61 replies to this topic

[White lightning]

Bronco Billy, on 07 June 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Wow.  Paranoid much?  I never claimed that you made the number up, only that as a football fan you should have known the number was bogus.

BB, "ask and it will be given to you." (Luke 11:9-12)

First, I cannot believe the Professor actually emailed me back so quickly! Second, he emailed me the link quoting current NFL executive and former NFL player Troy Vincent who stated that "[o]ver the past 20 years, 15,018 players played in the NFL, but only 631 (4%) played three or more years. The average career length is 3.7 seasons, but players do not receive benefits unless they put in four years, both stats according to the NFL." Please see for yourself at http://sportsbybrook...3-seasons-29151. Finally, you can email the Professor at gfeldman@tulane.edu and "explain the math" of your spread sheet at your own leisure. Have a good night, I'm out!

Edited by White lightning, 07 June 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[MikesVikes]

stevegrab, on 07 June 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Have to agree with BB's last post, I work for a small company that treats its employees very well. But when I become a former employee (however that happens) I get nothing other than the money they were matching in my 401K fund.

I'm not sure what world Mike's Vikes lives in where "most companies" still provide pensions, health care and other benefits to former employees. Especially (as DMD points out) when your time with that company is so short.

I live in the same world as you where I work for a small company that has a defined contribution plan.  I can put in the maximum of $17000 per year and my employer pays in a non discretionary share of 3% (safe harbor) of my qualified wages and can elect to contribute more (profit sharing) at their discretion.    

The NFL must have a defined benefit plan where it doesn't work in the same way.  NFL players don't have segregated accounts if their pensions are paid out in a systematic way when it's payout time.

As far as comparing NFL players to me and my health care it doesn't seem fair.    NFL players try to dish out as much punishment to other players as possible on every play of every game of every season they play for.  On the other hand, I'm an accountant that on most days, nobody is trying to take my head off.

[Bronco Billy]

White lightning, on 07 June 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

BB, "ask and it will be given to you." (Luke 11:9-12)

First, I cannot believe the Professor actually emailed me back so quickly! Second, he emailed me the link quoting current NFL executive and former NFL player Troy Vincent who stated that "[o]ver the past 20 years, 15,018 players played in the NFL, but only 631 (4%) played three or more years. The average career length is 3.7 seasons, but players do not receive benefits unless they put in four years, both stats according to the NFL." Please see for yourself at http://sportsbybrook...3-seasons-29151. Finally, you can email the Professor at gfeldman@tulane.edu and "explain the math" of your spread sheet at your own leisure. Have a good night, I'm out!

So, are you going to believe what what the professor is saying Vincent is claiming, or are you going to believe your own eyes based upon facts?  PM me your e-mail, or anyone else who is interested, and I'll send you the data set of players currently rostered in the NFL - including all FAs, draftees, and training camp additions.  And you'll notice that the professor is stating players who played in the NFL - which mean the data set is truncated by the 70% +/- of the 831 zero year players who are currently rostered and who will never play in the NFL.

There are currently 1013 players in the NFL right now who have 3 or more years of experience, and another 323 who are one year away from being vested.  That's just this year's currently rostered players alone.  229 players became vested last year as they reached 3 years of service.

So how do you reconcile Vincent's obviously wrong number of only 631 players in the past 20 years reaching 3 years or more of service?   Use common sense - 631 players over 20 years means roughly 31 players a year on average from each draft class last 3 or more years in the NFL.  Does that seriously seem even remotely reasonable and rational to you?  C'mon, think man!

Edited by Bronco Billy, 08 June 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[stevegrab]

Good info BB, there's no way the 4% or 631 players in 20 years becoming vested. As you sy that would mean about 1 player per team each year last 3+ years.

They're probably skewing the numbers with some other fuzzy math to suit their claim.

[stevegrab]

MikesVikes, on 07 June 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

I live in the same world as you where I work for a small company that has a defined contribution plan.  I can put in the maximum of $17000 per year and my employer pays in a non discretionary share of 3% (safe harbor) of my qualified wages and can elect to contribute more (profit sharing) at their discretion.

The NFL must have a defined benefit plan where it doesn't work in the same way.  NFL players don't have segregated accounts if their pensions are paid out in a systematic way when it's payout time.

As far as comparing NFL players to me and my health care it doesn't seem fair. NFL players try to dish out as much punishment to other players as possible on every play of every game of every season they play for.  On the other hand, I'm an accountant that on most days, nobody is trying to take my head off.

The post I was responding to said
"Most businesses take care of there former employees much better than the NFL does." and " It's kind of sad and pathetic really."

I still think the first statement is BS, unless of course NFL players don't get any gauranteed pension without making their own contribution and don't receive any health care benefits from the NFL after retiring. Both of which are things that "most businesses" today do not do. Most people working today will get nothing from their employer when they retire, except what they contributed to something like a 401 (which is nothing if I'm not contributing myself).

As for it being sad and pathetic, well only if you believe the first part and think that NFL players are undercompensated and treated unfairly for their short time as employees in the NFL.

