Let's talk about Larry Fedora. Most of you are aware of what he said by now, but just in case you haven't:
Larry Fedora: "Our game is under attack ... I fear that the game will be pushed so far from what we know that we won't recognize it 10 years from now. And if it does, our country will go down, too."— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) July 18, 2018
Larry Fedora also started talking about how a member of the military told him our military is so great because so many military members played football growing up.— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) July 18, 2018
Larry Fedora: "I don't think it's been proven that the game of football causes CTE. We don't really know that. Are there chances for concussions? Of course. There are collisions. But the game is safer than it's ever been."— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) July 18, 2018
On a completely totally unrelated note, UNC has a famous traumatic brain injury research center dedicated to sports on campus.
Comments
RIP
Deep ignorance. He's well on his way to talking about the "good old days" and "how things used to be" with his buddies in the YMCA steam room. Figured he'd go ahead and get a head start on it today.
Well, this thread should be...um...interesting.
Oh boy.
Sounds like he has CTE.
Drink!
Disagree. It may have been posted in the ACC Kickoff Open Thread (at least I think that's where I saw it), but it deserves its own thread.
Edit: Oh, looky there, you had a link to it!
haha yea i know it definitely deserves its own thread, just wanted to bust some chops
chust some bops
"Bust some chops" anagrams to "bosom chests up".
Irresponsible of Fedora to do this. Downplaying the significant vulnerabilities to a person's long-term mental capacity by being a college football player is demeaning to the players he coaches. Much smarter people than me have written numerous articles linking repetitive head trauma to CTE, Fedora has absolutely no authority or evidence to make that kind of statement.
This is America, everyone has the freedom to make whatever decision they want. That being said, it's the responsibilities of football coaches to be upfront and honest about the scientific evidence out there so every prospect can make a well-informed decision.
If I had a son who was a P5 football prospect, I would immediately take UNC off my list. It's clear that Fedora does not have his player's interest in mind.
We do not know if Football is the cause. There clearly is a correlation, but we do not yet know the cause. Head trauma is one component, but for CTE to occur does something else also have to be present? Genetic markers, drugs, etc. A lot more research is needed, but definitely good that the research is being done, and we learn more about it each year.
If I had a son who was a P5 football prospect, UNC would have never been allowed on my kid's list in the first place!!
The cause is most likely the hundreds of minor blows to the head that each player takes each season. Obviously a little more research is needed to find other risk factors, but this study sure makes it sound like a football issue.
Agree, a lot more research is needed. They've studied brains of those that clearly had CTE. To really understand, they need to study the brains of both retired players that show no symptoms and the also monitor the ongoing health of active players. A lot more data points are needed.
Fedoras actual comment was not that bad outside of the first sentence. Basically says what you said
Now he could have said "Not just football causes CTE but it's being portrayed that way as if other sports aren't experiencing the same thing." And I feel like it would probably still been sensationalized but it would have been better.
Or, "the truth is soccer has the highest concussion rate among youth sports but youth football is being targeted directly as if it's the only sport linked to CTE. We need to continue to make the sport safer, all sports safer for kids up through the ranks. We just need to find a way to do it that keeps the integrity of the game nd doesn't turn it into something completely different 10 years from now. "
Now, I don't know if that's what he was trying to say, but reading through his entire actual dialogue, he could have stated things better.
Frankly the part that I got wigged out over was the last sentence. On one hand the way he said the first sentence was pretty tone deaf but somewhat understandable. The weird part was saying that the country would go down too. That's weird AF and makes him look kinda crazy
Further study is going to be done no matter what, but if you're holding out hope that it isn't directly related, or at least heavily impacted by repeated head trauma (football, boxing, etc). I think you're going to end up being very disappointed.
not holding out hope for anything other than a clearer picture of the causes. I said head trauma is most definitely one component. Most football players experience head trauma. Not sure why I'm getting down votes for stating that there is still much to be known about CTE and its causes.
