The Future of Football: NYTimes Links Big Tobacco with NFL Concussion Study

[SawxSince67]

Do you really need the Pop Warner level to feed the scholastic level?
 
The Assemblyman in the link  - whether he has a chance or not - wants to ban access to tackle football until 14 years old. That's HS age, not 7th & 8th grade.
 
All hypothetical, of course: say such a law somehow gets passed somewhere in this country? Would that not impact, locally, the levels upstream?
 
Certainly, you are correct - a kid can start football Freshman year in HS.
 
However, by the time he reaches 'legal age to play tackle football', he may have found another sport. The local Pop Warner league may have morphed to a lacrosse league.
 
It's not so much about skill sets translating from one level to another, but how the kids (and parents) will divert to other sports.
 
(edit:spelin')

 

[Laser Show]

Or the baseline might change from year to year, which would be an important red flag.
 
But there is no indication that CTE is a serious problem for people who played only through high school.  Maybe not even through college.  Once football becomes your job, the cumulative number of hits, and the severity of each impact increase dramatically.
 
There are approximately one million high school football players and more than that at the youth level.  There are approximately 75,000 in college, and 2000 in the pros.
In that regard, football may, in fact, be "safe" for the vast majority of players, at least with respect to CTE. 

 
I'm currently writing an undergraduate research paper on subconcussive hits, which IMO is the most dangerous thing here. I attended a talk by Daniel Seichepine at BU a couple weeks back, and he basically said that the only difference between concussion and subconcussion is the presence of outward symptoms. Both cause the same internal chemical changes (which supposedly cause the cascade resulting in CTE further down the line). He gave an example to describe this: when you bang your head against something and you feel off for a second or two but gather yourself and are perfectly normal afterwards. (FWIW, I haven't been able to find any papers confirming this, but he's a PhD working at the BU CTE center, so I don't doubt his accuracy).
 
A couple of noteworthy sources I'm using are this paper and this paper.
 
The first took neurocognitive scores before, during, and after the season of 58 D3 NCAA football players (who did NOT sustain concussions) and found no significant statistical differences. So subconcussive hits aren't leaving a "trace" of any kind, at least over the course of one season.
 
The second paper is more terrifying. Basically, they measured hits exceeding 10gs in practice and in games over the course of the 2007 football season. They did this using sensors in helmets, with 188 NCAA players. Here's the bottom line: 

The maximum number of head impacts for a single player on each team was 1022 (team A), 1412 (team B), and 1444 (team C). The median number of head impacts on each team was 4.8 (team A), 7.5 (team B), and 6.6 (team C) impacts per practice and 12.1 (team A), 14.6 (team B), and 16.3 (team C) impacts per game. 
 

 
 
So basically, there's no short-term impact from these outrageous number of "minor" hits. But there's an insane amount of them in football (as far down as the college level, but I'd be willing to bet high school too) and it looks pretty damning that they lead to CTE.
 
One last quote from this paper.
 

Although all reported cases with CTE pathology have had a history of repetitive blows to the head, not all cases had a documented history of concussion, raising the suspicion that individuals with subconcussive injuries may also be susceptible to CTE 
 

 

[Al Zarilla]

Do you really need the Pop Warner level to feed the scholastic level?
 
The Assemblyman in the link  - whether he has a chance or not - wants to ban access to tackle football until 14 years old. That's HS age, not 7th & 8th grade.
 
All hypothetical, of course: say such a law somehow gets passed somewhere in this country? Would than not impact, locally, the levels upstream?
 
Certainly, you are correct - a kid can start football Freshman year in HS.
 
However, by the time he reaches 'legal age to play tackle football', he may have found another sport. The local Pop Warner league may have morphed to a lacrosse league.
 
It's not so much about skill sets translating from one level to another, but how the kids (and parents) will diverted to other sports.
 
 

OK, no tackle football until age 14 would impede development some, especially in football crazy states like Pennsylvania and Texas (Florida, Alabama, et al now too probably). Every once in a while though you hear about a successful pro athlete that didn't start his sport until junior year HS or something. Maybe they're special though. I am all in favor of kids sports (handled properly, no high pressure on winning), coached for years, but I never could see Pop Warner football. Too contrived with the extreme padding involved, or required. Maybe there have been streamlining improvements on the equipment, don't know. And, how many kids are pushed into it by old jocks that want to relive their own frustrated "careers"? You can say that about any kids sport though. 
 
