Antwaan Randle El regrets playing football, says game may disappear

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,577
Former NFL wide receiver Antwaan Randle El has regrets about ever playing football and thinks concussions and spinal injuries might lead to the end of the sport.

Randle El spoke to writer Brady McCullough as part of a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feature, “From 10 to Ben,” and said if he had to do it again, he would not play football.

I would play baseball,” he said. “I got drafted by the Cubs in the 14th round, but I didn’t play baseball because of my parents. They made me go to school. Don’t get me wrong, I love the game of football. But right now, I could still be playing baseball.”

Randle El, 36, said he has trouble walking down stairs and suffers from memory loss.

“I ask my wife things over and over again, and she’s like, ‘I just told you that,'” he said.

Randle El played five seasons with the Steelers and four with the Redskins. He retired after playing with the Steelers in 2010.

He said he believes the game’s violent nature supersedes any safety measures those involved might take.

“It’s a tough pill to swallow because I love the game of football,” he said. “But I tell parents, you can have the right helmet, the perfect pads on, and still end up with a paraplegic kid. There’s no correcting it. There’s no helmet that’s going to correct it. There’s no teaching that’s going to correct it. It just comes down to it’s a physically violent game. Football players are in a car wreck every week.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if football isn’t around in 20, 25 years.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/19/randle-el-regrets-playing-football-says-game-may-disappear/

wouldn't be shocked to see more former players come out with comments like this


http://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/10toBen/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/01/19/former-nfl-receiver-antwaan-randle-el-regrets-ever-playing-football/
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
11,512
Washington, DC
We have two daughters and are 99% sure we're done procreating, but if I had a son I don't think I'd let him play. That said, there are plenty of players who had very humble upbringings and there's likely enough talent willing to risk everything for a shot at the wealth and glory of the NFL.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,967
Mtigawi
There isn't a way in hell that I would let my kid play football. At this point I, for me, would consider it negligent as a parent to let either of my boys play. I don't judge others though, I can see how others would arrive at different decisions.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
There isn't a way in hell that I would let my kid play football. At this point I, for me, would consider it negligent as a parent to let either of my boys play. I don't judge others though, I can see how others would arrive at different decisions.
This is where I am at, too. Until they get rid of Goodell, of course.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,471
It's sad that he can't remember anything, but to say "well I could be still playing baseball" is a reach. What's the success rate for a 14th round pick? 1%?

There's a good chance he wouldn't have made $200k playing baseball for 5 years rather than the $10 million + he made in the NFL. Plus he was basically forced out of the league since he wasn't any good anymore. It's not like he just quit and said "enough is enough" he held on as long as he could.

Whether it was worth it to him or not, he seems to be regretting, which is unfortunate.
 

Norm Siebern

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2003
7,142
Western MD
I am sure that like many on this board, I played football growing up all the time, through high school. As much as I love baseball, I loved football as much, probably because I had a modicum of talent at it, much more so than baseball.

Having said that I am glad my wife and I have three daughters, because it kept me from having to tell a son "no, you can't play football because I won't let you." Even for the short time and low level of competition I played, I managed to fuck up my body pretty good. And this was back when you were taught to tackle the correct way. I would never want my child to go through what I have, and it gets worse as you age.

I think Randle-El is about right.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,745
MetroWest, MA
My oldest son plays football, he's 11. At that age the kids aren't big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to do any real damage to each other. Making my decision easier is the fact that my son will likely never be good enough to play at the high school level, right now it's something that keeps him active, instills discipline, and fosters friendships with his peers, all of which are things he desperately needs.

I'd feel more conflicted if it seemed like he might have a longer-term future in the sport, but I'm pretty sure he'll be done by the 8th grade. My youngest son is a naturally gifted athlete, and I want him nowhere near a football field because I know they'd make him the running back.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
30,037
Alamogordo
My son has never asked to play, and I would tell him no if he did.

