Griz have one of toughest schedules in FCS

[grizindabox]

Why does any team lose any game? Because the other team had better athletes, better conditioning, better coaching, or better breaks during the game. But none of those inherently lead to more injuries. I mean, using your logic Nevada and Colorado should never play Oregon again, even though all three teams have 85 full scholarship athletes on their rosters.

When skill levels are the same it can come down to those qualities, I agree, but if you think coaching and conditioning were apart of that lose your insane.

What tangible qualities to coaches recruit? Oregon won that game because they were better football players yes, but what attributes are recruited and what attributes do NFL teams look at when drafting players? Speed, size, strength, and athleticism. That's what won Oregon the game.

And none of those have been proven to cause higher or more severe injuries. Because if they did, Nevada and Colorado would fold up their tend and move back to FCS, because apparently they hve FCS-level speed, size, strength and athleticism in their athletes based on their performance on the field.

Bingo, speed, size, strength, and athleticism can make a kid a better football player, but none of those attributes are proven to increase the chance of injury or severity of an injury on the field.

 

[PlayerRep]

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

To me, your first para is so obvious. The bigger the gap, and the more games, the more the injury trend will show up. It's just true. It's just one factor. It doesn't mean that it is or should be some big deciding factor.

 

[PlayerRep]

Anecdotally, a former player who sat near me at the Oregon claimed that he took a serious beating in the UW game that he really didn't recover from for the rest of the season. Take that for what it's worth.

I have heard stories like that, directly and indirectly, over the years.

 

[PlayerRep]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

Why does any team lose any game? Because the other team had better athletes, better conditioning, better coaching, or better breaks during the game. But none of those inherently lead to more injuries. I mean, using your logic Nevada and Colorado should never play Oregon again, even though all three teams have 85 full scholarship athletes on their rosters.

You are wrong. Size, speed, strength and ability do lead to more injuries, over time.

Has anyone been arguing that, due to this injury factor, no one should ever play up or play a better team. Answer: no, they haven't. It's just a factor, and it's true.

 

[PlayerRep]

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

The point is that the greater the disparity, the more likely there is to be more injuries, over time and over many games. The less the disparity, then the less the injury factor, again over many games.

 

[ilovethecats]

If I were you guys I'd stop scheduling these big bullying teams. It's just not worth the money knowing you're way more likely to suffer injuries playing these huge bruisers.

In fact, I'd go a step farther and demand to the athletic department that you will no longer support a program who care so little about your athletes that they'd put them in such obvious danger.

Put your money where your mouth is and make it clear you will not support such injustice!

 

[grizindabox]

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

The point is that the greater the disparity, the more likely there is to be more injuries, over time and over many games. The less the disparity, then the less the injury factor, again over many games.

I will not argue that a bunch of 5th graders playing the Dolphins would lead to more injures, but the original direction of this thread was about a FCS team playing a FBS team, both full of 18-22 year old recruited athletes. So my entire point was that I do not agree with the notion that Griz football players are more likely to be injured when playing teams like Oregon or Washington based on size, speed, or strength, because I do not believe that the disparity is of significance overall.

 

[grizpsych]

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

The point is that the greater the disparity, the more likely there is to be more injuries, over time and over many games. The less the disparity, then the less the injury factor, again over many games.

I will not argue that a bunch of 5th graders playing the Dolphins would lead to more injures, but the original direction of this thread was about a FCS team playing a FBS team, both full of 18-22 year old recruited athletes. So my entire point was that I do not agree with the notion that Griz football players are more likely to be injured when playing teams like Oregon or Washington based on size, speed, or strength, because I do not believe that the disparity is of significance overall.

Read the research article. The results are consistent with your argument.

 

[Missoula223]

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

The point is that the greater the disparity, the more likely there is to be more injuries, over time and over many games. The less the disparity, then the less the injury factor, again over many games.

