In Illinois...
http://www.espn.com/moresports...-illinois-house-vote
With regards to my passion for football, I have very mixed feelings about this.
With regards to my passion for baseball, WOOOOOHOOOOOOO !!!!!!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Step 1 to the end of football. It will spread across northeast ...but watch CA. Once the desire to eliminate the sport takes root there- it will be all downhill. Sets up for a nice political discussion that ought to go real well with one side tossing around the need to end the paternity and toxic male bromides and the other the wussification of our once great republic.
My guess is much useless name calling will ensue and ultimately in the name of safety full contact football before high school is gone nationwide within the decade because of legislation and ultimately because youth leagues will be unable to get insurance.
In the meantime there will be growing pressure to stop HS Football. This combined with parental intervention to limit participation due to health concerns will make HS football tenuous by 2030 or so. Basically tens of thousands kids or multiples of that number that are born in 2010 and later may never play a down of organized football with pads.
I have said this before if I owned an NFL team I would sell it now and try to by the NY Knicks (actually MSG and probably the most valuable sports property on the planet) or FCNY. In 30 years the football team will be worth peanuts and both of those franchises will probably be worth $20 billion or more.
It would be nice if both sides of the debate could be honest about the facts. I’ve seen a lot of misinformation from each side. Be honest with the facts. Then let the parents decide.
I started coaching youth football in 1993. I coached the 10U team in our league. The next year I moved up to the 12U team. Which I coach to this day. I became the director of the league in 1998 and did that for 15 years. I've personally coached over 500 kids and while director was involved with all the teams taking it to well over 1,000 kids.
With all that said I have no mixed feelings at all. I've believed 12U should be flag for years. I think it would help the sport in both development and in increasing numbers. Although I agree with the safety of it and lessening head collisions in a players career I would want to see the change even if that wasn't the case.
I live in IL and was reading about this bill last night. I like others have mixed feelings. My passion for football surpasses my passion for baseball. If it helps, then I'm all for outlawing tackle football at a young age. The largest children's hospital in IL is advocating for teaching proper technique instead of outlawing it. According to them that will greatly reduce the chances of a concussion. But how to you force a bunch of dads to teach proper technique. Many of these guys have only played in HS or have no experience at all. Almost all of them have no actual coaching experience or training.
The thing is where does this stop? My wife (a school administrator) sits on the CTE committee for our school district. After football there are concerns about women's/girls soccer. CTE risk is high due to heading. Simple answer, you outlaw hitting. But it does not stop there. Wrestling, basketball and baseball all show a higher risk factor as well. Do we do away with them? Or start playing t-ball?
Right now the studies are very limited on the exact causes of CTE. You can not properly diagnose CTE until after death. And then you need to do a study on the brain. One of the larger, often sited, studies done on development of CTE due to youth sports was done by the Mayo Clinic in 2015. The study population was 1700 brains of deceased people. 66 of them were found to play youth sports and young adult sports, so those were the studied brains. 32% of them showed varying signs of CTE. Unfortunately, no data was kept of their mental condition prior to death so its difficult to determine of youth sports were the sole factor in CTE or the extent to which CTE affected their daily lives. This was the first study to look at CTE risk in non-college or professional athletes and its studied population was limited. This was conducted in 2015, so Im sure there are more studies underway.
At the end of the day, we still don't know enough about the exact risk factor playing youth football has on the brain. Hopefully we will have more date someday and can make a really informed decision.
So, let the scientists and data engineers do what they do: create hypothesis, design studies and evaluate the data.
Should of been done long ago - but some organization (don't remember which) denied, stonewalled, and deflected all suggestions that studies be conducted. That set us back at least a decade in determining the risk factors and correlations.
I'm old enough to remember my parents smoking endless packs of cigarettes which were deemed safe by an organization (don't remember which) which lied, denied, stonewalled and deflected all suggestions to scientifically study the effects of tobacco use. Fortunately, studies were conducted and my parents decided to stop smoking.
If peer reviewed studies reveal health issues, it's up to the participants to decide their course of action. However, it is unfortunate that the information which could have been used for the studies was kept out of the hands of the scientists by both organizations (don't remember which organizations) for so long. (I would note, however, that if the nameless organizations would have allowed scientists and data engineers to study the issue when anecdotal stories began emerging, perhaps a scientific consensus would have cleared each organization earlier. BTW, I'd put black lung disease in the same category.)
