL issues majorly stem from 15 years of an incredible pounding once you get into the upper college level.

It can happen from just one season as well when you're a freshman in HS and I totally get that...but I think a lot of the NFL guys getting messed up are from 10 years of getting hit by Bart Scott.

I'm not saying there aren't issues in the younger crowd that need to be addressed -- there are -- and maybe studies will say that it's enough to ban it for kids. But myself and 25 other kids in my grade had their life and fitness positively enriched by this sport. That's just my grade at one school. There are probably no doubt negative effects on some percentage of kids growing up that get concussions, even unknown ones to people like myself who played for 8-9 years against lesser-intensity competition, but with all of the benefit the sport played, that has to be factored in.

Wacky wild card: Don't take this as any sort of argument for or against protection, just a random thought. The type of person in the NFL normally has an odd mental makeup as it is to get to that level. You have to have unbelievable mental makeup and focus to the point of being weirdly obsessed with bettering yourself and being competitive. Tons of money clouds the high-profile guys as well. Look at Tom Cruise/Mel Gibson/etc. Altered sense of reality. Owen Wilson "had it all" and was suicidal. Money, drugs, partying can mess up your reality when it's all over.

Just a totally random thought there and this only really pertains to the high-ranking NFL guys that we have seen do this stuff on the news, but a random thought that came into my mind. Again, not to diminish the argument at all and Seau seemed like a pretty level-headed guy, but something interesting to think about for a small portion of the upper-ranking sample that seems messed up by this. Not diminishing it.

--
I dunno, I think we were much better trained than some of the NFL guys.

What I'm saying is -- we were taught from the first practice of 5th grade football how to tackle. Now, obviously young kids aren't as experienced in it and also don't always follow that direction, but I don't remember too much of using helmets as weapons.

In the NFL, these guys are trained to kill. They neglect a lot of the training they had growing up. Plenty of good form-tackling, but even with all of the new rules which have induced some change, there have been some incredible cases of spearing.

Science suggests otherwise. As was already posted in this thread, find this article which directly examines this question (danger of collegiate/pro hits vs high school) and it absolutely finds the opposite of what you suggest:

Broglio, S.P., Sosnoff, J.J., Shin, S., He, X., Alcaraz, C., and Zimmerman, J. (2009). Head
impacts during High School football: A biomechanical assessment. Journal of athletic
training, 44 (4). 342 – 349.

from Broglio et al., 2009, Conclusion - We are the first to provide a biomechanical characterization of head impacts in an interscholastic football team across a season of play. The intensity of game play manifested with more frequent and intense impacts. The highest-magnitude variables were distributed across all player groups, but impacts to the top of the helmet yielded the highest values. These high school football athletes appeared to sustain greater accelerations after impact than their older counterparts did. How this finding relates to concussion occurrence has yet to be elucidated. (in essence, high school football has been found to be substantially more dangerous than collegiate football because of the lack of training, proper tackling technique, and often the quality of equipment that is being used.

Further, consider the physical development/build of a college athlete vs a high school freshman. College athletes have the muscular development to better support the neck/head, thereby reducing the impact of hits and increasing their ability to control/manage their bodies when throwing them around the field.

[Kerb Hohl]

Humanref/Bern/whoever else. Some of these may be off-the-wall, but I do find it as a bit of an overreaction. I'm normally seen as a bit of a "bleeding heart" on some sensitivity issues that usually translate to here. I normally say "why not?" get rid of names like "Orangemen" etc.

Again, some of these may not completely line up, but I ask:

-Driving: Should we do away with this? I lost several close friends to car accidents. Many were caused by grown adults driving dangerously and not the kids. I realize this is a vital part of our economy, but the mortality/serious injury rate has to be higher than football.

-Baseball: Have we done any long-term studies on skin-cancer issues from sun exposure? Obviously a bit of a joke here, but there could be some studies that shows that 1/100 kids get skin cancer.

-Factory work/mining: Again, vital part of the economy but higher mortality and severe injury rate than High School football.

-How about going to school all together? Serious disease/illness can be spread.

