FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[amh63]

For what it's worth...Amherst has a writeup of the Bate's game and over 300 photos of the game.  My take of the write-up and pics...nothing "deep or sinister", due to childhood  passion for football that impacted me.
PolarCat...noticed that HC Mills gave your son some special attention even when the game was in the "bag" for Amherst...so to speak.  Indicates that Coach Mills is into the game....pic's also shows him chatting with some refs....must be asking for restaurant choices.
WCDad....did you make it back for the USC game?  I could not stay up for the outcome of the game.
Sticking with your 104 number, I see .
Going out on a limb here.....every since the start of QB and WRs started getting the plays from the sidelines, etc.  Remember offensive  players looking at wristband charts before the snap. Anyway, here goes.  Pics shows QB, WRs, RBs looking to the sidelines.  Number of pics showing the QBs on the sidelines using arm/ hand positions.  Three sideline QBs, each one with a different arm hand position.  Deducing that each sideline QB is signaling the play to a particular backfield/offensive position.  Any comments?  Same for the defensive players/ sets. 
Remember posters...to many dings in my childhood days.

[ColbyFootball]

The elite kicker is only as good as the rest of the field goal unit.  I saw Baron went 0-1 last week.  What happened?  Bad snap, bad hold, blocked kick, tried the FG from outside his range?  If Baron has a new snapper or holder, or an OL that lets guys through, Colby may not be able to count on those points.

Granted, I was watching from the new Trinity soccer field ... but I know it was a 44 yard attempt and my memory says it had the distance but was wide left.  Can't speak to the hold or snap ...

I believe Baron mussed one on a bad snap, and made one that was nullified by a tripping penalty.

[PolarCat]

You are absolutely right. Youth football with the youngest kids is like slow motion bumper cars. The major fault of this PR disaster is with the NFL. The have the resources to make known just how much safer the game is, and they've failed.

The NFL gets a double helping of blame / shame.  As you correctly note, the PR disaster is one.  The other was the league's proclivity for allowing / encouraging concussed players to stay in the game.  That's the real elephant in the room here.

[ColbyFootball]

Wow.  Where did that come from?  Here are my comments, scientific or not.

• Tobacco.  That's an insulting straw man argument.  Please.  You can do better.
• Sample size.  The study was based on a whopping 214 (two hundred and fourteen) men who played football.  I'd be willing to bet there are +/- 40 million men in this country that played football at some point in their lives.
• Sample integrity.  32% of the sample played in the NFL.  48% played college ball.  Does that sound like a representative cross section of former youth football players to you?  Is there any possible way to posit that the cognitive issues arose because of YOUTH FOOTBALL, not playing in college or the pros?
• Control group.  What was it?  How was it defined?  Was there even a control group?  Or did the researchers look only at their 214 man sample, and extrapolate that there was a trend toward more impairment the longer one had played the game?
• Post hoc ergo prompter hoc logic.  What was really the determining variable here?  The age at which the kids started playing?  The number of years they played?  Or the ferociousness with which they played?  I find it impossible to believe there is no statistical difference between a kid who plays Pop Warner for 5 seasons, with a kid who has a passion for the game and grows up to play D1 or makes it to the NFL.  It feels to me like the researchers disregarded other hypotheses which would fit their data.
• The average age of the study participants was 51.  Remember what our helmets were like in the 1970's?  Is there much / any resemblance between those buckets to the stuff kids wear today?  Heck, my first experiences in tackle football were sans helmet, playing on the sandlot.  I'm sure others here can relate.

How about a study of a REPRESENTATIVE sample of American men who played football, including those who never played HS ball, never played college ball, and never made it to the pros?  I'd place credence in that study.  This smacks of sensationalism.

PS: Anecdotal evidence, from my own small sample size of 2: My kids both suffered multiple concussions in youth sports.  But the sports responsible were soccer and lacrosse.  Fit that into the data and tell me why youth football should be vilified?

Agree with every point you made. Infortunatelt you're wasting your breath.

[nescac1]

PolarCat, your second post is a LOT better than your first.  The only actual argument you gave at first was "some successful people have played football, therefore football must not be dangerous."  That is just a logical fallacy.  Now you are at least critiquing the methodology of the study in legitimate ways, which may well be on-point.  And this isn't the first time you've mocked the idea that football might actually pose some real dangers to its participants, and suggest that those who are concerned simply need to man up and stop worrying.   

