IGX

ccrow wrote:

Drew0786 wrote:The problem is no matter how much padding you wrap around the head nothing on the outside of the helmet is going to prevent the brain from moving around inside the head, which is what really causes a concussion.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. Not directed at you Drew, just this lemminglike belief that helmets don't make things safer. Padding things works. It's a pretty well established practice. It takes about sixth grade understanding of physics to see how it protects the contents. Acceleration is the enemy of eggs in your shopping bag, and the brain inside the skull. Padding / helments absorbs some of the energy and the contents are subjected to less sharp acceleration. If you wrap the eggs in bubble wrap, yep, ultimately they still have to decelerate to a stop when the package hits the ground, but surprise, they are less likely to break when they hit the ground. Lets consider an experiment. One man is a reasonable, low tech, common sense kind of guy, wearing a helmet. The other is a guy who reads as much as possible online, even reads on his phone when he takes a dump! and doesn't believe in helmets since the real villain is this mysterious "acceleration" thing. These two men lock up and head butt each other until one has a concussion. Do you really think this contest is too close to call? Do you really believe the odds are about even, the helmet won't help? For fucks sake.

BucketHead wrote:ccrow literally has a 4th grade grasp on physics.

But, as noted helmet expert Kevin Guskiewicz, founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says, helmets can only do so much. "Helmets are not designed to prevent concussion," he told attendees of a Marietta, Ohio, sports concussion symposium in July. "Companies are building good helmets that can prevent structural head injuries, but concussion is a functional, not a structural, injury."

•Kenan distinguished professor and chairman in the Department of Exercise & Sport Science and athletic trainer.
•Research director of the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes and founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center.
•A former athletic trainer for the Pittsburgh Steelers

BucketHead wrote:Here's one of those lemmings:

But, as noted helmet expert Kevin Guskiewicz, founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says, helmets can only do so much. "Helmets are not designed to prevent concussion," he told attendees of a Marietta, Ohio, sports concussion symposium in July. "Companies are building good helmets that can prevent structural head injuries, but concussion is a functional, not a structural, injury."

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/article ... &zoneid=46

But who is this Kevin guy. Sounds like a pussy that doesn't know football:

•Kenan distinguished professor and chairman in the Department of Exercise & Sport Science and athletic trainer.
•Research director of the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes and founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center.
•A former athletic trainer for the Pittsburgh Steelers

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/s ... 51337506/1

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Conflating brain injuries in retired pro footballers vs. kids today isn't exactly an accurate comparison. The pros have been playing at the highest levels for 10-20 years including college while kids don't have nearly that time invested in the game.

Also, when today's pros were coming up, mild concussions were essentially ignored. At least in Pop Warner, coaches and medics are trained and highly sensitized about head trauma. A kid who shows signs of a the most minor concussion is not allowed to practice with contact or play until he receives approval from his doctor. In the two minor concussions I've been associated with, that was at around 10 days to two weeks. Healing time is apparently very important in these injuries.

Additionally teams are weight and age controlled so the chances of a rabbit getting run over by a bus are remote. This isn't necessarily true in school football. My 13 y.o. 5' tall & 110# grandson plays with a kid that is 6'-4" and 220 lbs (also 13 y.o. BTW)

In the Frontline episode, they talked about two football players that they autopsied. One was 21 and played in college, and the other was 18 and had just played high school football. Also...

According to the study, the BU researchers now have 50 confirmed cases of former football players with CTE — 33 who played in the NFL, one in the CFL, one semi-professionally, nine through college and six who played only through high school.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... l-players/

I went to a Jr. HS football game yesterday afternoon sensitized to this subject. I'd read the article and while it may not be as conclusive as the BU researchers think, it's a serious situation and BU is a respected institution.

I saw two hits of consequence. One resulted in the wind being knocked out of one kid and the other ended up with a knee problem, but the hits were hard enough that there could have been some unnoticed head trauma.