I might agree that they should get more, that the NFL should take better care of them when they retire because of the punishment they take while they play. But not because "most employers treat former employees much better".

[Bronco Billy]

stevegrab, on 08 June 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Good info BB, there's no way the 4% or 631 players in 20 years becoming vested. As you sy that would mean about 1 player per team each year last 3+ years.

They're probably skewing the numbers with some other fuzzy math to suit their claim.

I think it bothers me more, Steve, that we as a society seem to have lost complete sense when it comes to evaluating "facts" presented to us.  This is a perfect example of people being able to examine numbers like this and being capable of immediately dismissing them because they are so farfetched when even a modicum of logic is applied.  Hell, we have an allegedly highly educated professor here buying into this and spouting it as truth.

Instead, because someone asserts it, backs it up with very shaky data or slants the data badly to their favor, and it fits a particular viewpoint; people just lay back and accept it as true and fit their opinions and actions to accomodate it.  Whether its much more universal stuff like AGW or jobs created/saved numbers among many other examples, or something more localized and less impactful like this, there doesn't seem to be any will to inspect the assertions with even the slightest care, but rather to accept them simply as gospel truth. It really is quite disturbing.

[Bronco Billy]

MikesVikes, on 07 June 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

As far as comparing NFL players to me and my health care it doesn't seem fair. NFL players try to dish out as much punishment to other players as possible on every play of every game of every season they play for.  On the other hand, I'm an accountant that on most days, nobody is trying to take my head off.

Fair?  As an accountant, do you get paid $2.1M over 4 years, with a $46K signing bonus that you get to keep whether the company keeps you through your probation or not?  That's what Edwin Baker, the 4th to last pick in the 2012 NFL draft got.  I would have used Harnish Chandler, the last pick in the draft, or the two others picked lower than Baker, but the details aren't available for those guys - but their contracts are most probably right in line with that.  And this is with the new rookie wage scale in place.  Even the lowest drafted rookies used to get much better contracts with that.

You're speaking to 2 different issues here and trying to mix them.  Pro football players are paid very lavishly for the risks they are taking.  And clearly the benefits package for NFL players are well above and beyond what the overwhelming majority of people in society get despite your earlier claim to the contrary.

Edited by Bronco Billy, 08 June 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[stevegrab]

Bronco Billy, on 08 June 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I think it bothers me more, Steve, that we as a society seem to have lost complete sense when it comes to evaluating "facts" presented to us.  This is a perfect example of people being able to examine numbers like this and being capable of immediately dismissing them because they are so farfetched when even a modicum of logic is applied.  Hell, we have an allegedly highly educated professor here buying into this and spouting it as truth.

Instead, because someone asserts it, backs it up with very shaky data or slants the data badly to their favor, and it fits a particular viewpoint; people just lay back and accept it as true and fit their opinions and actions to accomodate it.  Whether its much more universal stuff like AGW or jobs created/saved numbers among many other examples, or something more localized and less impactful like this, there doesn't seem to be any will to inspect the assertions with even the slightest care, but rather to accept them simply as gospel truth. It really is quite disturbing.

Yep, people are too willing to trust things now, just like we trusted what was published in the paper or reported on the TV news. But now with the internet, blogs, twitter, facebook etc. its gotten much worse. One person can spread misinformation so easily and get so many to trust and believe it that when somebody tries to debunk it they are treated like a witch.

[Azazello1313]

here's the thing for me as far as concussions and these lawsuits are concerned.  you have all these former players saying the league knew about some of these dangers and didn't adequately inform players about what they knew.  well, that may or may not be true, I suppose that's something lawyers will argue about and people will come to conclusions.  but I keep coming back to the thought...let's say the league DID know more than they explicitly communicated to the players.  what difference would it have made?  would they have turned their noses up at the fame and the glory and the millions of dollars and the exhilaration of competition?  I think you can answer that question by looking at the players now...maybe 20 years ago players were oblivious, but the players today certainly have a pretty decent idea that head injuries are likely and can mess you up pretty bad long term.  so, how many players do you see opting out of an NFL career based on that awareness?  are there any at all?

[Bronco Billy]

Az - I think there are a few players who have retired early and have stated specifically the risk of continued injury, including concussions in some cases, as the reason for doing so, and who by any rational basis would have been rostered if they elected to continue playing.  I aldo think that this group would be a small minority of the entire universe of all NFL players over time.

I also think, or like to think, that the group who will benefit the most from all of this are the players who played before salaries jumped well into the 1 percenter range and instead did play for the love of the game.  Those guys never had the opportunity to decide whether or not to make the choice of stashing a few million for post-retirement life or pissing it away by making it rain at strip clubs and buying several Mercedess.

[stevegrab]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Specifically I'll be interested to see what role the players hiding their injuries from team officials has on the case. I mean how can you claim the league was hiding info that shows the long term dangers of concussions while at the same time admitting the quite common practice of not reporting injuries.