That would be a tough one, still, whether or not to get behind a movement to ban football under 14 YO. Freedom of choice...

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Tom Brady didn't play tackle football till he started at Junipero Serra High School. Obviously he has unique talent, so I don't know how illustrative it is, but that late start doesn't seem to have hurt his development.
 
Patrick Hruby had a good piece in Sports on Earth yesterday on the dilemma for parents regarding football, where he mentions Brady and says that "numerous" NFL players didn't play tackle till high school. There's an interesting para on how the NFL under Tagliabue deliberately built up youth football to counter what it saw as declining interest in the game in the 1990s, suggesting that youth interest is seen as necessary for the NFL to continue to build up its support:
 

Between 1998 and 2007, the NFL reportedly spent more than $100 million promoting youth football. Former league director of youth development Scott Lancaster said the league's strategy was to "take out all the negatives and emphasize the positives" of the sport. At a 2005 youth marketing conference titled "Making Your Brand Cook and Mom Acceptable," Lancaster also said that children were important to the NFL, because they would someday become adult football fans with discretionary income.

 
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/63895452
 
It would be sad if the NFL became the equivalent of gladiator fights in the Roman Empire, a sport that was enjoyed by the masses but so dangerous that the only people who would choose to play it at any level would be those for whom the alternatives were equally dire.
 
Edit: some phrasing

 

[crystalline]

 
I'm currently writing an undergraduate research paper on subconcussive hits, which IMO is the most dangerous thing here. I attended a talk by Daniel Seichepine at BU a couple weeks back, and he basically said that the only difference between concussion and subconcussion is the presence of outward symptoms. Both cause the same internal chemical changes (which supposedly cause the cascade resulting in CTE further down the line). He gave an example to describe this: when you bang your head against something and you feel off for a second or two but gather yourself and are perfectly normal afterwards. (FWIW, I haven't been able to find any papers confirming this, but he's a PhD working at the BU CTE center, so I don't doubt his accuracy).
 
A couple of noteworthy sources I'm using are this paper and this paper.
 
The first took neurocognitive scores before, during, and after the season of 58 D3 NCAA football players (who did NOT sustain concussions) and found no significant statistical differences. So subconcussive hits aren't leaving a "trace" of any kind, at least over the course of one season.
 
The second paper is more terrifying. Basically, they measured hits exceeding 10gs in practice and in games over the course of the 2007 football season. They did this using sensors in helmets, with 188 NCAA players. Here's the bottom line: 
 
So basically, there's no short-term impact from these outrageous number of "minor" hits. But there's an insane amount of them in football (as far down as the college level, but I'd be willing to bet high school too) and it looks pretty damning that they lead to CTE.
 
One last quote from this paper.
 

 
As Richard Feynman said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."  This is appropriate here.  As far as I know there is no knowledge of any cascade that leads to CTE, whether concussive or subconcussive.  If there is good work published on this, I'd be interested to hear.
 
As for the "trace" - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  There may well be traces not measured by neurocognitive scores.
 
I also know of no evidence that subconcussive hits lead to CTE, and definitely there is no damning evidence.  We've covered this in a few threads now and I did a little research at that time.  If I remember correctly probably the most relevant evidence was from soccer and it was inconclusive.
 
We should know much more as data about hits from instrumented helmets is combined with long-term followup.  In the meantime, just because there is no evidence certainly doesn't mean I'd let future kids of mine play football.  It could well be dangerous.

 

[Devizier]

 
As Richard Feynman said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."  This is appropriate here.  As far as I know there is no knowledge of any cascade that leads to CTE, whether concussive or subconcussive.  If there is good work published on this, I'd be interested to hear.

 
Feynman was describing how new data often challenges existing hypotheses. A great example of this would be the field of quantum mechanics, which totally rewrote the laws of subatomic phyiscs, and something that Feynman was intimately involved in. It was not some general denunciation of existing science or the scientific method.
 
This field is new and little-studied, because it's very hard to get human brain samples, and rarer still to get sample from people who played professional football. That will change, however. The first papers on this subject came out in 2009. Rather than send you specific links, here's the entire list of freely available publications on Pubmed demonstrating the link between CTE and football. Here are the free papers on subconcussive impact. Here are studies of CTE in military veterans. These also contain some testable hypotheses (as opposed to observational science) by working in mouse models of encelopathy. Keep in mind that you cannot ethically conduct "testable hypotheses" involving brain damage on human beings for obvious reasons.

