How fast will college football die?

[skibum]

I think the writing is on the wall; the only question is how long does it hold on? 10 years? 20? 50?

Bob Costas: "This game destroys people's brains."

Aaron Hernandez suffered from most severe CTE ever found in a person his age

The Aaron Hernandez story is scary: we are crossing a point where it's no longer the player's own safety that is at risk: the safety of others is at risk too. CTE doesn't just cause suicide; it increases violence towards others.

I think sometime in the next 5-15 years a non-cellar dwelling P5 school is going to drop their program; once that happens it will take about 10 years before it's a mainly a regional college sport (like hockey is today).

If I were a college AD, my long term plan would include putting resources toward developing sports other than football that have the potential to fill a stadium.

 

[Jello Bear]

Man, what a depressing story. I'm willing to believe that CTE played a significant, if not definitive, role in his behavior and how he ended up.

Ventricles were dilated, in response to the brain shrinking. Researchers determined Hernandez had lost brain tissue. Membranes that were supposed to be firm had grown “thin and gelatinous,” McKee said. There were abnormal, large holes in parts of Hernandez’s brain.
The hippocampus, which plays a key role in memory, had shrunk.
The fornix, which also contributes to memory function, had atrophied.
The frontal lobe, which is responsible for problem-solving, judgment, impulse control and social behavior, had been pockmarked with tau protein.
The amygdala, which produces emotional regulation, emotional behavior, fear and anxiety, had been severly affected.
The temporal lobes, which process sights and sounds, showed significant damage.
Together, they were “very unusual findings in an individual of this age,” McKee said. “We’ve never seen this in our 468 brains, except in individuals some 20 years older.”

 

[TDforTD]

Here’s another good read about Chris Borland, who walked away from millions of dollars.

After blowing up a wedge against Wofford, he couldn't remember the rest of the game, including his own blocked punt, which led to a touchdown.

Scary stuff.

 

[NeverGiveIn]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole “controversy” is the people who act like this stuff is an earth-shattering revelation or discovery.

OF COURSE it’s not good for you! You’re telling me you thought you could bash your head into people as hard as you can over and over and over again AS A CAREER without any consequences? It’s common sense. Go ask a 5 year old on the street if they think it’s a good idea. But the players aren’t stupid, they must have some common sense and agency, and they choose to hit and be hit ruthlessly hard over and over and over again as their career, and get overpaid to do it.

Consenting adults can do what they’d like and still have control of their actions, I refuse to believe since Aaron Hernandez had CTE and made horrible decisions that therefore we’re going to get rid of a sport that he played. Now that Will Smith has informed everyone who didn’t realize that hitting and being hit in the head by huge dudes for a living wasn’t good for your brain, it’s up to them to decide if they want to do it. And they will, because they’re paid handsomely.

 

[DBT]

Wasn’t Hernandez displaying anti social behavior in college? If so, did he have severe CTE even then? Isn’t the problem with CTE research that, for the most part, they are only studying the brains of former NFL players who displayed behavior associated with the desensitized? Hopefully we can develop ways to study CTE on living patients.

 

[skibum]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole “controversy” is the people who act like this stuff is an earth-shattering revelation or discovery.

OF COURSE it’s not good for you! You’re telling me you thought you could bash your head into people as hard as you can over and over and over again AS A CAREER without any consequences? It’s common sense. Go ask a 5 year old on the street if they think it’s a good idea. But the players aren’t stupid, they must have some common sense and agency, and they choose to hit and be hit ruthlessly hard over and over and over again as their career, and get overpaid to do it.

Consenting adults can do what they’d like and still have control of their actions, I refuse to believe since Aaron Hernandez had CTE and made horrible decisions that therefore we’re going to get rid of a sport that he played. Now that Will Smith has informed everyone who didn’t realize that hitting and being hit in the head by huge dudes for a living wasn’t good for your brain, it’s up to them to decide if they want to do it. And they will, because they’re paid handsomely.

Why is it easy to conclude that brain injuries can result in violence towards one's self (suicide), but not violence towards others (murder)?

