<p>right now. One has much lower SATs/ACTs and a GPA and is being recruited for Ivy for football. The other two are being recruited by Harvard for ice hockey - neither are exceedingly intelligent with OK scores and GPA. And thinking back a few years, my niece was rejected by a very competitive LAC, and her friend with lower scores and GPA, but a good soccer players, got into this school.</p>
<p>So I think sports helps kids get into these colleges.</p>
<p>AllM,</p>
<p>Not trying to one up or in your face on the subject as I do agree the brain is to be kept safe. However, the best way to improve safety is to improve teaching of the skill. I am also aware first hand of the devastation head trama can cause a family. as there are some things worse than dying..</p>
<p>I just don't feel soccer is a major culprit in the issue. That said I DO believe soccer parents are the easiest sold people on the planet. ;) Give em an English accent and they pay a pe teacher to coach their kids the "game" as if it were Pele himself. Tell them a certain shoe will help score goals and do you take visa? Create a headgear system for sale and throw out a study or two and something becomes a serious problem... In all my years of being involved in youth sport, I come to the conclusion that alot of people make money off of youth sport in some pretty shameful ways.</p>
<p>Now I know you aren't really involved but you hear things, those things become "facts of the situation". Suddenly there's an epedemic of head injuries in soccer????? No not really, In our league of around 15,000 youth players you come across 3-5 a season, most caused by hitting the ground as most youth fields are as soft as a parking lot surface. Concussed from heading the ball? naw... Collisions with other players or the ground, or posts are more probable. The problem with introducing head gear is it encourages contact using your head as a weapon.</p>
<p>Want to reduce the concussions in football? take the pads and helmets away. You'll see different technique evolve as when you try to american football tackle without all the gear, it often hurts the tackler more than the person tackled. </p>
<p>If you can sometime go out on a weekend and watch the mighty mites play micro soccer, you'll rarely if ever, see a ball rise more than a foot off the ground as they bumble bee around it. It's not until the older youth ages where the ball can be struck with some force to where it'll sting.</p>
<p>"I don't think my Athletic Training professor has anything to sell."</p>
<p>But has he played???? Always read who the study sponsor is...</p>
<p>Here's a good question to ask.... Does protective gear discourage or encourage aggressive play with the head? In other words does that hard plastic helmet you give me with the protective face mask encourage me to use it as an agressive weapon? Throw in a donut roll to protect my spinal cord and ?????</p>
<p>Does a better helmet encourage or discourage the use of the head as a means to deliver a hit? </p>
<p>If the fear of a concussion is minimized and the ability to maintain your handsome face protected, are you going to be reluctant to use your head as a weapon?</p>
<p>"As a psychologist, I'm interested in people and their brains and their lives. Repeatedly slamming the brain against the skull might be a problem for people's lives"</p>
<p>Absolutely, but that said one should be aware of whether someone is playing to a fear, rather than an honest assessment. Should you allow a market to develope for a product that creates a false security or for that matter encourages using the ol pumpkin as an aggressive instrument? </p>
<p>Skill developement does more to prevent injury than protective headgear. Knowing how to do it correctly minimizes risk. Putting on a piece of equipement doesn't improve skills and allows for a false sense of security that is exposed by the lack of the skill. So the risk of injury will be higher, not lower.</p>
<p>If we went back ten or twenty years ago to a time when graduating high school classes were smaller and college admissions less of a sport in and of itself, would passions run as high over athletics?</p>
<p>I'm the parent of two recruited athletes, neither in a "helmet" sport. I have no appreciation for the game of football, and will admit to a moment of horror every time I drive by a lighted stadium -- SO much electricity! - but I see the millions spent on football in a different light (so to speak) than some others here. I really don't think all that money goes to benefit the princes who play on the field -- it's just a game other than politics that allows so many: the parents, the fans, the drill team, cheerleaders, band, school, news media, etc -- an opportunity to feel part of something larger than themselves and like WINNERS! Apparently, this is a sensation that dates from the age of gladiators if not before. How else would someone voluntarily wear a hat that makes one appear to be a cheese?</p>
<p>I don't attend football games, but I don't begrudge the players who are recruited their place in college. It has been frequently noted here that the Ivy League began as a sports affiliation and there is no reason to suspect that the Big 10 is going to shelve football anytime soon. Until tilting at windmills becomes recognized as a sport in and of itself, it seems unproductive to rail at football.</p>
<p>The real complaint often seems to be either that 1) the complainer had a negative and/or painful athletic experience in his or her childhood or that he or she feels his/her child is being denied a spot in college due to one of these Neanderthal athletes. We hate most what we fear most. </p>