 

[crystalline]

 
Feynman was describing how new data often challenges existing hypotheses. A great example of this would be the field of quantum mechanics, which totally rewrote the laws of subatomic phyiscs, and something that Feynman was intimately involved in. It was not some general denunciation of existing science or the scientific method.
 
This field is new and little-studied, because it's very hard to get human brain samples, and rarer still to get sample from people who played professional football. That will change, however. The first papers on this subject came out in 2009. Rather than send you specific links, here's the entire list of freely available publications on Pubmed demonstrating the link between CTE and football. Here are the free papers on subconcussive impact. Here are studies of CTE in military veterans. These also contain some testable hypotheses (as opposed to observational science) by working in mouse models of encelopathy. Keep in mind that you cannot ethically conduct "testable hypotheses" involving brain damage on human beings for obvious reasons.

I was referring to the appeal to authority: "he has a PhD and works at BU so I believe him." Feynman is right on point there: science functions because workers in the field evaluate data, placing less regard on the reputation of the speaker. Of course this split is idealized and not perfect in practice.

I'll look at the subconcussive CTE papers. As of a few months ago we were far from identifying the mechanism leading to plaques and tangles in both Alzheimer's and CTE.

 

[Devizier]

I was referring to the appeal to authority: "he has a PhD and works at BU so I believe him." Feynman is right on point there: science functions because workers in the field evaluate data, placing less regard on the reputation of the speaker. Of course this split is idealized and not perfect in practice.
 

 
You recognize the irony of repeatedly quoting a famous scientist out of context and then accusing the other guy of appealing to authority, right?
 
You asked for publications, and I provided them. You can peruse them if you wish. The price is right.

 

[crystalline]

The topic was subconcussive injury and whether parents should discourage football because of it. Your search above turns up only this paper that seems on point. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23971952/?i=2&from=subconcussive%20impact
From the abstract it sounds like the only new data is DTI (axon imaging) - that could be real, but also could be anecdotal. Opinions? Did they use large enough sample groups etc.

 

[crystalline]

 
You recognize the irony of repeatedly quoting a famous scientist out of context and then accusing the other guy of appealing to authority, right?
 
You asked for publications, and I provided them. You can peruse them if you wish. The price is right.

I quote him because of the prose (though he said this in different forms), and because the topic is not a finding, it is sociological practice - how science is done. If you would like to do science by believing leaders in the field without looking at their primary data - good luck.

(Any more from me will be via PM)

 

[radsoxfan]

CTE was found in the brain of a deceased 18 year old high school football player.
 
http://www.bu.edu/cste/case-studies/18-year-old/
 
It was also found in Mike Borich, who never played a down in the NFL.
 
http://www.bu.edu/cste/case-studies/mike-borich/
 
Honestly, I think we're just at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding CTE in former players who never played a down in the NFL, or even in college.  

 
 
I won't pretend to know the future direction of football, but I think it's worth noting that the message of CTE gets somewhat misconstrued when people write and quote studies like this.
 
Many of these studies are looking for evidence of tau proteins in the brain as a marker for CTE.  But tau is just about the most non-specific marker for "something abnormal" in the brain you can have. Just about any degenerative, inflammatory, or infectious process in the brain could lead to the deposition of this protein.  Saying an 18 year old has CTE is sort of disingenuous. All it shows is that an 18 year old has some abnormal protein in his brain that could have gotten there from a large variety of sources. Maybe it was due to trauma, may it was due to some childhood illness, maybe he did a bunch of coke and had some sub-clinical ischemic event, maybe he was going to develop Alzheimers at age 55 and this was the first sub-clincial manifestation. I could go on and on.  
 
Tau protein does not equal CTE.  It's like looking outside in the morning and seeing a wet driveway and assuming a hurricane just came through.  Sure, it's possible.  But you have a ways to go before saying you have definitive proof.
 
We are still far from understanding everything about the disease, and its downstream consequences.  I'm sure there are some, as boxing can tell us.  The syndrome dementia pugilistica has been well known for years, and is essentially CTE.  Of course, many of the symptoms  overlap with those of other middle aged and older people without any history of head trauma (depression, headaches, memory deficits, etc.)  The message getting out attempts to be much more certain than the science is at this point. 
 