Read up on Charles Whitman sometime - scary **** what a poorly placed tumor can do to a morally outstanding young man.

For a really good read (that yes, delves into very difficult questions of free will), try this article from the Atlantic:
The Brain on Trial

There are too many well documented cases of people's brains being altered (by trauma, tumors, medication or disease), and them engaging in violent behaviour towards themselves and others to dismiss.

 

[Duff Man]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole “controversy” is the people who act like this stuff is an earth-shattering revelation or discovery.

OF COURSE it’s not good for you! You’re telling me you thought you could bash your head into people as hard as you can over and over and over again AS A CAREER without any consequences? It’s common sense. Go ask a 5 year old on the street if they think it’s a good idea. But the players aren’t stupid, they must have some common sense and agency, and they choose to hit and be hit ruthlessly hard over and over and over again as their career, and get overpaid to do it.

Consenting adults can do what they’d like and still have control of their actions, I refuse to believe since Aaron Hernandez had CTE and made horrible decisions that therefore we’re going to get rid of a sport that he played. Now that Will Smith has informed everyone who didn’t realize that hitting and being hit in the head by huge dudes for a living wasn’t good for your brain, it’s up to them to decide if they want to do it. And they will, because they’re paid handsomely.

"The only problem I have with this controversy is people complaining."

 

[SerenityBuff]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole “controversy” is the people who act like this stuff is an earth-shattering revelation or discovery.

OF COURSE it’s not good for you! You’re telling me you thought you could bash your head into people as hard as you can over and over and over again AS A CAREER without any consequences? It’s common sense. Go ask a 5 year old on the street if they think it’s a good idea. But the players aren’t stupid, they must have some common sense and agency, and they choose to hit and be hit ruthlessly hard over and over and over again as their career, and get overpaid to do it.

Consenting adults can do what they’d like and still have control of their actions, I refuse to believe since Aaron Hernandez had CTE and made horrible decisions that therefore we’re going to get rid of a sport that he played. Now that Will Smith has informed everyone who didn’t realize that hitting and being hit in the head by huge dudes for a living wasn’t good for your brain, it’s up to them to decide if they want to do it. And they will, because they’re paid handsomely.

You're missing the point. It's not about consenting adults choosing to do what they want. It's about the future generations of kids whose parents are not going to allow their children to play a game that destroys their brains. Those kids who never play youth football will never go on to play high school, college, and pro football.

Speaking for myself, I have a two year old son and as soon as I found out I was having a boy, I couldn't wait for him to play a sport I played and loved growing up. But as more information about repeated sub-concussive events (much less actual concussions) and the cumulative damage that they do is presented, I can't in good conscience allow my son to participate. I have a larger responsibility to him and his long term health than sharing the love of playing the game. I have a feeling this same belief is slowly making its way around the country with other parents as well. So, baseball it is. They get paid more and their contracts are guaranteed, anyway.

 

[Buffnik]

I guess the big question for the board is whether you will still watch if high school/ college/ pro football becomes much more like the 7v7 style traveling teams and they wear shell helmets?

 

[BuffLuke80]

I told my son he could play as long as his grades were where they needed to be and he was aware of this stuff. I'll keep my word.

 

[hokiehead]

I think you're dead on. I hate thinking about this subject. I love football, but yes, it is a dying sport.

here's the deal: professional football players make good money. elite professional football players make ridiculous money. but most never reach that level, so, if the concussion/CTE learnings over the last few years are correct*, choosing to play football causes the player to incur risk.

the choice of taking on risk for a chance at wealth is nothing new. we see this all over society; its the vary basis of entrepreneurship. as a society, we're OK with people risking everything to start a business. we're OK with gamblers risking money for the chance to win big. we're OK with porn stars risking STDs. in athletics, we're OK with baseball pitchers risking damage to their shoulders, we're OK with basketball players risking damage to their knees.

the difference here is that players are taking on physical risk to the brain, and that is a significant enough delta to get a lot of people focused.

the moral question is whether I am OK with the idea of knowing that the players take that risk upon themselves in exchange for a small chance at incredible wealth. for now, I am perfectly OK with that -- Go Buffs, Go Hokies, Go Badgers!