This isn't about football. It's about government over reach telling you how to live your life and raise your kids.
Curse those sealtbelts; mother's arm was our choice.
Bring back the steering wheel which could double as a spear.
Those air movers in coal mines are awful, canaries were much better.
How dare we not be allowed to eat the cattle which fall down on the way to the slaughter house; mad cow risk was really low.
Removing lead paint from circulation was awful; what do we do with those extra IQ points?
Asbestos kept buildings safe from burning. Look at those burning buildings littering the sky line since its been banned.
That hole in the ozone layer was actually just another window into the universe, why did we have to close it?
Grounding those electrical outlets just made building more expensive and only saved a few lives.
Elevator doors? For the weak and stupid; open shafts were no problem (except for the occasional toddler).
There is no question that there were lots of ridiculous ones also.
Golfman25 posted:This isn't about football. It's about government over reach telling you how to live your life and raise your kids.
Yes the government telling parents to put their chidlren in car seats was such a horrible idea too.
Scotty83 posted:I started coaching youth football in 1993. I coached the 10U team in our league. The next year I moved up to the 12U team. Which I coach to this day. I became the director of the league in 1998 and did that for 15 years. I've personally coached over 500 kids and while director was involved with all the teams taking it to well over 1,000 kids.
With all that said I have no mixed feelings at all. I've believed 12U should be flag for years. I think it would help the sport in both development and in increasing numbers. Although I agree with the safety of it and lessening head collisions in a players career I would want to see the change even if that wasn't the case.
I agree with above on flag football. I have had a similar thought for baseball. In our little league, we had "machine pitch" ending at 8yo. Some 8 yo's could play up and get into kid pitching at 8 year old, all else at 9 years old. I asked the league to make 9 yo baseball machine pitch. Better baseball, learn fundamentals better, lots of action and fun for the kids. It was met with a resounding "Get the crazy parent out of here, it will ruin our all-star teams. We won't develop pitchers like our rival LL does. Don't you want to win state and go to Williamsport?"
Deep down, both have to do with the ego of the parents.
Golfman - Interesting point but I think you have it backward, Government is the primary sponsor of football, Rec Leagues run by Park & Admin., Middle school and High School football run by school districts, College run by State Universities. Stadiums for the NFL - how many people have bitched about billionaires sucking out of the public trough for those - and legitimately so IMO.
I am not a big government guy - but they are in this thing neck deep already. By withdrawing support for it does not mean they are telling us how to raise our kids - it is the opposite - they are giving us the opportunity to raise our kids as we see fit. If football is so important rec leagues and HS level football will be privatized and the NFL will set up a farm system.
As far as actually banning it - that is going too far IMO.
If football fails without the government financial support - then it was nothing less than a big government welfare program all along and probably deserves to die.
Basketball and Baseball could easily survive without any government support - with the possible exception of creating parks where the sports can be played. YMCA type basketball leagues and Little League would create the foundations and from there AAU and travel ball could carry kids to 17/18. Who knows a European style club model might emerge and kids as young as 13 and 14 might end up at academies.
IN Iowa we’ve had former NFL player and one former high school player (that I know of) commit suicide after a suffering depression, memory loss and a variety of other mental health issues. The only connection was a series of concussions and a plea from their families—both football fanatics—to make the game safer.
So Im all in favor of this, and forever grateful that after two seasons of tackle football and a trip to the hospital while taped to a backboard in full helmet and pads my son informed me he didn’t want to get hurt doing what he liked (football) and nof be able to do what he loved (baseball).
He was fine, by the way, but a terrifying few hours.
I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
Go44dad posted:Scotty83 posted:I started coaching youth football in 1993. I coached the 10U team in our league. The next year I moved up to the 12U team. Which I coach to this day. I became the director of the league in 1998 and did that for 15 years. I've personally coached over 500 kids and while director was involved with all the teams taking it to well over 1,000 kids.
With all that said I have no mixed feelings at all. I've believed 12U should be flag for years. I think it would help the sport in both development and in increasing numbers. Although I agree with the safety of it and lessening head collisions in a players career I would want to see the change even if that wasn't the case.
