The end of football will look like this.

Discuss any and all sports-related topics. From the College Sports to Baseball and everything in between. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
The end of football will look like this.
Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:49 pm
  • High schools will not be able to get insurance for the sport. I have a feeling California will be the first state to completely ban High School football and other states will follow. I think the future will be a 7 on 7 flag football style game.

    https://es.pn/2FygsVt
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • I don't actually know the answer to this question, but how big of an issue are injuries and concussions at the high school level? I've often thought it's a bigger problem for the pros because the players are so much bigger and faster. I don't think anybody is getting a serious injury playing pee-wee football. But when does the danger really kick in?
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106348
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


  • HawkGA wrote:I don't actually know the answer to this question, but how big of an issue are injuries and concussions at the high school level? I've often thought it's a bigger problem for the pros because the players are so much bigger and faster. I don't think anybody is getting a serious injury playing pee-wee football. But when does the danger really kick in?


    The only thing that matters is what do insurance companies think will happen? To me, it feels like these insurance companies think ex-high school football players will come back and sue the high schools when they get older. So that is why some of these companies don't want to get involved.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • They can always go to waiver forms
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4622
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • The son of one of my co-workers messed up his knee as a sophomore -- he's had 2 surgeries and will likely live with issues his whole life. Part of the reason is he was playing with pain and didn't want to tell anyone because he was afraid he'd miss games. Turns out he never played after that year.

    So yeah, you have to wonder if it's worth it.
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 4139
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:19 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • Football is a risky game. I played a bit in highschool back in the caveman days, we knew the risk back then, the kids and parents are even more aware of it now.

    My nephew played as a junior for the first time this year, since the 8th grade, and had a fun and great year. He is also a very good varsity baseball player and plays varsity basketball.

    My brother grilled the risk of playing football into him and made him aware of the consequences of getting hurt meant the possibility of not playing basketball or baseball if he was severely hurt. Luckily, outside of the usual dings, he was healthy and didn’t miss a game.

    At the highschool level I’ve seen Football players, basketball players, and baseball players, soccer players, and even cheerleaders all carted/carried off the field due to injury. It sucks when it happens to any kid on any team or any school, but it’s a reality of all contact sports.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25420
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • sdog1981 wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:I don't actually know the answer to this question, but how big of an issue are injuries and concussions at the high school level? I've often thought it's a bigger problem for the pros because the players are so much bigger and faster. I don't think anybody is getting a serious injury playing pee-wee football. But when does the danger really kick in?


    The only thing that matters is what do insurance companies think will happen? To me, it feels like these insurance companies think ex-high school football players will come back and sue the high schools when they get older. So that is why some of these companies don't want to get involved.


    Thats clearly not the only thing that matters. Id say it barely comes up. The kids sign waivers.

    HawkGA.. to your question, the rate of concussions are actually much higher at the HS level. They dont play as big, fast and strong at those ages. But they are also not nearly as well trained, physically developed or properly coached. The inconsistencies in their development, volume of games (in sports like soccer/hockey), training as well as the imbalanced levels of talent on a field lend to more injuries.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:I don't actually know the answer to this question, but how big of an issue are injuries and concussions at the high school level? I've often thought it's a bigger problem for the pros because the players are so much bigger and faster. I don't think anybody is getting a serious injury playing pee-wee football. But when does the danger really kick in?


    The only thing that matters is what do insurance companies think will happen? To me, it feels like these insurance companies think ex-high school football players will come back and sue the high schools when they get older. So that is why some of these companies don't want to get involved.


    Thats clearly not the only thing that matters. Id say it barely comes up. The kids sign waivers.

    HawkGA.. to your question, the rate of concussions are actually much higher at the HS level. They dont play as big, fast and strong at those ages. But they are also not nearly as well trained, physically developed or properly coached. The inconsistencies in their development, volume of games (in sports like soccer/hockey), training as well as the imbalanced levels of talent on a field lend to more injuries.



    They play with their testicles, everyone wants to knock a guy out and show up the other guys as who is tougher, play to the chicks, or make a impression for a scout or get their name on Paul Silvi's sports, I would say Newspapers but I don't think High Schools get covered like the old days. Your point about trianing is also valid but face it High School kids think with their sex organs more then their brains a lot of the time.


    I played and coached, you have to remember where you mind was at in those years and what was important if you were a competitive athlete.


    How many times did team mates ask you if you are going to let that guy do that to you if you got beat on a play or took a good hit. It was expected to give a payback shot at some point.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Thats some stunning imagery Chris...

    My point is that HS athletes are suffering a great deal of significant injuries and its not because they hit each other harder. Sports are taken far more seriously than 25 years ago. The kids are far more involved, far more intelligent, far more committed. Their parents are far more active in these pursuits as well. Coaching and training cannot keep up on that grand of a scale.