* I don't necessarily disbelieve the recent CTE news, but I am reserving judgement for the time being. the shot above of Hernandez's brain after death, without a comparison of what his brain looked like before he starte dplaying and (2) a baseline of what

 

[Fight CU]

I guess the big question for the board is whether you will still watch if high school/ college/ pro football becomes much more like the 7v7 style traveling teams and they wear shell helmets?

no

 

[Daaah]

I guess the big question for the board is whether you will still watch if high school/ college/ pro football becomes much more like the 7v7 style traveling teams and they wear shell helmets?

Aren't that guy's ears really low?

 

[DBT]

Aren't that guy's ears really low?

He looks like a dummy.

 

[NeverGiveIn]

You're missing the point. It's not about consenting adults choosing to do what they want. It's about the future generations of kids whose parents are not going to allow their children to play a game that destroys their brains. Those kids who never play youth football will never go on to play high school, college, and pro football.

Speaking for myself, I have a two year old son and as soon as I found out I was having a boy, I couldn't wait for him to play a sport I played and loved growing up. But as more information about repeated sub-concussive events (much less actual concussions) and the cumulative damage that they do is presented, I can't in good conscience allow my son to participate. I have a larger responsibility to him and his long term health than sharing the love of playing the game. I have a feeling this same belief is slowly making its way around the country with other parents as well. So, baseball it is. They get paid more and their contracts are guaranteed, anyway.

Yeah, that's a valid perspective. I just think kids growing up don't really hit each other as hard (or for as many times successively) as is generally needed for CTE to manifest (my opinion). I.e. the longer you play, the more likelihood of the repeated small injuries to take a toll. And your brain has a bit more plasticity in younger years. So while you're right that if you want to keep them from as much potential harm to their brain as possible, one would avoid putting kids in football. And your point is a trickle-down one - if fewer parents are letting their sons play football, smaller talent pool going forward, less talent and interest in college level, then less at professional. Makes sense.

But my guess is that if you were to pour $100 million into a study, they probably wouldn't find much of a difference in temperament or intellect attributable to football hits in younger age groups, but you would see a difference in older players who've played for a long time....however it would be difficult to tell whether their higher proportion of NFL players with aberrant behavior/cognition is related to selection bias (i.e. maybe people who get into the NFL tend to be more antisocial or less likely to hold onto memories, etc.). I bet there is a measurable cerebral volume loss in NFL players and I bet CTE is associated with behavioral/cognitive dysfunction. I guess my only point is that this is like anything else in life. Assess the pros and the cons objectively, weigh against your priorities, and make a decision that makes sense in your life. Then accept the benefits and consequences alike.

I think CTE is sad and can be a big toll on lives. I just don't know that anyone's to BLAME, it strikes me as "yeah, duh it's bad for your brain". I also realize this thread isn't really about my pet peeves, it's about the effects of the CTE phenomenon on the future of the sport, so I reckon I'll just leave it there.

 

[aghcsm]

I think you're dead on. I hate thinking about this subject. I love football, but yes, it is a dying sport.

here's the deal: professional football players make good money. elite professional football players make ridiculous money. but most never reach that level, so, if the concussion/CTE learnings over the last few years are correct*, choosing to play football causes the player to incur risk.

the choice of taking on risk for a chance at wealth is nothing new. we see this all over society; its the vary basis of entrepreneurship. as a society, we're OK with people risking everything to start a business. we're OK with gamblers risking money for the chance to win big. we're OK with porn stars risking STDs. in athletics, we're OK with baseball pitchers risking damage to their shoulders, we're OK with basketball players risking damage to their knees.

the difference here is that players are taking on physical risk to the brain, and that is a significant enough delta to get a lot of people focused.

the moral question is whether I am OK with the idea of knowing that the players take that risk upon themselves in exchange for a small chance at incredible wealth. for now, I am perfectly OK with that -- Go Buffs, Go Hokies, Go Badgers!

