Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That lawsuit has been a long time coming. The thing most people don't realize is that a lot of the older players from the 60's and 70's weren't paid nearly as much as what the modern players are (many guys played for $50k a year which may have been good money then, but not enough to provide for the rest of your life) and were essentially abandoned by the league to deal with their health issues when their careers were over.
Even in the modern league, the average is only around $770k and most players only play for four seasons, not enough money to live a life on and deal with the health issues. Additionally, a lot of the most injury prone guys are the special teams players on kickoffs and returns. The average "wedge breaker" earns around $250k and lasts only a couple of years.
What the players want is for the league to step up, acknowledge the risks and take care of the many pros who simply do not have the financial resources to deal with the lifelong health issues they have from playing.
Not true. The NFL's absolute minimum is $390,000 for a bottom-level rookie who makes the 53-man roster. It goes up incrementally per year, so if you are a wedgebuster (my preferred term) who has played in the league six years, you are guaranteed $615,000. Not Peyton Manning money, but not poverty level either.
I almost made the League as a wedgebuster in the 1980s. I'm both sorry and glad I didn't. They indeed do not last very long at all.
Would youth football survive a tacking ban? One of the nation's leading experts on concussions thinks tackling should be delayed until at least 14 years of age, perhaps later. The details of why are contained in the linked article, and in the book.
Fourteen is also the soonest any child should be tackling on a football field, heading a soccer ball, or body checking an opponent on an ice hockey rink, according to a leading concussion expert.
"If kids don't have axillary (underarm) or pubic hair, they aren't ready to play," said Dr. Robert Cantu, a neurosurgeon at Emerson Hospital in Massachusetts and author of a new book, 'Concussion and Our Kids.' "And I have absolutely no problem with parents who want to hold a child out for longer, say 16 or 18."
And there is some substance behind the argument for waiting until 14, says Cantu, not the least of which is protecting young, developing brains. At 14, he says, several things enhance the body's ability to protect against head trauma. Before 14, there is a size disparity between the head and the body, causing what concussion experts call a "bobble-head" effect -- the head snaps back dramatically after it is hit. "Our youngsters have big heads on very weak necks and that combination sets up the brain for greater injury," said Cantu, a clinical professor of neurosurgery at Boston University School of Medicine.
I would have let my son play if he were passionate about it. Sure I would have worried but I worry about everything my kids do. Fortunately it never came up.
I would have let my son play if he were passionate about it. Sure I would have worried but I worry about everything my kids do. Fortunately it never came up.
But in this sport there is always contact and when there is head to head contact there is always a chance for concussion. I think those of us who would disallow football are worried because that is much different than something like baseball or soccer. In those sports, while there is always a chance for contact, it won't always happen. By nature of the game, contact ALWAYS happens during a football game.
I will attempt to avoid it. . .football is to hard on the brain.
and for the OP - guess what, sometimes people have concussions and don't know it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie
With the death of Junior Seau, and numerous reports of major brain injuries among other players, would you still be willing to allow your child to play football?
All three of my boys played, but two of them quit after breaking bones as sophomores. The third one played all 4 years of high school, and loved it.
He never had a concussion, but quite possibly caused a few.
Do the benefits of playing outweigh the risks? I realize most young kids will not be hurt, the danger is more apparent in high school and beyond. Of course, if the kids don't play early, there would be a ripple affect all the way up to the pros.
A lot of people don't think kids should even start:
Boys and young men are sometimes paralyzed by spinal injuries and some even die.
That is a possibility on a lot of things (Skiing for instance).
I think the concern with football is that "smashing heads" is more common part of the game, and happens more often. I..e Skiing if you hit your head, you messed up.
I would allow my kid to play if my kid wanted to play.
You could just get a child a playpen with soft sides, keep soft toys in it and never let him play anywhere else -- because like or not there are risks and dangers in just about everything outside that soft playpen you put them in when they were 4 months old.
Riding a bike is dangerous, talking a walk to the store is dangerous, water is dangerous, hiking is dangerous - but you cannot keep that child forever in that safe playpen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