[Square]

Bronco Billy, on 06 June 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

First off I was wrong (misremembered) Regarding Stenger and Hickey studies.  Stenger researched ND football players for a year.  Hickey did the research on cadavers with the documentation of a 50% reduction in force when a mouthguard is used.  

Ok, ol timer.

The only actually link you've provided is from a website that sells mouthguards as "jaw-joint protectors" so I'm going to take it with a grain of salt.  All three of your studies are simply clips from their sales pitch.  But let's examine them a little further to determine if you inspect those assertions with the “slightest care” and see if a reasonable modicum of logic passes the smell test.

Bronco Billy, on 06 June 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Lim also did a study in 2005 with boil and bite mouthguards and load cells and showed that the mouthguard did in fact lessen the impact of blows.  

The problem with this study is the theory that a mouth guard prevents concussions after a blow to the jaw (in which forces are thought to move upwards to the base of the brain) by positioning the jaw in such a manner that it absorbs the impact forces instead of the brain.  For football I'd say the vast majority of hits are helmet/facemask to helmet/facemask.  Very few hits occur where the person's head is bent back enough to expose their chin to concussion blow.  Is it possible that in that very specific instance a mouthguard "helps".  Sure, I'd give that.  Unfortunately, I think that does nothing to help real life football players in the vast majority of concussion instances.  So unless Lim's load cell test showed that wearing a mouthguard helped prevent concussions while getting a helmet in the ear hole I'd say it is worthless.  In fact my googling around on the topic, the Lim study is almost never found except talking about dental damage (google shows it being only cited 4 times for transmission of force across the human jaw, while the dental aspect is cited 28).  Lim is never mentioned in any of the serious articles I've found on the topic.  This study is used as a sales pitch and not serious science for the topic of football concussion prevention in the US.

Bronco Billy, on 06 June 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Finch also has a 2005 study showing boil and bite mouthguards are effective at reducing head and facial injuries including concussions

First, this is for Australian rules football where they don’t wear helmets.  The point of this study was also to show custom fit mouthguards protected better than standard mouthguards.  A study of a sport with no helmets and no specific information on concussion prevention.
Here is a link to the abstract of that study. http://injuryprevent.../4/242.abstract and the conclusion "There was a significant protective effect of custom made mouthguards, relative to usual mouthguard use, during games."

Again this is a study used in a sales pitch and isn’t even discussed in articles that are taking to task the science (or lack thereof) of people that claim your side of the argument.  Following this as science for proof of anything related to US football concussion prevention is laughable when the only information included was grouped into head/oral facial injuries along with concussions.  A study of a sport with no helmets and no specific information on concussion prevention.  This study is at least cited by 40 different topics by google search.  Unfortunately those seem to mainly just say that custom fit mouthguards are better than standard.

Bronco Billy, on 06 June 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

and Kuipers did a 2009 study that shows mouthguatrds prevent dental injuries.  

I think everyone can  agree that a mouthguard prevents dental injuries.  Especially in Hockey which the Kuipers study was actually done.  Again, this also has the same flaw as assuming that NFL concussions are from being struck in the chin.

I always wore a shock doctor for dental protection  (my dad works at a Dental lab) but I don’t believe there is any good valid science that says mouthguards have anything to do with concussion prevention in US football.

Here is a link to a report from Dr. McCrory (cited over 500+ times in google research on the subject) along with his conclusion.
http://bjsportmed.co.../2/81.full.html


Conclusions

The ability of mouthguards to protect against head and spinal injuries in sport falls into the realm of “neuromythology” rather than hard science.³² Reading the original studies cited as evidence for this effect reveals anecdotal claims that can best be described as bizarre rather than reflecting established medical principles. It is unlikely that a mouthguard would offer effective protection against brain or spinal cord injury, and the limited published data are not compelling in this regard nor does it accord with the known pathophysiology of such injuries.

Here is another link to an article that challenges most of the science that is usually cited.
http://blog.medfrien...ds-prevent.html

Even at the link you provided to Brain Pads that is selling these "Jaw Joint protectors" states the following:

"Even though the effectiveness of mouthguards in preventing concussions currently remains controversial Brain-Pad® shows promising results and may soon lead to a significant advancement in protection technology (Barbic 2005, Maeda 2009). There is still much debate over the protective effect of traditional mouthguards including the boil and bite and custom made mouthguards. However there is no evidence to suggest that wearing any type of mouthguard is detrimental to the athlete and therefore are recommended as a precautionary measure in hopes to prevent injury."

Bronco Billy, on 06 June 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Instead, because someone asserts it, backs it up with very shaky data or slants the data badly to their favor, and it fits a particular viewpoint; people just lay back and accept it as true and fit their opinions and actions to accomodate it.  Whether its much more universal stuff like AGW or jobs created/saved numbers among many other examples, or something more localized and less impactful like this, there doesn't seem to be any will to inspect the assertions with even the slightest care, but rather to accept them simply as gospel truth. It really is quite disturbing.

Seems that your assertions were backed up with shaky data.and stating wearing mouthguards does  protect against concussions in US football is factually false.  So I agree, it really is quite disturbing.