The future probably lies in better imaging techniques to identify abnormalities in living people.  Post-mortum studies are helpful, but ideally you want to figure out what's going on in someone who isn't dead yet.  And brain biopsies aren't exactly benign procedures.  
 
There are some current imaging techniques that help you see some abnormalities than can be post-traumatic, though its far from perfect.  Ideally, everyone would get some sort of "baseline" high level imaging, and then get yearly follow ups after contact (or after each possible concussion) to see if there are any changes.  Of course, this is not really cost effective at non-professional levels. 
 
Even if we get to the point that we can be more certain about CTE, and who actually has it, I don't think that means football will go away. Fewer people might be willing to play, but I'm sure plenty of people will choose to.  People make a living in the military, with the risk of head trauma from blast injuries, etc. Plenty of adults are going to be willing to take this risk for the chance of making it to the NFL (or simply because they like playing football with their buddies). Just because something carries risk doesn't mean it should be outlawed or that plenty of people won't still do it. 

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Like California?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primarily

 

[Jordu]

Thanks for the post, Rad. Informative.

For me, the biggest unanswered -- and perhaps never to be answered -- question is why some victims of repeated concussions suffer CTE and some (many?) don't.

 

[radsoxfan]

Thanks for the post, Rad. Informative.

For me, the biggest unanswered -- and perhaps never to be answered -- question is why some victims of repeated concussions suffer CTE and some (many?) don't.

 
I would assume some is just luck, and some is genetic.
 
There are people who smoke their whole lives and never get cancer and have minimal if any lung disease. Certain people have better repair mechanisms, while others are predisposed to allow certain insults lead to devastating consequences.   

 

[Reverend]

I think message boarding may have reached its telos with an argument about the validity of appealing to authority in the name of skepticism.
 
Can we get a ruling from E5Yaz?

 

[Winger 03]

What I was thinking was that maybe Pop Warner leagues are falling out of favor to local leagues. That would explain the Pop Warner numbers dropping. A better number might be if some sort of non PW league numbers.

Is there some reason to expect that Pop Warner would be disproportionally impacted as compared to other youth football leagues?  If the drop in participation is due to parents fears over their kids playing youth football (which I suspect it is but I guess we don't know for sure right now) I would expect other youth football leagues would be similarly impacted.  So, I'm not sure why this point (that Pop Warner is only a fraction of youth football leagues) matters.

 

[Hagios]

Hines Ward: If you want to prevent concussions, take the helmet off

I've heard this argument before, but never from a prominant player.

 

[wutang112878]

 
 

 
Even if we get to the point that we can be more certain about CTE, and who actually has it, I don't think that means football will go away. Fewer people might be willing to play, but I'm sure plenty of people will choose to.  People make a living in the military, with the risk of head trauma from blast injuries, etc. Plenty of adults are going to be willing to take this risk for the chance of making it to the NFL (or simply because they like playing football with their buddies). Just because something carries risk doesn't mean it should be outlawed or that plenty of people won't still do it. 

 
I think the argument about the demise of football is about the viewing consequences.  We are theorizing that the drop in football participation is the result of parents being concerned about head injuries to the children which, if true, is the first evidence that public opinion/attitude is being impacted.  Assuming this trend continues, then the long, long term people might stop watching football to the point that it loses its sports superpower status.

 

[wutang112878]

Hines Ward: If you want to prevent concussions, take the helmet off

I've heard this argument before, but never from a prominant player.

 
I think it was an ESPN pregame show where I saw Ditka suggest removing the mask of the helmet, but it seems pretty short sighted because I would think it would just lead to players dropping their head to avoid the face contact

 

[johnmd20]

 
I think it was an ESPN pregame show where I saw Ditka suggest removing the mask of the helmet, but it seems pretty short sighted because I would think it would just lead to players dropping their head to avoid the face contact

 
Taking off the mask but leaving the helmet would be the worst case scenario. Someone getting pulverized by the crown of the helmet right in the face? That is nearly guaranteed to happen. Yeah, that would be a bad idea.

 

[Hagios]

 

I think the argument about the demise of football is about the viewing consequences.  We are theorizing that the drop in football participation is the result of parents being concerned about head injuries to the children which, if true, is the first evidence that public opinion/attitude is being impacted.  Assuming this trend continues, then the long, long term people might stop watching football to the point that it loses its sports superpower status.

It goes deeper than just TV ratings. What if there is a big class-action suit against the makers of football helmets? Or high schools? What if most high schools can't afford to insure their football program?