I agree with above on flag football. I have had a similar thought for baseball. In our little league, we had "machine pitch" ending at 8yo. Some 8 yo's could play up and get into kid pitching at 8 year old, all else at 9 years old. I asked the league to make 9 yo baseball machine pitch. Better baseball, learn fundamentals better, lots of action and fun for the kids. It was met with a resounding "Get the crazy parent out of here, it will ruin our all-star teams. We won't develop pitchers like our rival LL does. Don't you want to win state and go to Williamsport?"
Deep down, both have to do with the ego of the parents.
Hahaha yeah I'm also one of those crazy idiots that think coach or machine pitch or a modified half player half machine pitch should go through 10U.
Unfortunatly what's best for the kids will never trump what's best for the adults ego.
Go44dad posted:Scotty83 posted:I started coaching youth football in 1993. I coached the 10U team in our league. The next year I moved up to the 12U team. Which I coach to this day. I became the director of the league in 1998 and did that for 15 years. I've personally coached over 500 kids and while director was involved with all the teams taking it to well over 1,000 kids.
With all that said I have no mixed feelings at all. I've believed 12U should be flag for years. I think it would help the sport in both development and in increasing numbers. Although I agree with the safety of it and lessening head collisions in a players career I would want to see the change even if that wasn't the case.
I agree with above on flag football. I have had a similar thought for baseball. In our little league, we had "machine pitch" ending at 8yo. Some 8 yo's could play up and get into kid pitching at 8 year old, all else at 9 years old. I asked the league to make 9 yo baseball machine pitch. Better baseball, learn fundamentals better, lots of action and fun for the kids. It was met with a resounding "Get the crazy parent out of here, it will ruin our all-star teams. We won't develop pitchers like our rival LL does. Don't you want to win state and go to Williamsport?"
Deep down, both have to do with the ego of the parents.
Off topic, but machine pitch is absolutely the worst thing ever to happen to baseball. It's not ego....lol. Once you're past tee ball, you need to at least go to coach pitch for a year or two. A kid will learn to hit much, much faster with a real pitcher if the coach is capable of throwing a nice slow strike. A kid needs to be able to see the arm motion and the ball to be able to hit. When my son was young, we had t-ball....you got 3 pitches...if you didn't hit, then you used the tee. With only 2 weeks of practice before our first week, I had every kid hitting pitched balls. We had a couple kids out of 12 or 13 that used the tee more than a couple times the entire summer....other teams didn't have more than a couple kids who ever hit a pitch before having to go to the tee.
A year later, we had a neighboring town play machine pitch thru 8 years old. The guy who ran the program was a friend...he asked if we'd bring a team over since they only had enough kids for two teams. They were all 8 year olds....we were 6 and 7. Nice little field.....even had a fence. They used the machine....we played coach pitch. We had kits putting balls over the fence all day, while they rarely got balls past the infield. Within a week, they ditched the machines....and were absolutely shocked at how much better their kids got after getting rid of it.
Scotty83 posted:I started coaching youth football in 1993. I coached the 10U team in our league. The next year I moved up to the 12U team. Which I coach to this day. I became the director of the league in 1998 and did that for 15 years. I've personally coached over 500 kids and while director was involved with all the teams taking it to well over 1,000 kids.
With all that said I have no mixed feelings at all. I've believed 12U should be flag for years. I think it would help the sport in both development and in increasing numbers. Although I agree with the safety of it and lessening head collisions in a players career I would want to see the change even if that wasn't the case.
I agree with you and I am a big proponent of football. Start tackle football in Jr High with trained coaches. There are too many bad youth coaches out there that have no idea what they are doing. My kid's first season of football was non stop Oklahoma drills at 9-10 years of age. We removed him from the team in the first two weeks. Flag football would have been a great introduction to football and that is what 12u football should be about.
Goosegg posted:Curse those sealtbelts; mother's arm was our choice.
Bring back the steering wheel which could double as a spear.
Those air movers in coal mines are awful, canaries were much better.
How dare we not be allowed to eat the cattle which fall down on the way to the slaughter house; mad cow risk was really low.
Removing lead paint from circulation was awful; what do we do with those extra IQ points?
Asbestos kept buildings safe from burning. Look at those burning buildings littering the sky line since its been banned.
That hole in the ozone layer was actually just another window into the universe, why did we have to close it?
Grounding those electrical outlets just made building more expensive and only saved a few lives.
Elevator doors? For the weak and stupid; open shafts were no problem (except for the occasional toddler).
There is no question that there were lots of ridiculous ones also.
