Kornheiser: NFL to decline?

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

And the equivalent to this (outlawing football)  would be outlawing motorcycle riding...

Sorry, should have said it more clearly.  They can gradually put restrictions on the game until it's no longer interesting.  I'm not trying to argue with you, and I never claimed to be a psychic.  I just see a problem that is getting progressively worse.  If they don't fix it, they'll have to do away with it.

[bplewis24]

Boxing also shortened championship matches from 15 rounds to 12 for safety reasons as well.  Just an FYI.

The parallel doesn't really hold up.  Boxing's decline had almost nothing to do with lack of safety regulations and protecting of athletes and everything to do with lack of stars to continue growing the sport (due to other sports like golf, baseball, football and basketball, etc), as well as the move towards PPV, big-time revenue events and a lack of weekly boxing programming.  And lastly, inherent corruption within the sport has killed it as well.

Boxing used to be in households every weekend in the 80s and early 90s.  Now you probably watch 1-2 high profile PPV events per year, and they likely include some boxer well into his 30s or possibly 40s that may have been in those weekly matches of the early 90s.  There are no future superstars in that sport, and nobody cares about it anymore.  It has nothing to do with injuries.

Big-time boxing fan here...but I realize it's pretty much dead.

I'm also a big-time football fan.  I played the sport for years and it paid for my education through college and some of my non-amateur income for a time.  I also supplement my living by coaching it and making speaking engagements at camps and such.  Football isn't going anywhere, IMO.  Not now and not 15-30 years from now.  And there is NO WAY to legislate out head injuries.  All of these ignorant and idiotic penalties legislated into the game and judged by people who never played it aren't accomplishing anything other than affecting the outcome of some games.

The only way to LIMIT head trauma is by teaching proper tackling technique at a young age, and penalizing/fining spearing penalties and other attempts to specifically injure another player.  But helmet-to-helmet contact canNOT be legislated out of the sport, because it is physically impossible to control.

Brandon

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Boxing also shortened championship matches from 15 rounds to 12 for safety reasons as well.  Just an FYI.

The parallel doesn't really hold up.  Boxing's decline had almost nothing to do with lack of safety regulations and protecting of athletes and everything to do with lack of stars to continue growing the sport (due to other sports like golf, baseball, football and basketball, etc), as well as the move towards PPV, big-time revenue events and a lack of weekly boxing programming.  And lastly, inherent corruption within the sport has killed it as well.

Boxing used to be in households every weekend in the 80s and early 90s.  Now you probably watch 1-2 high profile PPV events per year, and they likely include some boxer well into his 30s or possibly 40s that may have been in those weekly matches of the early 90s.  There are no future superstars in that sport, and nobody cares about it anymore.  It has nothing to do with injuries.

Big-time boxing fan here...but I realize it's pretty much dead.

Brandon

I agree with you about corruption killing boxing.  Promoters like Don King ruined the sport.  Haven't had a true unified HW champ in forever.  MMA also has taken a huge bite out of their revenue.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I think if the NFL continues to ignore the concussion issues and not choose to be at the forefront of trying to combat them (namely new helmet technology) then I'd have to agree with everybody who says its on the decline.  During the season, I read the Gregg Easterbrooks 'TMQ' column on espn and he talks almost weekly about that very subject (It is a looooooooooooooong article, and he discusses a dozen different things, one of them frequently is helmets) and from that I have learned that the NFL is behind college and high school in helmet technology.  The NFL could take a big step forward by just requiring all players to use the newest, most concussion resistant helmets available.

Or they could get really creative and go the other way:  Ban helmets altogether or put the players back in leather.  Can't imagine you're gonna see a lot of 'leading with the head' penalties then.  (Of course that would be ridiculous and change the sport so drastically that its not football anymore)

One way or the other, big changes are going to have to be made, or else 3wiggle is going to be right.