Rip, I know it probably won't be long term damage (hopefully) but I watched my nephew suffer his first concussion on a football field when he was 11. This was two years ago, and he had another one this past fall and won't be playing football anymore, thank goodness.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,099
Rhode Island
My son's HS school is actually looking into ADDING football (another town is looking for a co-op due to declining participation). I asked him if he was interested and he told me he wasn't interested in being brain damaged. I honestly can't say what I would tell him if he wanted to play since I played in HS and thoroughly enjoyed it.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
15,012
Silver Spring, MD
I have 3 boys, none played organized football. It helped that they were short and scrawny when they were young and starting to get interested in playing sports. At least one asked about football, and we said no. It was simple but they didn't push it.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,038
Los Angeles, CA
It's funny. Growing up, you'd hear about mothers who were worried about their children getting "hurt" playing football. They had no idea.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,922
It's sad that he can't remember anything, but to say "well I could be still playing baseball" is a reach. What's the success rate for a 14th round pick? 1%?

There's a good chance he wouldn't have made $200k playing baseball for 5 years rather than the $10 million + he made in the NFL. Plus he was basically forced out of the league since he wasn't any good anymore. It's not like he just quit and said "enough is enough" he held on as long as he could.

Whether it was worth it to him or not, he seems to be regretting, which is unfortunate.
It depends. If he went in the 14th round because he was a 14th-round talent, he probably never makes the majors. If he was highly regarded but fell in the draft because his parents said he wasn't going to sign, then possibly.

The Red Sox drafted Mark Teixeira in the ninth round in 1998 in a "what have we got to lose" pick.

Either way, baseball coaches, beginning with the youth level, have to really hammer this point home with parents now. College baseball coaches and MLB teams should be even more aggressive on this point.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
As a Pittsburgh fan El always struck me as a pretty sharp guy. This is the kind of criticism I think the league fears most: well-reasoned former players with no known axe to grind saying, yeah, if I could do it all over I wouldn't.

I have a 7 year old son and I expect he will never play football. I don't see it being good for him. That said, I also have a 12 year old nephew who is big and a little intense and would benefit from some structure and teamwork and if he were my kid I'd let him play. I'm not of the mind that it's right or wrong for every kid.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,310
It depends. If he went in the 14th round because he was a 14th-round talent, he probably never makes the majors. If he was highly regarded but fell in the draft because his parents said he wasn't going to sign, then possibly.

The Red Sox drafted Mark Teixeira in the ninth round in 1998 in a "what have we got to lose" pick.

Either way, baseball coaches, beginning with the youth level, have to really hammer this point home with parents now. College baseball coaches and MLB teams should be even more aggressive on this point.

I thought the same thing, but the general point applies; short of being the number one overall pick (and even then), the chances of any draftee at all having a successful MLB career are low.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,853
It's funny. Growing up, you'd hear about mothers who were worried about their children getting "hurt" playing football. They had no idea.
My mom forbid me from playing football because of that injury issue. She did let me play hockey and lacrosse though.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,597
Our son is four and it's been a foregone conclusion since before he came along that he would not play football. Nerf in the backyard, trying to return kicks as Gronk while I try to tackle him from my knees, sure. Pickup games at recess, you betcha. But organized football, outside of flag, no way.

He'll have to settle for being a rabid Patriots fans deep in the heart of Staten Island. (Have fun, Theo!")
 

Doug Beerabelli

Killer Threads
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
My 5th grader doesn't play (permission by parents not granted yet), but a good amount if his friends do. I'd say at 3-4 friends if his have suffered concussions playing football. Some as early as 3rd grade. I'm happy my guy likes soccer right now.

I'm not saying no forever at this point, but I think I'd hold off until 8th grade or HS if at all. Problem is the teams are done by grade, not size/weight, and that can lead to some significant size differences. And if your kid is not one of the favored ones at skill positions, they can end up cannon fodder for some ugly mismatches. No thanks.
 

H78

Fists of Millennial Fury!
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,613
If my kids wanted to play I'd let them. If they didn't want to, I wouldn't encourage them to. I'd support their decision either way.

I think this is getting to the point where we're acting like a kid that doesn't play football is significantly less likely to get hurt (or killed), despite everything else we let them do at a young age. It's like we're beginning to overstate just how dangerous football actually is. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been living under a rock and I'm well aware of the dangers at this point, but can we all take a step back for a second? Parents are quick to let their kids get behind the wheel of a car at 16 freakin' years old. 16! Meanwhile, 2,000 kids 16-19 die every year while behind the wheel and another 250,000 get seriously injured.

5-10 kids each year die playing football and the majority of them never play in college and even fewer play in the NFL, which would seem to limit the probability of long-term effects seen in collegiate and NFL players. It's a dangerous sport, but other sports have their dangers as well (I was hit in the chest in college by a line drive (while fielding ground balls before a game) and was somewhat seriously injured myself, so I've personally dealt with this).

