Are the players at OU on the field during the National Anthem? Seems like they are still in the locker room? I'm wondering how this hasn't become an issue in college
kneeling
- Thread starter OUnabomber
- Start date
Well I agree it shouldn't be, but I'm surprised it isn't. It would put a real damper on college football
You know what's really weird and strange about this whole kneeling thing., is that it wasn't until just a few years back that the players were even on the sidelines during the national anthem. I'm not sure when they started coming out earlier, perhaps after 911 or the Iraq War. I'm thinking they should just keep everyone inside until the patriotic pageantry on the field is over. Something tells me this is the direction it's all going anyway
2009.... that's when the NFL changed... I'm not sure about collge or any other sport. https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/ne...ms-being-field-anthem-relatively-new-practice
We are all better off not knowing much about the personal feelings of athletes. Most are bound to be disappointing
I don't recall the Sooners being on the field for the National Anthem in Norman or in Dallas. If memory serves me, the teams come out shortly after the anthem is played.
So, athletes are not eligible for 1st amendment rights? I guess I missed that when I read the constitution.
Medic007
Sooner starter
The First Amendment applies to the federal government, not private employers. Apparently you need to read the Constitution again.
Probably not w/ most people. With me absolutely not. Just play ball and entertain me. I don't really care what athletes or entertainers have to say about anything. Their role in life is to entertain, not educate me on politics.
Medic007: Apparently you missed the class in grade school where they taught the definition of a Republic. Your pitiful attempt to condone the stifling of freedom of speech and expression is regrettable but consistent. You probably think the participants in the Charlottsville protests are equally to blame.
So what if the players decided to burn the flag? They have the constitutional right to do so, yes? However, the Supreme Court ruled “content imposed restrictions may be imposed to regulate the time, place and manner of such expression”. I would argue that the same could be said for what the NFL has put into place regarding the National Anthem.
So much concern about kneeling and none about the WWE wrestling bullsh*t antics and cheap shots on the field which are so much a part of NFL....and now college....football.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Don't go full retard because I called out your incorrect application of the First Amendment. By your apparent definition, employers aren't allowed to have workplace rules regarding conduct while on the job because of First Amendment rights. We both know that is simply not true. Well, I guess I actually shouldn't assume your knowledge with you tossing out the "pitiful attempt to condone the stifling of freedom of speech and expression" nonsense.
Although I completely disagree with the new NFL rule, it has zero to do with the First Amendment. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The people who are trying to make this a First Amendment issue are at best pathetically misguided by terrible politics, and at worst just that ignorant.
Put'em back in the locker rooms and only release them when they are ready to play... pre-game festivities and pageantry is for us the fans.
Owens, the players have the right to protest all they want, anywhere they want, except when at work. As such, the owners has the right to stifle it if it is on their time and their stage. It's pretty basic, it's no different than your employer or former employer. Simply put there is a time & place. The owners have experienced a backlash to their product. Faithful fans of the past now have turned a different direction and it has had an effect on the image of their product and the bottomline of their financial statements. They have a right to protect their product and they are going to do so. I don't blame them. My attitude toward my business has always been that I will do whatever I can to enhance those in and around my business including, employees, suppliers, sponsors, etc. Anything that detracts from this enhancement is not to be accepted, tolerated, and/or compromised.
Owens, the players have the right to protest all they want, anywhere they want, except when at work. As such, the owners has the right to stifle it if it is on their time and their stage. It's pretty basic, it's no different than your employer or former employer. Simply put there is a time & place. The owners have experienced a backlash to their product. Faithful fans of the past now have turned a different direction and it has had an effect on the image of their product and the bottomline of their financial statements. They have a right to protect their product and they are going to do so. I don't blame them. My attitude toward my business has always been that I will do whatever I can to enhance those in and around my business including, employees, suppliers, sponsors, etc. Anything that detracts from this enhancement is not to be accepted, tolerated, and/or compromised.
What have you been watching for the past 50 years? Cheapshots are nothing new to football, college or pro. Cheapshots have been happening forever and a day w/ regards to football. In fact, in my lifetime of watching football, it seems as if most new rules introduced each year was for the protection of the players because of cheapshots.
Last edited:
Not 50 years, but I have watched football for 60 years.
Cheap shots are much more prevalent today and seem to be what today’s fans like. Many are ignored or unnoticed.
That applies to end zone celebrations and sideline antics.
Dick Butkis says Hi. and Jack Tatum's 'Call me the Assisin' is still for sale. White Shoes Johnson & The Hawgs dance all over endzones. Nothing's changed.
Right....as Sam Huff, Merlin Olsen, Chuck Bednarick, Bill Romanoski, Deacon Jones, Lyle Alzado and Ray Nitschke were. But you're not seeing my point, which is that there are MORE cheap shots today.
The increased size and speed of the average player today is dramatically MORE than those players of 30 years ago and beyond, which adds to the intent-to- injure issue.
Football is a contact game, a collision game, a violent game by its nature. It always has been. We don't need a Captain Obvious history lesson on this. But now, the game today is even more of a blood sport than it's ever been.
Those guys you mentioned played when football was much much rougher, dirtier, and meaner than today. With all due respect, you're wrong on this one. And I'll go further to say that you indeed do need a history lesson if you beleive differently.
They were smaller & slower but a LOT meaner & tougher (especially through the steroid era). Now they have high-tech concussion everything and are benched with a hangnail, so to speak...
