Shot.
College football players sustained far more concussions during practices than they did in games, medical researchers reported on Monday, a finding certain to add to the years long debate about regulating training regimens across the sport.
… The authors of the new study, published in JAMA Neurology, a peer-reviewed journal, found that 72 percent of the concussions they reviewed over five college football seasons happened during practice. And although preseason training accounted for about one-fifth of the time the researchers studied, they found that nearly half of the concussions occurred during that period.
Chaser.
The report will fuel the longstanding debate about safety in college football, but changes do not appear to be imminent.
Surprise, surprise…
Get The Picture 
Do they break up when in practice? Do they wear helmets to practice? Does the fact that they practice more than they play make this a fact that has to do the amount of time versus being more safe in games? Those questions are just the first one of the top of my head.
LikeLike
The study points out twice as many high impacts happen in a game vs a practice. Since there are more practices than games (and more full speed practices in preseason) practices have more concussions.
They NY times publishes the data point they want to get their agenda across. No different than any other propaganda they distribute on a daily basis.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So, there are more concussions, but that’s propaganda?
Guess there’s nothing to worry about, then.
LikeLike
Next they will report more football games in a season results in more concussions. They grab something to get a fear reaction.
The definition of propaganda- noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view
LikeLike
Welp, first of all, what they’ve grabbed is a peer-reviewed neurology newsletter.
Second, they appear to have several experts who weren’t involved in the study who sound alarmed by the data.
Finally…
Is that biased, or misleading? I have a hard time telling.
What exactly would you prefer here in terms of presenting the information? Not providing it at all?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guess a question I have in response is “what are coaches supposed to do?” Limit contact in practice resulting in bad fundamentals which potentially lead to more injuries (many of which can be severe) in games?
Neurologists have had a goal to end full contact football for years. I understand their perspective.
LikeLike
From the article:
I’m really curious why the general response here seems to be to shrug and act as if there’s nothing the schools can do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe we only go full pads 2x per week during the season and really good on good 1x per week with the other 2 days in shells or helmets only (with no tackling to the ground). If the NCAA wanted to mandate full pads once a week during the season, I don’t think most coaches would have a problem with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is there more that can be done to reduce concussions? Yes.
Having said that, I think the statement of “In the N.F.L.’s 2019 regular season, less than 7 percent of concussions happened during practices, according to league data.” is accurate but misleading. 30% of the concussions occurred in the preseason (practice plus games – https://www.nfl.com/playerhealthandsafety/health-and-wellness/injury-data/injury-data).
What is also interesting in the JAMA study, it followed 658 players across 5 years and reported 68 concussions. (10.3%) In the NFL, it reported 224 concussions across 2019. If extrapolated, you should have around 2167 NFL participants — probably close to accurate. Which could support the argument that players experience concussions at around the same rate.
LikeLike
I want the info presented and less concussions. My questions may be answered in the study and if so I am sorry I did not read the link. I think coaches want less concussions and other injuries too because they know the players on a personal level. Did the study say what type of practice caused the most concussions.
LikeLike
That study is equivalent to discovering there’s more saltwater in the world than freshwater. I would like to see studies that focus on how to mitigate the risk of concussions. The NCAA eliminated 2 a days and only allow full pad practices every other day. Also practice photos show the extra wrap around the helmet padding on most players. Both actions are practical ways to reduce risk. Another suggestion would be playing on 1” grass vs Augusta cut to reduce the speed of the players.
As far as data the study should present the data on a concussions per rep/play vs game/preseason/in season practice. I’m sure Georgia scores more touchdowns in practice than in games.
LikeLike
I’m to lazy to find a Capt. Obvious gif that points out that concussions are higher in practices because they have 10x the amount of practices than games…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d be willing to bet that the results are exactly the opposite when it comes to qbs.
LikeLike
Because they aren’t hit in practices? Yeah, I’d agree. Without going to full flag/touch football, concussions are the “nature of the beast” I’m afraid.
In my opinion, removing contact during practices would lead to even more injuries in games because the players wouldn’t getting the live tacking reps required to do it properly. Tackling is about technique. Now more so than ever since you can’t spear/target/etc.. like you could back in the good ol’e days. It would be a “free-for-all” tacking/injury bonanza on Saturday’s if contact was withheld during the week.
My .02 cents anyway.
LikeLike
The point was that coaches decide to protect certain players while putting others at risk.
It isn’t as simple as “practice is longer than games so more concussions during the week” as suggested.
If we don’t figure this out, we’re going to lose the greatest game ever. Cavalier attitudes towards brain injury doesn’t help.
We need to take the head out of the game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
QBs don’t need to block or tackle so they are protected in practice because it does them no good to get them hit in practice.
I’m not sure what “taking the head out of the game” means. So long as tackling happens, injuries will occur. It’s not cavalier. I just staying a fact.
LikeLike
I’d say it would have done us a helluva lot of good to see how dwan reacted to getting hit before we found out on the first series.
They aren’t protected for the reasons you state. They’re protected because they are uniquely rare and vulnerable.