I get the precautionary nature of not *wanting* them to play, but if they wanted to and I said "no," I'd feel like such a hypocrite each time I let them take their car out on a Friday night to hang out with their friends.

I say thoroughly teach them about the dangers, but then let them make the decision on their own. With that said, would I let them play before the age of, say, 12? Probably not. But at that age I think after a thoughtful and thorough conversation you have to let them decide for themselves. At some point the helicopter-parenting can be a little much.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Go f*ck yourself
I can't even describe how wrong he is about football ending in 20-25 years.
It's not like he's making a bold prediction. Just saying it wouldn't surprise him, and he's saying this with the experience of playing the game at the highest level and what it has done to his health and quality of life.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Go f*ck yourself
If my kids wanted to play I'd let them. If they didn't want to, I wouldn't encourage them to. I'd support their decision either way.

I think this is getting to the point where we're acting like a kid that doesn't play football is significantly less likely to get hurt (or killed), despite everything else we let them do at a young age. It's like we're beginning to overstate just how dangerous football actually is. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been living under a rock and I'm well aware of the dangers at this point, but can we all take a step back for a second? Parents are quick to let their kids get behind the wheel of a car at 16 freakin' years old. 16! Meanwhile, 2,000 kids 16-19 die every year while behind the wheel and another 250,000 get seriously injured.

5-10 kids each year die playing football and the majority of them never play in college and even fewer play in the NFL, which would seem to limit the probability of long-term effects seen in collegiate and NFL players. It's a dangerous sport, but other sports have their dangers as well (I was hit in the chest in college by a line drive (while fielding ground balls before a game) and was somewhat seriously injured myself, so I've personally dealt with this).

I get the precautionary nature of not *wanting* them to play, but if they wanted to and I said "no," I'd feel like such a hypocrite each time I let them take their car out on a Friday night to hang out with their friends.

I say thoroughly teach them about the dangers, but then let them make the decision on their own. With that said, would I let them play before the age of, say, 12? Probably not. But at that age I think after a thoughtful and thorough conversation you have to let them decide for themselves. At some point the helicopter-parenting can be a little much.
I get your point but there's an awful lot of shitty stuff that can happen playing football between nothing at all and death.

I'm personally on the fence as to wether or not I'll let my sons play. My oldest isn't very athletic so as others have said, if he did play it would only be for a few years before HS. My youngest is a different story. He's a natural when it come to running and throwing and catching so it would be a more difficult decision with him
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
5-10 kids each year die playing football and the majority of them never play in college and even fewer play in the NFL
It's not the deaths.

We live in a talent economy. One's lot in life is impacted by one's brain and one's capacity for hard work. Would you want to roll the dice that your kid loses some IQ points, or worse comes to worst, depression/dementia? That risk is real for high school players, not just those who play in the NFL. Probably few kids are going to seriously screw themselves up. But I think you underestimate the awareness of brain injuries in today's society.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
36,109
Maui
How about all these kids who are so enamored about Mixed Martial Arts? My son didn't play football but is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. He trained a little bit for MMA but messed up his shoulder. He knows I am adamantly against the sport as a participant and not much of a fan FWIW. So he totally gets it now. He is a huge fan from the outside looking in now.

There will always be violent sports, it's not going away. Hockey is insanely fast and violent at times, boxing, lacrosse, soccer even. It's too big a part of the American and global culture to go away.

But I think we notice more than ever the guys who get injured on almost every play in football and don't really think twice about it. Cart them off and next man up. Modern day Roman gladiators in every sense. These young men are taught early to hit hard and aggressive as humanly possible, "it's war!".
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
But I think you underestimate the awareness of brain injuries in today's society.
Maybe. But lots of people still ride bicycles without helmets. People ski without helmets. Kids do all this extreme sport shit these days, some with decent head protection, some with none, and they wipe out all the time. Hockey helmets do a shitty job protecting against concussions, as do lacrosse helmets. Heading in soccer leads to all sorts of brain problems.