If this is true, it makes sense. I know another poster said something about different helmets being better with different kinds of injuries, but not all linemen wear the same type of helmet, even those that are exposed to similar sort of injuries - i.e., a guard is unlikely to get a fracture, highly likely to get a concussion. So, would not be surprised if there is money in question. I know that's cliche to say, but this is one of many inconsistencies in the NFL's safety policies.

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

There's definitely something to the idea that helmets make players more likely to "lead with the head".  Similar arguments have fallen on deaf ears (of the sports establishment) for years but in the last few years there was a debate in women's lacrosse (theoretically non-contact, unlike men's lacrosse) on whether helmets should be required.  It was pointed out that helmets and padding in men's lacrosse, ice hockey, football, etc., had only made players more aggressive and, arguably, increased the rate of injury. (Of course, "protective" gear in general can be used as a weapon.  And it is.)

I never heard how it turned out.  Maybe they're still arguing.  At least the idea's getting a hearing.

There's a reason why they fall on deaf ears. Hard helmets were put in place because playing without them was even more dangerous!

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Boxing also shortened championship matches from 15 rounds to 12 for safety reasons as well.  Just an FYI.

The parallel doesn't really hold up.  Boxing's decline had almost nothing to do with lack of safety regulations and protecting of athletes and everything to do with lack of stars to continue growing the sport (due to other sports like golf, baseball, football and basketball, etc), as well as the move towards PPV, big-time revenue events and a lack of weekly boxing programming.  And lastly, inherent corruption within the sport has killed it as well.

Boxing used to be in households every weekend in the 80s and early 90s.  Now you probably watch 1-2 high profile PPV events per year, and they likely include some boxer well into his 30s or possibly 40s that may have been in those weekly matches of the early 90s.  There are no future superstars in that sport, and nobody cares about it anymore.  It has nothing to do with injuries.

Big-time boxing fan here...but I realize it's pretty much dead.

I'm also a big-time football fan.  I played the sport for years and it paid for my education through college and some of my non-amateur income for a time.  I also supplement my living by coaching it and making speaking engagements at camps and such.  Football isn't going anywhere, IMO.  Not now and not 15-30 years from now.  And there is NO WAY to legislate out head injuries.  All of these ignorant and idiotic penalties legislated into the game and judged by people who never played it aren't accomplishing anything other than affecting the outcome of some games.

The only way to LIMIT head trauma is by teaching proper tackling technique at a young age, and penalizing/fining spearing penalties and other attempts to specifically injure another player.  But helmet-to-helmet contact canNOT be legislated out of the sport, because it is physically impossible to control.

Brandon

I mostly agree with you, Brandon, however, I'm not so sure you can dismiss injuries as a part of the issue, because I think it fits into your argument quite well.  You say that one of the big reasons for boxings decline was the lack of stars, which I would agree with.  I would then argue that there are certainly as many (or more) men these days capable of being stars at boxing - seeing as how athletes in all other sports are bigger, stronger, faster, etc, so why aren't there more good boxers?  Because, presumably, those premier athletes are choosing other sports?  Why are they choosing other sports?  Who's to say that choice doesn't have something to do with injuries?  Who's to say it didn't have something to do with those athletes seeing how Muhammad Ali turned out in older age?  I obviously don't know, but I would bet there are a lot of cases where that would be the case.

And, like you said yourself, there is no way to legislate out the violent helmet to helmet contact in the sport. That is why I can see kids (or their parents - see my last post) making the choice to stick with basketball (or any other sport available to them) instead because the possibility of ending up with personal physical ailments or disablilties is just not worth it.  And as more and more kids start doing that, over time, you have a slow decline of football becoming eventually irrelevant or maybe even non-existent.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I mostly agree with you, Brandon, however, I'm not so sure you can dismiss injuries as a part of the issue, because I think it fits into your argument quite well.  You say that one of the big reasons for boxings decline was the lack of stars, which I would agree with.  I would then argue that there are certainly as many (or more) men these days capable of being stars at boxing - seeing as how athletes in all other sports are bigger, stronger, faster, etc, so why aren't there more good boxers?  Because, presumably, those premier athletes are choosing other sports?  Why are they choosing other sports?  Who's to say that choice doesn't have something to do with injuries?  Who's to say it didn't have something to do with those athletes seeing how Muhammad Ali turned out in older age?  I obviously don't know, but I would bet there are a lot of cases where that would be the case.

