BearsWiin;842552587 said:

---

Maybe they should play the game in two feet of water. (no, not a reference to the 2008 Oregon game)

---

Personally, I think each player should just be represented by a little plastic guy on a vibrating table.

OaktownBear;842552606 said:

---

Personally, I think each player should just be represented by a little plastic guy on a vibrating table.

---

Upon further review, I think maybe two feet of ball pit balls on padding is better than water. Two feet of ball pit balls everywhere will slow people down without drowning them. We could have blue and yellow balls, furd red and white, Oregon State orange and black, etc. It would also make rushing the field after games a helluva lot more fun.

I'm an idea person.

Life after football.....sometime in comes before you expect it to. Hope he gets his shot at the NFL, if not.....hopefully he had a backup plan. Wishing him a full and speedy recovery.

He has a $5m insurance policy. It pays out if he is not a 1st round pick. Stands to reason that he will enter his name into the 2016 draft. Either teams will be scared away by his then still recovering knee injury and he collects the policy, or he's drafted in first round based on expected recovery (just like Todd Gurley) and is happy with 1st round money.

OaktownBear;842552570 said:

---

This is basically like me eating meat. If I thought every day about how mistreated animals are in the meat industry, I would personally be a vegetarian. But I like meat, so I don't think about it. I just shake my head every time I smell the stench on my drive down I5, and then go on eating meat. I like football too much to think about it, though I know I should.

---

That is hilarious. And also sums up my feelings on the subject

Calcoholic;842552686 said:

---

That is hilarious. And also sums up my feelings on the subject

---

Mine too. There was a time when I was young and idealistic that I decided that any meat I ate would be meat that I killed myself; I didn't feel right about somebody else doing my killing for me so that I could treat it like some impersonal abstract process. That particular Great Experiment lasted less than a fortnight.

Oh, and I just got back from Deluxe Food market here in Rio; I picked up two pounds of thick-cut platter bacon on a whim. I like meat.

Football will find a new equilibrium.

BearsWiin;842552668 said:

---

Upon further review, I think maybe two feet of ball pit balls on padding is better than water. Two feet of ball pit balls everywhere will slow people down without drowning them. We could have blue and yellow balls, furd red and white, Oregon State orange and black, etc. It would also make rushing the field after games a helluva lot more fun.

I'm an idea person.

---

I like this idea, but it won't work for the Big Game. First of all, Stanford would forget the balls as they've been known to do. Then they would remember that they never had any balls in the first place.

Actually, as a Cal fan, I think we should just do what was done in the early 1900's. Ban football and replace it with rugby.

The meat analogy is kind of funny, but there's a difference between some abstract animal that gets slaughtered and our treatment of our own kids. Parents are realizing it is reckless and stupid to subject their kids to the risk and are adjusting accordingly. I suspect it will only snow ball.

mvargus;842552551 said:

---

I think one way to start would be to reduce the padding levels significantly, starting with the helmets. The fact that the helmets are hard only encourages players to use them as weapons. It is the same with the shoulder and chest pads. Rugby doesn't need the pads, and while there are concussions and serious injuries they don't seem quite as common as we now have in football.......

---

Wow, this is an interesting idea. I've heard the idea of getting rid of helmets, but never thought of eliminating or reducing padding altogether.

mvargus;842552551 said:

---

........Of course, part of the problem is that American Football has evolved into a collision sport. The "big hit" is a huge part of the game and that only works if players have all the armor and padding so they feel confident in throwing their bodies into contact. Take the padding out at the high school level and you'd probably see much better form in the tackles. Heck, I remember playing without pads in pickup games and you rarely saw people leave their feet and lead with their heads simply because they knew it would hurt them. But give a 14 year old player a helmet and he's going to learn bad tackling form because to him the helmet is a wonderful way to get the "big hit".

---

How much different would the game of football be (as a spectator sport) if they played without helmets and pads? Would the visual and visceral appeal to fans be reduced that much? I have never watched rugby, so I can't picture the difference.

BGGB2;842552790 said:

---

Wow, this is an interesting idea. I've heard the idea of getting rid of helmets, but never thought of eliminating or reducing padding altogether.