Football is the most popular sport in the U.S., so it gets the scrutiny. But I think it's a pretty myopic view of the overall landscape of potential head injuries in sport.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,643
Somewhere
Football is the most popular sport in the U.S., so it gets the scrutiny. But I think it's a pretty myopic view of the overall landscape of potential head injuries in sport.
The common comparison is boxing, and it's a good one -- in terms of the risks involved. But football has a huge advantage over boxing in one area: institutionalization. You'd be hard-pressed to find a high school in the country that has a boxing team, and it would be just about as a difficult to find a large high school that lacks a football team.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The common comparison is boxing, and it's a good one -- in terms of the risks involved. But football has a huge advantage over boxing in one area: institutionalization. You'd be hard-pressed to find a high school in the country that has a boxing team, and it would be just about as a difficult to find a large high school that lacks a football team.
I've actually never felt that it was a very good comparison. In boxing, the goal of the sport is cranial damage. Purists may disagree, but the sport is basically hitting the other guy in the head until you knock him out, literally or technically. In football, hockey, soccer, etc, head injuries aren't the goal, but more like collateral damage in achieving the goal of the sport. A boxer wins on a TKO. The Pats win 27-20.
The modern comparison to boxing is MMA, and it seems to be thriving, despite the fact that it's jumbling a whole lot of brains too.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
No question that soccer is also a head injury risk.

http://nytimes.com/blogs/well/2015/07/15/heading-ban-for-youth-soccer-wont-end-head-injuries

Soccer's concussion crisis (New Yorker)


http://m.neurology.org/content/51/3/791.short

That last article is as anecdotal as they come, but it's an attempt to look at subconcussive effects too. (And if I remember correctly no evidence of problems was found in US national team players, supporting the idea that it's not head impact but group differences driving the effects. I thought there was a study that looked at larger numbers of high school players, but couldn't find it.)
 
Last edited:
I love your post, @H78. And maybe its easy for me to say this because I don't have sons but I'd definitely let them play football. I started playing in the 6th grade and my worst sports injury growing up came from a fastball to the head in a high school baseball practice. It was far worse than any football injury I ever suffered. On a related note, isn't cheerleading just as risky a sport for concussions? I certainly wouldn't tell my daughter (or son) to stop that or make her (or him) quit gymnastics.

If you don't want your kid to play I get it. But there are so many positives to the sport that never get mentioned. The teamwork, the camaraderie, the life lessons I got from a physical team sport was something I treasured. I played basketball and baseball in high school too and nothing compared to football (or rugby which I played in college). I apologize if I'm coming off like a Neanderthal but there is something different about team contact sports. The bonding and sense of cooperation you experience is tremendous. Defending a goal line or pushing a scrum with your teammates is the closest thing a pussy like me will ever get to combat. And I think that stuff can really help some kids understand things like sacrifice and teamwork more than making a bounce pass on a fast break. I never really played hockey so I can't personally relate but I'd imagine the feeling is similar.

And today's kids seem to get much better care and supervision than in years past. I remember coaches not letting players get water breaks in the late summer just to "toughen up the kids". Thankfully, those days are over. My friends who have kids that play football say there are always trainers and coaches on the sidelines of games and practices doing everything to put safety first.

Kids are going to get hurt, yes. But I think the benefits outweigh the risks, that's all.
 
Last edited:

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
I love your post, @H78. And maybe its easy for me to say this because I don't have sons but I'd definitely let them play football. I started playing in the 6th grade and my worst sports injury growing up came from a fastball to the head in a high school baseball practice. It was far worse than any football injury I ever suffered. On a related note, isn't cheerleading just as risky a sport for concussions? I certainly wouldn't tell my daughter (or son) to stop that or make her (or him) quit gymnastics.

If you don't want your kid to play I get it. But there are so many positives to the sport that never get mentioned. The teamwork, the camaraderie, the life lessons I got from a physical team sport was something I treasured. I played basketball and baseball in high school too and nothing compared to football (or rugby which I played in college). I apologize if I'm coming off like a Neanderthal but there is something different about team contact sports. The bonding and sense of cooperation you experience is tremendous. Defending a goal line or pushing a scrum with your teammates is the closest thing a pussy like me will ever get to combat. And I think that stuff can really help some kids understand things like sacrifice and teamwork more than making a bounce pass on a fast break. I never really played hockey so I can't personally relate but I'd imagine the feeling is similar.

And today's kids seem to get much better care and supervision than in years past. I remember coaches not letting players get water breaks in the late summer just to "toughen up the kids". Thankfully, those days are over. My friends who have kids that play football say there are always trainers and coaches on the sidelines of games and practices doing everything to put safety first.