    Im not talking football here (although that has the highest rate at the moment). SYou have girls playing contact sports, they play with vigor and ambition, but not necessarily proper education. They are also surrounded by significant gaps in talent. Thus, injuries at these levels become more prevalent. Without proper training, education and recognition by all participants, it can look like organized chaos.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Insurance definitely controls these sorts of things at the youth level, but money controls sports at the collegiate and pro level.

    So as much as we all hate greed and the money side of sports, it's exactly what's going to keep football going for a long long time. If that means the NFL and NCAA start self insuring and funding the insurance side of high school football to keep their precious pipeline of players coming into their billion dollar sport empires because no national insurance carrier will underwrite high school football?

    Then that's what will happen.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • There will be some company somewhere that will insure High School athletics, WHY? because there is billions to be made by all the parents wanting their little Suzie and or Jimmy to be the next Russell Wilson or King Felix, Ronda Rousey or whomever.


    If you coached kids the parents are the ego, they are trying to live vicariously through their kids many times and they will pay and pay some more. These elite Base Ball, Soccer, and now Football and Basketball leagues catered to put all star teams together that many parents buy into and the leagues exploit by a large margin to drive their own agenda have taken over a lot of the players lives. Players were always drivin and tuned in, those that thought they could go to college and or get drafted like in Baseball and Hockey out of High School. The leagues and schools just started t heavily tap into the revenue the last 30 years these kids can generate for districts and schools. These kids living in fostered programs to be at a certain school escalated, agents and sponsors back ending the funding of a lot of the programs to be involved when the kids are eligible.

    Kids are not kids if they have a interest and a talent in a sport anymore and will be rode for whatever they can provide. The need to win has transitioned from Pro to College and now to Schools and down to the minor leagues and Jr leagues . They are a commodity to be leveraged, until they have a injury that knocks them out of that elite group.


    They may not get the training to protect themselves, but unscrupulous coaches also will target other kids to win, that's reality and I seen it happen more then once. Coaches sending a Kid in to spear a arm or leg of a good player for another team is just one example.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • i think we are just sharing similar thoughts with different examples.

    Yes, some coach telling a player to go headhunting has always happened, but its is not why injuries are up across all high school sports.

    Academies are starting to create a significant layer between HS and college. There is not a "need to win" there. The mentality is to move them to the next level. What that looks like is up to you. We have 2 hockey institutions here in Minnesota. Neither are "win above all costs" programs. They develop their players, who turn into pros. They garner revenue from their popularity. Winning, however, matters little. Most hockey academies dont even keep league standings.

    Football is generating similar systems out east and in the west. And they are realizing they will have to play each other for competition. With so little options, who wins matters little. Kids from all over will flock there.

    I can continue, but again, it's way off topic. The injuries issue with HS athletes is a lack of proper training. Go to any HS or academy in America and try and coach any sport and the first thing (after your background check passes) you will is take several courses on training players mentally and physically to avoid injury. Concussions, muscle strains and joint sprains, heart concerns, exhaustion, nutrition, bullying, sexual assault, etc. etc. Its a lot to process just as a coach.

    If you want to think its a meat grinder, then go ahead. Im sure HS football still holds onto that in some parts of the country. But the highest levels of development at these ages are way past "win for the program, win for the coach."

    The players are the equity. They are the asset. You cant thrive as an organization or league if you chew through your players. your time with them is short. You get more from them if they move on to healthy college and pro careers than if they win a U16 DA game in St. Louis or an AAU showcase in Quebec. If you get the best 20-100 kids at any sport in one of 5 regions playing in the same place, the scouts will be there. Who wins is immaterial. Anb there are no borders anymore. Number of high school aged kids developing as soccer, hockey, baseball, volleyball players in foreign countries is amazing.

    Its the rest of HS sports where the lack of preparedness and poor approach to management by under-qualified coaches are causing issues. I have seen it working in both environments in soccer, and have watched many of my friends kids go through it with hockey.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:You're all over the map here Chris. But i think we are just sharing similar thoughts with different examples.

    Yes, some coach telling a player to go headhunting has always happened, but its is not why injuries are up across all high school sports.

    Academies are starting to create a significant layer between HS and college. There is not a "need to win" there. The mentality is to move them to the next level. What that looks like is up to you. We have 2 hockey institutions here in Minnesota. Neither are "win above all costs" programs. They develop their players, who turn into pros. They garner revenue from their popularity. Winning, however, matters little. Most hockey academies dont even keep league standings.

