Do the Owners care about the Players?

[Hank]

There are acceptions of course, but it takes dedication, extremely hard work and intellect to reach the top of your profession. This includes athletes. When someone says an athlete doesn't understand the risks they take in thier own profession, the way they earn thier money, but that you somehow are smart enough to see what the athlete cant, you're disparaging the athletes intelligence and education. You're implying that you're intellectually superior to who you view as ignorant Meatheads. Am I the only one who sees this as wrong? Who amongst us has reached the top of our profession? I was very successful in the army but I never did. I doubt anyone else on here has either. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Hank

[...]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

There are acceptions of course, but it takes dedication, extremely hard work and intellect to reach the top of your profession. This includes athletes. When someone says an athlete doesn't understand the risks they take in thier own profession, the way they earn the money, but that you somehow are smart enough to see what the athlete cant, you're disparaging the athletes intelligence and education. You're implying that you're intellectually superior to who you view as ignorant Meatheads. Am I the only one who sees this as wrong? Who amongst us has reached the top of our profession? I was very successful in the army but I never did. I doubt anyone else on here has either. 

Great post. Intelligence-posturing is the black mark of the internet and no place is immune from it.

[Hoss]

This next era of players entering pro leagues will be the first or almost the first whose parents had enough information to educate on the dangers of sports, CTE and the long-term risks. The players currently leading the leagues were putting the work in before a lot of this information was really mainstream, so they’re not going to jump off course.

We’ll see if talent pools dip now that we’ve reached this point. It already has at lower levels.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

This next era of players entering pro leagues will be the first or almost the first whose parents had enough information to educate on the dangers of sports, CTE and the long-term risks. The players currently leading the leagues were putting the work in before a lot of this information was really mainstream, so they’re not going to jump off course.

We’ll see if talent pools dip now that we’ve reached this point. It already has at lower levels.

In which sports?

Link(s)?

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

In which sports?

Link(s)?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-football-youth-decline-met-20170904-story.html

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/02/29/why-declining-participation-high-school-hockey-minnesota/

Theres a ton of others that a simple google search will turn up.

[TheAud]

Back the OP...I can't believe no one has mentioned the NCAA in this discussion.  I don't know about "caring about" or not, but if the topic is inequity between the institutions, coaches, and players of high level basketball and football programs then there is more meat on that bone than in talking about professionals. 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-football-youth-decline-met-20170904-story.html

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/02/29/why-declining-participation-high-school-hockey-minnesota/

Theres a ton of others that a simple google search will turn up.

The Minnesota hockey article is an interesting one.

In/around Buffalo? I am confident that hockey participation is up over the same period of time as referenced in the article re Minnesota high school hockey. For example, the local private boys' high schools no longer have one hockey team (as was the case back in the day). Now, those schools will have a "federation" team (not quite sure what that is), then a series of tiered league or even club teams. So, where you used to see a school with one team, now that same school may have 3, 4, or more.

I noodled around on this website*, and found that, nationally, ~23,000 male high school students played hockey in the late 80s. Nowadays, that number is more like 35,000.

And that's to say nothing of the modern trend of girls playing ice hockey.

* http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

 

[That Aud Smell]

That same site, btw, appears to show that the numbers of high school boys playing football has remained fairly stable since 2002 (just north of 1,000,000).

[That Aud Smell]

And based on media reports, it sure looks like football participation is down. And the declines are probably in the 10s of 1000s. But its still a pretty frickin' robust number. A million kids playing football in a given year? Compare that with 35,000 kids playing hockey.

[shrader]

42 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The Minnesota hockey article is an interesting one.

In/around Buffalo? I am confident that hockey participation is up over the same period of time as referenced in the article re Minnesota high school hockey. For example, the local private boys' high schools no longer have one hockey team (as was the case back in the day). Now, those schools will have a "federation" team (not quite sure what that is), then a series of tiered league or even club teams. So, where you used to see a school with one team, now that same school may have 3, 4, or more.

I noodled around on this website*, and found that, nationally, ~23,000 male high school students played hockey in the late 80s. Nowadays, that number is more like 35,000.

And that's to say nothing of the modern trend of girls playing ice hockey.

* http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

 

 

The federation was always the higher level varsity league in the area.  It's been around forever at this point.  It was there when my brother started high school in '88, but I have no reason to know how it was any longer ago than that.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

On 9/20/2018 at 2:34 AM, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

Owners don't design helmets and other safety equipment.  Those that do can make millions from perfecting it; yet it hasn't happened.  Of course owners care about their players health.  Players are an investment and expense.  If they can be better protected, of course that's to the owner's benefit. 

