False....this only applies to the first 2 weeks when schools would have two-a-days. It is more to do with the scorching heat than contact issues.

---------------------------------------------
--- Themudflap wrote:

Actually, Texas currently has a twice a week limit on full contact practices and there is a proposal in the state house to limit it to one.  Coaches are not happy with it and I do not blame them.

---------------------------------------------

How can one parry such an erudite tour de force?

CaliLama wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Vangundy69 wrote:

You guys are hilarious. If your car doesn't start in the morning do you blame it on the democrates. Lol Life was absolutely perfect for everyone when the republicans were in charge 8 years ago.
all the President said was he would think long and hard about his son playing. Who wouldn't at this point? I played college ball and absolutly love the game. That's even after fracturing my spine. I am not sure if I want my son to play. It will be a educated decision and a lot will depend on the coach. I will not let him play for some idiot coach that does not teach the game the right way.
If my son has got that caveman gene then it will defiantly be yes. Not sure about that yet.
Nothing wrong with changing the game to make it safer. Football has evolved over time. We are not still playing with leather helmets. The game is not going any where.

---------------------------------------------
Be careful...your education is showing...your thoughtful response is appreciated......unfortunately the knuckle dragging mouth breathers that inhabit the once proud conservative movement post this kind of Fox gibberish.....homophobes dying to come out of the closet....no wonder these clowns can't win a national election

Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

CaliLama wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Vangundy69 wrote:

You guys are hilarious. If your car doesn't start in the morning do you blame it on the democrates. Lol Life was absolutely perfect for everyone when the republicans were in charge 8 years ago.
all the President said was he would think long and hard about his son playing. Who wouldn't at this point? I played college ball and absolutly love the game. That's even after fracturing my spine. I am not sure if I want my son to play. It will be a educated decision and a lot will depend on the coach. I will not let him play for some idiot coach that does not teach the game the right way.
If my son has got that caveman gene then it will defiantly be yes. Not sure about that yet.
Nothing wrong with changing the game to make it safer. Football has evolved over time. We are not still playing with leather helmets. The game is not going any where.

---------------------------------------------
Be careful...your education is showing...your thoughtful response is appreciated......unfortunately the knuckle dragging mouth breathers that inhabit the once proud conservative movement post this kind of Fox gibberish.....homophobes dying to come out of the closet....no wonder these clowns can't win a national election

Typical. When you are out of arguments start calling your opponent names.

Sal Alinsky's Rule #5 from Rules for Radicals:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."

I love talking sports with my fellow Illini fans but would prefer Conservitive and Liberal bashings to occur elsewhere.

IlliniLE wrote: Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

LOL...you discredit your initial statement with your closing statement.  But you couldn't help yourself, could you?  Of course you are a "nose breathing elite" so you are immediately excused and justified in your castigations.  How comical, but absolutely expected and typical.

diamondavee wrote:

IlliniLE wrote: Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

LOL...you discredit your initial statement with your closing statement.  But you couldn't help yourself, could you?  Of course you are a "nose breathing elite" so you are immediately excused and justified in your castigations.  How comical, but absolutely expected and typical.

This isn't a situation where there are two legitimate viewpoints.  Not every debate has a valid counterpoint.  You can adress and base your opinion on science and research (especially in a debate about something as scientific as a diagnoseable brain disease) or you can make comments about "skirts, blouses and bobby socks".  Those aren't equally sound arguments.

I didn't say that no one should play football.  I just said that it is no different from boxing and people should be honest with themselves about the dangers to their and their childrens' brains.  And that if someone wants to spout off sexist, invalid statements, then they're only further isolating themselves.

Not sure where I said I was "elite" but I do breathe through my nose. 

IlliniLE wrote:

diamondavee wrote:

IlliniLE wrote: Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

LOL...you discredit your initial statement with your closing statement.  But you couldn't help yourself, could you?  Of course you are a "nose breathing elite" so you are immediately excused and justified in your castigations.  How comical, but absolutely expected and typical.

This isn't a situation where there are two legitimate viewpoints.  Not every debate has a valid counterpoint.  You can adress and base your opinion on science and research (especially in a debate about something as scientific as a diagnoseable brain disease) or you can make comments about "skirts, blouses and bobby socks".  Those aren't equally sound arguments.

I didn't say that no one should play football.  I just said that it is no different from boxing and people should be honest with themselves about the dangers to their and their childrens' brains.  And that if someone wants to spout off sexist, invalid statements, then they're only further isolating themselves.

Not sure where I said I was "elite" but I do breathe through my nose. 

The point I wanted to drive home with you is that (in my humble opinion) your message would have gained more credibility and respect if you didn't finish with that last paragraph.  I am not going to argue on which side has more validity, my point to you is that you would have been better served if you just deleted that last paragraph and allow your main point stand on its own merit.

diamondavee wrote:
The point I wanted to drive home with you is that (in my humble opinion) your message would have gained more credibility and respect if you didn't finish with that last paragraph.  I am not going to argue on which side has more validity, my point to you is that you would have been better served if you just deleted that last paragraph and allow your main point stand on its own merit.