    Football is generating similar systems out east and in the west. And they are realizing they will have to play each other for competition. With so little options, who wins matters little. Kids from all over will flock there.

    I can continue, but again, it's way off topic. The injuries issue with HS athletes is a lack of proper training. Go to any HS or academy in America and try and coach any sport and the first thing (after your background check passes) you will is take several courses on training players mentally and physically to avoid injury. Concussions, muscle strains and joint sprains, heart concerns, exhaustion, nutrition, bullying, sexual assault, etc. etc. Its a lot to process just as a coach.

    If you want to think its a meat grinder, then go ahead. Im sure HS football still holds onto that in some parts of the country. But the highest levels of development at these ages are way past "win for the program, win for the coach."

    The players are the equity. They are the asset. You cant thrive as an organization or league if you chew through your players. your time with them is short. You get more from them if they move on to healthy college and pro careers than if they win a U16 DA game in St. Louis or an AAU showcase in Quebec. If you get the best 20-100 kids at any sport in one of 5 regions playing in the same place, the scouts will be there. Who wins is immaterial.

    Its the rest of HS sports where the lack of preparedness and poor approach to management by under-qualified coaches are causing issues. I have seen it working in both environments in soccer, and have watched many of my friends kids go through it with hockey.



    Your league gets it's rep by players in higher levels promoted and championships, why do they have that listed at the top of the list everywhere, 2018 champions would not be on top if that wasn't a recruiting tool and a driving force everywhere.


    Pull your head out, winning makes money, money buys more toys and more assets for schools. It's about winning. People going to games and getting into altercations with Officials isn't due to safety it's because of perceived slights preventing a team from winning.


    Thats the real world, be it sports, business, politics, it's always about Money and winning, Kids are disposable and forgotton a year after they leave school by most people. They have a new group to exploit, the kids are put upon to take advantage of the chance they supposedly get.


    Our past election tells the story about winning.


    False revenue and income from companies shows that cheating in business is about winning Shareholders and profits.


    Colleges breaking recruiting rules and NCAA violations tells us about winning and money.


    It goes on...…...


    Two cousins played Pro Hockey here, I know what they endured, they were both injured and retired before they could break into the NHL. Wasn't worth it at some point to them.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Winning championships at the youth level doesn't generate revenue... pull your head out Chris. We arent talking about College. Don't move the goalposts. That argument is different, and I'd agree with you. Where you come up with the election thing is just absurdly off topic and irrelevant.

    Not only did i list several developmental academies of several sports that draw revenue from marketing the success of their players in college and pros, but also work for one. This is international in scope and philosophy. The biggest academies dont even keep score or standings. Why? Because it hinders the development of the players and changes the focus of the coaches. The players are the success, not medals. We dont lose out on recruits because we dont post our medal counts while the group a town over celebrates their "regional championship" because we know exactly what that means and who we play.

    Your view on this is generational and quickly becoming outdated.

    I know, work with and have trained several former pro athletes. Im sorry about your cousins. if they were coming through now, they'd probably have a different path to the NHL.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:Winning championships at the youth level doesn't generate revenue... pull your head out Chris. We arent talking about College. Don't move the goalposts. That argument is different, and I'd agree with you. Where you come up with the election thing is just absurdly off topic and irrelevant.

    Not only did i list several developmental academies of several sports that draw revenue from marketing the success of their players in college and pros, but also work for one. This is international in scope and philosophy. The biggest academies dont even keep score or standings. Why? Because it hinders the development of the players and changes the focus of the coaches. The players are the success, not medals. We dont lose out on recruits because we dont post our medal counts while the group a town over celebrates their "regional championship" because we know exactly what that means and who we play.

    Your view on this is generational and quickly becoming outdated.

    I know, work with and have trained several former pro athletes. Im sorry about your cousins. if they were coming through now, they'd probably have a different path to the NHL.



    So leagues success isn't about the money people pay to go there, thats revenue.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • The revenue does not come from league success. that is what i am telling you. The revenue is generated from just being in the league.

    Let's look at soccer. You have highly competitive club soccer where parents pay up to 4k for their kid to get year round training. They measure success by winning their state championship.

    The highest level of soccer is DA soccer. Those kids are the best 30 at their age level. Those parents pay 1500 for year round soccer. Coaches make 100K plus a season. At Shattuck St. Mary's (top ranked hockey school in country last i saw), they can also enroll at the school for 35K a year. The DA teams, the best in the region, are levels above the club teams. Their league position doesnt matter. many top players in the state is clamoring to go there and would leave their State Championship team at Sporting or Blackhawks or Salvo to play on MNU, even if MNU finished last in the DA league.

    The revenue comes from sponsorship, from the parent club (if they are MLS affiliated) and tuition (if there is a school associated with it).

