FB: American Rivers Conference

[Bird Dog]

WH, I agree about watching is sometimes harder than playing. The other side is that we've all seen what look like high speed car wrecks on the field and no one gets hurt. The hardest hit I've ever seen in person was at an ISU spring game from the sideline. The saftey blitzed and caught the QB's blind side. The biggest hit I was ever that close to and both players got up laughing about it. You just never know. I believe that any blatantly illegal or unsafe behavior needs to be flagged, but you still have to let them play. Otherwise you end up with soccer.

There are more serious injuries each year in soccer than in football.  You wimps have pads and helmets!  Ever seen soccer players of opposing teams going up for headers?

(signed) A soccer (football, to the rest of the world) coach.

No, but I have seen world Cup players writhing on the ground like a limb has been ripped off after the most incidental bump.

Touche'.

There is FAR too much 'flopping' in soccer.  But do you think no football player has ever faked injury to stop the clock as a game is winding down?!  Or 'writhed in pain' to try to draw a flag?!

The point remains - serious injuries occur MORE often in soccer than football.

My favorite team to hate the FEITNING iRISH repeatedly faked injuries to stop the clock and win a game in the early 1950's.  The NCAA changed rules the next season to address the problem.  Note to Big Ten never let the cry babies in,

[AZDutchman]

This is one of the best celebrations I've seen in football or soccer (football)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwqGRNtHDQg

[footballdaddy]

WH, I agree about watching is sometimes harder than playing. The other side is that we've all seen what look like high speed car wrecks on the field and no one gets hurt. The hardest hit I've ever seen in person was at an ISU spring game from the sideline. The saftey blitzed and caught the QB's blind side. The biggest hit I was ever that close to and both players got up laughing about it. You just never know. I believe that any blatantly illegal or unsafe behavior needs to be flagged, but you still have to let them play. Otherwise you end up with soccer.

There are more serious injuries each year in soccer than in football.  You wimps have pads and helmets!  Ever seen soccer players of opposing teams going up for headers?

(signed) A soccer (football, to the rest of the world) coach.

No, but I have seen world Cup players writhing on the ground like a limb has been ripped off after the most incidental bump.

Touche'.

There is FAR too much 'flopping' in soccer.  But do you think no football player has ever faked injury to stop the clock as a game is winding down?!  Or 'writhed in pain' to try to draw a flag?!

The point remains - serious injuries occur MORE often in soccer than football.

So what you're saying is: Soccer. all of the danger with none of the scoring? 

[the_mayne_event]

No one has mentioned the evolution of the athlete during this whole conversation. With players getting bigger/faster/stronger every year, injuries are bound to happen. It happens in every full contact sport. Football seems to be magnified because of its popularity.
There isn't a way to flag every helmet to helmet contact because it happens on every single play. Every time a linemen comes off the ball to run block, he will probably hit heads with the defender first.
You also can't take helmets away, that's ridiculous. Maybe they have become too modern, but players get concussions from hitting their head on the ground too hard (in all sports, not just football). Chances are the leather helmets players used to wear caused more concussions, there just wasn't the knowledge that is available know, and probably less people cared because football wasn't as popular as it is now.
If you start making so many rules that players have to think more during every single play, chances are more players are going to get hurt because they'll be slowing down to think about some rule and another player will be continuing full speed. Football is an instinctive sport, which is part of the reason people love to play and watch it.
In the NFL, players can be fined/suspended without pay, and that hurts them because that's how they make their living and provide for their family. College is different where you can't put a fine on this. I'm also pretty sure there aren't rules to protect defenseless receivers in college either. It comes down to leagues making rules, players following those rules, and if they don't either their league suspends them or their coach suspends them.
If we are talking neck injuries, the only way to prevent that is having your head up. I don't know the facts, but I guess that the majority of neck injuries do not come from head to head hits, but more like head down, top of helmet to a body part hit. I'm not saying they are more or less horrific injuries, but teaching technique only goes so far, players have to take it upon themselves to keep their heads up when making a hit. That also may be very difficult to see in the middle of a group of players, making the penalty more difficult to see.