In recent years, spearing and blows to the head have been outlawed, the "in the grasp" rule to protect quarterbacks has been implemented...and still there are too many major injuries....most simply because of the increased size and speed of today's players, but some from cheap shot hits...cheap hits that were less lethal in earlier times with "rougher, dirtier and meaner"....and slower and smaller....players.
And for the record, I'm not talking about playing with a tough, physical presence. My focus is on cheap shots. There is a difference.
I've heard this argument before that players 20 yrs ago were smaller. Are there any stats to back this up? I'm thinking football players have always hit hard and its always been a game for primarily big people.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Pick up any college or NFL program from any game played in the 1950,1960,1970,1980 and 1990 eras, and 20 years ago. Look at the sizes of the players.
Last edited:
Medic007
Sooner starter
The link I posted is an animated graphic showing that. Pretty cool.
I wonder how much bigger and faster players 20-25 years from now will be.
IMO, I would like to see some limits put on players' weights. Why does a player NEED to be over 300 lbs, especially a high school player ?
I believe the average player size of the 1985 OU championship team is a good template to follow. Most of the linemen were in the 250-270 weight range, linebackers in the 200-235 lb range.Trust me, I know this will never exist again.
Speed cannot be legislated.
Your thoughts, Medic ?
I'm not arguing that the size of players have not increased or the speed of players have increased. This may creat more injuries but size & speed does not creat more 'cheap shots'. IMO 'cheap shots' have NOT increased. If anything, they've decreased. I will give you that it's possible that one can visually see more cheap shots these days due to better TV coverage (camera and conversation). Add to this so many additional rules now in place to prevent dirty play that more penalties occur and thus more awareness is witnessed. But I do not believe there are more cheap shots in today's football vs yesteryear. Football years ago was dirty and it was tolerated to a certain extent.
I'm wondering if there will be any football or that it will be played differently in 20-25 years due to concussions and the long term effects of head injuries on players. Seems like the CTE issue is gaining steam and many people are not allowing their kids to play football, but are opting for other sports instead.
20 years isn't all that long ago really (1998), and the size of players hasn't changed that much since then. Growth was more from 1960-1990 and has somewhat plateaued.
I read an article stating that since teams introduced accelerometers into helmets about 15 years ago, there hasn't been any change in the average g-forces these players are experiencing. Early 2000s players were about the same size and speed as today. Roy Williams anyone? Brandon Everage? Would anyone here argue that OUs backfield in 2017 hit harder than those two guys?
However, reported concussions have increased which would lend itself to the argument for increased targeting. However again, the interest in concussions has increased, so it could be just a matter of increased reporting - it is statistically proven that there has been an enormous increase in self-reporting.
Basically over the last 15ish years, it can't be proven with current data one way or the other that there is increased "dirty" play. Either side of the argument stands. Going back further than that is simply subjective argumentation without any data aside from size and speed.
I read an article stating that since teams introduced accelerometers into helmets about 15 years ago, there hasn't been any change in the average g-forces these players are experiencing. Early 2000s players were about the same size and speed as today. Roy Williams anyone? Brandon Everage? Would anyone here argue that OUs backfield in 2017 hit harder than those two guys?
However, reported concussions have increased which would lend itself to the argument for increased targeting. However again, the interest in concussions has increased, so it could be just a matter of increased reporting - it is statistically proven that there has been an enormous increase in self-reporting.
Basically over the last 15ish years, it can't be proven with current data one way or the other that there is increased "dirty" play. Either side of the argument stands. Going back further than that is simply subjective argumentation without any data aside from size and speed.
But todays players aren't hitting smaller players from the 60's. They are hitting todays players that are also bigger according to Medics chart.
The size of the player being hit doesn't change the force of the impact by the laws of physics. It just protects the player being hit slightly by more evenly distributing that force between the two players. The brain and internal organs aren't getting bigger and stronger, so they are still bound by the fragility of the human body just as they were in the 60s... even ligaments for that matter.
Good point Jcon. I'm no scientist, but it still seems like Andre the Giant hitting Shaq would be a whole lot better than him hitting Kevin Hart
Medic007
Sooner starter
The size will go where the market dictates. The NFL largely sets the desired physical attributes of football players. If there is demand for 400 pound linemen, there'll be 400 pound linemen. If the demand is for 280 pound running backs, we'll see them.
There does come a point that weight on frame can be unhealthy. Nutrition, S&C, and sports medicine professionals recognize that. There's more science guiding the production of today's athletes than most people realize. Most of you older folks remember the days of salt tablets and no water to "toughen" players up. No way that would fly today.
Regarding concussions, with the addition of impact telemetry to helmets, more is understood about the forces in today's game. Everything used to be driven by the result on the field. Now the medical folks do a lot more precautionary care because the collision data is received and analyzed in real time. It won't be long at all before that type of data is available from the shoulder pads as well. Good data has led to enhanced safety from the medicine and equipment design perspective, and the data is only going to get better. I'm sure we'll continue to see rules adjusted and better equipment designed to lessen the chance of injury, but I don't see football becoming not football anytime soon.
If I could only get the sports medicine folks to join me in the 2000s and get rid of backboard and cervical collars...
Good Link Medic, and IMO, Accurate. My husband, who was an OL, was 6"4.5' and Bud wanted him checking in @ 208#...The Struggle Was Real. Fast Forward 30 years...My son was 6"4.5' and Barry wanted him @ 325#. He, too, was an OL, and That Struggle Was Real, as well...
We are so blessed to have you posting on this board!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Basketball WATCH: Porter Moser Media Availability- Latest: Jesse Crittenden