-Sugars/salts/carbs/fast food: We have an obesity epidemic. Do we ban all of this?

Obviously, a lot of these examples are tongue-in-cheek because these are vital pieces of our lives.

That said, you'll note that these 99% helpful entities are not banned or pared down so seriously that the idea of them dissolve -- no -- they are regulated and rigorously improved via safety measures.

Driving -- We have safer cars. Just like football, we impose some rules on the youngest ages that do it. You have to learn at some point, though.

Baseball -- Well, that one was kinda ridiculous. Just a thought.

Factory work -- Unions (for better or for worse), OSHA, training, improved safety technology

School -- We have infectious disease policies and intense agendas on stopping this stuff from spreading.

Bad foods -- We try to get it out of the schools, educate, take out unhealthy additives, etc.

Notice none of these helpful things have been banned all together.

A lot of the long-term studies on kids may not be out, but I'd venture to guess knowing that my dad played with plastic/metal helmets, I would assume 99% of the people he played with came out completely unscathed.

[Kerb Hohl]

Final MAJOR note --

For every Junior Seau, Jim McMahon, etc.

Think about this...A world without football:
Donald Driver - In jail or dead.
Ray Lewis - Dead?
About 1000 other NFL players - In jail, no college degree, dead.

Several thousand high school kids maybe stop going to school.

Could basket-weaving accomplish the same thing? Maybe. I don't know.

How about this?
For every Michael Vick or again Seau, McMahon, or the other suicide guys.
Take away millions upon millions upon millions from helpful charities.

Also, while I realize it isn't vital to the US economy, if you water-down and eventually crush college and NFL, you're taking (currently) probably tens of billions of dollar entities out of the US economy and taking out probably 100,000 jobs. Obviously you guys aren't suggesting pulling the rug out tomorrow, but another thought.

But yeah, ban football.

[Kerb Hohl]

Hell, how about the fact that it's a High School/grade school sport that gets some kinds that are likely to be 6-2, 290 lbs moving around and something to strive for in fitness? Those kids aren't going to play or survive baseball or basketball too long. Probably saves lives in that regard as well.

I mean you could force these kids to join cross country or something but football is something that's going to get them interested.

[Marley2Hendrix]

Final MAJOR note --

For every Junior Seau, Jim McMahon, etc.

Think about this...A world without football:
Donald Driver - In jail or dead.
Ray Lewis - Dead?
About 1000 other NFL players - In jail, no college degree, dead.

Several thousand high school kids maybe stop going to school.

Could basket-weaving accomplish the same thing? Maybe. I don't know.

How about this?
For every Michael Vick or again Seau, McMahon, or the other suicide guys.
Take away millions upon millions upon millions from helpful charities.

But yeah, ban football.

???

I don't know if I've seen anyone say ban football. Personally, I say continue doing what you have been taught - proper tackling techniques from day 1. I know my experience from 5th grade on often entailed of two guys lying on the ground head to head, the coach would randomly toss one of the two players the ball, and then the goal would be to stuff the ball handler/truck the defender. I know at least 3-4 guys routinely got knocked out each season doing that.

Given the study I provided which clearly shows that high school football poses a greater concussion risk than college ball (yes, I know it may not make intuitive sense, but if you read it, it really does make sense) and this needs to be addressed... Something like season long suspensions if a player engages in a head to head type of hit. Similarly, concussions need to be tracked from day 1. Coaches/doctors need to know how many concussions an individual has had (what's an appropriate cut-off?) and strict rules need to be applied related to time off following a concussion.

Also, and I don't mean offense by this, but your "what of the Donald Driver" arguments is silliness to me. The Tuesday Morning Quarterback is the only one I ever really see preach this, but the odds of a high school student becoming a college athlete, let alone a pro player are staggeringly poor. To me, this is quite akin to Adam Carolla and his rants about the lottery. The lottery feeds off of the poor/stupid, but hey, because 1 in 25 million individuals wins the lottery, it is a good thing. Again, football is good and it does great things for many young men without positive parental influences, but citing examples like donald driver is not the best way prove the value of the sport.