I also saw two groups of boys doing what boys love to do: hitting, smashing, running, overpowering a foe, and working as a team. Things they've been doing since our ancestors came down from the trees and started walking upright across the savannah. My grandson hasn't hit his growth spurt so he's second team and only got a few plays. In those plays he recovered a fumble, drew a penalty from the offense as he was about to tackle the ball carrier, and got a 1/2 sack. I was sitting at the top of the stands but I could see a physical change in his countenance from there.

After the game, which they won handily, one of the coaches reportedly made a comment that they would have won by even more if they didn't have to put in the "scrubs", of which my grandson is one. That comment meant very little to him because he knew what he'd accomplished. That's a confidence and character builder in every way. After the game, he could have received a ride directly home but he wanted to be on the bus with his team.

We can't have kids with oatmeal where their brains were and safety has to be a super high priority so thank G_d for the BU study. Regardless of where the studies take us, kids football on a beautiful autumn afternoon is an awesome thing - and, it's somehow important. I hope it's not another one of America's great traditions that gets watered down to nothing or lost.

Einstein wrote:

But, as noted helmet expert Kevin Guskiewicz, founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says, helmets can only do so much"

Mickey O'neil wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Conflating brain injuries in retired pro footballers vs. kids today isn't exactly an accurate comparison. The pros have been playing at the highest levels for 10-20 years including college while kids don't have nearly that time invested in the game.

Also, when today's pros were coming up, mild concussions were essentially ignored. At least in Pop Warner, coaches and medics are trained and highly sensitized about head trauma. A kid who shows signs of a the most minor concussion is not allowed to practice with contact or play until he receives approval from his doctor. In the two minor concussions I've been associated with, that was at around 10 days to two weeks. Healing time is apparently very important in these injuries.

Additionally teams are weight and age controlled so the chances of a rabbit getting run over by a bus are remote. This isn't necessarily true in school football. My 13 y.o. 5' tall & 110# grandson plays with a kid that is 6'-4" and 220 lbs (also 13 y.o. BTW)

In the Frontline episode, they talked about two football players that they autopsied. One was 21 and played in college, and the other was 18 and had just played high school football. Also...

According to the study, the BU researchers now have 50 confirmed cases of former football players with CTE — 33 who played in the NFL, one in the CFL, one semi-professionally, nine through college and six who played only through high school.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... l-players/

I went to a Jr. HS football game yesterday afternoon sensitized to this subject. I'd read the article and while it may not be as conclusive as the BU researchers think, it's a serious situation and BU is a respected institution.

I saw two hits of consequence. One resulted in the wind being knocked out of one kid and the other ended up with a knee problem, but the hits were hard enough that there could have been some unnoticed head trauma.

I also saw two groups of boys doing what boys love to do: hitting, smashing, running, overpowering a foe, and working as a team. Things they've been doing since our ancestors came down from the trees and started walking upright across the savannah. My grandson hasn't hit his growth spurt so he's second team and only got a few plays. In those plays he recovered a fumble, drew a penalty from the offense as he was about to tackle the ball carrier, and got a 1/2 sack. I was sitting at the top of the stands but I could see a physical change in his countenance from there.

After the game, which they won handily, one of the coaches reportedly made a comment that they would have won by even more if they didn't have to put in the "scrubs", of which my grandson is one. That comment meant very little to him because he knew what he'd accomplished. That's a confidence and character builder in every way. After the game, he could have received a ride directly home but he wanted to be on the bus with his team.

We can't have kids with oatmeal where their brains were and safety has to be a super high priority so thank G_d for the BU study. Regardless of where the studies take us, kids football on a beautiful autumn afternoon is an awesome thing - and, it's somehow important. I hope it's not another one of America's great traditions that gets watered down to nothing or lost.

I have thought about the lessons learned and character built, etc. that DDL speaks of and I have wondered about if not letting my son play football will he miss out on these lessons. Then I remember of playing football from 8th grade all through high school and starting the last 3 years as well as being all-conference and while I had fun and learned teamwork, etc. I don't think it had a huge impact on me as far as developing my character and who I am today. Plus, you can learn the same thing from other sports.

I would say I learned more impacting character building skills from working different jobs growing up. Especially manual labor jobs on job sites.