 

[wutang112878]

You mean like the $700M lawsuit the NFL just settled with ex-players?  That didnt seem to ruin the league

 

[Just a bit outside]

 
I think it was an ESPN pregame show where I saw Ditka suggest removing the mask of the helmet, but it seems pretty short sighted because I would think it would just lead to players dropping their head to avoid the face contact

Does he think they still wear leather helmets?

 

[Hagios]

 

You mean like the $700M lawsuit the NFL just settled with ex-players?  That didnt seem to ruin the league

The NFL has a lot more money than a random high school. And I can't say for sure that $700 million will be the high watermark - it could get worse. And there are a lot more high school players then NFL players, so even if each high school player has only 1/10th or 1/100th the damage, on aggregate, a class action suit at the high school level would be much more damaging. That could potentially scare away the insurance companies.

I'm not saying that this will definitely happen, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility simply because the NFL has weathered one lawsuit.

 

[wutang112878]

He made that comparison here, in his other short sighted suggestion where in his world its safer to give people a forearm shiver:
 

 
"As a result, that's why people tackle with their head. Now the helmet I wore (in the '60s) was a little piece of plastic with foam rubber in it; it was nothing. I wasn't going to hit anybody with my head. You hit 'em with your forearm or your shoulder, you know. But not your head."
 

 
But then just when I thought he couldn't possibly be any dumber, he says something like this…and totally redeems himself:
 

 
"I really believe (players take more risks because of better equipment) and I don't think you can change it," Ditka said. "You have to protect them in every way you can but I know that's what happens.
 
"When you get guys the size of these guys (today), moving at the speed they move, and they collide, and they have no fear to strike with their heads first … something has to give. One of them is going to get hurt. … The repercussions are going to come later on for those individuals, believe me."
 

 

[wutang112878]

 

The NFL has a lot more money than a random high school. And I can't say for sure that $700 million will be the high watermark - it could get worse. And there are a lot more high school players then NFL players, so even if each high school player has only 1/10th or 1/100th the damage, on aggregate, a class action suit at the high school level would be much more damaging. That could potentially scare away the insurance companies.

I'm not saying that this will definitely happen, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility simply because the NFL has weathered one lawsuit.

 
With this class action suit a collection of high school players would have to work together to sue all of the high schools with football programs?  I understand your point but that scenario seems highly unlikely.  I am not a legal expert, but typically when you go to sue, you want to make sure there is a chance you might get money from the party you are suing.  Maybe this happens at the college level, because those programs actually generate significant money from college football, that seems plausible.  But if they were attacked collectively, I think there would be enough money to settle a suit, just look at Penn States ability to live through the Sandusky fiasco.  However, if a group of students went after BC, then there might be a problem for that programs long term future.

 

[bankshot1]

IMO liability insurance premiums for high school athletics, in this case, football will likely skyrocket as the long-term health risks become more and more defined, and known. And in these times of budget cutting, skyrocketing insurance premiums for 1 sport may be vulnerable to other municipal or educational priorities. Or perhaps the rising insurance cost might be passed on to parents of kids who want to engage in this risky sport. Either way the rising cost to insure would have to be paid. And mom and dad may decide that Bobby and the family budget may be better off if Bobby plays soccer.

 

[RFDA2000]

He made that comparison here, in his other short sighted suggestion where in his world its safer to give people a forearm shiver:
 
 
But then just when I thought he couldn't possibly be any dumber, he says something like this…and totally redeems himself:
 

 
The guy may be dumb as rocks, but I don't see what's wrong there.  Have you not seen guys get their forearms into the ball carrier to push them out of bounds or force them to the ground when they are already off balance?  It's not a form tackle, but it's a hell of a lot safe than spearing someone with your head.

 

[wutang112878]

IMO liability insurance premiums for high school athletics, in this case, football will likely skyrocket as the long-term health risks become more and more defined, and known. And in these times of budget cutting, skyrocketing insurance premiums for 1 sport may be vulnerable to other municipal or educational priorities. Or perhaps the rising insurance cost might be passed on to parents of kids who want to engage in this risky sport. Either way the rising cost to insure would have to be paid. And mom and dad may decide that Bobby and the family budget may be better off if Bobby plays soccer.