    Now, if you have competing academies near by, winning over your rival may mean something, but the biggest thing a recruits mom and dad wants to hear is not "we won the U17 championship" but "we put 11 of our 20 into D1 programs and 4 others are moving to international clubs, three players just signed MLS contracts and an alum got his first national call up."

    Hockey is similar with the Juniors in Canada. There are football academies popping up all over the place.

    Of course the process is intense and can be grueling. But success isnt based on winning. Success is the process and the players who come through it to bigger things.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • 35k plus 1500, now not all can be on a roster so they have to train, not sure how big a roster is for them but I would say 30 kids probably, how many looking to make that roster then 1000, 2000, that's a lot of revenue just for Soccer with what 5 percent actually playing unless you have a bunch of tiers set up to leverage promotion to another tier. What about the kids that don't get promoted? They are used to train those that do and that money I hope does more then just pad some admins bank account.


    A kids coach making 100,000 a year that doesn't care about winning, that's hard to swallow.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:35k plus 1500, now not all can be on a roster so they have to train, not sure how big a roster is for them but I would say 30 kids probably, how many looking to make that roster then 1000, 2000, that's a lot of revenue just for Soccer with what 5 percent actually playing unless you have a bunch of tiers set up to leverage promotion to another tier. What about the kids that don't get promoted? They are used to train those that do and that money I hope does more then just pad some admins bank account.


    A kids coach making 100,000 a year that doesn't care about winning, that's hard to swallow.


    The parents dont care either. Its about the players getting the best training for their development

    This is the way sports at the highest youth levels are going. The emphasis on winning distracts from the most important atteibutes of player development

    Its progressive and forward thinking. These are classrooms, games are just tests along the way

    The 35k is a private school. Most those kids are getting college scolarships if not more. Its elite for a reason. If the coaches at shattuck just focused on winning then their players would lack the development to be more than whars needed to win a u16 soccer game
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Hawkstorian wrote:The son of one of my co-workers messed up his knee as a sophomore -- he's had 2 surgeries and will likely live with issues his whole life. Part of the reason is he was playing with pain and didn't want to tell anyone because he was afraid he'd miss games. Turns out he never played after that year.

    So yeah, you have to wonder if it's worth it.


    The problem with this logic is that you can get hurt anywhere. I played football from 3rd grade all the way through college, not one major injury. Sure a broken finger or 2 ( I played CB in HS and safety in college) and some hamstring issues from time to time. But nothing that held me out.

    I tore my MCL playing basketball, broke my wrist playing basketball, and knees hurt now from playing basketball. So to put injuries on football, is a bit short sighted by people, you get hurt in all sports. My best friend got hit in the head by a softball running to 1st, cracked his skull.

    I know head injuries are a real thing, and I would never argue otherwise. But when people bring up knees and other things getting hurt, that's part of life. Unless you force your kid to just do nothing. Then they get fat, have carpal tunnel, and have diabetes.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3432
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:49 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:There will be some company somewhere that will insure High School athletics, WHY? because there is billions to be made by all the parents wanting their little Suzie and or Jimmy to be the next Russell Wilson or King Felix, Ronda Rousey or whomever..


    That's not how insurance works.

    There is no "future" monetary benefit for an insurance liability carrier for the less than 1% of the kids who are actually going to be professional athletes.

    Insurance is cold hard actuarial math. Is there a formula based on the risk where we can make money?

    The more health risks involved, the more being on the losing end of lawsuits for CTE and other long term football injuries over decades, and that profit margin evaporates, and that line of business is no longer viable.........and when that happens, that sport or business goes away.

    Unless it's self insured, or like I posted above the NCAA and NFL assume all insurance protection under their liability umbrella for all high school youth sports........or they agree to pay the premiums for the selected school districts.

    Which is what I think will happen if this story ever comes to fruition and insurance carriers bail on school districts and youth leagues.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:There will be some company somewhere that will insure High School athletics, WHY? because there is billions to be made by all the parents wanting their little Suzie and or Jimmy to be the next Russell Wilson or King Felix, Ronda Rousey or whomever..


    That's not how insurance works.

    There is no "future" monetary benefit for an insurance liability carrier for the less than 1% of the kids who are actually going to be professional athletes.

    Insurance is cold hard actuarial math. Is there a formula based on the risk where we can make money?

    The more health risks involved, the more being on the losing end of lawsuits for CTE and other long term football injuries over decades, and that profit margin evaporates, and that line of business is no longer viable.........and when that happens, that sport or business goes away.

    Unless it's self insured, or like I posted above the NCAA and NFL assume all insurance protection under their liability umbrella for all high school youth sports........or they agree to pay the premiums for the selected school districts.