[Kohawk Remedy]

No one has mentioned the evolution of the athlete during this whole conversation. With players getting bigger/faster/stronger every year, injuries are bound to happen. It happens in every full contact sport. Football seems to be magnified because of its popularity.
There isn't a way to flag every helmet to helmet contact because it happens on every single play. Every time a linemen comes off the ball to run block, he will probably hit heads with the defender first.
You also can't take helmets away, that's ridiculous. Maybe they have become too modern, but players get concussions from hitting their head on the ground too hard (in all sports, not just football). Chances are the leather helmets players used to wear caused more concussions, there just wasn't the knowledge that is available know, and probably less people cared because football wasn't as popular as it is now.
If you start making so many rules that players have to think more during every single play, chances are more players are going to get hurt because they'll be slowing down to think about some rule and another player will be continuing full speed. Football is an instinctive sport, which is part of the reason people love to play and watch it.
In the NFL, players can be fined/suspended without pay, and that hurts them because that's how they make their living and provide for their family. College is different where you can't put a fine on this. I'm also pretty sure there aren't rules to protect defenseless receivers in college either. It comes down to leagues making rules, players following those rules, and if they don't either their league suspends them or their coach suspends them.
If we are talking neck injuries, the only way to prevent that is having your head up. I don't know the facts, but I guess that the majority of neck injuries do not come from head to head hits, but more like head down, top of helmet to a body part hit. I'm not saying they are more or less horrific injuries, but teaching technique only goes so far, players have to take it upon themselves to keep their heads up when making a hit. That also may be very difficult to see in the middle of a group of players, making the penalty more difficult to see.

TME makes some valid points here, and one of them I've been thinking about myself is the offensive players using their heads/helmets as a weapon as well.  Maybe it's because I was a defensive player, but I believe the offensive player uses their helmet just as much to block, and protect.  Take a look at the offensive/defensive line; the first contact they have is facemask to facemask or helmet to helmet.  Watch a fullback or offensive lineman peel off to get a block down field on a LB or safety and you will see them leading with their head for helmet to helmet contact.  Take a look at RB when he is going through the line or in the open field, whats one of the first things they do? lower their helmet to take on the hit and try to punish the hitter.  Another thing I am just baffled on is all this talk on NFL and concussions....the NFL doesn't even require mouthpieces!! If they are so worried about injures, why would they require the one important (other than the helmet) thing that can lower concussions??  Just doesn't make sense to me.

[Bird Dog]

It was many moons ago I watched a show on TV and the guest's main argument on football equipment was that the padding was on the wrong side.  His contention was there would be fewer injuries, concussions etc.  if there was additional padding on the outside of helments and shoulder pads.  Making them less of a weapon.

He had some data to back it up and contended a hit from a padded helmet was so much less severe that it would loose its advantage over the fundamentally sound technique.  The helmet looked kind of goofy but with todays bigger, faster, and stronger athlete it might make sense.   

[NewKnightDad]

I do believe there are concussion helmets out there that have a protective outer layer of padding and you used to see them once in awhile in the NFL but I have not seen one in awhile.  I think the extra padding was held on with velcro because I can remember seeing them flying off once in awhile.

[footballdaddy]

I had a conversation with a respected high school coach yesterday. He said in almost every case of a concussion on his team in the last few years there was not enough air in the helmet.  He said the new helmets are a little uncomfortable with the proper amount of air in them so the kids let a little out, making them more vulnerable for concussion. Another reason is that players trim the back of their mouthguards to make them more comfortable also. This greatly reduces ther effectiveness. Maybe we should start with equipment being used properly and then see if any rules changes are needed.