All of your examples here are situations in which process or equipment was improved to enhance safety. So this is an apples and oranges analogy. Golf is correctly pointing out it is over reach for the government to step in and say YOU CAN NO LONGER DO THIS. In your examples nobody is saying you cant take your kid in a car, just do it a different way. Nobody is outlawing elevators, just making them better etc. So the football industry continues to work to improve safety both through rules and equipment. But ultimately even in the best car seat money can buy there are still fatal accidents. Should we all stop driving? Any time you play sports there is an inherent risk to your health. We need to continue to make it as safe as possible but not ban it. I have been around athletics all my life. These extreme cases that are always pointed to are just that. Extreme. Very rare. We were parents who did not let our kids play football because of the big scare. Then I watched the movie concussion. And my reaction was thats what you got? All that movie (as dramatic as it may have been) proved was there is a tiny segment of people like Mike Webster who probably should not have played football. My son has had zero concussions (knock on wood) and started varsity as a sophomore in toughest conference in the state. It may wind up paying his college bills. Suddenly I am a big fan of football!
I took some brutal hits returning punts, I took some brutal hits returning punts, I took some brutal hits returning punts and it never, never, err I forgot. Never mind.
Seriously, I took some nasty hits returning punts and kicks. I used my speed and body to be a heavy hitting DB in high school. If we got dazed we went back in the game as soon as we could see straight. I often had headaches after games. There has been zero after effect.
This doesn’t mean returning to games with a concussion is a good idea. But not everyone is affected as the anti football people will lead you to believe.
We didn’t let our son play football until middle school (7th grade). His mother didn’t want him playing at all. I didn’t want a wacko rec ball football coach instructing his players to go for my son’s knees. With his speed he would have been a tailback.
Not playing until until middle school was not a setback. He was a co-captain in 8th grade. The high school coach was disappointed when he decided not to play high school football. He decided banging on Friday and travel weekend fall ball didn’t mix well.
Tough for me to chime in as a HS football coach and not come across biased. However, I will echo RJM's comments. Most of the guys I spend time with played high school and college football including our HC who is the best damn math teacher in the building, teaching AP BC calc and diff equations/calc 3. He is 50 and still sharper then any other teacher in our building with certified staff of almost 175.
My son has played tackle football since the age of 6. Yes, plenty of minor injuries with a few broken bones and I have no doubt, concussions as well. However, the only time I have ever been scared for his safety after a blow to the head was when he slipped and fell at a younger age, knocking himself out for a short period of time. This did not occur on any sporting field nor associated with any sport. Just playing around with a friend.
For those that want to demonize football, I suggest you peruse the following 2 articles. Should we also ban bikes and soccer? My point is that so many of the things that get us excited at a young age are sports/activities that provide an adrenaline rush! If we are going to start banning dangerous youth activities/sports then there is a slightly longer list, then just football!
https://www.wired.com/story/br...attention-to-soccer/
http://www.traumaticbraininjur...-sports-related-tbi/
luv baseball posted:Golfman - Interesting point but I think you have it backward, Government is the primary sponsor of football, Rec Leagues run by Park & Admin., Middle school and High School football run by school districts, College run by State Universities. Stadiums for the NFL - how many people have bitched about billionaires sucking out of the public trough for those - and legitimately so IMO.
I am not a big government guy - but they are in this thing neck deep already. By withdrawing support for it does not mean they are telling us how to raise our kids - it is the opposite - they are giving us the opportunity to raise our kids as we see fit. If football is so important rec leagues and HS level football will be privatized and the NFL will set up a farm system.
As far as actually banning it - that is going too far IMO.
If football fails without the government financial support - then it was nothing less than a big government welfare program all along and probably deserves to die.
Basketball and Baseball could easily survive without any government support - with the possible exception of creating parks where the sports can be played. YMCA type basketball leagues and Little League would create the foundations and from there AAU and travel ball could carry kids to 17/18. Who knows a European style club model might emerge and kids as young as 13 and 14 might end up at academies.
Around me football is all private orgs. City or park district gets a fee to use feilds.
coach2709 posted:I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
Coach - genuine question here - the school system/town puts in no money for coaches pay, equipment, facilities, transportation, police/security, officials, lighting, buildings or insurance? If so that really has to be unusual.