Understood.  And you're right.  I tend to get frustrated when people choose to make their arguments exclusively through sexist/ignorant putdowns.  And after his second comment to someone else about erudite and etc., I didn't resist the urge to respond in kind.  And yes, I see the irony in that.

So football in Illinois is in trouble, huh?  Those crazy lawyers, always trying to prevent brain damage.  What a bunch of panzies.  Amirite?

IlliniLE wrote:

diamondavee wrote:
The point I wanted to drive home with you is that (in my humble opinion) your message would have gained more credibility and respect if you didn't finish with that last paragraph.  I am not going to argue on which side has more validity, my point to you is that you would have been better served if you just deleted that last paragraph and allow your main point stand on its own merit.

Understood.  And you're right.  I tend to get frustrated when people choose to make their arguments exclusively through sexist/ignorant putdowns.  And after his second comment to someone else about erudite and etc., I didn't resist the urge to respond in kind.  And yes, I see the irony in that.

So football in Illinois is in trouble, huh?  Those crazy lawyers, always trying to prevent brain damage.  What a bunch of panzies.  Amirite?

I am certainly guilty of hyperbole and letting my emotions get involved in my messaging.

Lawyers will seize on opportunities wherever they present themselves...and there will be more to come with injuries to kids from pop warner to the pros. 

The current climate of politicians getting involved, former players with lawsuits certainly indicates a trend towards football changing with the eventual possibility of ending for specific schools, school districts or state-wide as future lawsuits, increased liability and insurance costs could force the hand of dismantling programs outright.

Sadly, I agree that if a player is not taught and does not practice how to properly tackle ...then they are increasing the chances of hurting themselves and others.  Whenever you get these politicians trying enforce new rules so they look like they are doing something, sometimes there are unintended consequences that follow.

Just sayin.

diamondavee wrote:
I am certainly guilty of hyperbole and letting my emotions get involved in my messaging.

Lawyers will seize on opportunities wherever they present themselves...and there will be more to come with injuries to kids from pop warner to the pros. 

The current climate of politicians getting involved, former players with lawsuits certainly indicates a trend towards football changing with the eventual possibility of ending for specific schools, school districts or state-wide as future lawsuits, increased liability and insurance costs could force the hand of dismantling programs outright.

Sadly, I agree that if a player is not taught and does not practice how to properly tackle ...then they are increasing the chances of hurting themselves and others.  Whenever you get these politicians trying enforce new rules so they look like they are doing something, sometimes there are unintended consequences that follow.

Just sayin.

Herein lies the biggest issue.  Injuries to kids from parents who signed waivers to allow their children to participate are now being urged to participate in lawsuits, not because of any irresponsibility or culpability on the coaches or school's part, but simply for participating. 

As was noted in your answer the problem has the chance to get worse without contact drills that allow players to learn the proper techniques to avoid these types of injuries, but even NFL players practice poor technique leading to head and neck injuries.

We know that concussions are a major issue, we know they occur.  We don't know how many or how much, because at this time coaches/schools are told to treat any potential concussion as a concussion and report it as such.  People need to know the dangers and make the informed decisions, but know that concussions will occur in most sports (soccer and basketball will be the next big sports after football and hockey to get attacked by a change in rules) and in normal life situations.  I know that I only played organized football for 9 years and my injuries all occurred outside of practice playing in the schoolyards with my friends, including my only concussion.

However, boxing, I recall, is still legal in Illinois?

Vangundy69 wrote: You guys are hilarious. If your car doesn't start in the morning do you blame it on the democrates. Lol Life was absolutely perfect for everyone when the republicans were in charge 8 years ago.
all the President said was he would think long and hard about his son playing. Who wouldn't at this point? I played college ball and absolutly love the game. That's even after fracturing my spine. I am not sure if I want my son to play. It will be a educated decision and a lot will depend on the coach. I will not let him play for some idiot coach that does not teach the game the right way.
If my son has got that caveman gene then it will defiantly be yes. Not sure about that yet.
Nothing wrong with changing the game to make it safer. Football has evolved over time. We are not still playing with leather helmets. The game is not going any where.

I just wish that Reagan and Bush "One" had not raised taxes so much.

Actually, if Eisenhower had not built the interstate system and put all the money in a savings account for the citizens, imagine how much money we all would get each month.  Of course, we would have to drive slower! [But that would save tons of gas.]  Darn, we built the interstate highway system for a Russian invasion that never would have happened.  i wonder if the Tea Party folks would in current dollars make that kind of investment (the highway system) for the general good of society.  Well, we know the answer.  An idiot can only babble nonsense.

As crazy as politics is here in Florida, it is 100 times better than when I lived in and was taxed to death with in Illinois!

Ask anyone from Rockford about the property taxes, the massive lawsuits over illegal taxation, etc. Rockford is now a wreck because of politics there - but it was once a great place in which to live.

Thus, you have your Illinois politicians worried about anything that can get an emotional rise out of voters - such as looking at taking the violence out of a violent game(s). In the meantime, Florida produces more and more good football players that are able to get scholarships to further their education and chances of improving their lives. Illinois simply is politically self-destructive. btw: I'm an independent since both parties seem to be increasingly polarized and dis-functional.

floridaILfan wrote: As crazy as politics is here in Florida, it is 100 times better than when I lived in and was taxed to death with in Illinois!