* I don't necessarily disbelieve the recent CTE news, but I am reserving judgement for the time being. the shot above of Hernandez's brain after death, without a comparison of what his brain looked like before he starte dplaying and (2) a baseline of what

Agree with perhaps one major exception/clarification. The recent study suggests that virtually ALL players in the NFL may have damaged brains. This is extremely disturbing and goes beyond “risk” in the normal sense, where a problem might have a 1%, 5% or even 25% chance of occurring. If the results are supported, and I would need considerably more studies and details to draw solid conclusions, this would mean that playing football into the NFL level WILL result in brain damage, not just risks it. That sort of conclusion would solidly kill football as we know it.

 

[patebuff]

We know so much more about this than 5, 10, 20 years ago. Parents have the choice to talk to their kids about this and the issues that come with CTE and the repeated blows to the head. It's something every parent and child has to decide and everyone needs to be educated on.

NFL and D1 colleges have huge insurance policies to protect themselves against lawsuits that will come from CTE. The sport will shrink in numbers, but there will always be people willing to play the game of tackle football due to the huge amounts of money. People also love the sport and want to play it.

In two weeks we will have threads about how wussified the game of tackle football has become because some player got ejected for targeting. It's a never ending debate.

 

[skibum]

* I don't necessarily disbelieve the recent CTE news, but I am reserving judgement for the time being. the shot above of Hernandez's brain after death, without a comparison of what his brain looked like before he starte dplaying and (2) a baseline of what

I'm going to make an uncomfortable observation: you are setting up a standard of proof that can never be met. Which is a great thing to do if you want to be able to ignore a problem.

I would be careful with setting a priori standards of "proof," it closes off your mind to other types of evidence which can, eventually, become compelling enough on their own.

 

[NeverGiveIn]

Why is it easy to conclude that brain injuries can result in violence towards one's self (suicide), but not violence towards others (murder)?

Read up on Charles Whitman sometime - scary **** what a poorly placed tumor can do to a morally outstanding young man.

For a really good read (that yes, delves into very difficult questions of free will), try this article from the Atlantic:
The Brain on Trial

There are too many well documented cases of people's brains being altered (by trauma, tumors, medication or disease), and them engaging in violent behaviour towards themselves and others to dismiss.

Oh there's no question brains are "altered" by lesions or trauma. They absolutely are. We can all agree on that. But no one cares about what their brain looks like on MRI. Or rather, that in and of itself doesn't alter someone's life. You can have an MRI or CT with lots of atrophy (in older people, for example), but the person feels fine. Sure, you might find something if you really did rigorous psychological testing, but really, if the person feels fine and has no complaints, is it worth it?

The questions that are more important are:
To what extent are behavioral/cognitive changes able to be classified as "abnormal" compared to an otherwise similar (if not for the repeated traumas) cohort?
To what extent does MRI evidence of damage correlate with behavioral/cognitive changes?
If MRI's don't correlate with damage accumulation well enough (and I'm quite sure they wouldn't, realistically), what is a better tool to measure the clinical effects of these repeated injuries?
How much is too much? Are different people's brains more or less susceptible?
And where's the line - is every potentially harmful activity or avocation waiting in line to be shut down?

I don't know, I'm just spitballing here, but it would probably take hundreds of millions of dollars to answer all these questions, and my instinct tells me the answers would be pretty much exactly what common sense would tell you. A lot of "well, it depends", and eventual conclusions that sound a little, "yeah, duh". And who's going to pay for it? Taxpayers? Is that really a good use of tax dollars? To see how many multimillion dollar seasons Tom Brady can get in before retiring to be a well-dressed commentator on TV with a yacht and 4 houses? Or worse, Colin Kaepernick? Taxpayers ain't gonna wanna pony up for these ultra rich dudes who make 100 times what they do playing a game. Personally, I would rather the government fund research to improve treatments for potentially treatable diseases that apply to society as a whole. I mean what percentage of the population plays pro football? You could probably apply some concepts from something the government would (and should) pay to study, like military brain injuries, but is that really the same thing? Same cohort, same repeated injuries? Not really.