<p>There are two things I envy about the generations that succeeded mine. One is that they understand computers better than I ever will, but the other is that the women had the benefit of being encouraged to participate in athletics. They gain a level of confidence, a comfort with their body image and an understanding of team-building that I think I was denied and I can think of no parallel experience from which I could have drawn the same things. What's not to like about sports?</p>
<p>If it's a fear of a "slot" taken, then the fear should be equally expressed at other segments for whom equal or larger number of "slots" are protected. Or at the serendipity of the baby boomlet. Five years from now, I suspect the landscape of college admissions will be somewhat different.</p>
<p>You don't think those who played earlier in the 20th Century suffered from concussions? With their leather helmets? Or the rugby players don't suffer from concussions?</p>
<p>Education is important. Football players must recognize the risk and that they must use proper technique-- that is to hit with the shoulder and not the helmet. If you take away the football helmet with the facemask, what you will see for awhile is that the players will duck their heads. Now you are not only looking at a concussion, but also you have just put your cervical spine into the axial loading position. In other words, your cervical vertebra line up and your neck cannot absorb the shock. For this reason, you will essentially crush the vertebrae because the head will stop, but the body will continue.</p>
<p>No protective equipment can prevent all injuries. That is understood. Proper technique can prevent nearly all injuries and football can be played safely. There is no such thing as a freak accident when it comes to football and cervical spine injuries.</p>
<p>"You don't think those who played earlier in the 20th Century suffered from concussions? With their leather helmets? Or the rugby players don't suffer from concussions?"</p>
<p>Frequency Kenneth? ;) Yes, there is a certain amount of risk inherit with all activities. Take away the leather helmet and what happens? </p>
<p>"you take away the football helmet with the facemask, what you will see for awhile is that the players will duck their heads."</p>
<p>OR they adjust their style of tackling to resemble what goes on in a rugby match. If you can, watch the two games and compare the tackling form. You'll notice a difference. </p>
<p>Your assumption would indicate that rugby because they don't have helmets (although soft headgear has made it's way, mostly for ear protection. They can't bite your ear off if it's covered.:) ) has a higher incidence of spinal injury because they would "naturally" duck their heads. Actually the opposite is true. Again take a evening and watch a rubgy WC highlight and then watch an NFL game. </p>
<p>"Football players must recognize the risk and that they must use proper technique-- that is to hit with the shoulder and not the helmet."</p>
<p>That would be different than I was taught, as I was taught center mass to centermass drive backwards. Rugby you catch and pull down to the ground. Since yardage (1st downs) are not an issue, you aren't encouraged to drive an opponent backwards. Just to catch and bring to the ground where they have to release the ball. </p>
<p>Watch a little bit of both and then share your thoughts. It's a different type of game when you take the hardened plastic out of it. We may have traded the nose all over the face look for brain damage and spinal injuries from impacts. And when you throw in blocking you add to the injury risk. </p>
<p>As I said having played both, when you have your head encased in hardened plastic and a mask to protect your looks you really don't worry about using your face to drill a qb or rb. Take those things away and you still might, but you'll take away your share of pain too. been there done that both ways. 47 stitches to reattach a lower lip for a "prefect" form tackle in a rugby match will teach you to do it differently. You are less likely to tackle with your center mass, when you can put three fingers through your skin below your lip..;)</p>
<p>I have watched rugby. My sister attends school where there is the only DI women's rugby team in the country. Also, many of our football coaches played rugby and a couple still do.</p>
<p>The sports are different- I'll agree to that. But because the style is different (and possibly safer) doesn't make it fit both sports.</p>
<p>"But because the style is different (and possibly safer) doesn't make it fit both sports"</p>
<p>but the question becomes does the safety equipment increase or decrease incidents? </p>
<p>Does "feeling" safer actually encourage unsafe play? </p>
<p>If the hardest piece of equipment is attached to my head and I want to inflict the maximum amount of pain to an opponent, what do I use? hhmmm? :) </p>
<p>The same could be said about the automobile. Has all the safety features increased behavors that cause more accidents or less? Does the thought that survivability has increased created safer drivers or worse drivers?</p>
<p>If for example the steering wheel was never improved safetywise and rear ending someone would guarantee your impalement on the steering wheel, would you be prone to tailgating? ;) </p>
<p>Just food for thought. Sometimes improving the safety of an object decreases our attiention while operating the object and thus increases risk from neglience. While we would be safer because of the improvements, we actually are less safer because those same improvements make us lax in operation? Just a thought. </p>
