Talk:American football

Concussions and reversions

Is all of this reversion rubbish that has to be deleted? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was uncontroversial and added the fact that 30% of players suffer from brain damage. I found this more important than a broken leg.

I have deleted the "especially females" since you may think that mothers are not more protective/risk-averse towards their sons than fathers.

In "League of Denial" and newspaper articles the point was made that a 10% drop in youth football players by the (completely rational) decision of mothers not to let their kids play

would mean the end of the game. I don't really see what why a kid should risk permanent brain damage for a small chance of becoming a glorified ballplayer. 193.62.251.21 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would a 10% drop mean the end of the game? If anything it would slightly decrease the quality of available players. And as you might know, the NFL is very aggressively trying to enter foreign markets, not least to generate new playing talent Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The claim is found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oral-history/league-of-denial/a-league-in-denial .

I have no idea if softer rules would make football less popular or whether a 10% drop in acceptance would change attitudes enough. Perhaps future players could come from poor households (has happened at boxing or sumo wrestling).

Yet brain damage is not funny, so the 10% might increase. The next years will tell whether that is sensible. 193.62.251.21 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How about Flag Football?

Does Flag Football solve the problem? Is anyone considering that? Should we mention it in the article? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)