I am doubtful that is so. Without support of the school board there would be no HS sports. I now this might be over the top but it makes the point - just look up McKinney Texas football stadium if you want to have a head spinner. They dropped $62.8 million for that 12,000 seat puppy. Even if they get $10 a head for every seat that is about $600k per season for 5 home dates. A 5% bond means the interest on the stadium is pushing $3mm per year. 100% chance that taxpayers are subsidizing this IMO.
Golfman25 posted:luv baseball posted:Golfman - Interesting point but I think you have it backward, Government is the primary sponsor of football, Rec Leagues run by Park & Admin., Middle school and High School football run by school districts, College run by State Universities. Stadiums for the NFL - how many people have bitched about billionaires sucking out of the public trough for those - and legitimately so IMO.
I am not a big government guy - but they are in this thing neck deep already. By withdrawing support for it does not mean they are telling us how to raise our kids - it is the opposite - they are giving us the opportunity to raise our kids as we see fit. If football is so important rec leagues and HS level football will be privatized and the NFL will set up a farm system.
As far as actually banning it - that is going too far IMO.
If football fails without the government financial support - then it was nothing less than a big government welfare program all along and probably deserves to die.
Basketball and Baseball could easily survive without any government support - with the possible exception of creating parks where the sports can be played. YMCA type basketball leagues and Little League would create the foundations and from there AAU and travel ball could carry kids to 17/18. Who knows a European style club model might emerge and kids as young as 13 and 14 might end up at academies.
Around me football is all private orgs. City or park district gets a fee to use feilds.
Same here (Pop Warner, Jr. All America). I don't know of any government funded pre-HS football. It's ironic that they want to ban the private football leagues and not touch the government supported HS and college football.
Smitty28 posted:Golfman25 posted:luv baseball posted:Golfman - Interesting point but I think you have it backward, Government is the primary sponsor of football, Rec Leagues run by Park & Admin., Middle school and High School football run by school districts, College run by State Universities. Stadiums for the NFL - how many people have bitched about billionaires sucking out of the public trough for those - and legitimately so IMO.
I am not a big government guy - but they are in this thing neck deep already. By withdrawing support for it does not mean they are telling us how to raise our kids - it is the opposite - they are giving us the opportunity to raise our kids as we see fit. If football is so important rec leagues and HS level football will be privatized and the NFL will set up a farm system.
As far as actually banning it - that is going too far IMO.
If football fails without the government financial support - then it was nothing less than a big government welfare program all along and probably deserves to die.
Basketball and Baseball could easily survive without any government support - with the possible exception of creating parks where the sports can be played. YMCA type basketball leagues and Little League would create the foundations and from there AAU and travel ball could carry kids to 17/18. Who knows a European style club model might emerge and kids as young as 13 and 14 might end up at academies.
Around me football is all private orgs. City or park district gets a fee to use feilds.
Same here (Pop Warner, Jr. All America). I don't know of any government funded pre-HS football. It's ironic that they want to ban the private football leagues and not touch the government supported HS and college football.
Actually if you knew the lawmakers pushing this it's not. 
coach2709 posted:I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
Great point. HS football is huge in OH. At our high school, it generates the most revenue by far (boys hoops a distant second). Eliminating football certainly would have an impact on the ability of the schools to have other non-revenue generating sports (including one of my faves -- girls volleyball). That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to generate revenue, but it would be a game changer pardon the pun.
As the Dude said - "This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. ... Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber."
Golfman25 posted:Smitty28 posted:Golfman25 posted:luv baseball posted:Golfman - Interesting point but I think you have it backward, Government is the primary sponsor of football, Rec Leagues run by Park & Admin., Middle school and High School football run by school districts, College run by State Universities. Stadiums for the NFL - how many people have bitched about billionaires sucking out of the public trough for those - and legitimately so IMO.
I am not a big government guy - but they are in this thing neck deep already. By withdrawing support for it does not mean they are telling us how to raise our kids - it is the opposite - they are giving us the opportunity to raise our kids as we see fit. If football is so important rec leagues and HS level football will be privatized and the NFL will set up a farm system.
As far as actually banning it - that is going too far IMO.
If football fails without the government financial support - then it was nothing less than a big government welfare program all along and probably deserves to die.
Basketball and Baseball could easily survive without any government support - with the possible exception of creating parks where the sports can be played. YMCA type basketball leagues and Little League would create the foundations and from there AAU and travel ball could carry kids to 17/18. Who knows a European style club model might emerge and kids as young as 13 and 14 might end up at academies.