    Which is what I think will happen if this story ever comes to fruition and insurance carriers bail on school districts and youth leagues.


    Your not insuring for life, it's one season at a time for an injury that year. With the millions of kids that play at all levels you don't think they can make money? Call it the SR22 Filing for sports.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:There will be some company somewhere that will insure High School athletics, WHY? because there is billions to be made by all the parents wanting their little Suzie and or Jimmy to be the next Russell Wilson or King Felix, Ronda Rousey or whomever..


    That's not how insurance works.

    There is no "future" monetary benefit for an insurance liability carrier for the less than 1% of the kids who are actually going to be professional athletes.

    Insurance is cold hard actuarial math. Is there a formula based on the risk where we can make money?

    The more health risks involved, the more being on the losing end of lawsuits for CTE and other long term football injuries over decades, and that profit margin evaporates, and that line of business is no longer viable.........and when that happens, that sport or business goes away.

    Unless it's self insured, or like I posted above the NCAA and NFL assume all insurance protection under their liability umbrella for all high school youth sports........or they agree to pay the premiums for the selected school districts.

    Which is what I think will happen if this story ever comes to fruition and insurance carriers bail on school districts and youth leagues.


    Your not insuring for life, it's one season at a time for an injury that year. With the millions of kids that play at all levels you don't think they can make money? Call it the SR22 Filing for sports.


    This is what I do for a living Chris, I own an insurance/investment agency. So I understand the inner workings of the insurance world.

    Every insurance carrier has markets (auto, home, life, commercial, whatever), and every market has it's own actuarial bean counters paid to study and analyze risk data in order to come up with rates/premiums.

    Then those are taken to the re-insurers, who are the financial backing of the insurance industry. Those investment/holding companies are the real underwriters of insurance. They dictate whether the market is viable and profitable. If they do, they underwrite and back the insurance carrier.

    That's what the article is saying, that there will come a critical mass point when the risk of all these long term injuries and lawsuits being paid out are no longer a viable market for insurance companies that handle large commercial liability policies like the ones youth leagues and school districts take out in order to protect themselves.

    What you're talking about with the future kids being famous and rich, and the parents still wanting their kids to play sports? I have no idea how that's relevant in the least. Has absolutely nothing to do with how the insurance world works.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • These are insurance policies that are paid by tax dollars. If the precedence is set in California states will fall in line. The poor sates in the west will drop football so fast your head will spin, Idaho, Montanna, Both Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico. Politics gets involved too and since Washington and Oregon have similar political leadership they will join too. We are talking about high school football gone on the west coast. Football will not be gone but it will be highly localized in the southeast and many of those states could find themselves in trouble too.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:These are insurance policies that are paid by tax dollars. If the precedence is set in California states will fall in line. The poor sates in the west will drop football so fast your head will spin, Idaho, Montanna, Both Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico. Politics gets involved too and since Washington and Oregon have similar political leadership they will join too. We are talking about high school football gone on the west coast. Football will not be gone but it will be highly localized in the southeast and many of those states could find themselves in trouble too.


    Some are, some are not.

    Youth leagues are not funded by tax payer dollars. Schools are, but i imagine across a wide spectrum, not just sports. Our soccer academy had an insurer against litigation, not to support the players.

    The issue of protection is from lawsuit, not injury. This is what i was duscussing above.

    The biggest threat to youth sports is poor management, training, education and information.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • But even when I played we had to pay for a separate insurance policy.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:But even when I played we had to pay for a separate insurance policy.


    Those were little personal medical insurance policies that covered you for injuries, lost equipment and came with a little general liability.

    They were big in the 70's and 80's, and didn't cover a whole lot, or had really low limits. That's why they cost your parent's only like $20 a season.

    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    This 1000 times this. This is the lynchpin for the entire youth sports system. If the high schools drop it that will make the rates go up for state colleges too. Like I was attempting to say, if football goes away it will be because of insurance companies stopped issuing policies.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    This 1000 times this. This is the lynchpin for the entire youth sports system. If the high schools drop it that will make the rates go up for state colleges too. Like I was attempting to say, if football goes away it will be because of insurance companies stopped issuing policies.


    Insurance rates from youth sports (schools insurances cover more than just sports) are based on liability.

    That liability is based on what parents waive when they sign up against what their child encounters on the field. This does not include play. It includes irresponsible actions of coaches, school and league officials.

    Johnny getting a torn ACL is not the schools problem. Neither is a concussion. The issue will be what parents are willing to accept and waive to let their kids play. The current issue is if plsying football is so inherently dangerous that escaping long term injury requires taking a great deal of risk.