 
Just to play devils advocate:  As long as CA, TX, FL and GA arent affected, ~40% of the NFL pipeline will be intact.  CA is always in budget peril but hasnt been affected yet, and football seems so engrained into the culture of FL, GA and TX that I cant see them giving it up.  I just cant imagine premiums causing a problem in Texas where they once built a $60M high school stadium.  If we kept these 4 states and added a pipeline from Samoa to the college game, I really think we could eliminate the other states and still have a very good NFL pipeline
 
 

 
The guy may be dumb as rocks, but I don't see what's wrong there.  Have you not seen guys get their forearms into the ball carrier to push them out of bounds or force them to the ground when they are already off balance?  It's not a form tackle, but it's a hell of a lot safe than spearing someone with your head.

 
You are probably right I might just be reading between the lines, but its my take on what he is suggesting.  On a play where you could hit the guy with your helmet, say what BMW has taken to do towards the sidelines, he is suggesting somehow using your forearm or shoulder will somehow make that safer for the guy getting tackled.  When now that I reread that, I think he is implying its safer for the person doing the tackling which is probably correct.  If he said 'make a textbook tackle' instead of 'forearm or shoulder' that would have made much more sense

 

[singaporesoxfan]

The Washington Times (I know) had an article on a Frostburg State (MD) football player who died after apparently being pressured back on field after blows to the head. The family is now suing Tom Rogish, the head football coach, and the university. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/11/inside-the-house-on-the-corner-ken-sheely-rests-hi/
 

During a full-speed 7-on-7 exercise, the lawsuit says, Derek told Mr. Schumacher that he had a “headache” and “didn’t feel right.” Derek never acknowledged pain. Mr. Rogish and other coaches stood within earshot. In response, Mr. Schumacher reportedly shouted: “Stop your bitching and moaning and quit acting like a pussy and get back out there, Sheely!”

 
Rogish retired Tuesday morning: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/19/frostburg-state-football-coach-retires-tom-rogish-/
 
It's obviously not a major college athletic program, but the article suggests that Frostburg State and the NCAA have been stonewalling any inquiry.
 

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

For those that haven't seen it yet, the Frontline documentary that Dev references upthread is pretty eye-opening.   I don't know if the sport will really suffer but, here is yet another piece on the decline at the youth level by the  Washington Times.
 

 
During the 2012-13 season, boys’ participation in 11-player high school football declined to the lowest level since 2005-06, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. Football, however, remained the most popular high school sport.
 
USA Football, an umbrella organization partially funded by the NFL, estimated the number of children ages 6 to 14 playing tackle football decreased from 3 million in 2010 to 2.8 million in 2011. The National Sporting Goods Association reported that tackle football numbers dropped 11 percent since 2011.
 
And participation in the country’s largest youth football organization, Pop Warner, declined 9.5 percent from 2010 to 2012, as first reported by ESPN’s “Outside the Lines.”

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I have a question - why are football helmets still hard plastic?
 
Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't something softer (made of a dense foam, for example) be able to absorb more of an impact on both sides of a collision?

 

[riboflav]

I'm no expert but I don't think helmets matter all that much. It's the brain moving inside the head and bumping against the inner skull that does the damage.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

I'm no expert but I don't think helmets matter all that much. It's the brain moving inside the head and bumping against the inner skull that does the damage.

 
yea I'm pretty sure thats the reason.  The brain is more of less floating in liquid within your skull.  Concussions occur from the brain slamming into the front of your skull from impact.  That and people think that softer helmets might lead to the two helmets "sticking" together during direct impacts instead of glancing blows, which could lead to more serious neck injuries. 

 

[RFDA2000]

I think this has been discussed at length in past NFL safety threads, but basically it comes down to Impulse = Change in momentum, which becomes F*t = m*deltaV.  You really have no control over the mass of one's brain/head or the change in velocity when hit.  Those are predetermined once impact has been made.  You can try to control the other side though by extending the time it takes for your head to come to a stop, thus lessening the force due to the impulse.  A soft shell would do that (Think Air Bags). 
 
The problem there though is that glancing blows could really wrench the necks of the guys hitting each other.

 

[Super Nomario]

I'm reading Dr. Z's A Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football, written in 1971, and it has some interesting things related to concussions:

 
Face bars on the helmets helped. The bars, which became mandatory in the mid-1950's, provided the lineman with a new blocking weapon, his head.

Pro Bowl center Mick Tinglehoff was 235 pounds. There are WR that big now. Big DL were 260 LBs; now that's what LBs weigh.
 