[Kerb Hohl]

Well we're talking about a football epidemic costing how many people here from head injuries? 2% seriously and 5-10% less serious long-term on the rough side? I have no idea. I wouldn't guess that sample judging from the hundreds of people who I've played with and/or know -- who other than maybe nagging knee injuries I haven't seen anything yet (granted, we're all still young).

We're talking about thousands of people that made it to the NFL from a crappy upbringing. How about the 50,000 kids from crappy communities that stayed active in school and played D3 and up ball? How about the ones that didn't even make college ball but it kept their nose clean during school?

This is not akin to your "lottery" statement. I brought up Driver because he was pretty obvious. Pretty sure plenty of guys on the Badgers or something or Stout might have essentially dropped out of high school without football.

Hell, who knows if I wouldn't be depressed without it. It gave me something to do for 8 years and a lifelong hobby. It keeps me emotionally invested and for the long time that I played it, I created probably 50 lifelong friends, learned life lessons, and stayed physically active.

And the "ban football" thing was to Bernman and Humanrefutation's arguments where they both suggested it. I agree, take vigorous safety and rule actions.


How many heart attacks has football saved for offensive-line-ish kids or guys that slimmed down to play linebacker? Lots of people actually stayed in shape instead of sitting on their ass because they were too big to play basketball, track, etc.

How many kids stayed clean in school to stay focused on football?

I could ask a lot of other questions, but this isn't a "1 person wins the lottery" thing. This goes through all walks of life, all levels of football, and probably on the order of millions of people over the last 50 years.

[humanrefutation]

-Driving: Should we do away with this? I lost several close friends to car accidents. Many were caused by grown adults driving dangerously and not the kids. I realize this is a vital part of our economy, but the mortality/serious injury rate has to be higher than football.

-Baseball: Have we done any long-term studies on skin-cancer issues from sun exposure? Obviously a bit of a joke here, but there could be some studies that shows that 1/100 kids get skin cancer.

-Factory work/mining: Again, vital part of the economy but higher mortality and severe injury rate than High School football.

-How about going to school all together? Serious disease/illness can be spread.

To be honest, I think these comparisons are kind of silly. First of all, school/driving are an almost necessity. You can't do without them.

Work is also a necessity, and while there is obvious choice in what you choose to do, the reality is that most jobs are essential to the economy in some manner. They are a product of the free market and economic reality.

Some might say professional football is a job, which I agree with. But the key question isn't whether there is risk, the question is whether that risk can be minimized to a sufficient degree. The evidence which is beginning to come out leads some to believe that the very nature of football makes the likelihood of severe long term consequences something that cannot be minimized without dramatically changing the nature of the game.

[humanrefutation]

Well we're talking about a football epidemic costing how many people here from head injuries? 2% seriously and 5-10% less serious long-term on the rough side? I have no idea.

I don't know why you suggest it's 2% and 5-10% and then proceed to admit you have no idea. No one knows for sure. It's still very early, and they're only starting to try to diagnose CTE in the living. The number could be much higher, and to be honest, the trend suggests that it will be.

[Kerb Hohl]

Well we're talking about a football epidemic costing how many people here from head injuries? 2% seriously and 5-10% less serious long-term on the rough side? I have no idea.

I don't know why you suggest it's 2% and 5-10% and then proceed to admit you have no idea. No one knows for sure. It's still very early, and they're only starting to try to diagnose CTE in the living. The number could be much higher, and to be honest, the trend suggests that it will be.

I was honestly just throwing a number out there. I don't know the numbers.

I'm just saying banning it would be incredibly incredibly stupid.

Again, years down the road maybe all of the members of the 60-70 kids I played varsity football with in 3 years will start having psychological issues, I don't know. I do know that zero of them have issues right now. Obviously there are subtleties, but right now, nothing noticeable.

I have known of 4-5 people to die from driving cars. Not banned yet.

Also, I agree with some of the estimates. I see that there is a bad trend forming.

