Mike Striar has brought this issue up in questions for both Gail Spector and Matthew Miller, but I feel it deserves its own thread.
Mike’s position is that football is a dangerous game that has severe consequences for children, especially when it comes to concussions. The center of his point is research that links playing football with brain damage. As he wrote in his comment to Gail, and repeated to Matt:
This study looked for CTE [Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy] in the brains of 100 deceased pro football players. Of those 100 football players, 99 of them had this neurodegenerative brain disease found in people who have been exposed to repeated head trauma. The study also looked at the brains of deceased college and high school football players. CTE was identified in 48 of the 53 college football players, and 3 of the 14 high school players studied.
The new information prompted Dr Ann McKee, Director of Boston University’s CTE Center [and co-author of the study] to say this… “There’s no question that there’s a problem in football–people who play football are at risk for this disease.”
Mike’s position is clear: ban football.
For the record: I stopped watching professional football several years ago, in large part because I couldn’t watch other people’s children play a sport that is likely to leave them brain damaged. I wasn’t just a casual fan, I was a season ticket holder for the New York Jets and paid extra for the NFL package. However, I also know that the culture in this country continues to favor football, so it’s not going anywhere. The Super Bowl is a great example of this, as it’s more of a cultural touchstone than a game. And yes, I do attend Super Bowl parties for that reason alone.
However, I also know that the culture in this country continues to favor football, so it’s not going anywhere. The Super Bowl is a great example of this, as it’s more of a cultural touchstone than a game. And yes, I do attend Super Bowl parties for that reason alone.
Would this city tolerate the loss of football in its high schools? Would students gravitate to other sports or would this just encourage them to play the game outside of high school in clubs?
Also, given that we’ve also seen concussions in other sports that may not have had the same study and scrutiny, do we start looking to ban those too? This list could include soccer, hockey, lacrosse, and even sailing. My son suffered a concussion when the boom hit his head, and he wasn’t the only one. Enough students had concussions on the sailing team to prompt the mandatory wearing of helmets.
I’m sure Mike has a lot of detail to add.
If I was a Jets fan, I would stop watching football, too.
What about banning tackle football in Newton but not touch or flag? I know it really isn’t the same, but it would at least remain in our culture and still give kids another way of exercising and playing a team sport.
@Yuppie Scum, I’m still a Mets fan.
@Mary could our kids play flag football? Sure. But who would they play? The other high schools play tackle. For those students who want to be considered for college ball, can they if they’ve only played flag football? That’s really a question that goes well beyond Newton.
20 years from now, Football will still be here. But the level of participation will be way down. I’d never let my kids play.
Good point above – head trauma is not limited to football. Question is, where is the line drawn? Also, can steps be taken to make football safer?
I dislike the nanny state. But I get the need to protect people from themselves in some instances. Tough one.
In my mind, the question isn’t protecting people from themselves. It’s protecting children. If an adult chooses to let his brain get bashed it’s his right. But should our city’s educational institutions be encouraging kids to damage their brains?
The study was on one sport and we have no idea what the data on other sports would show. However, athletes who play contact sports should be required to use high quality protective gear.In my seven years using the elevator at NNHS due to a bad knee, I’ve seen many athletes with large braces on one of their knees or ankles. I wonder how many of them will end up with knee replacements and foot surgery at an early age.
Thanks to Chuck for starting this thread. I appreciate the comments others have already posted. Several people on V-14 have suggested other high school sports besides football have concussions issues too. That’s true, but their rate of concussions does not compare to tackle football. Tackle football has a 60% higher concussion rate than the next high school sport.
Chuck referenced his son’s experience with a concussion received on the sailing team. He pointed out that there were enough concussions on the team to mandate helmets, which I assume was an effective solution. But what if it wasn’t an effective solution? What if despite wearing helmets, members of the sailing team continued to experience a high rate of concussions? Ladies and gentlemen, THAT is high school football. The kids wear helmets, but a significant percentage of them receive brain damage anyway.
The relationship between tackle football and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy [CTE] is well documented. We are talking about lifelong brain damage. In my opinion, people who are willing to accept a high rate of lifelong brain damage in a high school sport, well… they ought to have their own heads examined.
@Mike: I’m not as in the weeds on this but clearly you are. Can you reference the statistics you’re quoting? I did some googling earlier and it seemed like there haven’t been a ton of comprehensive studies on soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. I also did some googling on the football question, and obviously there are many articles about the 90+% rates of CTE in football brains studies but also some articles that raise a legitimate question about selection bias. The idea there being that the families of football players who had dementia or other mental limitations would be far more likely to donate their loved ones’ brains to science.
I don’t ask this to call your conclusions into question but to better understand the issue. I’m a policy wonk at heart and this is an important emerging question I would like to be better informed about.
@Bryan– The statistic I referenced–“Tackle football has a 60% higher concussion rate than the next high school sport”–comes from the Institute of Medicine, and was reported by ABC News on December 5th, 2016. My opinion is not however based exclusively on statistics. It’s based in large part on common sense. But I also have more than 20 years experience coaching youth sports [including the high school level], which probably gives me a little bit more perspective on this than most people. I’d be glad to continue the conversation anytime you’d like.
Think about the incremental benefit of kids playing tackle football vs flag football, and compare them to the incremental costs. While its interesting to poke holes in pursuit of perfect data on CTE and concussions in tackle football, when we’re talking about children, waiting for perfect data doesn’t seem right when there really isn’t a good argument on why kids SHOULD play tackle football.
For those not inclined to stop tackle football today– what would our kids be missing if they were limited to flag football?
@mike, in the other thread when asked where you draw the line on which sports to eliminate, you said “Tackle football has a 60% higher concussion rate than the next closest sport. THAT is where I draw the line!”
But I think it’s a valid question to approach. You’re not wrong that tackle football represents a serious conundrum. But if we’re going to ask our electeds to create a policy, how should that policy read so it can be applied across the board? What constitutes a substantial risk? When more borderline issues come up (say, around soccer or hockey) how do we address them as a matter of fairness?
And again, this isn’t just about a single sport it’s about policy. I’ve read a lot of discussion around playgrounds that are now so safe as to remove any risks that are considered important to growth. Where is the line between risk that aids growth and exposing our children to unacceptable harm? Is it the place of the school to make those decisions, or are those between the parent and student?
@Chuck– I was asked a question [“Where do you draw the line?”], and I answered it. I “draw the line” at a sport with a much higher concussion rate [60%] than any other current high school sport. So I’m not arguing with your contention that it’s a “valid question.” But I think my response was very clear.
Here’s where I really disagree with you. You say, “this isn’t just about a single sport it’s about policy.” Why? We are sponsoring a school sport [tackle football] that has a well documented history of concussions. How in the world is a sport known to cause brain damage an appropriate school sport? Would you support reintroducing boxing as a school sport, because we are lacking a broader policy that includes soccer? I would hope that common sense would tell you boxing is an inappropriate school sponsored sport. So your idea that we need to have an all encompassing sports policy before we act on a well known and documented problem with concussions in football, just doesn’t make sense to me.
As long as NPS parents are wanting their kids to play tackle football, it won’t be banned. This type of policy, banning a still popular sport, will have to be phased in as parents learn more about the dangers faced by their children. Educating parents has to come first.
I didn’t allow my son to play football and neither did my daughter and SIL allow their sons. Flag football is offered as an alternative in their town and it has waiting lists.