I will not argue that a bunch of 5th graders playing the Dolphins would lead to more injures, but the original direction of this thread was about a FCS team playing a FBS team, both full of 18-22 year old recruited athletes. So my entire point was that I do not agree with the notion that Griz football players are more likely to be injured when playing teams like Oregon or Washington based on size, speed, or strength, because I do not believe that the disparity is of significance overall.

You do agree that a great disparity between each level would lead to more injury though as you just stated, in 5th graders vs Dolphins. Where we disagree is you believe the difference between us and UO is minimal, which I'm truly not stating is exponential I think we played a damn good game against them for the most part, but there is still a differential however small it may be which overtime would result in more injuries.

Again, I had originally intended to shut spankys dumbass up, and I don't feel injuries are one of the main reasons to not play those teams, but over time and if enough plays are taken into account there will be a greater risk and number of injuries however small or large that amount may be.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Interesting "discussion" about injuries. And I don't know how you can ever resolve it without a major study. The fact is: In real studies that have been done, at a given level of play (peewee, HS, college, pro) injuries depend most upon "exposures." And because players spend way more time in practice, the stats show that roughly half of all injuries (football as well as other sports, BTW) occur in practice. That's why there's been a push to reduce the time spent in full-contact football practice. From what I've read, that has moved the bar in a good direction, but not all that much. I would venture to say that the skill/athleticism difference in "play up" football games is not much of a blip on the overall radar.

 

[mcg]

There is a pretty straightforward research project to resolve this question: take the entire FCS schedule, classify each game by each team as ‘up’, ‘down’ or ‘level’ and calculate the injury rate. The biggest problem is good data on injuries as many (or all) teams don’t report injuries. It’s not rocket science (sorry couldn’t resist).

 

[IdaGriz01]

There is a pretty straightforward research project to resolve this question: take the entire FCS schedule, classify each game by each team as ‘up’, ‘down’ or ‘level’ and calculate the injury rate. The biggest problem is good data on injuries as many (or all) teams don’t report injuries. It’s not rocket science (sorry couldn’t resist).

Nope, it sure is not rocket science.

I don't think it would take a huge amount of grant money to fund the core research: Set up a standard report format, gather the data, and perform the statistical analyses.

It would, however, require a mandate from the NCAA to force schools to submit complete and accurate information. And that's where it could get real expensive. I suspect most schools would demand compensation to gather complete data, scrub out any personal information, and prepare the results to fit a required report form.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

The point is that the greater the disparity, the more likely there is to be more injuries, over time and over many games. The less the disparity, then the less the injury factor, again over many games.

I will not argue that a bunch of 5th graders playing the Dolphins would lead to more injures, but the original direction of this thread was about a FCS team playing a FBS team, both full of 18-22 year old recruited athletes. So my entire point was that I do not agree with the notion that Griz football players are more likely to be injured when playing teams like Oregon or Washington based on size, speed, or strength, because I do not believe that the disparity is of significance overall.

Read the research article. The results are consistent with your argument.

Yep. 100% agree.

 

[Griz#64]

I am really having issues with today's Football.When an athlete is injured, Old days. Coaches say " get up ,your killing the grass", They now say.get down ,lay on the grass, then coaches, trainers, ball girls, cheer leaders,team doctors, AD, stretchers, Golf Carts rush out on the field. Dang give him some air!! Now, the athlete gets up from getting Kicked in the nuts, and is assisted off the Grass. Guess what, who shows back up next play? Yep you got it . Now if anyone, god forbid were to put a form tackle on the ball carrier above his belt line. Damn they are out of the Game and the next half game.Strange: everyone says we really have to put pressure on the Anointed one. (QB). Just touch that graduate of the school of dance,wimp and you may face the death penalty. How about the kicker. Some little soccer dude that just graduated from the Drama department has immunity from Scrapes, brushes, tittie bumps,and slaps. Players need to grow some to go Balls go balls to the wall. That or the weenie Officials union needs to get some balls hell this is football I am sick of the damn interference calls. Christ, those damn receivers think they are immune to contact. They need to take up swimming, or volleyball. That said, I am old, not quite back to the leather helmets, but before face mask bird cages. Go Griz, and the tough ass Montana Fan culture..