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Owners don't design helmets and other safety equipment.  Those that do can make millions from perfecting it; yet it hasn't happened.  Of course owners care about their players health.  Players are an investment and expense.  If they can be better protected, of course that's to the owner's benefit. 

The NFL has contracts with equipment companies. Those contracts help fund advancements and research.

The NFL is run by the owners. Those owners absolutely could invest more in equipment advancements. It’s also known that owners were aware that equipment being used did not protect players sufficiently. That hasn’t changed.

 

Side note on helmets: would it not make sense to put like a half inch thick layer of soft material on the outside of hockey and football helmets? On top of the helmets they already wear. Would that not soften the blow at all?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Hoss

[shrader]

2 hours ago, Hoss said:

 

Side note on helmets: would it not make sense to put like a half inch thick layer of soft material on the outside of hockey and football helmets? On top of the helmets they already wear. Would that not soften the blow at all?

Soft outsides to helmets should create a whole new type of problems. When something soft hits something, it essentially grabs onto it. So what you’d get is a full body in motion, which will remain in motion while the head stops at impact, resulting in a wave of neck injuries. 

[That Aud Smell]

14 hours ago, Hoss said:

Side note on helmets: would it not make sense to put like a half inch thick layer of soft material on the outside of hockey and football helmets? On top of the helmets they already wear. Would that not soften the blow at all?

Kazoo!!

[That Aud Smell]

Football is the most brutal sport going. 

An NFL team wants to use a player up. Wants to squeeze every last bit of effectiveness and of health out of him, while he’s still under contract, and then discard him. It’s the nature of a salary-capped league where most players’ careers are over before they turn 30, a brutally cold calculation that everyone on both sides of the negotiating table understands.

Le’Veon Bell understands it. It’s why he’s holding out, calculating that at his age and with his mileage, another season of 400-plus touches could wear him down, an injury would sabotage his offseason, when he will enter unrestricted free agency for the very first time in his career. He’s right to fear it. The Steelers, knowing they’re not going to re-sign him, have no incentive not to run him into the ground. It’s a business, and the business model says to squeeze him dry. After all, what do they care if he’s useless after he’s no longer a Steeler.

https://deadspin.com/listen-to-earl-thomas-1829265298

 

[MattPie]

On 9/21/2018 at 5:05 PM, Hoss said:

The NFL has contracts with equipment companies. Those contracts help fund advancements and research.

The NFL is run by the owners. Those owners absolutely could invest more in equipment advancements. It’s also known that owners were aware that equipment being used did not protect players sufficiently. That hasn’t changed.

 

Side note on helmets: would it not make sense to put like a half inch thick layer of soft material on the outside of hockey and football helmets? On top of the helmets they already wear. Would that not soften the blow at all?

Oh no! Were you not here for the epic thread about this years ago? There was a poster that essentially never posted anywhere else that was adamant that this was a good idea, no matter how much physics I tried to bring into the conversation.

On 9/21/2018 at 7:12 PM, shrader said:

Soft outsides to helmets should create a whole new type of problems. When something soft hits something, it essentially grabs onto it. So what you’d get is a full body in motion, which will remain in motion while the head stops at impact, resulting in a wave of neck injuries. 

Yep. Instead of skidding along the surface, it'd grab and turn.

The short version of the physics:

The point of reference here doesn't have anything to do with the helmet, it's all about the skull and the external object. The helmet is a shock absorber to decelerate* the head from a whatever velocity to match the external object. Acceleration comes down to the change in speed over a distance, and acceleration of the skull and brain sloshing around is what causes concussions. A thicker helmet would reduce the acceleration (aka G force) as you're slowing the skull down over a longer distance. The shell of the helmet doesn't come into the equation, so putting the shell on the outside of a thicker helmet would have the same effect as putting an soft layer on the outside of the shell. Style and peer pressure is the resistance to larger helmets.

 

* or as my High School Physics teacher would say, accelerate opposite the direction of velocity

Edited September 24, 2018 by MattPie

[shrader]

7 minutes ago, MattPie said:

Oh no! Were you not here for the epic thread about this years ago? There was a poster that essentially never posted anywhere else that was adamant that this was a good idea, no matter how much physics I tried to bring into the conversation.

I'm guessing it was dog?  He used to beat that horse over and over on TSW.  He'd also claim that it's better to take a collision with the top of your head instead of the forehead, then refused to accept it when countless people offered the science that explains otherwise.