Sample size isn't a real issue -- that is certainly a statistically significant number.  Your other critiques seem far more on point.  I haven't read the study, nor do I have any expertise that would lead me to criticize or defend it.  Maybe this study was poorly-constructed.  I have no idea what they controlled for or what sort of regression analysis they ran to account for folks who played football for different lengths of time.  All I am saying is that we are seeing study after study after study showing that playing football, in certain contexts, leads to a serious risk of brain damage.  Clearly, this is true for NFL players.  It makes sense to worry that even a far slower version of tackle football might be especially dangerous to very young children whose brains are in an early stage of development.   This isn't a joke.  This isn't a witch-hunt.  And it shouldn't be treated as such.  If this study is insufficient or inadequate or flawed in some, and it may well be, fine -- I agree with you -- let's conduct more and better studies involving different populations.  By all means, the more the better.  More knowledge of this issue can only improve our understanding of the risks.  But it's not a hysterical "witch hunt" to be very concerned about issue when we know that, at least for folks who play football at very high levels, massive brain damage is a common outcome. 

[PolarCat]

PolarCat, your second post is a LOT better than your first. 

Gosh, should I be flattered?  Do I get a cookie?  Clearly, your opinion is much more important than my own.

...we know that, at least for folks who play football at very high levels, massive brain damage is a common outcome.

On this we can agree.  My unscientific opinion is that the CTE we see in the NFL is due primarily to the physical trauma of 300 pound men crashing into each other at high speed, and the shameful practice of encouraging those players to stay in the game when concussed.  Pop Warner screwing up kids' brains and lives?  Show me the study of kids who played Pop Warner, didn't start in HS, play in college, or make it to the NFL.  And use a control group of all the other kids who didn't play football, but played soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey or field hockey.  Even kids who sailed competitively, as both mine did.  Taking a 420 boom to the head will give you a pretty nasty concussion, to the point where HS teams are starting to wear helmets on the water.

Until you can show me that concussions incurred in youth football occur more frequently and/or have a statistically more significant impact than concussions in those other sports, I will stand by my witch hunt comments. 

If you want your grandkids to grow up munching Cheetos and playing Call of Duty on the X-Box, fine.  I'll keep mine active.  And until a study shows empirically and unequivocally that youth football is more harmful than other sports, it will remain an option.

[lumbercat]

Can any of the Polar Bear faithful provide an update on the renovations at Whittier? Was thinking there might be photos around- love to see the finished product. Should be a real emotional boost for the Black and White this week.

[nescac1]

My opinion isn't more important than yours.  But if you make a ridiculous argument, to include the first nonsensical anecdotal argument you made in this discussion, don't be upset if someone calls you out on it.  Sorry if that hurts your feelings (I thought you were too much of a tough guy to believe in hurt feelings, my bad; why is it always the guys who call everyone else snowflakes who are so quick to take offense?). 

As for the rest of it, there are respected studies out there that show this issue is not limited to only NFL players.  There are legitimate questions about how far down the football food chain the issue extends to.  Some people might prefer willful blindness over caution.  I'd rather know the risks.  And while you apparently believe that the only alternative to playing youth football is munching Cheetos and playing video games, that would come as news to the millions of participants in youth sports other than football, or vigorous physical activities other than organized sports, for that matter.   If, in the end, scientists determine that football poses unacceptable risks for developing brains, it does not signal the end of all physical activity for young people.   

[PolarCat]

Take time out from being condescending and re-read my post.  My kids both got concussed playing youth soccer and youth lacrosse.  They also participated in dinghy racing and ski racing; although neither of them were concussed in those sports, lots of their friends and teammates were.  My kids did not play hockey, but my God, were a lot of kids at their school banged up playing it.  In fact, their rink is the Travis Roy rink, named after the graduate who became a paraplegic after being checked hard into the boards during his first shift in college.

From my perspective, no one is asking if there is a statistically significant difference between "the millions of participants in youth sports other than football" vs. the kids playing Pop Warner.  The primary spokesman for concussion awareness in this country is Taylor Twellman.  To the best of my knowledge, Taylor never played football.  He played that gentler "beautiful game" where men and women sans helmets bang heads with each other.