Kids are going to get hurt, yes. But I think the benefits outweigh the risks, that's all.
The thing is, you're implying there's a difference in the camaraderie, cooperation, and bonds between a rough contact sport like rugby and football versus a less violent sport, like baseball, basketball, or even something like doubles tennis, and I'm not sure I buy that. Teamwork's teamwork, with or without the violence. I only briefly played football, but I did have quite a past with baseball and competitive running, and I know well the feeling of being willing to bash through a wall for my teammates...I just didn't actually have to do it.

To be fair, my worst athletic injury also came via a baseball to the face (bad hop of a batted ball at 2nd,) so...yeah.

I don't have any kids, but I do have a young nephew, and I'm not a fan of the idea of him playing.
 
I am saying that. Don't get me wrong, I think doubles tennis is great too (or any non contact team sport). But in my experience there is a different, valuable, dynamic that is exclusive to team sports like football, rugby, hockey, etc. There definitely was for me. Knowing one's physical well being may be dependent on the guy next to you creates that special (extra??) sense of teamwork that I admire about those sports. Just like golf may be better at teaching a kid patience, I think football is a better activity for trust and teamwork. I'm just giving my perspective and its totally fair of you to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Tartan

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
361
MA
My dad played football in high school. He fucking hated it, mainly because his coach was a piece of shit who frothed at the mouth through practice and forced kids to play through injuries. There wasn't anything inherent to football that was positive to my dad, nothing that outweighed having a bully with a rage problem as a coach. He has no positive stories of playing football, no life lessons he gleaned despite his coach, no memories of building teamwork and camaraderie. Just being forced to play through injuries and b He did get that out of tennis, where, unsurprisingly, his coach wasn't a raging asshole. Perhaps I'm biased as someone who didn't play football growing up and whose dad hated playing it, but I simply don't see anything particular to football that makes it inherently beneficial. The positive benefits of any sport, or any outlet for children for that matter, will be shaped by the people instructing them. But even if your kid has great coaches and teammates, football is still inherently and particularly violent.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,219
Bangkok
This problem will get worse because the drugs these guys are on today make them even faster and stronger than when Randle El played. The damage is much greater today than it was 10 years ago. So 10 years from now, the guys who are 26 today will be struggling to walk and the problems will be much more common. That's when football will have a whole scale problem. If this was a game, you'd have to nerf the players. The NFL needs to come down much harder on PEDs and get these guys playing at semi-normal weights because they're too damaging at the moment.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
The thing is, you're implying there's a difference in the camaraderie, cooperation, and bonds between a rough contact sport like rugby and football versus a less violent sport, like baseball, basketball, or even something like doubles tennis, and I'm not sure I buy that. Teamwork's teamwork, with or without the violence. I only briefly played football, but I did have quite a past with baseball and competitive running, and I know well the feeling of being willing to bash through a wall for my teammates...I just didn't actually have to do it.

To be fair, my worst athletic injury also came via a baseball to the face (bad hop of a batted ball at 2nd,) so...yeah.

I don't have any kids, but I do have a young nephew, and I'm not a fan of the idea of him playing.
How many kids make their high school basketball team? I played football in high school in the north east, I'm not a terribly athletic person. I was big and fat and slow. But with football so many guys see the field and at least in New England the talent level is such that the unathletic big kid can play guard or defensive tackle and be just fine.

So yea other sports offer the same chance for team work and life lessons but few sports at the high school level offer the access to as broad a group of kids as football does.

Not everyone can hit a baseball.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,491
The Gerry Callahan, "football is better than the other sports" argument is silly. Teamwork is crucial in many sports. A soccer defender is no-one's idea of a star, but their team can't win if they don't do their job. Anyone who thinks basketball is a non-contact sport hasn't played a particularly high level.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
How many kids make their high school basketball team? I played football in high school in the north east, I'm not a terribly athletic person. I was big and fat and slow. But with football so many guys see the field and at least in New England the talent level is such that the unathletic big kid can play guard or defensive tackle and be just fine.

So yea other sports offer the same chance for team work and life lessons but few sports at the high school level offer the access to as broad a group of kids as football does.

Not everyone can hit a baseball.
Most schools have enough offerings where a kid can play something that's not football if they so desire. They may not make the basketball team, but they could join track and field, swim, play golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc.

If you're so uncoordinated where anything except a lineman is unrealistic, team sports just may not be your thing at all.
 