How much different would the game of football be (as a spectator sport) if they played without helmets and pads? Would the visual and visceral appeal to fans be reduced that much? I have never watched rugby, so I can't picture the difference.

---

Rugby is quite different. Real athletics, no pads, everyone plays offense/defense.

No pointing towards the heavens, spiking, trash talking, grabbing one's testicles, showing-up an opponent.
Any of this on Jack Clark's rugby team and you are gone!!

blungld;842552544 said:

---

It's really starting to get to the point where there is something intrinsically wrong with a sport that so many who play it can't do so for one season. This idea that "injuries happen" and that it is a sport of attrition is fan justification for a pretty disturbing reality. We want to see players play--not games won on the luck of injuries at key positions. I love football, but I don't think it is ruining the sport or "putting dresses on them" to make significant, substantive changes that protect the players.

More rules about use of the helmet? Eliminating tackles below the knees? Removing helmets all together? Something has to be done or this will become truly just a gladiator sport where those in enough financial need are the only ones playing because the risk reward makes sense to them. Our local high school team has dropped by about 50% participation, and there are more and more kids that do not follow the NFL and instead watch soccer and basketball. The older generation can ignore the warning signs and cling to tradition, but it is entirely possible that football loses a fanbase out from under their feet if their organizing bodies don't stop putting all their effort into $, TV markets, and expansion rather than the sport itself and some very real problems. we3 will watch football until we die--we are addicts. Not true for the generations in our wake.

---

I am wondering if percentage wise, is the NBA just as bad as the NFL? I am a Warriors' fan and it's been pointed plenty all the injuries this year on other teams. Durant, Love, Kyrie, Beverly, Montejunis. At a sport's highest level, there are going to be injuries. Whether it's track or ice skating or whatever.

However, I do agree that there's something wrong intrinsically with a sport where one can be paralyzed from a legal play.

OaktownBear;842552570 said:

---

This is basically like me eating meat. If I thought every day about how mistreated animals are in the meat industry, I would personally be a vegetarian. But I like meat, so I don't think about it. I just shake my head every time I smell the stench on my drive down I5, and then go on eating meat. I like football too much to think about it, though I know I should.

Here is the problem. You are right, the shyte will come down for football. But it is going to be a long time before it happens and the fact is that doing something now will reduce profits now, and the people in the NFL will be long gone before the problems come. So they make some rules that reduce issues on the margins (and don't get me wrong - they are good rules changes). The problem is that the game was always dangerous and it is much more so now that guys are bigger and faster than ever. The game would have to be fundamentally changed. Not just better helmets or rules against targeting. The severity and frequency of collisions needs to be taken out of the game, or I agree, more kids are going to stay away. This is nothing new but it is growing closer to critical mass. I firmly believe that you be talking about Hall of Fame running back Rickey Henderson (first love was football, SC schollie offer), if Mama Henderson and teachers didn't push Rickey into baseball. For me, there is no way I'd let my kid play football. Ultimately the game is going to reach a breaking point in terms of finding the talent. The question ultimately will be if people would rather see football as it is played today with lesser talents or would rather seen a modified form with higher level talent but a significant reduction in collisions.

---

That's a pretty good summation of the long view.

JSML;842552830 said:

---

I am wondering if percentage wise, is the NBA just as bad as the NFL? I am a Warriors' fan and it's been pointed plenty all the injuries this year on other teams. Durant, Love, Kyrie, Beverly, Montejunis. At a sport's highest level, there are going to be injuries. Whether it's track or ice skating or whatever.

However, I do agree that there's something wrong intrinsically with a sport where one can be paralyzed from a legal play.

---

Well, I would guess that while yes there are injuries in every physical activity, it is nowhere the incidence level of football where attrition is built into the system. For sports like the NBA it is mostly the number of games (greed of owners) not the sport itself that takes the toll. If they had a 30-40 game season in NBA you would have most of the stars play all games and make it all season.

I went ovet to bruins nation to gauge their reaction bc not much is being said here and holy **** its like somone shot their dog over there i mean he was that good?

Strykur;842552347 said:

---

There is speculation by some in Westwood that Myles was not all there in the BYU game, although he was still making plays.

