Just an Observation by an Old Timer

[peezy28]

On 1/12/2018 at 3:52 PM, OldSchoolLion said:

...my parents always used to say "life was simpler then," and theirs did the same ...not "better," but simpler.  And now I find myself saying the same.  I have no idea how a young athlete today can concentrate on anything other than football when I read stuff like this....   

 http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/03/tennessee_sends_recruit_102_le.html

...the one boy's comment..."It was shocking and it shows me that they think highly of me and really love me.  It makes me feel important." 

When I read that line, I thought to myself, "What would my reaction be if a guy was sending my teenage daughter 100 letters a day and she told me that he must really love me and it makes me feel important."  I would be calling that guy a "predator" and calling the police.  Think about it  

The article below makes me absolutely cringe...

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2014/05/19/11-college-football-recruiting-tactics-stories-methods

...and this is progress?  All of these "opportunities" are coming at a very heavy cost.  Amongst teenagers, we are seeing rising suicide rates, skyrocketing opioid overdoses, increasing rates of depression, etc etc.  If progress is supposed to be making their lives richer, what's wrong?  Just yesterday I heard one of the top recruits in Alabama has been convicted of murder.

Yes, there are a number of new "opportunities" nowadays, but some very important ones have been lost along the way, and those far outweigh any progress we have made...the ability to play simply for the joy of playing and nothing more(the essence of creativity)...not for a college scholarship, not for a highlight on the internet, or a posting on my social media site.  

Don't mean to sound critical of anything you said, Peezy.    I find that each year I get older, things become more and more clear to me because I have more perspective.  In some cases, progress is worth the cost..sometimes not.  Bottom line, is hs football enriching the lives of kids at a spiritual level to enable them to grow as young men?  Or is it just becoming a distraction that temporarily props up their self-worth only to let them crash later in life because that emptiness from growing up without a father was never filled?  When I read about that kid in Alabama, it makes me wonder.    

 

 

comes too heavyComputers are progress, but they came at the cost of me working round the clock versus shutting down at 5PM.       

Pretty sure you completely misunderstood my post... Yeah... I am sure in the 40's 50's and 60's things were not "simpler" for my mother father and others who looked like me... Will leave it at that.. .Somethings are more important than football. 

[Jambun82]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:29 PM, badbird said:

What happened to #8?  

1) The player's hair fit under their helmets.  Who cares what their hair looks like

2) No tattoos could be seen.  Who cares if they have tatoos 

3) There were no outlandish end zone celebrations.  that's the NFL penalties still in college and high school

4) There was no taunting. That's a flag and should be controlled by the ref

5) Opposition players helped each other up after a play. Football is a violent sport helping the opposition up in times of battle is not necessary

6) Footballs were not spiked or left for the referee to retrieve; they were handed to the referee.  Also a flag 

7) No one took a knee on the sidelines.  I bet they did just not during the anthem, I think both teams take a knee and pray.

9) Players stood at attention during the playing of the national anthem.  It would be great to have some respect back in this country but that was gone a long time ago.  I don't agree with the kneeling during the national anthem but I do agree with their right to protest I just think it should be done another way.  

10) It was great to watch an Army/Navy game.  The Army/Navy game is great but not for the 8 reasons mentioned above.  It is great because you usually have undersized men, not as athletic but giving it their all to make up for what they lack in physical ability.  These men usually have high character and will serve and lead our country one day.  They play it for the love of the game. 

 

Badbird, if you think that football should be a "violent" sport, and showing good sportsmanship by helping an opponent up is not necessary because the game of football is a "battle", then I believe that you are severely misguided.

[DisabledAccount]

1 hour ago, Jambun82 said:

Badbird, if you think that football should be a "violent" sport, and showing good sportsmanship by helping an opponent up is not necessary because the game of football is a "battle", then I believe that you are severely misguided.

Helping someone up is a sign of respect which i can be ok with but i have a problem with how friendly these "rivalries" are

[badbird]

2 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Badbird, if you think that football should be a "violent" sport, and showing good sportsmanship by helping an opponent up is not necessary because the game of football is a "battle", then I believe that you are severely misguided.

my fault I forgot football is no longer violent.  Can't hit a QB.  Can't hit anyone if they aren't looking you have to tap them on the shoulder to make sure they are looking at you. Sorry but when I knock you on your ass I'm going back to my huddle and getting ready to do it again.  I'm not helping you back up.  That's what you have teammates for.  After the game I will shake your hand.  During the game you are the enemy and it is my job to defeat you.  That doesn't mean I have bad sportsmanship.