To me, it is "willful blindness" to pretend that football causes a problem, and other youth sports do not.  Show me a well-constructed study that proves otherwise, and I will change my tune.

[nescac1]

Congrats on shifting the goal-posts far from anything you said in your initial post, PolarCat, but yes, I agree that the impact on long-term health from any sport that involves frequent, high-impact, head-to-head collisions should be studied as well.  That doesn't mean that studies focused on football represent some sort of hysterical witch-hunt. 

[PolarCat]

Then why do the studies I've seen only focus on football?  Where are the studies on other youth sports?  If witch hunt is too strong a term for you, why are we only vilifying football, and why does Taylor Twellman have to work so hard to gather support and funding?

And why only be concerned with head-to-head?  Head-to-basketball-court, head-to-dinghy-boom, head-to-rink-boards and head-to-lacrosse-stick may only impact one player at a time, but those concussions are no less real.

[lumbercat]

Nescacman

Don't think it has anything to do with being a tough guy or hurt feelings. I know you have strong feelings and opinions on the issue but this is nothing more than a case of someone with a differing opinion and he's documented his position very well.

I wouldn't take sarcastic comments about cheetos and video games out of context.

I think Polarcat makes very strong points relative to that "study" and the nature of the problem in general.
The whole tobacco thing is a miss.

I'm sure will see a lot more on this issue but if anyone is running for the exit based on this study I think that's a mistake.

[nescac1]

Why?  Probably because of the large number of prominent former NFL players suffering from severe, obvious brain damage, including a number who committed suicide.  A former NFL player I know was a friend and teammate of Seau's, and he has become more of an activist in this area as a consequence.  A lot of guys are really terrified, and for good reason.  Just like boxing has come under more scrutiny than other athletic endeavors in part because of the many former boxers, some very prominent, exhibiting early signs of cognitive decline. 

I'm not aware of this being a widespread issue among, say, former NBA players.  If a few NBA hall-of-famers had left suicide notes saying that participation in the sport contributed to their death, then I'm sure the NBA would be getting the same type of scrutiny.  And as you and others have acknowledged, the NFL's long-term policy of total disregard for the health of its former players certainly didn't help matters.  So it's not surprising that football would receive the most initial scrutiny.  It doesn't preclude expansion of this field of studies to other sports, which I imagine is already happening, and if not, is surely imminent.  It's fine to scrutinize studies closely.  But this shouldn't be treated as a joke or a farce.  That's all I'm trying to get at ...

[IslandTime]

Wow.  Where did that come from?  Here are my comments, scientific or not.

• Tobacco.  That's an insulting straw man argument.  Please.  You can do better.
• Sample size.  The study was based on a whopping 214 (two hundred and fourteen) men who played football.  I'd be willing to bet there are +/- 40 million men in this country that played football at some point in their lives.
• Sample integrity.  32% of the sample played in the NFL.  48% played college ball.  Does that sound like a representative cross section of former youth football players to you?  Is there any possible way to posit that the cognitive issues arose because of YOUTH FOOTBALL, not playing in college or the pros?
• Control group.  What was it?  How was it defined?  Was there even a control group?  Or did the researchers look only at their 214 man sample, and extrapolate that there was a trend toward more impairment the longer one had played the game?
• Post hoc ergo prompter hoc logic.  What was really the determining variable here?  The age at which the kids started playing?  The number of years they played?  Or the ferociousness with which they played?  I find it impossible to believe there is no statistical difference between a kid who plays Pop Warner for 5 seasons, with a kid who has a passion for the game and grows up to play D1 or makes it to the NFL.  It feels to me like the researchers disregarded other hypotheses which would fit their data.
• The average age of the study participants was 51.  Remember what our helmets were like in the 1970's?  Is there much / any resemblance between those buckets to the stuff kids wear today?  Heck, my first experiences in tackle football were sans helmet, playing on the sandlot.  I'm sure others here can relate.

How about a study of a REPRESENTATIVE sample of American men who played football, including those who never played HS ball, never played college ball, and never made it to the pros?  I'd place credence in that study.  This smacks of sensationalism.

PS: Anecdotal evidence, from my own small sample size of 2: My kids both suffered multiple concussions in youth sports.  But the sports responsible were soccer and lacrosse.  Fit that into the data and tell me why youth football should be vilified?

Great post! Thank you.

[PolarCat]

Your honor, the defense rests.