And, like you said yourself, there is no way to legislate out the violent helmet to helmet contact in the sport. That is why I can see kids (or their parents - see my last post) making the choice to stick with basketball (or any other sport available to them) instead because the possibility of ending up with personal physical ailments or disablilties is just not worth it.  And as more and more kids start doing that, over time, you have a slow decline of football becoming eventually irrelevant or maybe even non-existent.

Yes, one can make the argument that the health risks of boxing are pushing kids to other sports.  However, I think the money is a much bigger factor.  Only the top 1% (Mayweathers and Pacquiaos) make great money in boxing.  But in baseball and basketball, benchwarmers can make millions or at least hundreds of thousands per year.  And they are on tv, commercials and grocery store products.  I think once that started happening in the 70s-90s, the shift began.  I don't think boxing got appreciably more dangerous during that time.

There is still a risk-reward assessment as you suggest, but I think the focus is more on the "reward" segment of the ratio more so than the "risk" portion.  So where we disagree lies in that belief: since the rewards of football will continue to be high, most parents will ignore the risks associated.  In boxing, once the rewards started to diminish, so did the sport.  I can't see corporate sponsors and tv networks pulling their endorsements of the sport anytime soon.  It's going to be a cash cow for a while.  ESPECIALLY since fantasy football is just as popular as the NFL itself these days.

Brandon

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Yes, one can make the argument that the health risks of boxing are pushing kids to other sports.  However, I think the money is a much bigger factor.  Only the top 1% (Mayweathers and Pacquiaos) make great money in boxing.  But in baseball and basketball, benchwarmers can make millions or at least hundreds of thousands per year.  And they are on tv, commercials and grocery store products.  I think once that started happening in the 70s-90s, the shift began.  I don't think boxing got appreciably more dangerous during that time.

There is still a risk-reward assessment as you suggest, but I think the focus is more on the "reward" segment of the ratio more so than the "risk" portion.  So where we disagree lies in that belief: since the rewards of football will continue to be high, most parents will ignore the risks associated.  In boxing, once the rewards started to diminish, so did the sport.  I can't see corporate sponsors and tv networks pulling their endorsements of the sport anytime soon.  It's going to be a cash cow for a while.  ESPECIALLY since fantasy football is just as popular as the NFL itself these days.

Brandon

Yeah, I would agree with that ... money is a probably a much bigger factor.  And, you are also probably right about boxing not becoming more violent over time.  But I am just suggesting that kids were now able to see the long term effects of that violence in Ali, et al. and more of them maybe started second guessing the idea and chose something with possibly high rewards and a little less risk.

So along those lines, if cases of guys like Junior Seau and Dave Duerson and the center for the Steelers in the 70's (Sorry, I forgot his name at the moment) start becoming more and more prevalent, and the money in baseball and basketball remain as high as football, then I can easily see the beginning of a slow decline being partially triggered by less interest due to a higher risk.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Boxing also shortened championship matches from 15 rounds to 12 for safety reasons as well.  Just an FYI.

The parallel doesn't really hold up.  Boxing's decline had almost nothing to do with lack of safety regulations and protecting of athletes and everything to do with lack of stars to continue growing the sport (due to other sports like golf, baseball, football and basketball, etc), as well as the move towards PPV, big-time revenue events and a lack of weekly boxing programming.  And lastly, inherent corruption within the sport has killed it as well.

Boxing used to be in households every weekend in the 80s and early 90s.  Now you probably watch 1-2 high profile PPV events per year, and they likely include some boxer well into his 30s or possibly 40s that may have been in those weekly matches of the early 90s.  There are no future superstars in that sport, and nobody cares about it anymore.  It has nothing to do with injuries.

Big-time boxing fan here...but I realize it's pretty much dead.