7 minutes ago, MattPie said:

Yep. Instead of skidding along the surface, it'd grab and turn.

The short version of the physics:

The point of reference here doesn't have anything to do with the helmet, it's all about the skull and the external object. The helmet is a shock absorber to decelerate* the head from a whatever velocity to match the external object. Acceleration comes down to the change in speed over a distance, and acceleration of the skull and brain sloshing around is what causes concussions. A thicker helmet would reduce the acceleration (aka G force) as you're slowing the skull down over a longer distance. The shell of the helmet doesn't come into the equation, so putting the shell on the outside of a thicker helmet would have the same effect as putting an soft layer on the outside of the shell. Style and peer pressure is the resistance to larger helmets.

 

* or as my High School Physics teacher would say, accelerate opposite the direction of velocity

There's a reason why pretty much all equipment today, from helmets to shoulder pads and shin pads, has that hard outer shell.  You want to deflect impact, not absorb it.  Sadly, it's impossible to deflect the impact on the inside of the equipment.

About the only reasonable concern I can acknowledge when it comes to larger/thicker helmets would be the added weight.  This stuff is so light nowadays though, it shouldn't be a major concern and they can definitely find ways to work around that.

[That Aud Smell]

Not in Miami, apparently.

 

[dudacek]

Do the fans care about the players?

[LTS]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Do the fans care about the players?

Zing.  Great response.  Of course they don't...

But the response will be, "The fans aren't responsible for them.  They aren't their employees."

Of course the fans are the ones who show up and demand a level of execution that invites the additional risk.  Imagine what the costs of a ticket might be if the owners had to pay 3x for the ongoing healthcare of all players.  The fans would have to pay it.  Would they?  I doubt it.  So, the league folds, no one wins.  Conversely, they operate as they do today and the fans love the next guy, because the guy they just threw to the curb is washed up.

What have you done for me lately....

[That Aud Smell]

And do the players care about the fans?

And, when you think about it, does anyone really actually care about anyone else? 

 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

On 9/21/2018 at 1:47 PM, That Aud Smell said:

The Minnesota hockey article is an interesting one.

In/around Buffalo? I am confident that hockey participation is up over the same period of time as referenced in the article re Minnesota high school hockey. For example, the local private boys' high schools no longer have one hockey team (as was the case back in the day). Now, those schools will have a "federation" team (not quite sure what that is), then a series of tiered league or even club teams. So, where you used to see a school with one team, now that same school may have 3, 4, or more.

I noodled around on this website*, and found that, nationally, ~23,000 male high school students played hockey in the late 80s. Nowadays, that number is more like 35,000.

And that's to say nothing of the modern trend of girls playing ice hockey.

* http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

 

You're right about the Minnesota article being interesting. It at least starts to attempt to acknowledge some reasoning for the decline....economics and demographics.

However; I'm sure they will find that it goes much deeper than that. Lifestyle and fear and pure laziness among other things will all factor into the equation. Not just in hockey but in all things we do nowadays. 

When I was a youngster we played outside with our friends....you know,riding our bikes, playing football in the nearest parking lot, street hockey, basketball, etc. Activities also included going to the roller rink and bowling alleys, all things that are now consumed on Xbox, iPad, phones, etc.

When I was a kid a bunch of us from the neighborhood would get up in the morning and deliver our Courier Express papers then head to the park to play football 'til about 3pm. Then we deliver Buffalo News and head to the playground to play street hockey 'til dinner time. After dinner played basketball under the lights or went to the roller rink. Always active and competitive. Never sitting on our tushies playing games (until Atari came out...LOL).

Dad worked 2-3 jobs while mom stayed home taking us anywhere we needed to go. Now with both parents working who has the time and energy to keep up? Bowling was $.25/game and an "open skate" at the roller rink was $1.00 or less for about 3 hours. Bowling alleys were everywhere and at one point I bowled in 8 leagues a week at 6 different lanes.

Economics, lifestyle, laziness, technology, etc, etc,etc have all played a part in the demise of all real activity.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

9 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

And do the players care about the fans?

And, when you think about it, does anyone really actually care about anyone else? 

 

Don't get me started again...LOL

This is just another topic that adds to my previous post.

[shrader]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

And do the players care about the fans?

And, when you think about it, does anyone really actually care about anyone else? 

 

I was going to say do the players care about the players, but you pretty much beat me to it.

[...]

4 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

And, when you think about it, does anyone really actually care about anyone else? 

Whenever I drive the 33, the answer I get is a solid "no".