I hate it when people pull this one. It's true that sometimes people get carried away making assumptions about correlations, but it's also a common cop out in the face of overwhelming evidence.
https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics-didnt-believe/
I don't think it is a cop out, and I'm not downplaying seriousness of CTE. The same way that their are people who smoke there entire life and don't get cancer, there are also people who have long football careers and do not get CTE. All I am saying is that the correlation is strong, which is why so many people choose not to smoke and why so many people are concerned about football/CTE. But we do not know if every smoker or every football player is truly at risk; perhaps there are a number of other factors that also have to be present. My only point is that there is still a lot we do not understand about the world.
"We still don't know what's causing it. Is it the activity where you literally bang the shit out of your head multiple times a day for years on end, and the common factor separating this population being studied from society at large? Or a bunch of other factors that have nothing to do with head trauma and show no correlation with CTE? We just have no clue what it is, your guess is as good as mine."
I will say, that as someone with 3 diagnosed concussions, this type of disregard for brain injuries is shocking.
I've been barred from contact sports and I've had 3. I can only imagine the damage that can be done to football players' brains. Fedora coming out and saying something as reckless as this is very dangerous. I hope there are no other coaches that think this way.
yea him saying the game was getting safer now than it has ever was not exactly helping his cause
Isn't that true though? "Safer than it ever has been" isn't exactly a high threshold to meet
I also would like to see proof that it's safer than it has ever been. Yes helmet technology has become more advanced than it was 20 years ago, but you also didn't have 275lb players that could run 4.6 40's 20 years ago. When these guys hit it is literally like a car crash.
Also, with helmets being advertised as safer, it gives players a false sense of security to use their head to tackle because they feel they're protected. MMA has discussed taking away gloves because without them fighters wouldn't punch as hard. If they did then they would break their hand. The gloves allow them to punch just about as hard as they want because their hands are protected, but the damage done on the other end is a lot worse. Same thing with how rugby players don't tackle with their heads.
This is a good point and leg for bringing it up
Doug Baldwin said it best: Ballroom dancing is a contact sport, football is a collision sport.
just FYI, Doug Baldwin anagrams to Loud Windbag.
If you get rid of the face mask, then I suspect a lot of players would stop hitting with their heads and be more cautious with the type of contact they initiate. Won't ever happen, but I have often wondered.
Rugby is a good example of what you speak... and you are correct.
I've had two concussions from playing soccer from just getting tripped up and having my head slam against the ground. I can't imagine getting a concussion from something coming at you just as hard and fast as you moving toward it.
You're diving wrong. You're only meant to fake a career ending injury for few minutes and then pop up and run around as if it never happened.
Do you even soccer?
/s
(sorry to hear about your concussions)
I forgot the part where I need to tuck and roll.
Fedora was off-base to question the validity of the studies, but he is correct to suggest that the studies have given new impetus to attacks on football from the same people who have always hated it for aesthetic/cultural reason (think the Charlottesville demographic). If this is a game we love, we have to defend it.
People who are "culturally" against football are the same people who like soccer purely to put out the "I'm an intellectual" vibe. They're sports hipsters. Purposely likely things only because they aren't mainstream doesn't make you interesting, it just makes you a douchebag.
Why are we randomly attacking soccer fans now? How can you tell when an interest is real and when it's done to "give a vibe"? Does everyone need to defend their likes and make sure everybody else knows their interests are genuine? Sorting out the douches from the non-douches sounds like exhausting work.
First clue would be the Zima in their hand.
This comment sounds very douchie honestly
Um...what? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Defend it from whom? Scientists?
Believe it or not, there are people who, for a variety of reasons, feel that football holds too central of a place in our culture. These people don't look to the studies to find ways to improve the safety of the game, but to devalue the game.
Then those people are idiots.
Technically he's right, because degrees from UNC aren't real either.
Totally and completely irresponsible of Fedora to say this, especially after he had a starting OL forced to retire in January after missing all of 2017 with a concussion.
Good thing he rents a helicopter and can quickly escape if needed.
Oh, we are talking about scrutiny. Disregard.