That said, you're taking out 99 good things to remedy 1 bad thing out of 100, IMO.

[Kerb Hohl]

-Driving: Should we do away with this? I lost several close friends to car accidents. Many were caused by grown adults driving dangerously and not the kids. I realize this is a vital part of our economy, but the mortality/serious injury rate has to be higher than football.

-Baseball: Have we done any long-term studies on skin-cancer issues from sun exposure? Obviously a bit of a joke here, but there could be some studies that shows that 1/100 kids get skin cancer.

-Factory work/mining: Again, vital part of the economy but higher mortality and severe injury rate than High School football.

-How about going to school all together? Serious disease/illness can be spread.

To be honest, I think these comparisons are kind of silly. First of all, school/driving are an almost necessity. You can't do without them.

Work is also a necessity, and while there is obvious choice in what you choose to do, the reality is that most jobs are essential to the economy in some manner. They are a product of the free market and economic reality.

Some might say professional football is a job, which I agree with. But the key question isn't whether there is risk, the question is whether that risk can be minimized to a sufficient degree. The evidence which is beginning to come out leads some to believe that the very nature of football makes the likelihood of severe long term consequences something that cannot be minimized without dramatically changing the nature of the game.

Again I ask: How many more shootings will there be? How many more high school drop outs? How many more lineman-type kids have heart attacks or early onset diabetes?

Is that number less than the affected crowd that plays the game as a youth sport?

Not a silly comparison at all, IMO. Driving is not a necessity. Nor is physically going to school these days -- you can do it virtually.

More of a necessity than football? Yes. More dangerous than football? Driving surely is. Yet we deal with it by safety measures and not banning it.

Why do bars exist? Alcohol? Not necessities. Plenty have died. More than football.

But we see a few guys commit suicide from an -- agreed -- major problem with head trauma. So let's overreact and talk about banning it.

[humanrefutation]

That said, you're taking out 99 good things to remedy 1 bad thing out of 100, IMO.

First of all, I never said that the answer some to simply ban football. My answer was that if we cannot minimize the risk of serious long-term suffering to a sufficient degree, then I would rather see it banned then continue to subject people to that kind of pain.

That all being said, I support people's rights to make their own determinations. Maybe there are 99 wonderful things that football brings, but I don't think any of them supersede suffering and early death. Maybe an an ADULT athlete, down the road, feels differently. But, if that's the case, it will have to be based off of a program which emphasizes education about the risks and true and honest reflection. I don't think youth can reasonably make that determination right now.

[Kerb Hohl]

That said, you're taking out 99 good things to remedy 1 bad thing out of 100, IMO.

First of all, I never said that the answer some to simply ban football. My answer was that if we cannot minimize the risk of serious long-term suffering to a sufficient degree, then I would rather see it banned then continue to subject people to that kind of pain.

That all being said, I support people's rights to make their own determinations. Maybe there are 99 wonderful things that football brings, but I don't think any of them supersede suffering and early death. Maybe an an ADULT athlete, down the road, feels differently. But, if that's the case, it will have to be based off of a program which emphasizes education about the risks and true and honest reflection. I don't think youth can reasonably make that determination right now.

I lot of youths have parents there to help them through that decision. You normally need a parental waiver to play.

I am still shocked you're asking to ban the sport, even if you're just saying you'd consider it if some people keep having long-term issues.

There are so many more harmful things that do not bring as much benefit as football. Those are being ignored because a nationally-known figure did not commit suicide.

Did you not read my posts?
-Charitable foundations
-Several billion dollar industries and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
-Less gang/crime action
-Keeping kids focused in school
-Physical fitness
-Life lessons/friends/activity

Spend a TON of time improving safety measures. Do not ban the game. Just like every other major entity I mentioned.

We have an obesity epidemic. How much worse does it get if you ban football?

[humanrefutation]

Again I ask: How many more shootings will there be? How many more high school drop outs? How many more lineman-type kids have heart attacks or early onset diabetes?

Is that number less than the affected crowd that plays the game as a youth sport?