 

[TCCGRIZ]

If I were you guys I'd stop scheduling these big bullying teams. It's just not worth the money knowing you're way more likely to suffer injuries playing these huge bruisers.

In fact, I'd go a step farther and demand to the athletic department that you will no longer support a program who care so little about your athletes that they'd put them in such obvious danger.

Put your money where your mouth is and make it clear you will not support such injustice!

If I were you , I think you should look for a QB !
Choate is as dumb as Stitt and his 40 wide receivers .
In fact , I'd go a step further and demand to the athletic department that you will no longer support a program who cares so little about having a real QB on the roster ,

 

[grizpaws]

Interesting "discussion" about injuries. And I don't know how you can ever resolve it without a major study. The fact is: In real studies that have been done, at a given level of play (peewee, HS, college, pro) injuries depend most upon "exposures." And because players spend way more time in practice, the stats show that roughly half of all injuries (football as well as other sports, BTW) occur in practice. That's why there's been a push to reduce the time spent in full-contact football practice. From what I've read, that has moved the bar in a good direction, but not all that much. I would venture to say that the skill/athleticism difference in "play up" football games is not much of a blip on the overall radar.

This. There is a lot of anecdotal stuff in the thread about injuries caused by the disparity between FCS and FBS players. There is supposition (which quite frankly sounds reasonable to me) that over time, size, speed and strength result in injury to the smaller, slower and weaker players. But Ida is right: there should be a study that resolves the issue based upon fact, not conjecture. I mean, how do guys like JLM and Sulser, or for that matter, R. Hauck, have 4 year careers? They're smaller players. I've spent enough time in weight rooms to know that larger people can develop more strength than smaller people. Yet, there are a lot of smaller people that play the game successfully without being injured.

 

[cclarkblues]

I will not argue that a bunch of 5th graders playing the Dolphins would lead to more injures,

Box, which team are you arguing would have more injuries? After all, there are some pretty good grade school teams in the country and it is the Dolphins. Could go either way.

 

[jodcon]

I was going to weigh on on the injury question but I hurt me arm playing catch with my 5th grade neighbor kid, what does that do for the numbers?

 

[SaskGriz]

Any study would be hampered by privacy concerns and some universities not wanting to release or discuss injuries. An example would be our own Griz where Demming/Babros have been listed as one of the DE pairings for the last three games or so despite little evidence that either one has played much if at all. (Just checked, Demming's last D stat was against Monmouth and Babros against OU). Someone with better access to the depth charts could check, but to my memory they have been the listed pairing each week since then.

 

[Missoula223]

Interesting "discussion" about injuries. And I don't know how you can ever resolve it without a major study. The fact is: In real studies that have been done, at a given level of play (peewee, HS, college, pro) injuries depend most upon "exposures." And because players spend way more time in practice, the stats show that roughly half of all injuries (football as well as other sports, BTW) occur in practice. That's why there's been a push to reduce the time spent in full-contact football practice. From what I've read, that has moved the bar in a good direction, but not all that much. I would venture to say that the skill/athleticism difference in "play up" football games is not much of a blip on the overall radar.

This. There is a lot of anecdotal stuff in the thread about injuries caused by the disparity between FCS and FBS players. There is supposition (which quite frankly sounds reasonable to me) that over time, size, speed and strength result in injury to the smaller, slower and weaker players. But Ida is right: there should be a study that resolves the issue based upon fact, not conjecture. I mean, how do guys like JLM and Sulser, or for that matter, R. Hauck, have 4 year careers? They're smaller players. I've spent enough time in weight rooms to know that larger people can develop more strength than smaller people. Yet, there are a lot of smaller people that play the game successfully without being injured.

Agreed. Small individuals are capable of playing big time football both at a high level and without injury. However wouldn't you say these are outliers? What college football coach gets excited about the 5'9" 180 pound receiver or DB or whatever it may be?