Is this the Make Football Great Again argument?
Easy, big fella.
Can you imagine if Fedora and Bronco had a meeting of the minds?
That would be um spe-cial. Bless their hearts..(this comment needs to be read with a southern accent for the full affect).
But wouldn't it just be a meeting of 2 beings? A meeting of the minds leads me to believe that there would be some intellect.
To be fair, if I had consecutive losses to a division rival by a combined score of 93 to 10, I'd feel like my game was under attack too.
Has he said his comments don't count because it was raining when he made them?
For real though, how can he honestly believe this?
..... why did they animate the logo?
Probably because the new logo (the one on the actual shirt) is ugly as sin.
Edit to add original:
Looks like the same logo to me.
Dammit I had them backwards
Not much difference. Is this what outsiders see when they see our new academic logo?
Probably, actually.
Looks like both Jaguars were sucking on a blue popsicle.
They certainly know a lot about sucking
Forget Fedora
#askingdarealquestions
I mean it kinda makes sense he doesnt want football to change, he had the ACC team with the worst record of the entire conference last year, he is having enough trouble being good at the sport as is.
But yeah I suspect his AD is having some very fun conversations tonight.
He didn't even mention how games shouldn't be played in the rain. What was he thinking?
Wow... He should have kept his mouth shut. Concussions are a thing. Repeated concussions cause long term problems, and even if they "didn't" cause CTE we shouldn't be encouraging obvious injury in sport. If you can't remember who the President is after getting hit somethings wrong.
Let's just say that there's not connection to brain injury due to not wearing a helmet while falling off a bicycle or motorcycle while we're at it.
In this day and age, I'm surprised he doesn't get shitcanned outright for saying something like that.
To be fair, that probably resides in an academic building, so no telling whether he even knows it's there.
I took this episode as Fedora lowering expectations for his team this year. It's like he's saying, "The risk of concussions is lowering the number of people who want to play, so there are less good players to go around, and we don't have any of them."
Heard he put up "Best UVA" signs in their locker room.
Bronco was going to say it, but Fedora got interviewed first and stole his thunder.
Classic technique employed by failing coaches. Throw a controversial comment out there to bait and lead the media members away from asking why you are doing so poorly at your job. Apparently it worked since most of the attention is focused on his comments and not his on field performance.
Applicable to anyone with a public-facing job, really, not just coaches.
I know I used this same gif the last time UNC football was brought up, but it's just so applicable.
via GIPHY
It never ceases to amaze me that people manage to be successful enough to reach a high level in their profession and then say things that are mind numbingly ignorant and just out of touch with reality.
Still trying to figure out what happened in that gif.
Looks to me like the wheels fell off.
Big, if true.
It broke.
But seriously, I think the control arms and steering assembly just disintegrated.
edit: computer blue screened and double posted by accident.
Sureeeee, they always blame it on the computer.
Better to blame it on your blacked out brother instead
Or their drunk Russian brother.
Umm, what?
I find it funny that his brand of offense is "new age" and not the traditional/smash mouth style. He has also said he doesn't underssnd the need for defense.
Well you don't need a brain to get a degree from UNC so I understand his confusion in thinking you might not need one after playing football for UNC as well.
His first sentence is correct. He should have stopped there.
That the game is under attack?? Really??
Really. The game is under attack and at this rate it will neither be recognizable or interesting in 10 years (that may be an exaggeration...but it may not as well.)
Most of the changes have been emotional and reactionary without any real analysis of the root causes or whether the solutions (proposed and implemented) will have any positive outcome.
Example: Moving the kickoff line up to discourage KO returns.
The game is evolving. Just like the forward pass or *Gasp* better helmets. Do you think the game was under attack with those introductions too?
Change is inevitable. To add a stupid label like "under attack" is just a type of jingoism for football. And I have no issue with moving the kickoff line to discourage KO returns - especially if it makes the game safer for the athletes.
jin·go·ism
ˈjiNGɡōˌizəm/Submit
nounderogatory
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.
synonyms: extreme patriotism, chauvinism, extreme nationalism, xenophobia, flag-waving; hawkishness, militarism, belligerence, bellicosity
"a newspaper known for its jingoism"
Do you disagree with my use of it? I think its apt.