<p>If we all drove pintos, would we still drive the same way we do now? </p>
<p>[If you don't know the pinto was a ford economy car that when struck from the rear, could ignite into a ball of flame due to a design flaw.]</p>
<p>Rugby also outlaws other forms of tackling. If those rules weren't in place, those violent hits still might happen. People aren't looking out for themselves that much in either sport.</p>
<p>"outlaws other forms of tackling"</p>
<p>"those violent hits still might happen." </p>
<p>But only if you want to hurt yourself in the process.;) The conversation with hops scout is about player safety and equipment. It started with his statement that soccer players have a higher incidence of concussions than football players. I disagreed as I have never seen creditible studies that prove heading a soccer ball causes more damage than a helmeted tackle. </p>
<p>The rugby expample is given because it is the sport where american football came from with many similar game situations, although with a slight difference. In one sport the player is dressed not to different than a soccer player, a little stronger clothing due to the pulling and tugging. The other sport a player has a hardened plastic helmet, with an equally strong face mask, then hardened plastic and foam shoulder pads, rib pads, hip pads, tail bone pads, thigh pads and knee pads. </p>
<p>My point is the introduction of "safety equipement" like a helmet and pads has actually increased the severity of injuries, rather than decreased them. The "safety" of the protective gear has increased the players risk taking on tackle attempts rather then reduce it because the helmet will "protect". </p>
<p>"If those rules weren't in place, those violent hits..."</p>
<p>They do still happen. That's where penalties come into play and the introduction of the "sin" bin. The sin bin is after my time playing so back when I played the only concern was taking a penalty on your half of the field. While the collisions could be hard, you had no protective gear so you had to do it differently. Otherwise, it would be you carted off the pitch. </p>
<p>The lack of safety equipment meant your "facial" safety was based on you not leading with your face. And since your face is attached to your head, the tendency for head injury collisions is lower, especially if you wanted to meet someone post game. While the girls dig the bumps and bruises, they don't date the guy with the smashed nose that wanders all over his face. ;) There's taking one for the team and then there's taking one for the team, if you know what I mean...</p>
<p>there is a girl in our area who is playing "pro tennis' while in HS- if she plays in that circuit, whether she wins or loses, can she play in college?</p>
<p>k that was a shift of topic, but I wantsa know</p>
<p>"there is a girl in our area who is playing "pro tennis' while in HS- if she plays in that circuit, whether she wins or loses, can she play in college?"</p>
<p>Not in the same sport if she meets certain criteria for a professional athelete. However she can play pretty much any sport that she isn't compensated for. A quick example is the u of oregon QB signed a professional baseball contract last spring and received a several hundred thousand dollar bonus. He still can suit up and play football for u of o. Now in the spring, he can't play for the newly formed u of o baseball team. </p>
<p>No worries about shift of topic, I multitask. ;)</p>
<p>Note: there are some women and men playing the occasional satellite or futures tennis tourneys that are not considered pro because they do not accept winnings or compensation.</p>
<p>"Not in the same sport if she meets certain criteria for a professional athelete"</p>
<p>"considered pro because they do not accept winnings or compensation"</p>
<p>yup.</p>
<p>k, so she would have to turn down any winnings? just wondered</p>
<p>and let say you are "recruited" as a junior for a sport, and semi commit in your head that you will go to that school, and then say you get injured, and can't play for awhile or get injured in SR year</p>
<p>and lets say you applied to just a few schools with the total expectation of going to that one school, is the school still obligated to follow through on their promise</p>
<p>there is the boy at my friend's school, who has pretty much been told he can go to this school, but really hurt himslef and probably can't play again in that sport, and now, he is scrambling....</p>
<p>why do colleges take that risk to promise something to someone who can indeed get hurt like that</p>
<p>First of all, there is supposed to be no coach-initiated contact until July 1 after junior year. There should not be any binding commitment on the part of either the athlete or the school prior to that. It would all be just verbal and subject to either party getting out of it.
My son got injured right before senior year, stayed injured and is still not able to participate in his sport. He was still recruited (non-scholarship). It's a risk the coaches have to take.</p>
<p>I have been told (and it makes sense to me) that coaches will still recruit injured players, as long as they are working toward recovery. It would be a rare athlete who never got injured. Coaches expect injuries to some degree. (If the athlete can never play that sport again however, I think it would be unrealistic on the part of the athlete to expect the offer to still stand).</p>
<p>Time for a Notre Dame plug: They honor their scholarship offers to injured athletes, even if they are never able to play again.</p>