 
"I've got a pretty good catalog of the way different tackles attack your head," says Redskins guard, John Wilbur.
"There's Alex Karras [yes, 10 years later, Webster's dad] of Detroit. His specialty is the karate chop. ... Merlin Olsen of the Rams likes to keep banging his hands over the ear holes of your helmet ... [Billy Ray Smith of the Colts] kept sticking his fingers through my face guard."

Keep in mind, illegal hands to the face wasn't a penalty until 1977. Head slaps were legal.
 
The most disturbing thing I've seen so far:

 
"It sounds funny, but I firmly believe that your head gets in shape like any other part of your body. Early in training camp I always get headaches after practice. My head isn't in shape yet. But later on in the season it's not so bad. I wonder if you toughen up and condition the material around your brain? Anyway, the headaches always go away after a few beers."

The speaker of that quote? Jim Otto, who had over 20 concussions in his playing career and 74 surgeries after.
 
I don't have a point, really, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Hambone]

I was talking to a buddy over the holidays and we wondered if a card system similar to what's in use with soccer could help improve safety. Definitely didn't go through all considerations, especially when dealing with limited rosters and potential injuries, but the idea is in addition to whatever personal foul the ref could give a player a yellow/red card. Then rules are comparable to soccer.
 
1 red card = immediate ejection and suspension for next next.
 
2 yellow cards in 2 or 3 game span = 1 game suspension.
 
Based on roster numbers I see the immediate ejection being difficult especially if a team is thin at a position, except players can get booted today and I see a red card being an exceptionally brutal/dirty hit.
 
I just wonder if this additional threat could lead to players focusing more on technique and taking additional precautions knowing this additional threat exists. I'd assume NFL would review any play that resulted in a player receiving a card, as they review anything anyway.

 

[RoyHobbs]

I'm reading Dr. Z's A Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football, written in 1971, and it has some interesting things related to concussions:
Pro Bowl center Mick Tinglehoff was 235 pounds. There are WR that big now. Big DL were 260 LBs; now that's what LBs weigh.

 
It's funny, your post got me to thinking about boxing and weight categories. If the NFL, particularly a liability-obsessed Goodellian-type of NFL, really wanted to think outside the box in order to decrease injuries, perhaps there are those who someday would argue for size/weight limits for certain positions.

I am not advocating for that, but I think such an idea is in the spirit of the name of the thread.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

 
It's funny, your post got me to thinking about boxing and weight categories. If the NFL, particularly a liability-obsessed Goodellian-type of NFL, really wanted to think outside the box in order to decrease injuries, perhaps there are those who someday would argue for size/weight limits for certain positions.

I am not advocating for that, but I think such an idea is in the spirit of the name of the thread.

 
I think the inherent problem is that positions cannot be placed into the neat little boxes that we want them do be.  If a team lines up in a 4 man front and the DE doesn't put his hand on the ground and drops into coverage is he a LB or a DE?  If a team goes to the nickel but uses 3 safeties, is that third safety really a CB?

 

[OCST]

 
IMO liability insurance premiums for high school athletics, in this case, football will likely skyrocket as the long-term health risks become more and more defined, and known. And in these times of budget cutting, skyrocketing insurance premiums for 1 sport may be vulnerable to other municipal or educational priorities. Or perhaps the rising insurance cost might be passed on to parents of kids who want to engage in this risky sport. Either way the rising cost to insure would have to be paid. And mom and dad may decide that Bobby and the family budget may be better off if Bobby plays soccer.

 
In high school football hotbeds - TX, the Deep South, western PA, etc. - there is no "municipal or educational priority" more important than high school football.

 

[RoyHobbs]

 
I think the inherent problem is that positions cannot be placed into the neat little boxes that we want them do be.  If a team lines up in a 4 man front and the DE doesn't put his hand on the ground and drops into coverage is he a LB or a DE?  If a team goes to the nickel but uses 3 safeties, is that third safety really a CB?

 
Oh, I agree, and your point is one of the valid ones against such a size/weight system. It's just that it doesn't seem entirely inconceivable that a league that constantly changes its rules/how it implements them/what it stresses week-to-week -- i.e., a league that muddies its "rule waters" to the point where 40+ year fans of the sport no longer know what they're watching -- would add to the unwieldiness.