[Jambun82]

Badbird, what you have described is bad sportsmanship, and it is a shame that you cannot recognize it. There are no "enemies" in the game of football, and phrases like that have no place in our discussion. I am very thankful that I do not have to communicate with many coaches who have your attitude, and that we are changing the way that the game of football is taught to be understood by young people today.

[badbird]

Then I guess I have bad sportsmanship.  I can live with it.  

[OldSchoolLion]

Old school CANES were definitely VERY misguided.  

 

 

[Proseteye]

No sport should be violent. The purpose of sport is knowledge and skill, not who is the toughest street fighter in the neighborhood. When you enjoy hurting your opponent then you have lost the game already.

[DisabledAccount]

18 minutes ago, Proseteye said:

No sport should be violent. The purpose of sport is knowledge and skill, not who is the toughest street fighter in the neighborhood. When you enjoy hurting your opponent then you have lost the game already.

It doesn't have to really be violent, but they should be going at their best and be determined to win every single game 

 

If you ain't out there trying to win, stay in the locker room 

 

I may not have played but if i did my number 1 goal is to win the game and if i have to truck someone to get it or send them flying back to force a game winning fumble then i would do it without hesitation, part of the game is developing friendships with YOUR fellow teammates and rising to the top as a team

 

I could care less if anyone on the opposition likes me, I'll show respect after the game but during the game they are standing in my way of winning the game and I'm not gonna roll over and let them have it

 

If they win they gonna have to go through me and the rest of the team to get it

[DisabledAccount]

12 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Badbird, what you have described is bad sportsmanship, and it is a shame that you cannot recognize it. There are no "enemies" in the game of football, and phrases like that have no place in our discussion. I am very thankful that I do not have to communicate with many coaches who have your attitude, and that we are changing the way that the game of football is taught to be understood by young people today.

No there isn't really a enemy but it's a mindset that is needed to win

 

If you go out there and view your opponent as a "friend" or "buddy" you won't go as hard and you will lose 

 

You have to go out there and know that you not just going roll over to your opponent and let them win

[OldSchoolLion]

 

32 minutes ago, Proseteye said:

No sport should be violent. The purpose of sport is knowledge and skill, not who is the toughest street fighter in the neighborhood. When you enjoy hurting your opponent then you have lost the game already.

And this is why society is starting to question the game. 

Put a bunch of big dudes with higher than average aggression rates in a room and get them to start ramming into each other, and what is going to happen?  It's simply human nature.  Studies have shown that when you hit people it makes you even more aggressive.  

The design of the game fosters a "killer" mindset.  It's goal is to knock people to the ground-big, fast, strong people who are moving at you.  You are not going to be very successful if you don't come after the guys of today with a major attitude. 

A skilled wrestler can easily take an opponent to the ground without hurting him.  The movements are somewhat controlled.  Now tell that wrestler to take a guy to the ground who is coming at him full bore with a very mean look in his eyes.  ...totally different ball game.  There is a good chance someone is going to get hurt.    

Some of the great players have been described as having an "on-off" switch.  There is no second gear.  We have to accept that these personality types are playing football today.  Look at Mike Tyson.  ...quiet guy who talks to the pigeons outside the ring, but put gloves on him and he wants to eat your children(look it up if you do not know).    

  

 

 

[DarterBlue2]

On 1/19/2018 at 11:27 AM, Proseteye said:

No sport should be violent. The purpose of sport is knowledge and skill, not who is the toughest street fighter in the neighborhood. When you enjoy hurting your opponent then you have lost the game already.

Proseteye, at the risk of stating the obvious, by its very nature, football, like boxing (there are other sports) is inherently violent. How else can you explain its rules which allows for perpetration of violence on the part of one athlete on another?

The question is: can the sport still be enjoyable and still provide benefit to those that watch and play when rules are put in place to reduce the level of violence, thereby mitigating permanent and/or life threatening injury?

If the answer is no, and the level of violence is unacceptable due to severe injury to the sport's participants, then it should be banned. It's really as simple as that. 

