USUFans.com

I know the NFL has already reduced the number of full contact practices in their training camps, but the most recent article I read said they wanted to limit it to 8 full contact practices for NCAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This would be a good first step in addressing the rising frequency of injuries in football. A sober approach would be to gradually limit player weight by position. Not a popular thought with many coaches, but a current reality of physics upon contact.

Yes.

It's the next step toward the transition to flag football. That's all anyone wants to see anyway, right? The skill position players. Quarterbacks making crazy throws and picking apart defenses, runningbacks making jukes or hurdles to escape tackles, and receivers pulling in impossible catches - that is what football is. Oh, and the dances after big plays. People really seem to enjoy the dances and stuff. No need to risk the injuries to see what people really want to see.

I don't know if it will lead to more injuries in games or not, but there will likely be fewer practice injuries.

Football is a violent sport, and the more we learn about the effects on the brain and body, the more we will see measures to try to lessen the potential negative effects. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if football looks a lot different 20 years from now. You are already seeing that fewer kids are playing football.

I pay good money to watch 20-year-olds destroy their bodies. They better not do anything to prevent that.

Mr. Sneelock wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 12:40 pm

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if football looks a lot different 20 years from now. You are already seeing that fewer kids are playing football.

I generally agree. We may see fewer kids playing football here in Utah or say semi-rural California, places like that. But theres too much money involved in football. In the urban centers of this country, especially in the deep south, football is all many minority youth have to look forward to. Around here we have an abundance of good paying jobs and careers we get to choose from and an ethic that says get your degree, get a career. But in many poorer urban settings, especially in the south, playing sports is the only option for many youth. Going to college to get a degree is the means to the end-- a professional sports career. The fact that there are so few of those careers available is a secondary consideration. And an entire "industry" has been built up to encourage that concept. If you've ever wondered why football has reached nearly religious like fervor in the south, well its because it really is.

But there is a ground swell rising up across the nation that the game is too violent. And NavyBlueAggie has hit on the key, but coaches won't accept it. Limit the size of the players, and you limit the severity of the injuries. You may still have injuries, the same as in any other sports. But the bodily destruction that occurs when a 300 pounder slams in to a 200 pounder will be reduced if, say, everybody is limited to a maximum of 250 pounds, which was a big person when NavyBlueAggie and I played football. I remember Jim Hough, who was an all-American guard at USU was about 255 pounds and was one of the biggest offensive linemen we ever had. Green Bay Packer Hall of Famer Jerry Kramer, considered by many in professional football to be the quintessential offensive guard in the NFL, played at 245 lbs. Nowadays its rare in the NFL to find a lineman UNDER 300 lbs.

Just sayin something has got to give. This seems like the easiest place to make the change. Go for strength, not bulk.

Did not mean to post, trying to delete.

Mr. Sneelock wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 12:40 pm

I don't know if it will lead to more injuries in games or not, but there will likely be fewer practice injuries.

Football is a violent sport, and the more we learn about the effects on the brain and body, the more we will see measures to try to lessen the potential negative effects. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if football looks a lot different 20 years from now. You are already seeing that fewer kids are playing football.

Yeah, I love football, but the game is constantly evolving over issues of safety and will continue to do so.

flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 1:03 pm

I pay good money to watch 20-year-olds destroy their bodies. They better not do anything to prevent that.

Like modern day gladiators, right???? This post doesn't sit well.

GrandPoubah wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 9:24 pm

flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 1:03 pm

I pay good money to watch 20-year-olds destroy their bodies. They better not do anything to prevent that.

Like modern day gladiators, right???? This post doesn't sit well.

He's joking.

GrandPoubah wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 9:24 pm

flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑

May 6th, 2021, 1:03 pm

I pay good money to watch 20-year-olds destroy their bodies. They better not do anything to prevent that.

Like modern day gladiators, right???? This post doesn't sit well.

PSA: check the batteries in your sarcasmometer twice a year.

John Gagliardi never had tackling in practice, all time NCAA wins leader.

TheAKAggie wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 8:46 am

John Gagliardi never had tackling in practice, all time NCAA wins leader.

That is interesting. I can see both sides to it. People bring up injuries in the games, but there can't be much worse feelings for a coach than seeing a star player get injured in practice.

It is a very difficult line to walk. You need to have contact in practice to prepare your body for the rigor of playing football. Our bodies adapt and acclimate to surroundings and pressures. I personally feel that no contact will equal more injuries. On the other side, too much contact can wear out your body. Hits accumulate and your body can only take so much, even after acclimating. A good coach will always be assessing his players to ensure that contact in practice is adequate.

CTE is a big deal. We have already seen a shift in American Football over the last 15 years, and I believe it will continue to evolve as we see more research emerge. 30 years from now we will be telling our grandkids, or greats for some of you, what football used to really be like.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50162097?fb ... G5kXYug8Qc

MrBiggle wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 8:51 pm

CTE is a big deal. We have already seen a shift in American Football over the last 15 years, and I believe it will continue to evolve as we see more research emerge. 30 years from now we will be telling our grandkids, or greats for some of you, what football used to really be like.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50162097?fb ... G5kXYug8Qc

Yeah there has been several rule changes over the last 20 years. People already talk about football being too soft now. It will only change over the next few decades.

Maybe an option is shortening some games. In Texas a few years ago there was a high school game that was 91-0 that got national news because some of the parents of the losing team complained. I'm not saying the parents were right. I don't blame the winning team from playing hard and trying to score until the end. At the same time maybe by the time a game is 70-0, it wouldn't be the end of the world to call a game. Are fans really that interested at that point? Should players risk their health in a game long decided?