I'm also a big-time football fan.  I played the sport for years and it paid for my education through college and some of my non-amateur income for a time.  I also supplement my living by coaching it and making speaking engagements at camps and such.  Football isn't going anywhere, IMO.  Not now and not 15-30 years from now.  And there is NO WAY to legislate out head injuries.  All of these ignorant and idiotic penalties legislated into the game and judged by people who never played it aren't accomplishing anything other than affecting the outcome of some games.

The only way to LIMIT head trauma is by teaching proper tackling technique at a young age, and penalizing/fining spearing penalties and other attempts to specifically injure another player.  But helmet-to-helmet contact canNOT be legislated out of the sport, because it is physically impossible to control.

Brandon

I mostly agree with you, Brandon, however, I'm not so sure you can dismiss injuries as a part of the issue, because I think it fits into your argument quite well.  You say that one of the big reasons for boxings decline was the lack of stars, which I would agree with.  I would then argue that there are certainly as many (or more) men these days capable of being stars at boxing - seeing as how athletes in all other sports are bigger, stronger, faster, etc, so why aren't there more good boxers?  Because, presumably, those premier athletes are choosing other sports?  Why are they choosing other sports?  Who's to say that choice doesn't have something to do with injuries?  Who's to say it didn't have something to do with those athletes seeing how Muhammad Ali turned out in older age?  I obviously don't know, but I would bet there are a lot of cases where that would be the case.

And, like you said yourself, there is no way to legislate out the violent helmet to helmet contact in the sport. That is why I can see kids (or their parents - see my last post) making the choice to stick with basketball (or any other sport available to them) instead because the possibility of ending up with personal physical ailments or disablilties is just not worth it.  And as more and more kids start doing that, over time, you have a slow decline of football becoming eventually irrelevant or maybe even non-existent.

Parents who don't want their kids to play a sport where getting a concussion is pretty much a foregone conclusion, there are plenty of options. For parents who want their kids to play something violent and not watered down like football and boxing have become (j/k) there's always MMA.

In Canada the concussion issue and of course the expensive equipment and time commitments have parents turning their kids away from elite hockey in droves. My kids will not likely play organized hockey. 20 years ago that would have been an outrage.

[Kapanda]

with the amount of regular season games in NHL, didn't really think wear and tear was that much of an issue in hockey...

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

with the amount of regular season games in NHL, didn't really think wear and tear was that much of an issue in hockey...

Huh?

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Huh?

What didn't you understand?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Huh?

What didn't you understand?

Your post.

[Kapanda]

I can't see how I could clarify it further, so if you could help me out...

[Golfingdad]

I think he is implying that it must not be that rough or violent of a sport because they are able to play 82 games in a season.  Not sure how he's come to that conclusion, but I'm guessing its not based on watching or playing the sport.

[LuciusWooding]

Yeah, I don't know. The NHL is the only sports league that condoned fistfights for a large portion of its existence, and it's the only sport where you can see the blood on the ice, unlike on grass or dirt. Sure the players wear a lot of pads, and they have to skate which limits their ability to put a hit on someone, but they check people into the boards all the time and it's only their awareness of what's coming and their extreme toughness that keeps the games going. I've never known a game where someone didn't play through an injury.

If the NFL allowed the offense a power play for every penalty, you'd see dirty play decline quickly.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I think he is implying that it must not be that rough or violent of a sport because they are able to play 82 games in a season.  Not sure how he's come to that conclusion, but I'm guessing its not based on watching or playing the sport.

Neither... rugby is also rough and violent, but it's not prone to concussions and wear and tear the same way high impact football is.

In my defence, I mentioned concussions specifically.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Neither... rugby is also rough and violent, but it's not prone to concussions and wear and tear the same way high impact football is.

In my defence, I mentioned concussions specifically.

Yes, but Sean was just asking for clarification on the post where you said you didn't think hockey players had "wear and tear" issues because of the number of games in a season.  And I was just curious as well.  It's a really vague statement.

[Kapanda]

sorry, meant to say that I mentioned wear and tear specifically