New CTE study results
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
But my post had nothing to do with the risk level.....I only meant to make a prediction brought upon by the overwhelming evidence out there.....and how far the repercussions of this evidence may go.
This won't be why high schools drop football. Lack of funding will do that by itself. But safety and liability exposure will be at the top of the list when it comes to excuses to make the cut.
When you look at HS sports, football is the only one that doesn't have some sort of "club team" that plays in the off-season. If you play almost any other HS sport, there is probably a really good opportunity to play on a quality club team against better competition somewhere else. Football will be no different.
The "overwhelming evidence" is a big reason why that is a very unlikely scenario.
Every guy I know that wasn't a super star had the same experience. It's financially easier to add a rookie than it is to hold on to a third year guy on the back end of the roster. I'm not talking about first round guys. I'm talking about the guys that fall in the "not the star" category. There's even a large percentage of starters that don't make squat. Villanueva comes to mind. He got $615k to start a full season at left tackle. Same as Leterrius Walton did. If he would have gone down with an injury and not been able to come back, what's his worth? He'd have ended up signing somewhere for next to nothing, hoping to play back to a good contract position. And hoping he wasn't "too expensive" compared to the rookie they just brought in. That's how it works.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. I think if you started tracking down a list of "oh, I remember that name" guys, you'll find that they're not in great financial shape ten years out of the league and the lucky ones are working in those $50k jobs.
But with the new CBA, it isn't really "financially easier". The difference is: what is the upside to the 3rd year vet who only plays ST vs. the rookie? Practically zilch. That is especially true when you start adding in injuries and distractions. That is why those guys get replaced. Very, very few of them get replaced for salary reasons when they are making the minimums.
That is undoubtedly true. Why is that? Most of these guys are morons. They are making $500k (before taxes and agency fees, etc.) and spending $600k. A lot are guys who came from nothing, were just passed through their HS and our Universities, and maybe given a piece of paper for staying around for 4-5 years. They watch their teammates, who can afford it, and blow their cash and take loans and are living paycheck to paycheck. They get out of the league and they have less than when they entered. That has absolutely nothing to do with it being worth it. That has everything to do with them being idiots, who don't make smart financial decisions. Our society has the same problem for the guys making $50K and living like they make $75k.
I actually heard a 68 year old guy, who probably makes about $130k a year, say he needs to figure out his retirement savings and tell some 35 year old they should save "at least the 5% match" and "he wishes he did that". The moron is 68 and his advice is to save 5% for retirement. It isn't just athletes.
If you can make $2M (before taxes) in 4 years and you aren't financially stable, that isn't a problem with the sport or the league. That is a problem with you.
I don't think it's always that simple but your point is well taken.
The point of the whole discussion is, at what point is it "worth it".
I'm not saying they all make that, but if you make $2M in 4 years, you should be on easy street the rest of your life. As a single guy (22-26) you can live great on $100k per year, so that means you should easily be able to have $950k in savings at 27 years old. The problem is most of these guys aren't very bright and get caught up in "living large". Of course, again, that plays into the fact that without football many of them wouldn't even sniff a University and they'd be lucky to have a decent job, ever. So, for the vast majority, those chasing down pension years in the pros have already made a hell of a lot from the game, which they would otherwise have missed out on.
Never say someone from J-town is from Central Pa...Central PA folks are Branch Joevidians and the Amish and geographically it does not fly.
Last edited:
I do think this......all of these "Friday Night Tykes" and crap like this......kids at least until Jr High have no need to play organized, tackle football as is currently set up, with some guy who manages a 7-11 thinks he is the local version of Nick Saban. I see guys immortalized.....as Pee Wee coaches. No. Sorry. Kids should not be allowed to play this form of football until at least 13-14 years old.
Good point. I live over the ridge from Johnstown in the heart of what you describe. It's pretty accurate. But I've been privileged to get to know some of those guys and Johnstown has produced some real talent.
Yes, its like the smokers and tobacco companies that tried to discredit research that showed smoking was harmful to your health. A non-smoker will cough involuntarily, to expel the nasty smoke in their lungs, if they accidentally breath some in, because its not supposed to be there. Common sense says that pumping smoke into your lungs all day long, day after day, will lead to serious health issues.
And the decline in youth football participation in most of the country happened quickly, and its been very steep in most places. As a fan, its sad to say this, but football is going to go the way of boxing. Kids from poor, uneducated families, will continue to play it for the glory and as a way out of poverty. But families who think their kids have other options will not let their kids play. LeBron, who loved football, won't let his kids play.
This study, biased or not, is just one more nail in the coffin.
Similar threads