Around me football is all private orgs. City or park district gets a fee to use feilds.
Same here (Pop Warner, Jr. All America). I don't know of any government funded pre-HS football. It's ironic that they want to ban the private football leagues and not touch the government supported HS and college football.
Actually if you knew the lawmakers pushing this it's not.
It’s those hippie pot smokers in CO. All we are saying, is give peace a chance.
luv baseball posted:coach2709 posted:I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
Coach - genuine question here - the school system/town puts in no money for coaches pay, equipment, facilities, transportation, police/security, officials, lighting, buildings or insurance? If so that really has to be unusual.
I am doubtful that is so. Without support of the school board there would be no HS sports. I now this might be over the top but it makes the point - just look up McKinney Texas football stadium if you want to have a head spinner. They dropped $62.8 million for that 12,000 seat puppy. Even if they get $10 a head for every seat that is about $600k per season for 5 home dates. A 5% bond means the interest on the stadium is pushing $3mm per year. 100% chance that taxpayers are subsidizing this IMO.
Great points and you are correct that coaching salaries are paid from the district as well as maintenance to facilities. So I guess I contradicted myself.
Yeah the things they do in Texas are just not normal. I wouldn't be surprised if they make enough on a Friday night to not only fund all sports but help out the art department (which is a good thing).
But I still stand by my point that if football goes away then a lot of other sports will follow.
coach2709 posted:luv baseball posted:coach2709 posted:I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
Coach - genuine question here - the school system/town puts in no money for coaches pay, equipment, facilities, transportation, police/security, officials, lighting, buildings or insurance? If so that really has to be unusual.
I am doubtful that is so. Without support of the school board there would be no HS sports. I now this might be over the top but it makes the point - just look up McKinney Texas football stadium if you want to have a head spinner. They dropped $62.8 million for that 12,000 seat puppy. Even if they get $10 a head for every seat that is about $600k per season for 5 home dates. A 5% bond means the interest on the stadium is pushing $3mm per year. 100% chance that taxpayers are subsidizing this IMO.
Great points and you are correct that coaching salaries are paid from the district as well as maintenance to facilities. So I guess I contradicted myself.
Yeah the things they do in Texas are just not normal. I wouldn't be surprised if they make enough on a Friday night to not only fund all sports but help out the art department (which is a good thing).
But I still stand by my point that if football goes away then a lot of other sports will follow.
No doubt in most places the biggest attendance is Friday Night Lights. With concessions, 50/50 and all the other stuff going on I'd agree if the till gets filled enough, then football is the one sport that could be in the black enough to help other sports. In certain places basketball can fill the bleachers too. Other sports tend to be friends and family.
I will disagree a bit that football has to be there for other sports. Given the infrastructure is already built out, the costs to schools of other sports is mostly coaches anymore. Teams tend to fund raise or come out of pocket for uniforms and most personal equipment such as bats, pads, sticks, shoes etc. So while there might be some trimming I think many things will survive - mostly because the always mocked helicopter parents will pony up the escarole to see Johnny and Sally play.
The lawyers are getting involved:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...20180827-story.html?
High school football participation is falling, while sports participation is rising:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...18644-htmlstory.html
Football is king, but the trend is not good.
https://kfor.com/2018/08/24/su...tion-on-the-decline/
my son is in white #8 the qb getting sacked and then throwing a pass.
Participation is way down in our corner of San Diego. Smaller schools are literally begging kids to play. My '22 does not, and is ok with it. Plays club basketball b/c he loves it. We begged him to play water polo (huge in our area) but he reminded me he's a catcher and not particularly buoyant.
OskiSD posted:Participation is way down in our corner of San Diego. Smaller schools are literally begging kids to play. My '22 does not, and is ok with it. Plays club basketball b/c he loves it. We begged him to play water polo (huge in our area) but he reminded me he's a catcher and not particularly buoyant.
It’s ok to take off the catcher’s equipment to play water polo.
RJM posted:OskiSD posted:Participation is way down in our corner of San Diego. Smaller schools are literally begging kids to play. My '22 does not, and is ok with it. Plays club basketball b/c he loves it. We begged him to play water polo (huge in our area) but he reminded me he's a catcher and not particularly buoyant.
It’s ok to take off the catcher’s equipment to play water polo.
Ha! Even w/o pads, he's a fish out of water in water.
