The NCAA, and the law of unintended consequences


I think we can all guess what happened, but if you want a likely explanation…

Results of this study demonstrated a relatively modest effect of that ruling in reducing weekly head impact burden during the preseason (− 2.2%) and the unanticipated effect of increasing the total head impact burden by over 25% across the entire preseason. This was likely attributable to increased contact intensity (impacts per hour) during the 2017 preseason, resulting in a greater number of preseason head impacts over the same number of preseason team contact practice sessions.

In other words, coaches compensated for the elimination of two-a-days by amping up the intensity of the practices they had.  Hey, nobody saw that coming, right?

The great thing about this is that the litigation threat isn’t going away, so the NCAA is going to have to take another stab at fixing the problem.  Lather, rinse and repeat for the win!


Filed under The Body Is A Temple, The NCAA

4 responses to “The NCAA, and the law of unintended consequences

  1. What makes you think coaches upped the intensity rather than the intensity naturally went up because the players were not as tired?


    • What makes you think players would be more tired in the first practice of a two-a-day than in a single practice?


      • Because it is likely that knowing they only had one practice to go through they would not feel the need to save anything as they would id they knew they had two.


    • Got Cowdog

      Maybe it was just how my coach did it, but our two a day’s were full contact in the morning, and half shells in the afternoon. If one was taken away I can guarantee you it would have been the afternoon skill drills. It wouldn’t have significantly reduced contact.