---

Jack basically saved UCLA win on the last drive, including huge tackles and a forth down pass interception. He was running and jumping around being congratulated. Didn't look injured to me. Huge loss - Jack may be the best defensive player in the conference not named Scooby.

OaktownBear;842552570 said:

---

This is basically like me eating meat. If I thought every day about how mistreated animals are in the meat industry, I would personally be a vegetarian. But I like meat, so I don't think about it. I just shake my head every time I smell the stench on my drive down I5, and then go on eating meat. I like football too much to think about it, though I know I should.

Here is the problem. You are right, the shyte will come down for football. But it is going to be a long time before it happens and the fact is that doing something now will reduce profits now, and the people in the NFL will be long gone before the problems come. So they make some rules that reduce issues on the margins (and don't get me wrong - they are good rules changes). The problem is that the game was always dangerous and it is much more so now that guys are bigger and faster than ever. The game would have to be fundamentally changed. Not just better helmets or rules against targeting. The severity and frequency of collisions needs to be taken out of the game, or I agree, more kids are going to stay away. This is nothing new but it is growing closer to critical mass. I firmly believe that you be talking about Hall of Fame running back Rickey Henderson (first love was football, SC schollie offer), if Mama Henderson and teachers didn't push Rickey into baseball. For me, there is no way I'd let my kid play football. Ultimately the game is going to reach a breaking point in terms of finding the talent. The question ultimately will be if people would rather see football as it is played today with lesser talents or would rather seen a modified form with higher level talent but a significant reduction in collisions.

---

Well said. Interestingly, this is a blue vs. red state issue, as football participation in most red states is not declining (having been in Austin where the Friday night high school telecast was even being watched on busses). I won't bother with the links to articles, as its all been discussed before, but you can google the issue. But there is and will continue to be a drain on talent and interest in the game unless something is done. I am very much like the Oak, the carnivore, and want my football.

My hope is that someone figures out why players (especially linemen) get long term CTE, while other do not, and we get to a point where they also get a handle on PCS/concussions with equipment developments and improvement in recognition and treatment. In terms of ligament and soft tissue injuries, I'm not sure how you reduce same when football requires odd angles, contact and speed, and its just not football. For example, I know a pediatric arthropod who makes a great living putting teens back together from soccer. There only is so far conditioning takes you.

wifeisafurd;842552851 said:

---

Well said. Interestingly, this is a blue vs. red state issue, as football participation in most red states is not declining (having been in Austin where the Friday night high school telecast was even being watched on busses). I won't bother with the links to articles, as its all been discussed before, but you can google the issue. But there is and will continue to be a drain on talent and interest in the game unless something is done. I am very much like the Oak, the carnivore, and want my football.

My hope is that someone figures out why players (especially linemen) get long term CTE, while other do not, and we get to a point where they also get a handle on PCS/concussions with equipment developments and improvement in recognition and treatment. In terms of ligament and soft tissue injuries, I'm not sure how you reduce same when football requires odd angles, contact and speed, and its just not football. For example, I know a pediatric arthropod who makes a great living putting teens back together from soccer. There only is so far conditioning takes you.

---

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/texas-continues-to-lead-nation-in-high-school-athletic-participation-but-football-numbers-are-flagging.html/

Texas football participation down 2.78% from its 2010 peak. The national enrollment is down 2.2%.

edg64;842552820 said:

---

Rugby is quite different. Real athletics, no pads, everyone plays offense/defense.

No pointing towards the heavens, spiking, trash talking, grabbing one's testicles, showing-up an opponent.
Any of this on Jack Clark's rugby team and you are gone!!

---

And they also tuck in their shirts. Can't have your shirt untucked.

Dbearson;842552842 said:

---

I went ovet to bruins nation to gauge their reaction bc not much is being said here and holy **** its like somone shot their dog over there i mean he was that good?

---

Yea. He's that good. No redshirt, no 4th year, welcome to the NFL Mr. Jack. He's played his last game as a Bruin.

grandmastapoop;842552853 said:

---

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/texas-continues-to-lead-nation-in-high-school-athletic-participation-but-football-numbers-are-flagging.html/

Texas football participation down 2.78% from its 2010 peak. The national enrollment is down 2.2%.