[DisabledAccount]

31 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:

Proseteye, at the risk of stating the obvious, by its very nature, football, like boxing (there are other sports) is inherently violent. How else can you explain its rules which allows for perpetration of violence on the part of one athlete on another?

The question is: can the sport still be enjoyable and still provide benefit to those that watch and play when rules are put in place to reduce the level of violence, thereby mitigating permanent and/or life threatening injury?

If the answer is no, and the level of violence is unacceptable due to severe injury to the sport's participants, then it should be banned. It's really as simple as that. 

You have a point there 

 

Question becomes how much can you change the rules before the game of football losses what it is and would be better to drop it completely 

[DarterBlue2]

49 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

You have a point there 

 

Question becomes how much can you change the rules before the game of football losses what it is and would be better to drop it completely 

Exactly. As a fan, I don't want the death or permanent disability of players to be on my conscience. But I do enjoy the game and believe it teaches many important life lessons.

My view of football is much the same as Carol Joyce Oats's view of Boxing was when she wrote a book on the sport in the 1980s. There is a lot of ambivalence on my part. 

[OldSchoolLion]

1 hour ago, DarterBlue2 said:

Proseteye, at the risk of stating the obvious, by its very nature, football, like boxing (there are other sports) is inherently violent. How else can you explain its rules which allows for perpetration of violence on the part of one athlete on another?

The question is: can the sport still be enjoyable and still provide benefit to those that watch and play when rules are put in place to reduce the level of violence, thereby mitigating permanent and/or life threatening injury?

If the answer is no, and the level of violence is unacceptable due to severe injury to the sport's participants, then it should be banned. It's really as simple as that. 

It's interesting. Someone sees an opportunity to make a buck, pulls a sporting event into the limelight, continues pushing it to extreme levels, the public gets turned off(and in some cases question/attack its value), interest wanes, ....repeat.

Even stuff like pro wrestling and bodybuilding went from obscure subcultures to freak shows in the public's eye. Compared to yesteryear, today's hs football is a freak show on a number of fronts.  

The real villains are the promoters looking to exploit.  They are not interested in improving the game, though they claim to have such a desire.  Ironically, people in those subcultures often have no interest in being in the public's eye.  They are quite happy flying under the radar.  I bet a lot of hs coaches were just peachy being a 1-inch box score on the back page of the sports section. 

These promoters will let nothing alone.  Look at MMA.  Traditional martial arts was not showy enough, so we had to "create" MMA. And now much of the public thinks MMA is what martial arts is all about.

We had a good thing going with hs football.  The people in the sport used to accept the sport for what it is, risks and all.  I am afraid that now it has gone mainstream (thanks ESPN, sports apparel manufacturers and 7-figure college coaches), there is no going back.  Some are still willing to accept the risks, but cannot escape the public scrutiny.   

 

    

[badbird]

you can go watch a 7 on 7 game of flag football.  It is not violent.  

[DisabledAccount]

Just now, badbird said:

you can go watch a 7 on 7 game of flag football.  It is not violent.  

I've watched Columbia almost break out into a brawl over 7 on 7 games

 

[badbird]

1 minute ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

I've watched Columbia almost break out into a brawl over 7 on 7 games

 

Oh no What a bunch of punks, losers, thugs, horrible, bad sportsmanship kids they are.  

[DisabledAccount]

21 minutes ago, badbird said:

Oh no What a bunch of punks, losers, thugs, horrible, bad sportsmanship kids they are.  

Hey now i graduated from there!

 

[badbird]

53 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Hey now i graduated from there!

 

point made case closed 

[DisabledAccount]

2 minutes ago, badbird said:

point made case closed 

(mutes badbird for life)

 

LMAO 

[Proseteye]

Just a few facts from the professionals.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/health/cte-concussion-repeated-hits-study/index.html

[peezy28]

We should just drop the sport all together and start a 7 on 7 or rugby league... Contact football should be outlawed in all 50 states .

[DisabledAccount]

11 minutes ago, peezy28 said:

We should just drop the sport all together and start a 7 on 7 or rugby league... Contact football should be outlawed in all 50 states .

They do that I'll stick to baseball and softball 

 

And maybe start going to more basketball with the free time I'll have 

[OldSchoolLion]

Are kids transferring in the other sports anywhere near the level of football?