This is all complete speculation, but I can play this game. How many people focus more on class and get a good education? How many people live longer? How many people discover interests that they wouldn't have found otherwise? How many people find interests in other sports that they wouldn't have played otherwise? Hell, how many lineman have heart attacks or early onset diabetes because they needed to get bigger in order to play their position?

Not a silly comparison at all, IMO. Driving is not a necessity. Nor is physically going to school these days -- you can do it virtually.

More of a necessity than football? Yes. More dangerous than football? Driving surely is. Yet we deal with it by safety measures and not banning it.

Why do bars exist? Alcohol? Not necessities. Plenty have died. More than football.

But we see a few guys commit suicide from an -- agreed -- major problem with head trauma. So let's overreact and talk about banning it.

You've made some interesting points, but this is a bunch of bull, and to pretend otherwise is being disingenuous. I might as well say that walking outside poses some risk of being hurt and isn't completely necessary, and so we might as well not do it. Come on, man.

[Kerb Hohl]

Not a silly comparison at all, IMO. Driving is not a necessity. Nor is physically going to school these days -- you can do it virtually.

More of a necessity than football? Yes. More dangerous than football? Driving surely is. Yet we deal with it by safety measures and not banning it.

Why do bars exist? Alcohol? Not necessities. Plenty have died. More than football.

But we see a few guys commit suicide from an -- agreed -- major problem with head trauma. So let's overreact and talk about banning it.

You've made some interesting points, but this is a bunch of bull, and to pretend otherwise is being disingenuous. I might as well say that walking outside poses some risk of being hurt and isn't completely necessary, and so we might as well not do it. Come on, man.

Why is this completely disingenuous? Football is a fabric of life/economy. It would be foolish to say that some percentage of kids that couldn't play football wouldn't pick up some other worthwhile hobby, but I'm trying to think of something with so many benefits (not essential to our livelihood that has been banned because there is risk involved.

I'm giving you tangible examples of things that have saved lives and made our economy flourish but also have presented thousands and thousands of deaths. Many more than football.

Focus on safety. Do not ban.

[humanrefutation]

Did you not read my posts?
-Charitable foundations
-Several billion dollar industries and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
-Less gang/crime action
-Keeping kids focused in school
-Physical fitness
-Life lessons/friends/activity

With all due respect, there are many ways that we, as a society, can help fight crime, improve education, impact physical fitness, impart live lessons, build social bridges, and give charity that do not require football. To focus on those issues as an excuse to keep playing football is pettyfogging the issue.

[Kerb Hohl]

Did you not read my posts?
-Charitable foundations
-Several billion dollar industries and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
-Less gang/crime action
-Keeping kids focused in school
-Physical fitness
-Life lessons/friends/activity

With all due respect, there are many ways that we, as a society, can help fight crime, improve education, impact physical fitness, impart live lessons, build social bridges, and give charity that do not require football. To focus on those issues as an excuse to keep playing football is pettyfogging the issue.

Of course. There are things we can do. To say it would be more efficient than football does it right now is a very questionable matter. You find me something that is a positive impact on 50-150 kids in every given high school today that creates community, provides economy, fitness, etc. etc. Let's implement it.

[humanrefutation]

Why is this completely disingenuous? Football is a fabric of life/economy. It would be foolish to say that some percentage of kids that couldn't play football wouldn't pick up some other worthwhile hobby, but I'm trying to think of something with so many benefits (not essential to our livelihood that has been banned because there is risk involved.

I'm giving you tangible examples of things that have saved lives and made our economy flourish but also have presented thousands and thousands of deaths. Many more than football.

Focus on safety. Do not ban.

The reason it's disingenuous is because you're trying to justify the risk in football by comparing it to the risks posed in other aspects of life. The point I'm making is that everything in life poses risk. The question that we, as a society, are forced to answer is to analyze risk/reward. It's for that reason that it's disingenuous to compare football to transportation and schooling. Most people can, and do, live wonderful lives without football. On the other hand, if you don't have transportation and schooling, you're ability to thrive financially, economically, and socially is nearly impossible.