---

While participation is down overall (again read my post), who plays and doesn't play football is an increasingly partisan issue, and her is just one of many article, the latest column by The New York Times' David Leonhardt, the editor of "The Upshot":

A recent poll by the RAND Corporation, conducted on behalf of The Upshot, asked parents to share their views about their children playing several sports. Only 55 percent of respondents said they would be comfortable with their sons playing football. The numbers for baseball, basketball, soccer, and track, however, were all above 90 percent.

"There isn’t a divide about watching football—blue America and red America are both watching football in enormous numbers,” says Leonhardt. “But it’s clear that blue America, and particularly college educated blue America in many of the big metropolitan areas across the country, is getting much less comfortable with the idea of letting their kids play.”

According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, the number of boys playing football at the high school level is on the decline. Over the last six years, the number of high school football participants has fallen 15 percent in both Minnesota and Wisconsin—states that President Obama carried in 2008 and 2012.

There has also been a decline in other blue states like Colorado (down 14 percent), in Massachusetts and Maryland (both down 8 percent), in New York (down 7 percent), and in California (down 4 percent).

On the whole, Leonhardt says that when examining all 50 states, a clear pattern emerges: High school participation in football is falling more in blue states than in red states. The poll conducted by the RAND Corporation, however, found that not all liberal voters feel the same way.

“There’s only one group that is notably less comfortable—Obama voters, which is to say Democratic voters with college degrees,” he says. “Democratic voters without college degrees look a lot like Republican voters with or without college degrees in terms of their level of comfort with football.”

Leonhardt says that the issue of high school football may undergo a massive shift sometime in the future, at least if past trends are to be believed.

“There’s a classic pattern here,” he says. “There are a lot of public safety issues—whether it’s smoking or whether it’s seat belts—that start in a more educated and more liberal corner of society. If the science continues to show that this is a real public health issue, it’ll go mainstream.”

Leonhardt argues that American culture may collectively reject high school football if science continues to show that the sport is dangerous. Based on the most current data about high school football participation, it appears that millions of families have already abandoned the sport.

“They represent change,” he says. “We’re seeing a change in which more liberal and more educated areas are saying, ‘We don’t want our sons playing football—even if we still watch it on Saturdays and Sundays.’”

Edit: just for the record, similar drops in boys basketball participation which can't be explained by concussions, and there also is several articles out there about the red-blue state divide on soccer participation.

If school districts get large judgments against them they will drop football. Maybe colleges, too. What is the prospect of successful lawsuits by former players?

BGGB2;842552790 said:

---

Wow, this is an interesting idea. I've heard the idea of getting rid of helmets, but never thought of eliminating or reducing padding altogether.



How much different would the game of football be (as a spectator sport) if they played without helmets and pads? Would the visual and visceral appeal to fans be reduced that much? I have never watched rugby, so I can't picture the difference.

---

Do you really think the players need those huge shoulder pads that are covered in plastic to make them hard? A huge part of why football is collision heavy is the fact that the pads protect players from some of the impacts and that encourages them to use their body as a weapon.

I'm reminded of something I saw a couple years ago. They were talking about tackling form on a TV show and they used a member of the Cal Rugby team to demonstrate proper tackling form. What the man did was entirely different from the tackling you see in your average football game.

As for would the experience for spectators be different? I expect it wouldn't thrill the type of people who watch Nascar just to see the crashes, but the game would survive. You'd probably see a drift towards more athletic players though as without the huge pads OL and DL players would need to get faster as the blocking would have to change quite a bit.

mvargus;842552973 said:

---

Do you really think the players need those huge shoulder pads that are covered in plastic to make them hard? A huge part of why football is collision heavy is the fact that the pads protect players from some of the impacts and that encourages them to use their body as a weapon.

I'm reminded of something I saw a couple years ago. They were talking about tackling form on a TV show and they used a member of the Cal Rugby team to demonstrate proper tackling form. What the man did was entirely different from the tackling you see in your average football game.

As for would the experience for spectators be different? I expect it wouldn't thrill the type of people who watch Nascar just to see the crashes, but the game would survive. You'd probably see a drift towards more athletic players though as without the huge pads OL and DL players would need to get faster as the blocking would have to change quite a bit.

