http://nationalpost.com/sports/football/nfl/brain-study-examined-111-former-nfl-players-all-but-one-had-neurodegenerative-disease-cte/wcm/85bdfe58-dc06-4ef7-905b-27859a3a3c78. Seven of eight cfl brains studied had CTE. 

I'm postulating there are at least two people on the Sask football squad currently with CTE. I'm not naming names. One is a coach and another is a receiver. Both are idiots. 

While I certainly recognize that CTE is real and brain damage is prominent in all major contact sports... the stat about 90% (for example) of examined brains having CTE is extremely skewed... the only brains they are examining are ones that are volunteered by athletes who had post career issues and are basically expecting to find something... the former players who go on to live normal lives with no symptoms are not the ones offering up their brains post-mortem...

actually, I wrote all this up before reading the article, and they basically say the same thing in the article:

"McKee cautions that the study has some limitations and doesn’t attempt to pinpoint a CTE rate. The brains studied were mostly donated by concerned families, which means they weren’t random and not necessarily representative of all men who have played football." 

20 minutes ago, bearpants said:

While I certainly recognize that CTE is real and brain damage is prominent in all major contact sports... the stat about 90% (for example) of examined brains having CTE is extremely skewed... the only brains they are examining are ones that are volunteered by athletes who had post career issues and are basically expecting to find something... the former players who go on to live normal lives with no symptoms are not the ones offering up their brains post-mortem...

actually, I wrote all this up before reading the article, and they basically say the same thing in the article:

"McKee cautions that the study has some limitations and doesn’t attempt to pinpoint a CTE rate. The brains studied were mostly donated by concerned families, which means they weren’t random and not necessarily representative of all men who have played football." 

Valid observation. Yes, the study did point out that these brains were not a random sampling and therefore supports your statement that the results are skewed. 

Seems that CTE can only be diagnosed post-mortem. How long after the damage, are symptoms apparent? Maybe I'll spend some time today and look that up. Maybe. 

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Rod Black

At what point do we just stop with all the drama and say yes, football is dangerous.  There's a good chance you will suffer brain injuries if you play for an extended period.

If you drive a race car, you can get in a crash and die.

If you go skydiving, the parachute might not open and you could die.

If you are a fighter, any number of things can go wrong and you could die.

If you're a football player, you're putting yourself at risk of brain damage.

That's the risk.  Play or don't play.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

I think it's more about learning more so that they can help people who did or do play football so that they don't just retire and have to fend for themselves. 

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

At what point do we just stop with all the drama and say yes, football is dangerous.  There's a good chance you will suffer brain injuries if you play for an extended period.

If you drive a race car, you can get in a crash and die.

If you go skydiving, the parachute might not open and you could die.

If you are a fighter, any number of things can go wrong and you could die.

If you're a football player, you're putting yourself at risk of brain damage.

That's the risk.  Play or don't play.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

You have a point but the obvious side effect will be parents no longer signing little Johnny up to play Pop Warner football once the risks are widely known to the general public.  I know I wouldn't do it.  The after-effects of a concussion is the brain's warning that you did something really stupid and you shouldn't do it again, not something to be ignored and repeated.

4 hours ago, Atomic said:

At what point do we just stop with all the drama and say yes, football is dangerous.  There's a good chance you will suffer brain injuries if you play for an extended period.

If you drive a race car, you can get in a crash and die.

If you go skydiving, the parachute might not open and you could die.

If you are a fighter, any number of things can go wrong and you could die.

If you're a football player, you're putting yourself at risk of brain damage.

That's the risk.  Play or don't play.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Personally, this is the arguement that seems valid.  There is an inherent risk involved. There is probably more to identifying the risk than just having the player sign a waiver. The player advocates are pounding the table to reduce risk. In time they may acquire evidence or provide enough suggestions that could damage or eliminate the sport as we know it today. 

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I think it's more about learning more so that they can help people who did or do play football so that they don't just retire and have to fend for themselves. 

This learning might just be the most prudent approach in the longer term. I would sure hate to loose the sport, it's great entertainment. Touch football, how awful would that be to watch? Bleeech. 

I'm hoping that learning more about CTE will result in finding ways to reduce it happening in the first place. Better helmet technology might help.

46 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm hoping that learning more about CTE will result in finding ways to reduce it happening in the first place. Better helmet technology might help.

I think advanced helmet technology could improve brain protection to some extent but I don't believe it could reduce it significantly from a physics perspective unless players agree to have foam injected into their brain cavities......you never know. 

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

Crazy thought but maybe they need to go to lesser protection? If you can't use your equipment as a weapon you're less likely to see more injuries right?

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Crazy thought but maybe they need to go to lesser protection? If you can't use your equipment as a weapon you're less likely to see more injuries right?