    The concussion issue has liability questiins because its long term impact is still unknown. But what if it is? What if football says "this shit may screw you up long term." Parents sign the waiver or they dont.

    Participation will determine the future of sports. Football will have to decide soon if it wants to acknowledge the long term effects of concussions and manage the future or keep ignoring it while parents and in this case, insurance companies, walk away
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    This 1000 times this. This is the lynchpin for the entire youth sports system. If the high schools drop it that will make the rates go up for state colleges too. Like I was attempting to say, if football goes away it will be because of insurance companies stopped issuing policies.


    Insurance rates from youth sports (schools insurances cover more than just sports) are based on liability.

    That liability is based on what parents waive when they sign up.


    The thing with all waivers is this. If you can prove in court that the entity issuing the wavier knew what was on the waiver was going to happen to you then the waiver is null and void. No one is going to sue because of a knee injury. But 10 years later 28-year-old Jonny can sue his school district because he has "CTE like symptoms". Also, many of these liability policies cover the here and now of a sports season. These football lawsuits are based on head injuries that occurred in some cases decades ago. If an insurance company is like "we don't want to be on the hook for 30 years because we insured one season of football" then they will walk away and the premiums will rise.

    On your second point, many parents are pressuring school districts about football to the point that New Jersey made football very unsafe because they are limiting the amount of tackling practices a team can have during the week. One season of carnage will raise the insurance rates in that state.
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    This 1000 times this. This is the lynchpin for the entire youth sports system. If the high schools drop it that will make the rates go up for state colleges too. Like I was attempting to say, if football goes away it will be because of insurance companies stopped issuing policies.


    Insurance rates from youth sports (schools insurances cover more than just sports) are based on liability.

    That liability is based on what parents waive when they sign up.


    The thing with all waivers is this. If you can prove in court that the entity issuing the wavier knew what was on the waiver was going to happen to you then the waiver is null and void. No one is going to sue because of a knee injury. But 10 years later 28-year-old Jonny can sue his school district because he has "CTE like symptoms". Also, many of these liability policies cover the here and now of a sports season. These football lawsuits are based on head injuries that occurred in some cases decades ago. If an insurance company is like "we don't want to be on the hook for 30 years because we insured one season of football" then they will walk away and the premiums will rise.

    On your second point, many parents are pressuring school districts about football to the point that New Jersey made football very unsafe because they are limiting the amount of tackling practices a team can have during the week. One season of carnage will raise the insurance rates in that state.


    Right, but what I'm saying is the waivers may change to acknowledge the inherent future risks of playing football. That will force parents to accept these risks and sign off on them... effectively what they are doing now anyways, but without litigation in the end.

    It will then be up to parents to decide if they want their kids playing football, something we are already seeing.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:But even when I played we had to pay for a separate insurance policy.


    Those were little personal medical insurance policies that covered you for injuries, lost equipment and came with a little general liability.

    They were big in the 70's and 80's, and didn't cover a whole lot, or had really low limits. That's why they cost your parent's only like $20 a season.

    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    My insurance to play back in 77 was 110 dollars. Not 20, that was a lot of money back then.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:But even when I played we had to pay for a separate insurance policy.


    Those were little personal medical insurance policies that covered you for injuries, lost equipment and came with a little general liability.

    They were big in the 70's and 80's, and didn't cover a whole lot, or had really low limits. That's why they cost your parent's only like $20 a season.

    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    My insurance to play back in 77 was 110 dollars. Not 20, that was a lot of money back then.


    I also played in the 70's, and our individual policies were around $20 per season, so your parent's got screwed.

    I still don't follow your point for even bringing this up, it's not what the article or general concern is about. Those policies didn't go towards the league's or school districts massive liability policies.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Right, but what I'm saying is the waivers may change to acknowledge the inherent future risks of playing football. That will force parents to accept these risks and sign off on them... effectively what they are doing now anyways, but without litigation in the end.

    It will then be up to parents to decide if they want their kids playing football, something we are already seeing.


    Now I got ya, I agree.

    One interesting thing that was on the NFL Network last summer was 7 on 7 flag football with former NFL players. I have a feeling that is going to be the future of the NFL
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2449
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Right, but what I'm saying is the waivers may change to acknowledge the inherent future risks of playing football. That will force parents to accept these risks and sign off on them... effectively what they are doing now anyways, but without litigation in the end.

    It will then be up to parents to decide if they want their kids playing football, something we are already seeing.


    Now I got ya, I agree.

    One interesting thing that was on the NFL Network last summer was 7 on 7 flag football with former NFL players. I have a feeling that is going to be the future of the NFL


    Its interesting that you dont hear much from rugby community on this issue. Do those players not suffer the same risks and long term effects?