The Gerry Callahan, "football is better than the other sports" argument is silly. Teamwork is crucial in many sports. A soccer defender is no-one's idea of a star, but their team can't win if they don't do their job. Anyone who thinks basketball is a non-contact sport hasn't played a particularly high level.
Ahhhh....good old SoSH. Where every opinion leads to an insult....because yes, I absolutely consider being compared to Gerry Callahan an insult.

I never said football was "better". I said, in my opinion, kids can learn different things from different sports and contact team sports lead to a greater team unity. Look at the relationship offensive lineman share at all levels of competition. That unique brotherhood and bond is beautiful (excluding Martin and Incognito of course). I think some of that camaraderie and trust is because they're "in the trenches" together in a physical, dangerous battle 50 times per game. I'm not saying kids can't learn teamwork in other sports - if fact I stated the opposite. But for me, football and other contact sports emphasized that sense of "I got your back". And my original post was saying I'd let my kid play football because I think that's an important life lesson.

I boxed for a while too when I was young. You learn a lot about yourself when it's just you and another guy in a ring who wants to smash your face in. I'm sure being a competitive swimmer is grueling and rewarding too but I'd bet you'd get a different life lessons from each activity. And both would be just as valuable.

Lastly, I only played high school basketball and I sucked. No, I wouldn't call it a contact sport especially in comparison to football and others I stated earlier. But if you've played at a higher level I'm sure your perspective is better than mine. Regardless, I respect your opinion and won't call it "silly" or compare you to Gary Tanguay.

PS - That last line was a joke.

Edit - I just re-read my posts. This whole thing is just a matter of opinion and kind of stupid, actually. I probably shouldn't have even brought it up. I was just trying to describe some of the benefits I experienced playing football. Didn't mean to derail the topic.
 
Last edited:

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,581
Maine
I was lucky enough to HC my 7yos Peewee team and position coach my 10 yos Majors team. This was so that I could be involved and keep an eye on them first hand.

Bakette and I where originally opposed to football. They begged us and begged us. We relented.

It was a great decision. Both of them loved it. Our family loved it. We were/are lucky enough to be involved with a great program (not in an "Alabama" sense....but rather in a "community/family" sense.) Luckily as has been said they are young enough that most hits are not the violent crashes we witness on TV Saturdays and Sundays.

I will say that a football field is the closest sports environment that I have seen that rivals being in the military. Both have associated risks. Both demand disciplin. Both involve fitness beyond the norm. But both also have an Esprit De Corps that is special and unique. As I loved the military and have an immense respect for that lifestyle and mindset......I have come to love football even with the risks.

I am not saying that a crippled or killed player is worth it to me....but It does come down to Risk vs reward (as does Skiing, Soccer, Hockey, MMA, Diving, Hunting, etc etc etc). SO, while the game continues to be "tame" (at least in comparison), I will continue to support my kids and their opportunity to play.

That said....Other sports are great. And I want my kids to participate in them as well.....but they dont have the same Camaraderie as football imho. And that is what makes it special (at least to me) in the realm of sports.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,448
Philly
25 years sounds about right to me. That's about 7000 NFL games, 20,000 D1 NCAA games, and (at current rates of participation) 2 million high school football games into the future. By then some truly terrible and catastrophic things will have happened on the field, the player pool will have shrunken significantly, and we'll start seeing many of today's professional stars suffer badly with degenerative conditions. The landscape will have gotten pretty toxic by 2041. I'd bet 95% of high schools and public universities aren't playing. Maybe there will be youth club teams, but there's no way public entities in most locales will be associated with the sport, for liability reasons alone if not societal outcry.

I think the biggest emerging issue that isn't being contended with yet is that, in the coming years science is going to start to connect off-the-field behavior with the conditioning and instruction and encouragement imparted to players on the field. Currently, if a violent off-the-field action happens involving a football player, it's because he was a bad apple or was raised in a less-than-ideal environment. I think soon we'll start to get concrete scientific proof that shows that the violence that is incentivized and groomed into the sport actually carries over to all manner of a player's life and that playing football at a sufficiently elite level also increases the likelihood that a person will behave violently off the field.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
I think football will be fine. Look at New England. Almost no one plays football here, but the Patriots are #1, even over the Red Sox. It's the most fun sport to watch because (A) you don't have to watch every second like hockey or soccer, (B) it has several organic mini-peaks in intensity prior to the end of the game (like baseball rallies). (C) It has wilder endings than any other sport, (D) football players are just more physically gifted than other athletes. I love ephemeral athletic skills like the Wayne Gretzky "I skate to where the puck is going to be", and the magical hand-eye coordination that you find in pro baseball players, golfers, and racquet sports, but no sport celebrates the raw physical gifts like football. MMA is distant second.