It wasn't a comment on your use of the word. Since I had to look it up, I was posting it so that if there were others they wouldn't have to.
Also, any time someone TKPs a big word someone usually posts the definition.
I support safety improvements to the game. However, the public perception of football has taken a hit. Youth football enrollment drops each year. Overall, interest in playing the sport is falling even if the ratings for watching are growing. The bubble will eventually burst if we can't safely get the youth back playing the sport. I am not complaining, just observing. As I said, I support safety improvements to the game. I do think that there is some level of exaggeration when it comes to the risks of younger athletes (but I am open minded to any and all information we can get from more research). So, when you say we are just evolving like the forward pass, you are right. However, we have never seen a potential for a loss in fans like we are seeing right now with every decision a parent makes to hold their kid out of football.
The game is under attack in multiple ways - from the fundamental way it is played to the courtroom.
Your attitude re: the kickoff illustrates EXACTLY what I was refering to. I have never seen ANY evidence whatsoever that kickoffs are actually more dangerous to player health on a per play basis. It's all feel good stuff that folks assume is correct.
If you really wanted to make the game safer, it seems to me you make the target on the back of QBs and receivers less predictable. That's where the most violent and injury causing action seems to be. The rules - and the way they are selectively enforced - make it so everybody and their brother (and more importantly Def Coord, DBs, LBs and DEs) know with a high liklihood where the ball is going to be. And move their pieces accordingly.
Or instead of the "safer" helmets, perhaps go to no helmet or minimal helmet? Take away the feeling of invincibility and maybe you get less "invincible" behavior? I don't know if that's true or false, but if it was true, you can bet it aint gonna happen because that would slow down the game and would have a cool factor of about 1 on a 10 point scale.
So spare me all of the sanctimony about the powers-that-be wanting to make the game safer. They give us things like the nebulous "targeting" penalty to give the PR illusion of making the game safer to appease the blowhard punditry in Bristol, CT while still keeping the basketball-on-grass alive and kicking.
Examples: Getting blindsided when a kid doesn't call a fair catch. Or someone get's cleated by a block from behind when a kick is being returned. By minimizing that I don't think that's "attacking the game". If you want to watch a kick off for the hits then chances are you probably watch Nascar for the crashes. I'm not saying KO are the only way CTEs occur but they certainly are one of them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. They do have that now. Targeting rules are there for a reason. If you have another suggestion i'm all for it, but don't suggest that they aren't trying to address this. I do agree they could do this better but this is a step in the right direction. And really, if you think that changing the KO rules is an "attack on the game" and you're ok with the big Kam Chancellor-type hits being changed then you're picking at the peas.
If someone were to suggest this then you'd probably say the game "is under attack" then. You've given yourself a catch-22. The game could be, and needs to be, safer. The steps taken right now aren't 100% of the way there, but to say they aren't doing anything but "attacking the game" is incorrect.
I've seen this statistic floating around in several articles over the past few months so a quick Google search comes up with this:
That was from https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/competition-committee-recommend-cutting-ki...
I'd also seen statistics stating the number of concussions on kickoffs, and the percentage of the total being far higher than the percentage of total plays that are kickoffs (probably the same statistic), but I couldn't find that quickly.
I'd like to set the over/under on Fedora's continued tenure at UNC at 5 months. Who wants some action?
Not touching that with a 10 foot pole.
Let's see... 5 months puts us at 12/19, well after typical coach firing season.
My money is on the under.
Larry Fedora can be found in: r/niceguys
If Fuente coached like he wanted to beat UNCheat by 50 before, this could make him coach like he wants to beat them by 100. I'm okay with that.
Fedora can go perform several anatomically impossible tasks.
I think Larry is beating himself just fine.
I wish Fuente would coach like he wanted to beat every team (especially GT) by 50