If 10 percent of Moms don't let their sons play football... - Concussion (2015) Discussion

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I think he means from an economic stand point, if you lose 10% of future possible players it means less money coming in and if less money coming in you cant maintain the stadiums which would cause it to close and then even more players leave. Its like cutting down salary by 10% but your rent+expenses stay the same.

reply

[–] jlemon22 9 years ago

That opens up another can of worms doesn't it? I love football, mainly college football but man have you seen how elaborate these stadiums are getting? I've been to the Dallas stadium for a few games and it's like a stadium inside of a shopping mall. It's ridiculous and fans and tax payers are paying the price.

reply

[–] zender8584 9 years ago

Was wondering about the math on this too. Is the profitability of the NFL so precarious that having only 90% of the current talent entering the bottom of the pyramid is the tipping point?

Let's look at it this way. Each year there are about 8-10 QBs that are good enough to win the superbowl (Bill Simmons's take not mine). A 10% loss would mean there are only 7-9(rounding up of course). Would that really mean that the NFL playoffs and superbowl are not as profitable as they are now.

I just don't see how 10% is the tipping point.

Maybe he meant that once 10% of parents pull their kids from Pop Warner, the other 90% begin to take notice and follow suit so that eventually it leads to 100%.

The Anne Sellors fan club: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1856457/board/threads/

reply

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I think its a nation wide fear that if there is a decline in kids enrolling to the sport long term it will start loosing money. A scare of that type might scare parents off which would lead to a drastic decline. If the decline is gradual the leauge will just suck it up and have less revenue.

I think they are afraid that it will be instant which would lead to a lot of job losses nation wide. I agree that 10 good QB a year to 8 a year, ain't making a difference.

Recent example is Wall-Mart closing 250+ stores. Economically it will impact their sales but they might get their revenue from higher prices or cutting costs on destitution. In football if a college is not bringing in enough good players and its being closed down. Its not like some other college will get more players and get better coaches, if they are working at capacity, they might add more personnel but its not like more kids from the nearby state will start to drive just for that college.

reply

[–] steamedsoup 9 years ago

Losing 10%, in the short term, means nothing.

Their audience/viewership isn't built entirely on people who actually play (or played) the sport, or whose family members play. And it's such a team-oriented sport, that the sport doesn't suffer at all from losing would-be great players/athletes who choose not to play.

I think they meant it would be the end in the sense that it would be the beginning of the decline. Football wasn't always the number 1 sport. Previous #1's suffered their own downfall. Football tries really hard to avoid that fate.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyCastle 9 years ago

To me that would be talking about injury reserve players, etc. NFL loses so many players to injury every year. Some players never return, some return but never the same. They can miss one game or an entire season.

So I think 10% would have a large impact on available players. As it is now, you see some really awful football players in the NFL and it is because of all these injuries. If you reduce the player pool by 10% I think you'd see far less competitive play.

There are really gifted athletes that choose the NFL over other sports, if they weren't allowed to play football they probably would excel in another sport. So yea NFL would lose a lot of talent.

reply

[–] joestl 9 years ago

After watching Concussion and the Frontline documentary it would be just foolish to not direct your kids more in the direction of basketball, hockey, soccer or baseball instead of football.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

But parents are already starting to rethink their sons playing football. Especially when you realize how few will ever play professionally, why mess up their brains for short-term athletics? Especially when they don't even know the minimum threshold for long-term damage. There's some evidence that even ONE concussion can lead to more risk of depression and memory loss

reply

[–] Trackmaster 9 years ago

Arguing that 90% of the available talent pool were result in 10% less profits is an insane argument. It might hold water if we were talking about the customer base, but we're talking about the supply of labor. They don't sign those players, they'll just sign other players. They have a monopoly that pays young adults millions to play a kids game. People will always want to do it. If the talent level decreased minimally people wouldn't care if it was across the board. Worse defenses would match about against worse offenses and make them look like they were before. It's about the parity of competition, not quality. Why do you think people still watch college football?

reply

[–] thulk01 9 years ago

Surely there is a baseline that makes it interesting though. For example if the skill level were decreased so much that you were basically watching some 6 year olds playing, nobody would pay to see that.

reply

[–] ILoveGaryBusey 9 years ago

In theory. But the NFL has been getting worse for awhile and its more popular than ever. They are excellent at making their stars seem human and relatable. They have a small schedule so they don't over saturate the fans. HD and new camera angles (thanks XFL!) have made the game an incredible watch. They have a minor league system that is easy to find and consume. They have found a way to make themselves relevant year round. They are marketing geniuses.

reply

[–] kenday1 9 years ago

I raised a grandson that is now 22 and I was so relieved when he did not choose to play football. So glad this movie came out to reveal the dangers that are really so obvious!

I worked with a man 40 years ago that had Epilepsy caused by football injuries.

What I really found interesting in the movie is when Dr Omalu spoke of how, like woodpeckers, have a built-in protection for their constant pecking heads being tramatized but human brains have no protection for blows that are sustained in head traumas.

I give the movie a 10. Will Smith did an awesome job!

reply

[–] MarkAntney 8 years ago

Ditto! The Ram too and remember he had something in a jar of water and shook it?

"What I really found interesting in the movie is when Dr Omalu spoke of how, like woodpeckers, have a built-in protection for their constant pecking heads being tramatized but human brains have no protection for blows that are sustained in head traumas.

I give the movie a 10. Will Smith did an awesome job!"

reply

[–] Dan2108 9 years ago

The person who stated that in the moview was a well-paid NFL lackey. Of course he tried to present the information in the most catastrophic terms and to emphasize it with percentages, but he was essentially protecting his source of income.

Moreover, given the choice between football suffering economically as a sport or an "industry" and the safety of my kid, the latter is undeniably the most important one.

reply

[–] J_Howlett1886 8 years ago

I thought he might have meant it could have like a domino effect, but yeah it was a confusing line.

reply

[–] yusifg 8 years ago

i don't think it means that remaining 90% will not carry the league or make it less profitable, but that that it won't stop there. 10% of moms making that decision will lead to other moms, at least, questioning if they need to do the same. it is essentially a new era, in which football will become the sport of those who clearly know that brain damage is a near-certainty, but they have no other choice but support their family through football. In a class of 40 parents, 2 moms standing their ground can do a lot.

reply