Having said that, they should put in a five year plan to migrate to leather/rugby style helmets.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think football will be fine. Look at New England. Almost no one plays football here, but the Patriots are #1, even over the Red Sox. It's the most fun sport to watch because (A) you don't have to watch every second like hockey or soccer, (B) it has several organic mini-peaks in intensity prior to the end of the game (like baseball rallies). (C) It has wilder endings than any other sport, (D) football players are just more physically gifted than other athletes. I love ephemeral athletic skills like the Wayne Gretzky "I skate to where the puck is going to be", and the magical hand-eye coordination that you find in pro baseball players, golfers, and racquet sports, but no sport celebrates the raw physical gifts like football. MMA is distant second.

Having said that, they should put in a five year plan to migrate to leather/rugby style helmets.
Basketball would like to have a word with you.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
My dad played football in high school. He fucking hated it, mainly because his coach was a piece of shit ... He has no positive stories of playing football, no life lessons he gleaned despite his coach, no memories of building teamwork and camaraderie. Just being forced to play through injuries and b He did get that out of tennis, where, unsurprisingly, his coach wasn't a raging asshole. Perhaps I'm biased as someone who didn't play football growing up and whose dad hated playing it, but I simply don't see anything particular to football that makes it inherently beneficial. The positive benefits of any sport, or any outlet for children for that matter, will be shaped by the people instructing them. But even if your kid has great coaches and teammates, football is still inherently and particularly violent.
I'm pretty similar to you, but my Dad grew up in the generation when everyone did play football and he had a contrary take. He used to coach the freshman team and enjoyed teaching kids the physical aspect of the game. This was in the south in the 1970's and they didn't even have a soccer team. Probably 80% of the freshman boys played football. He'd see the incoming freshmen start out scared but over the course of that first season they'd grow in confidence and become less and less intimidated by contact.

He'd always say that some people were born being able to take a hit and others couldn't. But unlike being big or fast, almost everyone could learn to take a hit. And the boys who had to learn to take a hit grew in confidence and character from having had that experience.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,491
Banned, I wasn't really trying to insult, I just have long car commute and Callahan frequently sings the "football is different" tune that baka chimes in with above. It is simply a place where some of us have to agree to disagree. The "access" to football due to roster size is an interesting take, but even that has pros and cons.

I really enjoy watching the Patriots, but I cringe more and more often as I watch the hits and realize the damage being done. I am in the camp that sees parallels with boxing as wealthier suburban kids play less and less of the game. The Cinn-Pitt game made me wonder about the timing of either major changes or the possible decline in popularity of the game.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Having said that, they should put in a five year plan to migrate to leather/rugby style helmets.
I see no reason to think this just won't lead to rashes of deaths on the field. The argument that players will play a much safer style without hard helmets just seems really similar to "teenage girls won't be so promiscuous if we don't vaccinate them for HPV" - its a fantasy. There's a reason they stopped using these sort of helmets - prevalence of skull injuries, spinal injuries and deaths on the field. The NFL has had one player die on the field during its history - College football had 6 die with concussion/brain injury symptoms in 1906 alone. Leather helmets make the game more dangerous, not safer.

Football and Rugby have fundamental differences that prevent them from having the same tackling style - in Rugby you can tackle a guy and let him drag you 10 feet before he goes down, and there's no real loss there. In order to accommodate rugby style tackling, the "to go" distance would have to be drastically increased from 10 yards.

In addition - there's no evidence at this point that the CTE problem is significantly worse in football than it is in Rugby. Concussions are a big problem in Rugby too - the long term affects just hasn't been studied to nearly the same extent as they have with the NFL. There's also some evidence of prevalence in soccer players, but again, the researching and cataloguing just isn't as extensive.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
1,085
Can't lie: I love watching the game. It's great entertainment.

That being said, there's no way I would let my child near a football field. There are mini-car accidents on every play, even at lower levels. And as far as the NFL, some of the hits I see on Sundays make me cringe. My kids can get teamwork knowledge in other ways, and still keep their cognitive ability. One concussion is one too many.
 