[doolittledog]

This is one of the best celebrations I've seen in football or soccer (football)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwqGRNtHDQg

Let's not have any fun football officials would be throwing excessive celebration flags faster than you can say "hey, if UD makes this extra point they beat Wartburg" 

I love that celebration.  It works for soccer, but in football I think it would just start some fights. 

[footballdaddy]

This is one of the best celebrations I've seen in football or soccer (football)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwqGRNtHDQg

Let's not have any fun football officials would be throwing excessive celebration flags faster than you can say "hey, if UD makes this extra point they beat Wartburg" 

I love that celebration.  It works for soccer, but in football I think it would just start some fights. 

If it didn't start some fights, it should.

[AZDutchman]

No one has mentioned the evolution of the athlete during this whole conversation. With players getting bigger/faster/stronger every year, injuries are bound to happen. It happens in every full contact sport. Football seems to be magnified because of its popularity.
There isn't a way to flag every helmet to helmet contact because it happens on every single play. Every time a linemen comes off the ball to run block, he will probably hit heads with the defender first.
You also can't take helmets away, that's ridiculous. Maybe they have become too modern, but players get concussions from hitting their head on the ground too hard (in all sports, not just football). Chances are the leather helmets players used to wear caused more concussions, there just wasn't the knowledge that is available know, and probably less people cared because football wasn't as popular as it is now.
If you start making so many rules that players have to think more during every single play, chances are more players are going to get hurt because they'll be slowing down to think about some rule and another player will be continuing full speed. Football is an instinctive sport, which is part of the reason people love to play and watch it.
In the NFL, players can be fined/suspended without pay, and that hurts them because that's how they make their living and provide for their family. College is different where you can't put a fine on this. I'm also pretty sure there aren't rules to protect defenseless receivers in college either. It comes down to leagues making rules, players following those rules, and if they don't either their league suspends them or their coach suspends them.
If we are talking neck injuries, the only way to prevent that is having your head up. I don't know the facts, but I guess that the majority of neck injuries do not come from head to head hits, but more like head down, top of helmet to a body part hit. I'm not saying they are more or less horrific injuries, but teaching technique only goes so far, players have to take it upon themselves to keep their heads up when making a hit. That also may be very difficult to see in the middle of a group of players, making the penalty more difficult to see.

"Another problem is kids are bigger and faster than they were even 20 years ago." Doolittledog
(over looked)

"NCAA Division One Freshmen could play varsity ball until 1954. The NCAA then changed the rules and freshmen were ineligible to play. The rule was rescinded in 1973."

Something I don't think was mentioned in conversation is....
Should freshman be able to play their first year???

[AZDutchman]

I was very hesitant on posting the question, should freshman play their first year? Why?, because I didn't want to show any kind of disrespect to the present situation. I'm sure there are a lot of, what ifs floating around a lot of people's minds. If you feel this should be deleted, please send me a personal message.

Myself, I answer the question NO. I don't know if 5WOL was thinking with the comment, Complete Contradiction, that I was thinking that my sons were the Terminators of the field because I tell them to hit hard. My boys bleed, get injured and feel pain like everyone else on the field.

My older son started his freshman year and he got his butt handed to him by much more experienced juniors and seniors. There was one game that he was completely punished and embarrassed. I think putting freshman in can hurt their confidence and puts them in harms way to soon. The difference between high school ball and college ball is huge.

Why were freshman not allowed to play between 1954 and 1973?

[doolittledog]

I was very hesitant on posting the question, should freshman play their first year? Why?, because I didn't want to show any kind of disrespect to the present situation. I'm sure there are a lot of, what ifs floating around a lot of people's minds. If you feel this should be deleted, please send me a personal message.

Myself, I answer the question NO. I don't know if 5WOL was thinking with the comment, Complete Contradiction, that I was thinking that my sons were the Terminators of the field because I tell them to hit hard. My boys bleed, get injured and feel pain like everyone else on the field.