Of course injuries will be a part of football. We’re taking about brain injuries. They are qualitatively different than other sorts of injury.
If we don’t reduce the frequency of concussions we’re going to lose the game and we’ll be forced into unAmerican activities like men’s soccer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soccer has a concussion problem at all levels. They have talked about eliminating the header to get rid of players leaving their feet and hitting each other.
LikeLike
Players make the decision to play/practice. Unless I’m missing something…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Concussions occur more in practice than in games … today in water is wet. Teams practice 4-5 days per week in various states of equipment readiness (and all of those in helmets). Throw in that 100+ players participate in practice compared to a subset in games. I’m not surprised that concussion rates are higher in a practice environment when there are more collisions overall than in games.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Help me out here please. Seems to me the concussion occurrence is primarily the OL and DL, right? Then LB/RB? Otherwise it would be the odd tackling angle/targeting foul which we seem to be getting pretty good at avoiding.
I say this because I get the feeling that the LOS is not getting the attention here.
LikeLike
This feels like a non-story. Even if just 2 padded practices per game, that’d be 2/3 of concussions if they occur equally. Add in Spring & pre-season practices, and I feel like this number means concussions happen at a much lower rate in practice than in games. Concussions are serious & concussions numbers are important regardless of when they’re happening, but not sure what NYT is adding to the discussion with this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My concussion came in practice. Which is obvious cause it aint like it was coming in a game all that often.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I resemble that remark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if they wore two–or even three–helmets if that would mitigate the risk of concussion? More needs to be done!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Underrated comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL…..good one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Research suggests keeping players 6 feet apart would eliminate all but non-contact injuries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They need to figure out a way to take the head out of the game. I’d be interested to know if this is a lesser problem in rugby.
It seems logical to me that you’re more likely to not use your head as weapon without that protective shell and face mask.
Tackling is atrocious enough tho. We can’t continue to go down the road of 67-64 football. The seccg was an abomination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m guessing CTE is still a big problem in rugby between the scrums and the tackling. There isn’t the head-to-head contact like we see (and are trying to get out of football). I bet the guys who do the tackling end up with CTE over time with the head meeting the legs of guys who are running full speed. OTOH, there isn’t a lot of hitting defenseless players because there isn’t blind side blocking or the ball in the air.
Of course, the sports are different, but I would assume the CTE risks are somewhat similar.
LikeLike
I’ve posted this here before over the years. My dad played in the early fifties when they just had a thin plastic shell with minimal webbing and no facemask. He said they just played the game different. Players kept their head upright, used shoulder pads more for blocking and tackling. Everyone knew better than to lead with the head, so there wasn’t nearly the amount of concussions. With the evolution of the helmet resulting in much harder material, superior padding, and full facemasks, it became a weapon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
^This
LikeLike
Concussions unfortunately are part of contact sports. A reasonable goal should be to minimize concussions without fundamentally changing the game.
The fact plaintiff lawyers have their claws out means all bets are off. Follow the money.
LikeLike
I have a friend that is in the NFL CTE program. He played OL for 13 years. I doubt he made 2 tackles in 13 years yet he still had multiple concussions.
LikeLike
NFL OL are some tough hombres.
LikeLike
He has told me numerous times that he would do it again knowing full well the dangers.
LikeLike
They could just ask adult players if they understand there is a risk of injury while playing sports.
If the players don’t, then it should be explained that it could happen.
Then once everyone understands they could ask them if they still wish to compete.
LikeLike
Excellent! If only the NCAA had thought of that before coming up with the penalty for targeting…
LikeLike
That was the response to reduce concussions. Along with changing how kickoffs worked so Im confused on how the metric went up. Bureaucratic leadership ftw.
LikeLike
I can only assume targeting is allowed in practices when there are no referees around.
LikeLike
These are acquired traumatic brain injuries often into the double and triple digits under the guise of help. I post this here as Dr. Bennett Omalu famous for findings of CTE in the NFL is now on record stating the same is anticipated in ECT patients from the repeated brain injuries. Patients are told it is safe? A hidden topic about brain injury is from the electrical mechanism of trauma secondary to the procedure called ECT/Electroshock. Each and every procedure based on trauma medicine and mechanism is a TBI at minimum. Brain injury programs recognize this mechanism and just because a physician inflicts it, does not change anticipated outcomes that impact the entire body. Damages being found on testing. CA courts have proved brain injuries yet consent still fails to spell this out. Consent also fails to mention the long term outcomes potential of structural brain changes, CTE, and ALS etc. Where are the providers of all types that should be advocating for patients when they fully know these anticipated outcomes. Billions involved. Providers feel they have the right to use a device that has never had pre- market approval. To use this device and perform a procedure that has never had FDA testing for safety or effectiveness. Lawsuits now taking place in US and England around damages from this yet media helps this dirty little secret remain in place in not exposing the information they have been given. ECT is not just for depression nor used as a last resort. This also impacts our children and Veterans. There is an increase in suicide following. Providers recall your oath. Here is one of 5 videos on this issue. Please expose the information you learn please all over social so others are warned. https://youtu.be/M-B-WrYw7GE
LikeLike