 

[OCST]

 
It's funny, your post got me to thinking about boxing and weight categories. If the NFL, particularly a liability-obsessed Goodellian-type of NFL, really wanted to think outside the box in order to decrease injuries, perhaps there are those who someday would argue for size/weight limits for certain positions.

I am not advocating for that, but I think such an idea is in the spirit of the name of the thread.

 
Then you'd have players purging themselves and doing other anorexic/bulimic-type things to "make weight," like wrestlers, boxers, and jockeys.
 
My cousin was a high-school wrestler - competitive at the state level, got a couple of sniffs at a college scholarship, but didn't want the misery of trying to make weight all the time.  Watching what he went through to keep his weight down, it was terrible.

 

[Apisith]

They're on steroids, that's why they're big and strong and fast. Be more vigilant on PEDs and the players will become weaker and won't be able to hit as hard. That should do a lot for the game in terms of lessening long-term injuries. They need to make sure that the players are weaker, somehow, and PEDs are why they're so strong.

 

[rodderick]

They're on steroids, that's why they're big and strong and fast. Be more vigilant on PEDs and the players will become weaker and won't be able to hit as hard. That should do a lot for the game in terms of lessening long-term injuries. They need to make sure that the players are weaker, somehow, and PEDs are why they're so strong.

 
That would also do a lot in terms of diminishing the overall quality of the game, and, consequently, driving away casual viewers. There are plenty of things the NFL values over player safety, most of all revenue. Clamping down on PEDs has done a lot of good for baseball, but the sport's popularity has taken a nose dive when compared to where it was in the 90's.

 

[TheRooster]

If linemen were 30 pounds lighter and skill players were 15 pounds lighter and everyone was 15% slower, why would the quality of the game change at all?

 

[8slim]

That would also do a lot in terms of diminishing the overall quality of the game, and, consequently, driving away casual viewers. There are plenty of things the NFL values over player safety, most of all revenue. Clamping down on PEDs has done a lot of good for baseball, but the sport's popularity has taken a nose dive when compared to where it was in the 90's.

Baseball's decline in popularity has nothing to do with the attempt to "remove" PEDs from the game and has everything to do with changing demographics, changing media habits, and the pace of the game.

 

[Tony C]

They're on steroids, that's why they're big and strong and fast. Be more vigilant on PEDs and the players will become weaker and won't be able to hit as hard. That should do a lot for the game in terms of lessening long-term injuries. They need to make sure that the players are weaker, somehow, and PEDs are why they're so strong.

 
Fully agree. Also, requiring heavier foam padding would both slow players down and protect them from impacts. The helmet is still the main factor causing damage, but there are supposedly some new technologies out there that will allow for head movement. I still don't get the arguments against foam helmets, and/or removing the face guard, but perhaps I'm missing something there.
 

 
That would also do a lot in terms of diminishing the overall quality of the game, and, consequently, driving away casual viewers. There are plenty of things the NFL values over player safety, most of all revenue. Clamping down on PEDs has done a lot of good for baseball, but the sport's popularity has taken a nose dive when compared to where it was in the 90's.

 
Why? I look back at replays of games in teh 1980s or whenever and they're fabulous despite the players being smaller/slower.

 

[wutang112878]

 
It's funny, your post got me to thinking about boxing and weight categories. If the NFL, particularly a liability-obsessed Goodellian-type of NFL, really wanted to think outside the box in order to decrease injuries, perhaps there are those who someday would argue for size/weight limits for certain positions.

I am not advocating for that, but I think such an idea is in the spirit of the name of the thread.

 
This would take care of the heavy lineman, but you probably want to have speed restrictions too.  Chandler Jones is much less likely to concuss someone coming off the edge the slower he is, WRs are less likely to be concussed coming over the middle if the LBs are slower and BMWs battering ram helmet is less effective if he doesnt run a 4.4  The speed/power players probably have the same concussion causing risk as the big oafs.

 

[wutang112878]

 
I still don't get the arguments against foam helmets, and/or removing the face guard, but perhaps I'm missing something there.
 

 
Considering how much players like to lead with their helmets in todays game, I think the concern is that they would lower their head to hit or absorb hits which could increase the risk of spinal cord injuries and I am pretty sure the league is petrified to have a player die on the field.

 

[Reverend]

If linemen were 30 pounds lighter and skill players were 15 pounds lighter and everyone was 15% slower, why would the quality of the game change at all?

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3R-rtWPyJY