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 9:49 pm

MrBiggle wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 8:51 pm

CTE is a big deal. We have already seen a shift in American Football over the last 15 years, and I believe it will continue to evolve as we see more research emerge. 30 years from now we will be telling our grandkids, or greats for some of you, what football used to really be like.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50162097?fb ... G5kXYug8Qc

Yeah there has been several rule changes over the last 20 years. People already talk about football being too soft now. It will only change over the next few decades.

Maybe an option is shortening some games. In Texas a few years ago there was a high school game that was 91-0 that got national news because some of the parents of the losing team complained. I'm not saying the parents were right. I don't blame the winning team from playing hard and trying to score until the end. At the same time maybe by the time a game is 70-0, it wouldn't be the end of the world to call a game. Are fans really that interested at that point? Should players risk their health in a game long decided?

Wow, yeah that is excessive. I am pretty sure our local high school district has a mercy rule for around 40-50 points.

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 9:49 pm

MrBiggle wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 8:51 pm

CTE is a big deal. We have already seen a shift in American Football over the last 15 years, and I believe it will continue to evolve as we see more research emerge. 30 years from now we will be telling our grandkids, or greats for some of you, what football used to really be like.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50162097?fb ... G5kXYug8Qc

Yeah there has been several rule changes over the last 20 years. People already talk about football being too soft now. It will only change over the next few decades.

Maybe an option is shortening some games. In Texas a few years ago there was a high school game that was 91-0 that got national news because some of the parents of the losing team complained. I'm not saying the parents were right. I don't blame the winning team from playing hard and trying to score until the end. At the same time maybe by the time a game is 70-0, it wouldn't be the end of the world to call a game. Are fans really that interested at that point? Should players risk their health in a game long decided?

I would love it if college football games last 2-2.5 hours rather than 3-4. Benefit the kids health and the time commitment I have to make towards it (especially for the late kickoffs and not living in the mountain time zone).

I love the basketball games lasting less than 2 hours.

MrBiggle wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 10:12 pm

Aggie formerly in Hawaii wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 9:49 pm

MrBiggle wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 8:51 pm

CTE is a big deal. We have already seen a shift in American Football over the last 15 years, and I believe it will continue to evolve as we see more research emerge. 30 years from now we will be telling our grandkids, or greats for some of you, what football used to really be like.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50162097?fb ... G5kXYug8Qc

Yeah there has been several rule changes over the last 20 years. People already talk about football being too soft now. It will only change over the next few decades.

Maybe an option is shortening some games. In Texas a few years ago there was a high school game that was 91-0 that got national news because some of the parents of the losing team complained. I'm not saying the parents were right. I don't blame the winning team from playing hard and trying to score until the end. At the same time maybe by the time a game is 70-0, it wouldn't be the end of the world to call a game. Are fans really that interested at that point? Should players risk their health in a game long decided?

Wow, yeah that is excessive. I am pretty sure our local high school district has a mercy rule for around 40-50 points.

Yeah here was the story: https://www.foxnews.com/us/parent-accus ... owout-game

I'd support a mercy rule. If they decided to call a game when the spread is 50 points, it would be fine with me. By that point, the game is long over. I know in college and the NFL no team has ever come back down by that much. I'd hate to be the player that got injured when the score is 56-3.

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with a mercy rule, especially in high school is that when the game is out of hand is the only chance some kids have of getting some real playing time in a game.

I think there are many rules out there where the clock just continues to run. This gives athletes down the depth chart a chance to play while also providing a form of mercy to the losing team.

Will lead to less injuries overall. The only thing I think we'll see more of in games is missed tackles all around. I'm ok with that to keep folks healthy as long as the rule is really applied evenly

NVAggie wrote:I think there are many rules out there where the clock just continues to run. This gives athletes down the depth chart a chance to play while also providing a form of mercy to the losing team.

There used to be a running clock rule in Utah High School hockey, then parents complained about not getting the ice time they paid for. Really worth it to have a 13-1 win as opposed to a 8-1 win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NVAggie wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 10:13 am

It is a very difficult line to walk. You need to have contact in practice to prepare your body for the rigor of playing football. Our bodies adapt and acclimate to surroundings and pressures. I personally feel that no contact will equal more injuries. On the other side, too much contact can wear out your body. Hits accumulate and your body can only take so much, even after acclimating. A good coach will always be assessing his players to ensure that contact in practice is adequate.

Just happened to be cruising some older board messages and your post, NVAggie, is both insightful and dynamic. I spoke with a head coach about practice contact in college, and as a former four year player, he noted they were sharp early in the season, but after their midpoint, they were worn down and the injuries began to spike.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 10:13 am

It is a very difficult line to walk. You need to have contact in practice to prepare your body for the rigor of playing football. Our bodies adapt and acclimate to surroundings and pressures. I personally feel that no contact will equal more injuries. On the other side, too much contact can wear out your body. Hits accumulate and your body can only take so much, even after acclimating. A good coach will always be assessing his players to ensure that contact in practice is adequate.

We have already seen what would happen if contact in practice is reduced. Look at how bad we got our a$$es kicked last year.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

October 27th, 2021, 12:09 pm

NVAggie wrote: ↑

May 7th, 2021, 10:13 am

It is a very difficult line to walk. You need to have contact in practice to prepare your body for the rigor of playing football. Our bodies adapt and acclimate to surroundings and pressures. I personally feel that no contact will equal more injuries. On the other side, too much contact can wear out your body. Hits accumulate and your body can only take so much, even after acclimating. A good coach will always be assessing his players to ensure that contact in practice is adequate.

We have already seen what would happen if contact in practice is reduced. Look at how bad we got our a$$es kicked last year.

But that was unilateral.