Well, one important thing I can say I learned from football as well as basketball and a few other sports is working really hard and not giving up.

protobuilder wrote:Hey! I read my phone while taking dumps!

ccrow wrote: Given the head is going to get knocked around about the same with or without a helmet on, how is it better without the helmet?

ccrow wrote:Oh I am very sorry if I am not a physicist, I am no Sir Isaac Hayes! So please, explain it in terms I can understand. Given the head is going to get knocked around about the same with or without a helmet on, how is it better without the helmet?

Einstein wrote:

But, as noted helmet expert Kevin Guskiewicz, founding director of the Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says, helmets can only do so much"

Professor, from where I am sitting, it doesn't sound like your boy said football is safer without helments, he said it's dangerous even with helmets.

BucketHead wrote:Imagine you're xraying Wes Welker as he's hauling ass across the middle to catch a Manning pass. You see his brain, a gap, then his skull, then the helmet padding/shell, all moving at the same velocity.

ccrow wrote:

protobuilder wrote:Hey! I read my phone while taking dumps!

Get the fuck out. What do you do with the phone while you wipe your ass? You don't want to put your phone on the floor or the sink. Or do you?

dead man walking wrote:

ccrow wrote: Given the head is going to get knocked around about the same with or without a helmet on, how is it better without the helmet?

i would challenge the statement "the head is going to get knocked around the same with or without"

modern helmets encourage direct contact with the head moreso than when helmets were less advanced

my brother's first helmet was leather/i was the first kid in my school to have a face "mask"--a single bar that was supposed to prevent me from getting whacked in the nose which tended to bleed prodigiously/with less protection one tended not propel oneself rocketlike head first in an opponent

(ice hockey has seen the same escalation in helmet design--it too now seems focused on preventing contact with the head something that was no considered back when i played/the two times i got knocked out playing hockey it was from hitting the ice with my head/ obviously it didn't affect me because i can still spell as well as darth)

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

dead man walking wrote:

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/opini ... h_20131012

Pinky wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/opini ... h_20131012

The biggest problem with the NFL, one that affects nearly all of us, is brushed over in that article as it is everywhere else. The NFL receives billions of dollars in subsidies. You won't find an economist anywhere, except for the few who failed their way into the worst kind of consulting, who will tell you those subsidies are justified. These teams are stealing from taxpayers.

Pinky wrote:The NFL receives billions of dollars in subsidies.

Pinky wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/opini ... h_20131012

The biggest problem with the NFL, one that affects nearly all of us, is brushed over in that article as it is everywhere else. The NFL receives billions of dollars in subsidies. You won't find an economist anywhere, except for the few who failed their way into the worst kind of consulting, who will tell you those subsidies are justified. These teams are stealing from taxpayers.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Pinky wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/opini ... h_20131012

The biggest problem with the NFL, one that affects nearly all of us, is brushed over in that article as it is everywhere else. The NFL receives billions of dollars in subsidies. You won't find an economist anywhere, except for the few who failed their way into the worst kind of consulting, who will tell you those subsidies are justified. These teams are stealing from taxpayers.

But there are "studies" to prove that these subsidies are a huge net plus for the community. Besides, pride in your local team owned by billionaires and populated by multimillionaires is priceless. Of course many of these games are almost exclusively being watched by the wealthy because it's easy to drop $500-$1,000 to bring the kids, but there's TV's available for the rest of us.

Mickey O'neil wrote:

Pinky wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

In the fall of 1905, at least 18 players died during or immediately after football games — and there were far fewer contests than now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/opini ... h_20131012

The biggest problem with the NFL, one that affects nearly all of us, is brushed over in that article as it is everywhere else. The NFL receives billions of dollars in subsidies. You won't find an economist anywhere, except for the few who failed their way into the worst kind of consulting, who will tell you those subsidies are justified. These teams are stealing from taxpayers.

Yeah, I forgot about this. Insane. FUCK THE NFL!!!!!!!

dead man walking wrote:turd

how do you know that shit?

not that i doubt you--i'm curious