Last edited:

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,639
It's been said before, but soccer and basketball are contact sports while hockey and football are collision sports.
 

Carbo Loading

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2002
835
Vancouver, WA
Football is for me still my favorite sport. But I don't love it as much as I did last year or the year before. The experience of watching a game is less enjoyable now for a number of reasons (perceived bias against Pats, bad announcers, too many commercials) but a lot of it is because the injuries are more of a story line now than ever and basically can dictate how successful a season can be for a team. It's not fun when I am filled with dread any time a ball is thrown Gronk's way or I see a defender diving at Brady as he's releasing the ball. It's not an enjoyable experience to see players carted off the field all of the time. Each time a new story like Randle El's comes out I am saddened even more. Having the good fortune of rooting for the Patriots during the Belichick/Brady run keeps me invested and I won't miss a game. As someone posted earlier in the thread, I wonder if I will remain as invested in the sport after this dynasty ends.

For those who mentioned that their youth football leagues are OK because kids can't really get hurt at that age I suggest you watch Friday Night Tykes that's now streaming on Netflix. I know the show is highly edited, but practices seem to consist mostly of full speed hitting drills with coaches encouraging as much violence as possible, helmet to helmet hits are allowed, and it's sickening to see the behavior of many of the coaches and parents.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,581
Maine
For those who mentioned that their youth football leagues are OK because kids can't really get hurt at that age I suggest you watch Friday Night Tykes that's now streaming on Netflix. I know the show is highly edited, but practices seem to consist mostly of full speed hitting drills with coaches encouraging as much violence as possible, helmet to helmet hits are allowed, and it's sickening to see the behavior of many of the coaches and parents.
Watched the first episode of this and Agree with....and was frankly shocked.
1. That coaches allowed it.
2. That parents allowed it.

I contrasted it with our practices and it was ..... whats more different then night an day.....whatever that is.
That would NEVER happen in our practices. And the egregious acts shown would never be allowed by any parent (many of us who love the game) In our football club.

All I can say is.....I guess it is "Texas" (nothing against the place....but they sure do love the football).

I think your being unfair to paint every peewee or youth league with the "Friday night Tykes" brush.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
I see no reason to think this just won't lead to rashes of deaths on the field. The argument that players will play a much safer style without hard helmets just seems really similar to "teenage girls won't be so promiscuous if we don't vaccinate them for HPV" - its a fantasy. There's a reason they stopped using these sort of helmets - prevalence of skull injuries, spinal injuries and deaths on the field. The NFL has had one player die on the field during its history - College football had 6 die with concussion/brain injury symptoms in 1906 alone. Leather helmets make the game more dangerous, not safer.
I disagree. First of all, forget spinal injuries. A plastic helmet will not do anything to prevent a spinal injury. In fact, it will probably make them worse because it is bigger and heavier and the facemask would make it easier to get your helmet pinned back against a body part and put pressure on your neck.

Second is the problem of fractured skulls, which have been the primary cause of deaths in football. According to Wikipedia football helmets did not come into widespread usage until the 1920's. My understanding that leather skulls did a good job of preventing fractured skulls.

Third is the sub-concussive impacts. I don't know for sure how it would play out, but I suspect that leather helmets and no facemasks would make players shy away from the head on head contact. It would still happen, but you'd see lineman using their arms more, twisting slightly to lead with a shoulder etc.

Finally, you mention that rugby has a concussion problem. Yes it does. So do soccer, hockey and snowboarding, but I don't see anyone calling for the end of those sports. A concussion problem is different than the sub-concussive impact problem. We could probably tease this one out separately if you like, but for now I'd just say that it's the sub-concussive impact problem that might kill the NFL, not the concussion problem.

Edit: what is more interesting is the idea that Rugby has a sub-concussive impact problem. But Rugby is a different game than football and most rugby head injuries come from the scrums, so I don't think it really applies. Each sport has to look at where their head-to-dead contact is coming from differently.

Edit 2: Still riffing on rugby ... I think rugby may be in a much worse position than football. We can have kids play flag football and switch to contact in high school but I don't know if that will work in rugby because (1) the scrums, and (2) the fact that rugby is basically a running game whereas football is presently dominated by the pass. Flag football doesn't work as well with the run game.
 
Last edited: