The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 28, 2010 12:21:54 GMT -5
There's already weight restricted football in college (sprint football). While it's popular to play, there's very little spectator interest.
There are other variants of football with fewer players on the field that are mostly used in high school. There's a similar variant of rugby (rugby sevens), where speed is more of a factor than size. I'd imagine the same is true for reduced-player football.
As for baseball, I think it's in a long, slow decline. How many kids grow up playing baseball these days? Not nearly as many as there used to be. That translates into less interest in baseball among younger generations. The steroid scandals have also done a lot of damage. Baseball players used to be the great sporting heroes, thanks in large part to their cleaner image than football or basketball players. Now it seems like every big name player has something to tarnish his reputation, and even if there's nothing now, everybody starts to speculate when a player starts hitting lots of balls out of the park (see Bautista this year).
The big leagues do fine because there's simply nothing else going on in the sports world over the summer. Turn on Sports Center on a Wednesday morning in July and there's nothing to talk about except for baseball games. But I've noticed a definite decline in public interest in baseball over recent years. If another popular sport starts playing games every day over the summer, I think baseball will crumble.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2010 13:13:41 GMT -5
There's already weight restricted football in college (sprint football). While it's popular to play, there's very little spectator interest. There are other variants of football with fewer players on the field that are mostly used in high school. There's a similar variant of rugby (rugby sevens), where speed is more of a factor than size. I'd imagine the same is true for reduced-player football. As for baseball, I think it's in a long, slow decline. How many kids grow up playing baseball these days? Not nearly as many as there used to be. That translates into less interest in baseball among younger generations. The steroid scandals have also done a lot of damage. Baseball players used to be the great sporting heroes, thanks in large part to their cleaner image than football or basketball players. Now it seems like every big name player has something to tarnish his reputation, and even if there's nothing now, everybody starts to speculate when a player starts hitting lots of balls out of the park (see Bautista this year). The big leagues do fine because there's simply nothing else going on in the sports world over the summer. Turn on Sports Center on a Wednesday morning in July and there's nothing to talk about except for baseball games. But I've noticed a definite decline in public interest in baseball over recent years. If another popular sport starts playing games every day over the summer, I think baseball will crumble. I wouldn't deny the impact of any of those factors, but I think there's a bit more to it than that. From everything I have heard, the whole "neighborhood playground" idea is not what it used to be. In most developed neighborhoods, the "norm" was for the kids to get home from school and then maybe after taking care of some chores or a little homework, to go outside and play with all of the other kids. And the sport de jeur was the common choice. Given that baseball season is typically during the summer, when most kids weren't in school, it wasn't uncommon to head to the playground after breakfast and play some sandlot ball until lunch. After a little break and some nourishment, it was back to play for hours more until dinner. Now the growth in organized sports, like boys clubs and the sort is certainly an improvement in many ways. But one casualty is certainly the "habit" of playing baseball on an almost daily basis for several months each year.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 28, 2010 18:59:44 GMT -5
Baseball will never die. For two reasons.
The first is that there will always be money flowing in because of fantasy baseball. That sounds ridiculous but its true- horse racing still exists, dog tracks too, only because there is money to be won (but mostly lost).
And because money will always flow in there will always be big salaries, which will always attract players. And you could say that youth participation is on the decline, but id argue that doesnt matter. There will always be caribbean, latin american, and asian players willing to fill the rosters.
And like it or not, baseball isnt the hardest sport to play for a born athlete: Think of all the guys who get drafted out of high school but who go play college football or basketball but then just go back to baseball when they cant get to the NBA or NFL. Im not trying to say baseball isnt difficult, but that teams are willing to draft guys just because they are athletes and stick them in the minors incase they develop. Its also a spring sport at the HS and College level so bball and fball players can do both.
But back to head injuries: flag football until HS would help alot too.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 28, 2010 19:51:22 GMT -5
Baseball will never die. For two reasons. The first is that there will always be money flowing in because of fantasy baseball. That sounds ridiculous but its true- horse racing still exists, dog tracks too, only because there is money to be won (but mostly lost). And because money will always flow in there will always be big salaries, which will always attract players. And you could say that youth participation is on the decline, but id argue that doesnt matter. There will always be caribbean, latin american, and asian players willing to fill the rosters. And like it or not, baseball isnt the hardest sport to play for a born athlete: Think of all the guys who get drafted out of high school but who go play college football or basketball but then just go back to baseball when they cant get to the NBA or NFL. Im not trying to say baseball isnt difficult, but that teams are willing to draft guys just because they are athletes and stick them in the minors incase they develop. Its also a spring sport at the HS and College level so bball and fball players can do both. But back to head injuries: flag football until HS would help alot too. 1. I don't really think millions of people playing free Yahoo leagues are going to keep MLB in business all on their own, but they are a fair indicator of the level of interest in the game. 2. The examples of athletes going between baseball and other sports go both ways - I can think of a few MLB player who went to college for another sport, then came back to baseball after they washed out in that sport, like Chris Young (the pitcher), formerly of Princeton basketball, or Kenny Lofton, who played hoops at Arizona. I can also think of plenty of former minor league baseball players coming back to play NCAA and then even pro ball in basketball and football, like Scott Burrell and Chris Weinke. There are also 2 sport guys like Bo, Deion, and Brian Jordan. Then there is Drew Henson, who flamed out in both baseball and football. Long story short, baseball may not require as much athletic ability as some other sports, but it does require a special skill set that not even the best athletes can master.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2010 21:32:03 GMT -5
Baseball will never die. For two reasons. The first is that there will always be money flowing in because of fantasy baseball. That sounds ridiculous but its true- horse racing still exists, dog tracks too, only because there is money to be won (but mostly lost). And because money will always flow in there will always be big salaries, which will always attract players. And you could say that youth participation is on the decline, but id argue that doesnt matter. There will always be caribbean, latin american, and asian players willing to fill the rosters. And like it or not, baseball isnt the hardest sport to play for a born athlete: Think of all the guys who get drafted out of high school but who go play college football or basketball but then just go back to baseball when they cant get to the NBA or NFL. Im not trying to say baseball isnt difficult, but that teams are willing to draft guys just because they are athletes and stick them in the minors incase they develop. Its also a spring sport at the HS and College level so bball and fball players can do both. But back to head injuries: flag football until HS would help alot too. I totally disagree, even though I would love to agree with both your sentiment and outcome. First off, fantasy baseball is irrelevant ... at least as it's validity as an underlying foundational and structural support for the sport itself. The sport was very strong without it. But I will agree that the "rotiserie leagues" as they were first called, certainly spawned a new clientel base. But things change. You mentioned horse and dog racing. While both are still strong in some areas, they are declining in others, and significantly in many parts. Specifically as it regards to gambling, people have a limited amount of "discretionary" -- and I use the term loosely -- income. The sport of Jai-Alai is a great example. Granted, I am biased as I have enjoyed watching and wagering on the game since I was old enough to go. But I also played in an amateur league for ten or so years. I represented the Ocala fronton in state tournaments in Orlando, Fort Pierce and "Miami." (I put Miami in quotes, because we didn't play in the real fronton there, but at their training facility in North Miami. Still, the point is I am quite familiar with the sport. In it's heyday in Florida, the attendance was near capacity almost every weekend -- 5 performances -- and better than 50% on the other 4 showings. I fell in love with the sport. When Florida legalized the state Lotto, attendance started on a steady decline. In a very short time, it rapidly got to the point where live Jai Alai was losing money. The state legislature passed laws allowing "small venues" to have tax exemptions. That is the only reason any frontons survived. Without getting into all the details, the bottom line is that the venues were required to offer a certain number of live performances a year. But if they did, then they could qualify for an exemption anytime the individual "handle" -- the amount of money passed through the window on any particular performance -- was less than $50,000. That saved Ocala Jai Alai as well as a few others. But the bottom line is that options are a highly influential force. The state lotto started the demise of Jai Alai. West Palm Jai Alai is now a parking lot. Tampa is now a Home Depot. Big Bend -- west of Tallahassee isn't anything. Daytona Jai Alai is gone and only the dog track remains. Ocala is hanging on by a thread. As far as I know, only Orlando, Miami and Dania are doing well at all. And I would think their days are numbered too. I guess my point is that horse tracks and dog tracks might become the next victims. As legalized gambling expands -- and it should in my opinion -- then such activities that only serve to placate those who would ideally choose other activities are living on borrowed time. How that relates to sports, I can't say. But the fact that it's still here because money is rolling in is tenuous at best. That money could just as easily roll elsewhere.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2010 22:05:12 GMT -5
To clarify one point: the "pari-mutual" facilities as they are known -- dog tracks, frontons and horse and harness facilities -- revenues have been steadily declining as competition from other wagering options have increased. In Florida, first it was the state Lotto. Then later, expanded gambling on Indian reservations. That was the point I was making. I wouldn't bank on the fact that since dog and horse tracks still exist, baseball will because there is money coming in.
To illustrate it from a purely an economics 101 perspective:
Originally, people(s) invested startup capital to get the operation running.
Then at some point, enough people were coming and risking enough of their "capital" to support the parimutual facility -- in spite of what was essentially upwards of a 25-30% tax. This "vigorish" was taken out of every dollar passed through the window. Then the remaining funds in each wagering option were distributed among those with the winning tickets.
Competition from the instant disgratification of lotto, resulted in a severe decline in dollars passing through the window.
Parimutual facilities started losing money.
The financially feasible solution was to provide simulcast events. That way, they could offer wagering on a wide variety of events from across the land. The relatively limited increase in operating costs were more than offset by the increase in the revenues from the percentage taken from every wagered dollar.
The State of Florida had a tax on each facility, but anytime the "handle" was less than $50,000, the venue was exempt from the tax.
That was the difference between being in the red and in the black.
The kicker was that this exemption was only applicable to venues which offered live events. In other words, simulcast only venues, would always have to pay the tax.
To qualify as a "live" venue, at least at the time, frontons needed to have 100 independent live shows during the fiscal year. I still remember one time when a show was cancelled due to weather knocking out the power. Someone wasn't paying attention, and as the year ended, they were one performance short. They had to throw together a performance at the very last minute. There were literally, something like 20 people in the entire place that weren't working. It was a friggin joke. Sorry to get off on the tangent.
The short version is that we shouldn't count on baseball surviving because there is money there. Nor should we count on it because dog and horse racing still exist. If something better comes along ... watch out.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2010 22:23:19 GMT -5
OK, before I ask this, I will make the disclaimer that I did just enjoy an extremely enjoyable adult beverage. That being said, we all seem to be in agreement that the contributing causes to both the frequency as well as severity of head injuries include the following:
1. Larger Players: simple physics -- larger mass with the same forces yield more energy 2. Faster players: simple physics -- higher speed with identical mass and other forces ... " 3. More Games: simple math -- the more you do anything, the greater any particular result 4. More Awareness: biology -- the more we learn, the more we understand things
I'm sure there are others, but I think we would all agree on those. Now what about the protection? Do we have better protection now than in the past? I think we obviously do. But the next question is whether it "works." I think you could easily argue that the protection that today's athlete has, could inspire too much confidence. For one simple illustration: suppose today's game was played with the exact same pads, cleats, uniforms etc ... with one exception. Let's have them wear the old leather helmets. Obviously that's silly. But would it be that silly to have modern protective helmets but no facemasks? Instead, players could wear those plexiglass masks that those recovering from a broken nose wear playing basketball. That would certainly lessen the impact a degree. Obviously, this won't happen, but could we be onto something with such thinking?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,518
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 30, 2010 10:07:08 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 30, 2010 10:25:42 GMT -5
OK, before I ask this, I will make the disclaimer that I did just enjoy an extremely enjoyable adult beverage. That being said, we all seem to be in agreement that the contributing causes to both the frequency as well as severity of head injuries include the following: 1. Larger Players: simple physics -- larger mass with the same forces yield more energy 2. Faster players: simple physics -- higher speed with identical mass and other forces ... " 3. More Games: simple math -- the more you do anything, the greater any particular result 4. More Awareness: biology -- the more we learn, the more we understand things I'm sure there are others, but I think we would all agree on those. Now what about the protection? Do we have better protection now than in the past? I think we obviously do. But the next question is whether it "works." I think you could easily argue that the protection that today's athlete has, could inspire too much confidence. For one simple illustration: suppose today's game was played with the exact same pads, cleats, uniforms etc ... with one exception. Let's have them wear the old leather helmets. Obviously that's silly. But would it be that silly to have modern protective helmets but no facemasks? Instead, players could wear those plexiglass masks that those recovering from a broken nose wear playing basketball. That would certainly lessen the impact a degree. Obviously, this won't happen, but could we be onto something with such thinking? The fact that you just drank a Cosmo is safe with me. On protection, there are two approaches. One is less protection, which is practiced by Australian Rules Football, where protection is minimal despite the brutal tackling. The other, as espoused by TMQ, is increased protection - mouthguards with updated helmets that are worn correctly (this was a big issue with his article a week ago - people aren't wearing helmets correctly). Either approach is possible.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 30, 2010 11:02:37 GMT -5