Iowamom23 posted:IN Iowa we’ve had former NFL player and one former high school player (that I know of) commit suicide after a suffering depression, memory loss and a variety of other mental health issues. The only connection was a series of concussions and a plea from their families—both football fanatics—to make the game safer.
Does anyone know if people who haven't played football but are depressed and have killed themselves have had a brain autopsies? if so what were the results?
2019Dad posted:The lawyers are getting involved:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...20180827-story.html?
High school football participation is falling, while sports participation is rising:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...18644-htmlstory.html
Football is king, but the trend is not good.
As noted earlier - CA is the place to watch. The state is the bell weather for almost everything. If USC and UCLA come under pressure by losing in court - it could get ugly fast.
There are deep government pockets and enough science to get "experts" to testify so there is money for lawyers to be made. The blood is leaking in the water and the sharks are gathering for the feast. With the speed things happen now with Social Media there is a real possibility football is in real trouble within 10 years.
luv baseball posted:2019Dad posted:The lawyers are getting involved:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...20180827-story.html?
High school football participation is falling, while sports participation is rising:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/...18644-htmlstory.html
Football is king, but the trend is not good.
As noted earlier - CA is the place to watch. The state is the bell weather for almost everything. If USC and UCLA come under pressure by losing in court - it could get ugly fast.
There are deep government pockets and enough science to get "experts" to testify so there is money for lawyers to be made. The blood is leaking in the water and the sharks are gathering for the feast. With the speed things happen now with Social Media there is a real possibility football is in real trouble within 10 years.
California continues to be a joke with regards to sports safety. And they have seemingly no interest in changing that... Follow the money.
coach2709 posted:I can't say it is this way for every state / district but the schools / districts I've been in athletics survives on their own with no help. Gate money and fundraising supports everything with no help from tax money.
As an Athletic Director in high school I will say that if football goes away then the non-revenue sports will go away unless they fund raise like crazy. Basketball will survive, baseball will survive in most places and a few other niche sports in certain places like soccer. Female sports will take a huge hit in the non-revenue sports. Basketball will be fine but weaker programs in volleyball and softball will fold.
Losing HS football will severely hurt amateur sports at the HS level so watch what you wish for because there is a trickle down effect to the other sports.
High school football is rarely profitable. This is in Texas, where football is king. Of the 20-plus school districts that turned in financial records for football, only Highland Park, HEB and Coppell reported a net profit over a five-year period. Southlake Carroll ISD totaled a loss of only $200,000 (which is good).
Southlake Carroll and Highland Park are, without a doubt, exceptions to typical Texas high schools. Both schools have very affluent fan bases, strong playoff traditions, and "high status" as the lone high schools in their districts which means seats will be filled every year, sponsors will line up to endorse stadium signs, boosters will contribute significantly and merchandise will sell, as it does for Carroll at its 24-hour online spirit shop.
I suspect that if most schools were to add up total football costs - including coaches and support staff salaries, facilities, water, electric, insurance, maintenance, equipment, transportation, vehicles, meals, etc. most people would be shocked.
I don't have a strong position for or against football at the high school level, but think that spending has definitely gotten out of hand.
Most folks here probably know that there was a major push to ban football in the early 1900s (?). As president, Teddy Roosevelt held a 1905 summit with coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton to talk about how to make the game safer. Roosevelt was a fan and wanted to save the game, but as played at the time college football was causing numerous fatalities every year. Several colleges banned football outright and others were considering it. The controversy led to some rule changes that made the game safer. No doubt in 1905 there were people complaining that folks who wanted to change football were just sissies--and there were many who wanted to ban the game. Times change; rules change; players are bigger, stronger, faster... My guess is we will eventually find some acceptable compromises that reduce risk but allow the game to go on.
I agree very strongly with the comments upthread that we need more research and better data so everyone involved can make informed decisions. At this point a government ban seems extreme to me. But it's absolutely the case that government often takes away parents' ability to make choices for their children (and most of us think that's at least sometimes a good idea): Your kid can't leave school at 14 and work full-time because of child labor and truancy laws. (About 100 years ago the Supreme Court struck down child labor laws and held parents had the right to send their kids to work in factories.) You can't let your middle-schooler drive himself to school in the family car. You can't discipline your child in ways that the law deems abusive. Reasonable folks may disagree about whether a particular law is justified, but I think we all believe government's role sometimes includes stepping between parents and their children.