---

Or maybe we will see a shift from football (American football) to rugby. When I was at Cal I would regularly watch Cal Rugby to see a Cal team playing something like football win games. I hate soccer but could easily become a big rugby fan. Loved "invictus" with Matt Damon.

Maybe US TV broadcasters should broadcast the next Rugby World Cup finals to gage public interest.

wifeisafurd;842552844 said:

---

Jack basically saved UCLA win on the last drive, including huge tackles and a forth down pass interception. He was running and jumping around being congratulated. Didn't look injured to me. Huge loss - Jack may be the best defensive player in the conference not named Scooby.

---

According to my UCLA colleague, they were so thin at CB that they moved him out there to cover and he wound up with the game sealing int. I find this hard to believe, but it any case, he was clearly their best player.

grandmastapoop;842552853 said:

---

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/texas-continues-to-lead-nation-in-high-school-athletic-participation-but-football-numbers-are-flagging.html/

Texas football participation down 2.78% from its 2010 peak. The national enrollment is down 2.2%.

---

We are probably a generation away from really stunning drops. The next generation of kids will have even more single parent moms and even fewer dads who played the game and who want to relive their lost glories through their sons. The numbers will continue to spiral until something is done about safety.

Let's see ... supposed to feel dismayed/sad because a fucla player went down ... hmmmm .... ok ..... :cry:

but, wait ... has fucla ever felt our pain, like in '13 ... well, t'hell with 'em ... :beer:

and to those who don't feel I've expressed the proper reverence for fucla ... stfu, esad

^ feeling the pain is not for them, it's for the woofing gods

mvargus;842552973 said:

---

Do you really think the players need those huge shoulder pads that are covered in plastic to make them hard? A huge part of why football is collision heavy is the fact that the pads protect players from some of the impacts and that encourages them to use their body as a weapon.

I'm reminded of something I saw a couple years ago. They were talking about tackling form on a TV show and they used a member of the Cal Rugby team to demonstrate proper tackling form. What the man did was entirely different from the tackling you see in your average football game.

As for would the experience for spectators be different? I expect it wouldn't thrill the type of people who watch Nascar just to see the crashes, but the game would survive. You'd probably see a drift towards more athletic players though as without the huge pads OL and DL players would need to get faster as the blocking would have to change quite a bit.

---

I've never bought the no helmets concept. I could see designing a helmet with a soft shell so that it is not a weapon. But no matter what you do, there is a high likelihood of hitting your head on the ground.

Pads, I'd like to hear more educated opinion on. I could see that it is possible that pads don't prevent injury as much as they reduce pain. IF, (big if), they mainly just reduce pain, they probably are increasing the chance of injury.

OaktownBear;842553083 said:

---

I've never bought the no helmets concept. I could see designing a helmet with a soft shell so that it is not a weapon. But no matter what you do, there is a high likelihood of hitting your head on the ground.

Pads, I'd like to hear more educated opinion on. I could see that it is possible that pads don't prevent injury as much as they reduce pain. IF, (big if), they mainly just reduce pain, they probably are increasing the chance of injury.

---

Pads are, quite frankly, amazing. The ability to hit someone at full speed with your shoulder and have essentially no pain at all was euphoric. Add in the helmet, and I was basically spearing people left and right. I was relatively light but super fast, so on defense all I had was my ability to collide head first at full speed to make a big tackle. I believe they 100% reduce pain and prevent shoulder injuries because they deflect so much of the energy of the collision. That was my experience at least.

Conversely, the knowledge that you don't have a helmet in rugby requires that you tackle different. The rules also ensure that you are taking people to the ground in a controlled manner, because it guarantees a ruck. No pads on the shoulders also means that you don't dip your shoulder into people, unless you want to break a collar bone and/or a separated shoulder. I had to learn that the hard way.

wifeisafurd;842552883 said:

---

While participation is down overall (again read my post), who plays and doesn't play football is an increasingly partisan issue, and her is just one of many article, the latest column by The New York Times' David Leonhardt, the editor of "The Upshot":

A recent poll by the RAND Corporation, conducted on behalf of The Upshot, asked parents to share their views about their children playing several sports. Only 55 percent of respondents said they would be comfortable with their sons playing football. The numbers for baseball, basketball, soccer, and track, however, were all above 90 percent.