The House just passed a bill setting standards for diagnosing concussions and allowing kids to return to play: sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5632009Ideally, should this be a government issue? No. Given the lack of action by the sport of football on the issue, is government intervention appropriate? Yes. As for the more protection vs. less protection debate, I think some action has to be taken to ensure that helmets aren't damaging to other players. As mentioned in the TMQ piece, the hard plastic shells of football helmets are designed to deflect energy outwards. That's great for the person wearing the helmet, but it can be very damaging for the person on the recieving end of a hit where the person leads with the head. In a helmet to helmet hit, you also get the energy being deflected straight into each helmet. I think some sort of padding on the outside of the plastic shell would be helpful to try and absorb the energy from these impacts instead of deflecting them.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,856
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Oct 21, 2010 11:13:37 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 21, 2010 12:01:00 GMT -5
I'm thinking we should spice up NFL games even more. Imagine if one player from the losing team were randomly chosen to be executed at the fifty yard line during the postgame. Talk about incentive to play better! It would also justify even higher salaries for current players and remind us why football is so manly, which is pretty much the only reason any of us turn in any way. It's even better than a compound fracture!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 21, 2010 12:56:36 GMT -5
How about you get hit in between? It's not like you only get hit in the head or in the knee. Typical USC education.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 21, 2010 13:35:01 GMT -5
I'm thinking we should spice up NFL games even more. Imagine if one player from the losing team were randomly chosen to be executed at the fifty yard line during the postgame. Talk about incentive to play better! It would also justify even higher salaries for current players and remind us why football is so manly, which is pretty much the only reason any of us turn in any way. It's even better than a compound fracture! That reminds me of something that a friend of mine use to say. When we would go to the horse races, he used to "insist" that anytime a horse went off at even money or worse odds but then finished out of the money that it was time for the "time honored tradition" of publicly whipping the jockey. He wasn't serious, but he would keep a straight face. Invariably people around would make their own comments, mostly negatively then he would act like he really believed that not only was that the time honored tradition, but would add that in the good old days, they would immediately, publicly whip the jockey AND shoot the horse. But that nowadays, they didn't let you shoot the horse anymore. I realize your comments are tongue-in-cheek, as were his. But you have to admit that if you were to do such things, then you could pretty much count on getting everyone's best efforts -- something I'm not sure you could say now.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,856
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Oct 21, 2010 14:27:34 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 21, 2010 15:28:55 GMT -5
Some of the comments from NFL players in the past week have really annoyed me. They act like the NFL is suddenly changing the rules of the game, and that they don't know how to play football anymore. Hello? Helmet-to-helmet hits have been illegal in the NFL for a while now! The NFL is simply deciding to enforce rules that it neglected to enforce before. The issue here isn't that the NFL is cracking down on these types of plays, the issue is that the NFL let these sorts of extremely dangerous and illegal hits go largely unpunished for the last couple of years.
You want a solution? How about proper tackling technique? You know, wrapping a player up with your arms and hauling him down? Making yourself into a human missile and launching yourself at a player headfirst is NOT the way to do it.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 21, 2010 16:13:03 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 22, 2010 10:03:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 10, 2010 16:35:58 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 10, 2010 16:49:05 GMT -5
Why not use the Mark Kelso shell that goes on the outside of the helmet?
|
|