My older son started his freshman year and he got his butt handed to him by much more experienced juniors and seniors. There was one game that he was completely punished and embarrassed. I think putting freshman in can hurt their confidence and puts them in harms way to soon. The difference between high school ball and college ball is huge.

Some schools don't have a choice to play freshmen.  Cornell has 55 kids on their roster.  They HAVE to play freshmen.  Back in the bad ole days for Dubuque, we had retention problems.  Going 0-10 or 1-9 most every year led to a lot of players giving it a try for 1 year and then leaving school.  Out of a roster of 100 players you probably had 5-6 seniors, maybe 10 juniors and maybe 15 sophomores.  You would have 70 freshmen and then 30 kids with a bit of experiance.  Freshmen got thrown to the wolves.  Some stuck it out, but most got their butt handed to them just like your son when he played as a freshman.  You are right that it might be a good idea to not let freshmen play, I just don't think it could work in reality.  And for every 8-9 freshmen that have no business out on the field, you will have 1-2 that most definately belong playing and even starting for their teams.  So in that case it would not be a good idea to ban freshmen.

Freshmen at established programs like Central and Wartburg will rarely see the field and will get their experiance on the JV squad before moving up to varsity and that problem takes care of itself.  But other programs don't have that luxury.  In the end, I don't think you can legislate something like that.  Just like legislating helmut to helmut can be tricky and hard to legislate.

[doolittledog]

So my wife tells me tonight.  "Wartburg is playing Dubuque this weekend?  We should go there sometime when Wartburg isn't playing Dubuque so we can cheer for the home team"  I think she is just playing up that angle because she thinks if we cheer for the home team we could get more free alcohol

Someone from Wartburg just let me know where and when to show up and what you want us to bring to the tailgate and we will make a list.  It will be nice to FINALLY make it to a game this year. 

[AZDutchman]

I was very hesitant on posting the question, should freshman play their first year? Why?, because I didn't want to show any kind of disrespect to the present situation. I'm sure there are a lot of, what ifs floating around a lot of people's minds. If you feel this should be deleted, please send me a personal message.

Myself, I answer the question NO. I don't know if 5WOL was thinking with the comment, Complete Contradiction, that I was thinking that my sons were the Terminators of the field because I tell them to hit hard. My boys bleed, get injured and feel pain like everyone else on the field.

My older son started his freshman year and he got his butt handed to him by much more experienced juniors and seniors. There was one game that he was completely punished and embarrassed. I think putting freshman in can hurt their confidence and puts them in harms way to soon. The difference between high school ball and college ball is huge.

Some schools don't have a choice to play freshmen.  Cornell has 55 kids on their roster.  They HAVE to play freshmen.  Back in the bad ole days for Dubuque, we had retention problems.  Going 0-10 or 1-9 most every year led to a lot of players giving it a try for 1 year and then leaving school.  Out of a roster of 100 players you probably had 5-6 seniors, maybe 10 juniors and maybe 15 sophomores.  You would have 70 freshmen and then 30 kids with a bit of experiance.  Freshmen got thrown to the wolves.  Some stuck it out, but most got their butt handed to them just like your son when he played as a freshman.  You are right that it might be a good idea to not let freshmen play, I just don't think it could work in reality.  And for every 8-9 freshmen that have no business out on the field, you will have 1-2 that most definately belong playing and even starting for their teams.  So in that case it would not be a good idea to ban freshmen.

Freshmen at established programs like Central and Wartburg will rarely see the field and will get their experiance on the JV squad before moving up to varsity and that problem takes care of itself.  But other programs don't have that luxury.  In the end, I don't think you can legislate something like that.  Just like legislating helmut to helmut can be tricky and hard to legislate.

I hear what you're saying, but just because a school can't field a team with the proper players should they just throw the 8-9 freshman to the wolves? Go ironman...or something.

I'm still wondering why the NCAA didn't allow freshman to play before?