"There isn't a divide about watching footballblue America and red America are both watching football in enormous numbers," says Leonhardt. "But it's clear that blue America, and particularly college educated blue America in many of the big metropolitan areas across the country, is getting much less comfortable with the idea of letting their kids play."

According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, the number of boys playing football at the high school level is on the decline. Over the last six years, the number of high school football participants has fallen 15 percent in both Minnesota and Wisconsinstates that President Obama carried in 2008 and 2012.

There has also been a decline in other blue states like Colorado (down 14 percent), in Massachusetts and Maryland (both down 8 percent), in New York (down 7 percent), and in California (down 4 percent).

On the whole, Leonhardt says that when examining all 50 states, a clear pattern emerges: High school participation in football is falling more in blue states than in red states. The poll conducted by the RAND Corporation, however, found that not all liberal voters feel the same way.

"There's only one group that is notably less comfortableObama voters, which is to say Democratic voters with college degrees," he says. "Democratic voters without college degrees look a lot like Republican voters with or without college degrees in terms of their level of comfort with football."

Leonhardt says that the issue of high school football may undergo a massive shift sometime in the future, at least if past trends are to be believed.

"There's a classic pattern here," he says. "There are a lot of public safety issueswhether it's smoking or whether it's seat beltsthat start in a more educated and more liberal corner of society. If the science continues to show that this is a real public health issue, it'll go mainstream."

Leonhardt argues that American culture may collectively reject high school football if science continues to show that the sport is dangerous. Based on the most current data about high school football participation, it appears that millions of families have already abandoned the sport.

"They represent change," he says. "We're seeing a change in which more liberal and more educated areas are saying, 'We don't want our sons playing footballeven if we still watch it on Saturdays and Sundays.'"

Edit: just for the record, similar drops in boys basketball participation which can't be explained by concussions, and there also is several articles out there about the red-blue state divide on soccer participation.

---

I think there might be another issue at play as well that may explain your edit. As getting into colleges has become harder and harder, the younger generation has become a lot more serious about doing what it takes to get into college. Drinking, drug use, and partying is way down. I suspect that their leisure time is being devoted a lot more to activities that they believe will help them get into college.

Also, when you look at youth sports, the idea of playing for fun seems to be dropping. The leagues get a lot more serious at a lot earlier age. By high school, the kids that just want to be with friends, go to practice and games, can't compete with kids that are practicing on their own and hiring private coaches and that play their sport year round. By high school, sports is not a hobby. Its becoming more geared to the top small percentage. That might make better players on the top end, but reduce overall participation.

Wrap teams in bubble-wrap ... combinations of big ones (for the sound effects) as well as small ones.
At the crown of the head, put a loud banger so refs know when the player used his head inappropriately.
Simple

:p

thank you. Yes, I see that a lot Oak. Where I live, parents send their kids to public school (i.e., the schools are top notch) and then send them in the afternoon to college prep programs, instead of the kids being outdoors. This is a terrible trend as far as I am concerned. Also, your second paragraph sums up the problems with the new form of leagues, where everything is about achievement, not fun.

I do think most (but not all) of the drop in football participation is based on safety concerns, though I live in a blue state. There obviously is some element of the tends you discuss in your post impacting football participation.

And a HS kid dies last night in NJ after taking a hit in the backfield. What other sport do we allow youth to participate in where the end result can be death? (basketball does not count - the kids who die have undiagnosed heart conditions. This death is the result of a legal hit / play).

tequila4kapp;842554519 said:

---

And a HS kid dies last night in NJ after taking a hit in the backfield. What other sport do we allow youth to participate in where the end result can be death? (basketball does not count - the kids who die have undiagnosed heart conditions. This death is the result of a legal hit / play).

---

When you see the 7 on 7 camps, the kids are without pads and wear a head gear that is soft padded. More Rugby style. I think that should be the future. Football can still be great with less velocity tackles, no leading with the head, and bringing ball carrier down with tackles above the waist like rugby.