So who else would pay? The NFL? They're a business, they have no vested interest in pouring all their profits into looking for ways to limit their talent supply in the future. I think football will die a slower death of a thousand cuts, people publishing occasional studies (ideally funded by NFL players' philanthropic dollars themselves, which would be truly admirable, but that requires them to give up some of their money) in spite of those financial barriers and how difficult these things are to study (and how long it likely takes to follow one player through their career is what, 20 years?), the league slowly increasing the strictness of hitting rules, fans slowly getting less interested because there's so many penalties and softer play, people nervous about letting their kids take a hit wrapping them in bubble wrap, I think it'll evolve into obscurity in America because we're so, I don't know, for lack of a better word....high-strung, not because we showed conclusively that it was a problem that we identified very specifically, knew exactly what the consequences are, and acted to prevent them, and didn't infringe on personal liberties.

Interestingly, you never hear about CTE in rugby players. You also never hear about kids with peanut allergies being fed with a peanut-based nutritional substitute (which is real) in Subsaharan Africa. I leave you to think about why that might be.

 

[Highlander]

I guess the big question for the board is whether you will still watch if high school/ college/ pro football becomes much more like the 7v7 style traveling teams and they wear shell helmets?

My bet is they go to no helmets, no leading with the head, no contact to the head, but desperately try to maintain as much of the game as exists today.

Not sure if it works or not, but that is what I expect within the next 5 years.

I refuse to use the phrase “maintain integrity of the game” because they lost that privilege when they tried to bury this **** for years.

 

[DBT]

Agree with perhaps one major exception/clarification. The recent study suggests that virtually ALL players in the NFL May have damaged brains. This is extremely disturbing and goes beyond “risk” in the normal sense, where a problem might have a 1%, 5% or even 25% chance of occurring. If the results are supported, and I need considerably more studies and details to draw solid conclusions, this would mean that playing football into the NFL level WILL result in brain damage, not just risks it. That sort of conclusion would solidly kill football as we know it.

So, I’m not sure if I have it correct, but almost all of those brains of former NFL players that they studied showed signs. But most of those were in the study because they either died prematurely or showed signs in some way while they were alive. My point is that there needs to be a better sampling in the studies.

 

[Townie]

I guess the big question for the board is whether you will still watch if high school/ college/ pro football becomes much more like the 7v7 style traveling teams and they wear shell helmets?

I'v been predicting for a while that some state will impose weight limits on high school players, which (once California did it) would quickly have to be adopted by colleges. Then to something like this.

I think it could be fun, and open up the game to athletes who can't/won't play now. I think I'd get used to it. Could be a lot of fun. Wouldn't be the same game thiugh.

 

[NeverGiveIn]

Oh there's no question brains are "altered" by lesions or trauma. They absolutely are. We can all agree on that. But no one cares about what their brain looks like on MRI. Or rather, that in and of itself doesn't alter someone's life. You can have an MRI or CT with lots of atrophy (in older people, for example), but the person feels fine. Sure, you might find something if you really did rigorous psychological testing, but really, if the person feels fine and has no complaints, is it worth it?

The questions that are more important are:
To what extent are behavioral/cognitive changes able to be classified as "abnormal" compared to an otherwise similar (if not for the repeated traumas) cohort?
To what extent does MRI evidence of damage correlate with behavioral/cognitive changes?
If MRI's don't correlate with damage accumulation well enough (and I'm quite sure they wouldn't, realistically), what is a better tool to measure the clinical effects of these repeated injuries?
How much is too much? Are different people's brains more or less susceptible?

I don't know, I'm just spitballing here, but it would probably take hundreds of millions of dollars to answer all these questions, and my instinct tells me the answers would be pretty much exactly what common sense would tell you. A lot of "well, it depends", and eventual conclusions that sound a little, "yeah, duh". And who's going to pay for it? Taxpayers? Is that really a good use of tax dollars? To see how many multimillion dollar seasons Tom Brady can get in before retiring to be a well-dressed commentator on TV with a yacht and 4 houses? Or worse, Colin Kaepernick? Taxpayers ain't gonna wanna pony up for these ultra rich dudes who make 100 times what they do playing a game. Personally, I would rather the government fund research to improve treatments for potentially treatable diseases that apply to society as a whole. I mean what percentage of the population plays pro football? You could probably apply some concepts from something the government would (and should) pay to study, like military brain injuries, but is that really the same thing? Same cohort, same repeated injuries? Not really.