It's the Don Cherry Theory......less injuries back in the day because when you hit a guy, you felt it just as bad, so you backed off a little. The modern equipment makes guys feel indestructible...

well plus Cherry is always on about how the elbow pads these days are super hard plastic that when a guy gets one of those in the face it's like a club to the head. But it is the same principle. Helmets that make the hitters head not take damage are more readily used as a leading point on a tackle. You think we'd see guys throwing themselves around like missiles if they had no helmet on?

I don't know if it's just the smaller sample size but it seems to me that there is a lot less serious confusions in the CFL compared to the NFL even concussions overall. 

16 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

I don't know if it's just the smaller sample size but it seems to me that there is a lot less serious confusions in the CFL compared to the NFL even concussions overall. 

I suspect that might have to do with the relative sizes of the playing surface. Make the field Narrow it is a lot harder to avoid the contact in theory. 

Sure, the relative size of the field is a factor, but, these guys have it ingrained in their upbringing to hit hard, tackle hard and figuratively 'destroy' their opponents in every level of their playing careers. 

Making it a rule that tacklers need to wrap to make a legal tackle would help. It would cut out defenders just throwing their body like a projectile at the ball carrier to try and knock them over. Most of the DB's in this league need to learn how to properly tackle. This is mostly just a pet peeve of mine though.

1 hour ago, yogi said:

Making it a rule that tacklers need to wrap to make a legal tackle would help. It would cut out defenders just throwing their body like a projectile at the ball carrier to try and knock them over. Most of the DB's in this league need to learn how to properly tackle. This is mostly just a pet peeve of mine though.

Weird that you know how to properly tackle but none of the coaches or players seem to.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Crazy thought but maybe they need to go to lesser protection? If you can't use your equipment as a weapon you're less likely to see more injuries right?

That makes all the sense in the world. Only as a graphic example, eliminate all head to head hits if no helmets where used. No more body as a projectile hit if no shoulder pads but arm tackles, like when I was a kid. If it hurts to tackle as much as it is to get tackled...the defender will pay attention to ending the play and not killing the guy. 

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Rod Black

Maybe the rules will evolve a little ... such as you cannot hit a player above the armpits ie shoulder or higher ... something that will eliminate the glancing helmet to helmet hits .... we can't eliminate nut we can start to get rid of the most dangerous accidents ... this probably has to start in the NFL not here

The simple solution rather than making a "strike zone" on tacklees is to just enforce wrap tackle rules. You don't use your arms to wrap up a player that's a flag. Sort of how they do it in rugby. 

Yes, rugby. So now we like to watch a guy get "hit". Maybe it's watch a guy get "tackled"?  

Edited July 26, 20178 yr by Rod Black

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Crazy thought but maybe they need to go to lesser protection? If you can't use your equipment as a weapon you're less likely to see more injuries right?

 

18 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

Yes, rugby. So now we like to watch a guy get "hit". Maybe it's watch a guy get "tackled"?  

This got me thinking about rugby... for comparison sake, I wonder how many former or current pro rugby players are suffering from major brain injuries like we see in football... maybe it's a big deal but we don't hear much about it in NA...

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm hoping that learning more about CTE will result in finding ways to reduce it happening in the first place. Better helmet technology might help.

This looks encouraging.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2016/09/08/vicis-football-helmets-concussions-nfl-cnnmoney.cnn

(sorry if the link doesn't work, just go to the CNN website if interested)

52 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Weird that you know how to properly tackle but none of the coaches or players seem to.

A shoulder charge is not a tackle. That's just a definition. Doesn't take years of football experience to understand word definitions.

19 minutes ago, bearpants said:

 

This got me thinking about rugby... for comparison sake, I wonder how many former or current pro rugby players are suffering from major brain injuries like we see in football... maybe it's a big deal but we don't hear much about it in NA...

Anecdotally, In the 5 years I played youth and high school football I had 2 concussions, 1 major. In 12+ years of playing rugby(high school, provincial rep, senior mens in Canada, Aus, and NZ) I've had 0 head injuries or concussions (knock on wood). They still happen but it's usually from getting a knee to the head around a ruck.

Safe tackling to keep your head and neck safe are the first thing taught when playing rugby.

58 minutes ago, bearpants said:

 

This got me thinking about rugby... for comparison sake, I wonder how many former or current pro rugby players are suffering from major brain injuries like we see in football... maybe it's a big deal but we don't hear much about it in NA...

This discussion gets rehashed every couple of months and I believe it's been pointed out that the rate of CTE is prevalent in rugby players as well.  It's not just the direct hits to the head but also the abrupt stopping action that causes the brain to slosh around like jello in a bowl that cause the damage. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11857548/Rugby-uncovered-Game-still-has-head-in-sand-over-the-risks-of-brain-damage.html