    Ive hrard the pads and helmets actually embolden football players to play with more abandon.

    Perhaps thats where the game goes. Limit offensive line play and reduce pads?
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • CPHawk wrote:
    Hawkstorian wrote:The son of one of my co-workers messed up his knee as a sophomore -- he's had 2 surgeries and will likely live with issues his whole life. Part of the reason is he was playing with pain and didn't want to tell anyone because he was afraid he'd miss games. Turns out he never played after that year.

    So yeah, you have to wonder if it's worth it.


    The problem with this logic is that you can get hurt anywhere. I played football from 3rd grade all the way through college, not one major injury. Sure a broken finger or 2 ( I played CB in HS and safety in college) and some hamstring issues from time to time. But nothing that held me out.

    I tore my MCL playing basketball, broke my wrist playing basketball, and knees hurt now from playing basketball. So to put injuries on football, is a bit short sighted by people, you get hurt in all sports. My best friend got hit in the head by a softball running to 1st, cracked his skull.

    I know head injuries are a real thing, and I would never argue otherwise. But when people bring up knees and other things getting hurt, that's part of life. Unless you force your kid to just do nothing. Then they get fat, have carpal tunnel, and have diabetes.


    It's almost like you think there isn't an entire industry concerned with pricing risk. Come on now buddy.

    I too played football in high school and shredded my knee getting trucked by a bowling ball of a full back. Shit happens, but I couldn't play football my junior year and I could barely play baseball in the sophomore spring. And sports were a huge part of my life and kept me going to school despite all the other crap I did to avoid it and get out of it. I lost that, I lost the last thing that kept me hanging on and I was out of high school before the start of junior year. I played through injury regardless, despite the setback because that was the biggest tether to the nominal high school experience I had.

    The problem with your 'logic' or interpreting other 'logic' is that you think the will to choose to put yourself in harm's way is no different than accidentally or unintentionally being harmed. If one can avoid risk through will alone to small some degree without a perceived greater loss in value, they generally do. The insurance industry exists to price the risk of both intentional and unintentional actions and outcomes.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4065
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Perhaps thats where the game goes. Limit offensive line play and reduce pads?


    It's already headed in this direction. Every new "point of emphasis" based rule is moving towards minimizing dangerous contact.

    - hitting a defenseless receiver
    - putting all your weight on QB
    - no initiating contact with helmet
    - protecting runners who "give themselves up"
    - new kickoff rules

    So this all is moving towards a more rugby or seven on seven style of "safer" football. I know some people hate that, they love the old school forearm shiver break your opponents will style, but as this article states, as well as even the league offices now dealing with massive class action CTE and injury lawsuits state.........something has to give for football to continue.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:But even when I played we had to pay for a separate insurance policy.


    Those were little personal medical insurance policies that covered you for injuries, lost equipment and came with a little general liability.

    They were big in the 70's and 80's, and didn't cover a whole lot, or had really low limits. That's why they cost your parent's only like $20 a season.

    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    My insurance to play back in 77 was 110 dollars. Not 20, that was a lot of money back then.


    I also played in the 70's, and our individual policies were around $20 per season, so your parent's got screwed.

    I still don't follow your point for even bringing this up, it's not what the article or general concern is about. Those policies didn't go towards the league's or school districts massive liability policies.


    Or we had better policies that covered more significant injuries, had a kid break his neck and they took care of him and it cost them nothing.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Well no Chris... thats not the issue at all. Noone was suing leagues and schools if your idiot coach ran you to exhaustion, played you with significant injury, trained you against all reasonable methods. And they certainly had no idea of the long term effects. Insurance didnt even think about "getting your bell rung." Today its 2 weeks minimum and a release from your doctor.

    Insurance policies cover the school or league against injuries that can be deemed as part of the sport.

    The issues here are now:
    Logterm, previously unknown effects of sports injuries (mainly concussions)
    School or youth coaches and staff not being properly trained to manage and/or prepare/mitigate players for injury

    The article is saying insurers dont want the risk anymore.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • We just need to change things up so that people are responsible for their own health.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5159
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Those were little personal medical insurance policies that covered you for injuries, lost equipment and came with a little general liability.

    They were big in the 70's and 80's, and didn't cover a whole lot, or had really low limits. That's why they cost your parent's only like $20 a season.

    This article is speaking to the large commercial general liability policies that leagues and school districts have to take out each year.


    My insurance to play back in 77 was 110 dollars. Not 20, that was a lot of money back then.


    I also played in the 70's, and our individual policies were around $20 per season, so your parent's got screwed.