So who else would pay? The NFL? They're a business, they have no vested interest in pouring all their profits into looking for ways to limit their talent supply in the future. I think football will die a slower death of a thousand cuts, people publishing occasional studies (ideally funded by NFL players' philanthropic dollars themselves, but that requires them to give up some of their money) in spite of those financial barriers and how difficult these things are to study (and how long it likely takes to follow one player through their career is what, 20 years?), the league slowly increasing the strictness of hitting rules, fans slowly getting less interested because there's so many penalties and softer play, people nervous about letting their kids take a hit wrapping them in bubble wrap, I think it'll evolve into obscurity in America because we're so, I don't know, for lack of a better word....high-strung, not because we showed conclusively that it was a problem that we identified very specifically, knew exactly what the consequences are, and acted to prevent them, and didn't infringe on personal liberties.

Interestingly, you never hear about CTE in rugby players. You also never hear about kids with peanut allergies being fed with a peanut-based nutritional substitute (which is real) in Subsaharan Africa. I leave you to think about why that might be.

Jesus, long-winded much? ....didn't even really answer the question.

 

[Buffnik]

My bet is they go to no helmets, no leading with the head, no contact to the head, but desperately try to maintain as much of the game as exists today.

Not sure if it works or not, but that is what I expect within the next 5 years.

I refuse to use the phrase “maintain integrity of the game” because they lost that privilege when they tried to bury this **** for years.

That’s what I think, too. And I think the NFLPA will like it a lot. Not even primarily for safety reasons but because it’s easier to market yourself if fans can see your face.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Haven’t read most of this thread, but as long as there is a business that is willing to pay millions of dollars/year to its employees to play a game, that game (and it’s affiliate leagues) will exist.

 

[Buffnik]

Haven’t read most of this thread, but as long as there is a business that is willing to pay millions of dollars/year to its employees to play a game, that game (and it’s affiliate leagues) will exist.

For sure. But what if no high school is able to insure its liability any more? Where will the players come from? I think it will change first at the youth/HS level which we fund publicly or through parental donations. College and pro dominos fall from there.

 

[Always BUFF]

It'll go to either VR or robotics....played by 13-18 yr olds all for a smidgen of the money that players are making today. Just think a game with no penalties and just two 5 minute bathroom breaks and one substitution in case of a bad hot pocket. Problem solved

 

[skibum]

I think it's something that's going to snowball. Every year we'll hear about more and more high schools going to 8-man, or shutting down entirely (and here) (even in SEC country). That's going to start "trickling up," and sooner than a lot of people realize.

At some point, a P5 program is going to have a critical number of students, parents, administrators and alumni who look at the conference distributions and say "it's not worth it."

Once a P5 program does that, I give college football as we know it less than 10 years. The professional game will likely have a different trajectory.

 

[hokiehead]

I'm going to make an uncomfortable observation: you are setting up a standard of proof that can never be met. Which is a great thing to do if you want to be able to ignore a problem.

I would be careful with setting a priori standards of "proof," it closes off your mind to other types of evidence which can, eventually, become compelling enough on their own.

I get where you are coming from, but for me, "proof" is a philosophical concept that only has relevance in mathematics. "Proof" cannot be established for real world situations and I avoid the term, preferring to speak of "gaining sufficient confidence".

My standard for confidence is well aligned with your standard for proof.

For the subject of CTE, I suspect my lack of confidence correlates to my intentional avoidance of education on the subject. Ignorance allows me to blissfully watch football.

 

[aghcsm]

So, I’m not sure if I have it correct, but almost all of those brains of former NFL players that they studied showed signs. But most of those were in the study because they either died prematurely or showed signs in some way while they were alive. My point is that there needs to be a better sampling in the studies.

Exactly, that’s why I said considerable additional research is needed for confirmation of that worst-case conclusion.