Ask anyone from Rockford about the property taxes, the massive lawsuits over illegal taxation, etc. Rockford is now a wreck because of politics there - but it was once a great place in which to live.

Thus, you have your Illinois politicians worried about anything that can get an emotional rise out of voters - such as looking at taking the violence out of a violent game(s). In the meantime, Florida produces more and more good football players that are able to get scholarships to further their education and chances of improving their lives. Illinois simply is politically self-destructive. btw: I'm an independent since both parties seem to be increasingly polarized and dis-functional.

Talk about priorities by our magnificant politicians here in Illinois...as the state is set to default, the state senate/house are working hard as ever to get a vote on the floor of the senate today for same sex marriage.  I am neutral on the subject but you'd think all attention would be focused the unfunded liabilities that will destroy this state in the next couple years.

Or maybe they can just restrict tackling and legalize same sex marriage in a state that is bankrupt....seems about right. 

This is what moving forward is all about...and there is much more to come.

CUallmylife wrote: False....this only applies to the first 2 weeks when schools would have two-a-days. It is more to do with the scorching heat than contact issues.

---------------------------------------------
--- Themudflap wrote:

Actually, Texas currently has a twice a week limit on full contact practices and there is a proposal in the state house to limit it to one.  Coaches are not happy with it and I do not blame them.

---------------------------------------------

The story on the radio didn't mention two a days, but the once per week proposal is real.  State Rep. Eddie Lucio III filed HB 887 on Jan. 31, which would limit high school and middle school football programs to one full contact practice per week.

Obama said he would have to think really hard about letting his son play football...quote properly.

CalumetCityIllini wrote: I can see it coming down the pike because Barak won't let his son play football.  There are more head injuries in socer especially among girls then head trauma in football.  What about LaCrosse guys running around with sticks in their hands.  What will happen is HS football will turn into flag football or one hand touch above the waist.  Sad!

---------------------------------------------
--- IlliniLE wrote:

Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

---------------------------------------------

You are exactly right, it should be my decision. Where you are wrong is supporting a group of politicians that are trying to legislate their version of morality and make these decisions for me. If the politicians (repub or dem) continue to push, I will gladly help throw the tea into the harbor.
Mock me all you want. Maybe I am a mouth breathing meathead, spewing cliches, but I am getting sick of liberal agendas being rammed down my throat. Your rights do not begin where mine end.
I played college football will encourage my son to avoid the game. Personally I have grown to dislike the game due to the arrogance of the players, bounty-gate, PED and many other reasons. But this is a family level decision, not a legislative one.

bassithound wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- IlliniLE wrote:

Speaking of "an erudite tour de force".

CapitalIllini wrote:
There's also progressive legislation pending that players will have to wear skirts, blouses and bobby socks to the Friday pep rallies.

This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that prevents an actual conversation from being had.  There are mountains of research demonstrating that football damages brains.  Not 100% of players will suffer from CTE, but a not insignificant number will.  And research has shown that it is worse in younger players because their brains are still developing and therefore more significantly affected.  The question you need to ask yourself is "Would I let my kid compete in boxing?"  If you think those blows to the head are a threat, football is a threat.  If you wouldn't be concerned about boxing, then football is also a perfectly legitimate option. 

If you want to puff out your chest and talk about how today's kids are soft or unmanly and you want to live up to all the meatheaded, mouthbreathing cliches, go ahead.  Just don't expect everyone else to follow you.

---------------------------------------------

You are exactly right, it should be my decision. Where you are wrong is supporting a group of politicians that are trying to legislate their version of morality and make these decisions for me. If the politicians (repub or dem) continue to push, I will gladly help throw the tea into the harbor.
Mock me all you want. Maybe I am a mouth breathing meathead, spewing cliches, but I am getting sick of liberal agendas being rammed down my throat. Your rights do not begin where mine end.
I played college football will encourage my son to avoid the game. Personally I have grown to dislike the game due to the arrogance of the players, bounty-gate, PED and many other reasons. But this is a family level decision, not a legislative one.

Bravo!  Bravo!

Sadly, they will read your post and still won't understand.

I get his post and I agree. Where is the line? When is govt too intrusive? If they want to play, then play.

bassithound wrote:

But this is a family level decision, not a legislative one.

Bingo.  Our son dabbled in football but concentrated mainly in hockey.  He played hundreds of games from age 4 up through high school, including many top-tier travel teams playing across New England and into Canada.  Hockey with little tykes is cute but as the players get older and faster the injuries can become devastating.  Google the name "Travis Roy" if you are unfamiliar.  As parents we learned as much as we could, and we made the decisions we felt were best, for him to play the sport he loved.  He did suffer one concussion but was otherwise never seriously injured.  I remember one particular league in Massachusetts that had a reputation for loose "let them play" officiating, and it often made us doubt what we were doing.  I remember praying for his head and spine before games.  And I knew some parents who steered their boys away from the sport as they got older, and I respected that.  These were decisions for families, not government.