    I still don't follow your point for even bringing this up, it's not what the article or general concern is about. Those policies didn't go towards the league's or school districts massive liability policies.


    Or we had better policies that covered more significant injuries, had a kid break his neck and they took care of him and it cost them nothing.


    I swear to god, if we get one more response about how insurance works I'm going to turn this car around. ;)
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4065
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Perhaps thats where the game goes. Limit offensive line play and reduce pads?


    It's already headed in this direction. Every new "point of emphasis" based rule is moving towards minimizing dangerous contact.

    - hitting a defenseless receiver
    - putting all your weight on QB
    - no initiating contact with helmet
    - protecting runners who "give themselves up"
    - new kickoff rules

    So this all is moving towards a more rugby or seven on seven style of "safer" football. I know some people hate that, they love the old school forearm shiver break your opponents will style, but as this article states, as well as even the league offices now dealing with massive class action CTE and injury lawsuits state.........something has to give for football to continue.


    Two ways to possibly react to this idea:

    1. Get mad at football for changing and find nothing satisfactory to fill that football shaped hole in your soul
    2. Learn to enjoy the game of Rugby more in supplement to watching football.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4065
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm


  • Well we could sue for injury to arms in baseball and softball, makes people irritable and dysfunctional in later years from not being able to masturbate properly and for the correct length of time.

    I am sure the Insurance industry would balk at having to pay out for pumps and vibrators.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 27772
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • fenderbender123 wrote:We just need to change things up so that people are responsible for their own health.



    More responsible for the risk is where its headed
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • chris98251 wrote:Well we could sue for injury to arms in baseball and softball, makes people irritable and dysfunctional in later years from not being able to masturbate properly and for the correct length of time.

    I am sure the Insurance industry would balk at having to pay out for pumps and vibrators.


    If you knew that throwing a 12 to 6 curve 50 times a week would later lead to masturbation struggles... would you accept the risk
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15511
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


  • mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Perhaps thats where the game goes. Limit offensive line play and reduce pads?


    It's already headed in this direction. Every new "point of emphasis" based rule is moving towards minimizing dangerous contact.

    - hitting a defenseless receiver
    - putting all your weight on QB
    - no initiating contact with helmet
    - protecting runners who "give themselves up"
    - new kickoff rules

    So this all is moving towards a more rugby or seven on seven style of "safer" football. I know some people hate that, they love the old school forearm shiver break your opponents will style, but as this article states, as well as even the league offices now dealing with massive class action CTE and injury lawsuits state.........something has to give for football to continue.


    Two ways to possibly react to this idea:

    1. Get mad at football for changing and find nothing satisfactory to fill that football shaped hole in your soul
    2. Learn to enjoy the game of Rugby more in supplement to watching football.


    I don't think it has to be this drastic.

    Even with the most recent rules changes, football is as popular as ever..............because the driving force behind football isn't what we're talking about, it's gambling.

    Our own state has a bill in front of WA congress to allow casinos to have sportsbooks. So the appetite for gambling on football isn't shrinking, it's growing.

    So IMO whatever version of football we're watching in 20-30 years isn't going matter, as long as we still get to play fantasy football and gamble on games.

    Is that "evolving" or "devolving" is certainly up for debate, but football isn't going anywhere.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15330
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Perhaps thats where the game goes. Limit offensive line play and reduce pads?


    It's already headed in this direction. Every new "point of emphasis" based rule is moving towards minimizing dangerous contact.

    - hitting a defenseless receiver
    - putting all your weight on QB
    - no initiating contact with helmet
    - protecting runners who "give themselves up"
    - new kickoff rules

    So this all is moving towards a more rugby or seven on seven style of "safer" football. I know some people hate that, they love the old school forearm shiver break your opponents will style, but as this article states, as well as even the league offices now dealing with massive class action CTE and injury lawsuits state.........something has to give for football to continue.


    Two ways to possibly react to this idea:

    1. Get mad at football for changing and find nothing satisfactory to fill that football shaped hole in your soul
    2. Learn to enjoy the game of Rugby more in supplement to watching football.


    I don't think it has to be this drastic.

    Even with the most recent rules changes, football is as popular as ever..............because the driving force behind football isn't what we're talking about, it's gambling.

    Our own state has a bill in front of WA congress to allow casinos to have sportsbooks. So the appetite for gambling on football isn't shrinking, it's growing.

    So IMO whatever version of football we're watching in 20-30 years isn't going matter, as long as we still get to play fantasy football and gamble on games.

    Is that "evolving" or "devolving" is certainly up for debate, but football isn't going anywhere.


    Don't make me throw myself off this football shaped ledge, man!
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4065
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:21 pm




It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:00 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE SPORTS BAR ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests