Football will not die, it will simply change demographically

Sometimes you know what you will see and hear before events take place.

As another football season beckons, prepare for another round of storylines and talking
heads addressing the decline in football participation across the nation. The other portion
of the narrative will be centered around the future of the sport. Some people think the sport
will disappear entirely within the next 10-20 years. While there are reasons for concern
about the future of the sport, I find the notion that football will disappear to be based more
on emotion than intellect.

In case you have been on an island contemplating a coconut, participation in football at
both the youth and high school level has declined by about five percent, give or take a few
decimal points, over the past decade. That number is likely to increase, it’s just a question
of how much. The drop off can be attributed mounting concerns about the potential for
traumatic brain injuries leading to long lasting health problems.

Over the past decade, many retired NFL players have come forward openly about the
aftermath of concussions sustained as players have led to memory and cognitive issues such
as dementia, Alzheimer’s, depression and CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).

News reports about football and brain injuries - one indication of public awareness about the
health risks of head injuries on the field - started becoming more common in 2009 and have
increased each year.

Though football is the most headlined sport in terms of concussions, it should be duly
noted it is not the only sport. Researchers from Northwestern University and Wake Forest
University studied data from football, soccer, basketball, wrestling and baseball
participation for boys; soccer, basketball, volleyball and softball for girls.

The results showed a striking gender-based difference in the incidents of concussion.
Football, which is a sport most typically associated with brain injury, also has a high number
of total injuries due to its being a collision sport, was fourth on the list of concussion as a
percentage of total injuries, behind girls’ soccer, girls’ volleyball and girls’ basketball.

The reason for the aforementioned concussions in girls’ sports are mainly linked to the
theory that girls’ neck muscles are not as developed as their male counterparts.

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass once wrote: "Football is dead in America. Football as
an American cultural institution lies in final spasm. It's as dead as the Marlboro Man."

There is no denying that more information on football players sustaining the aforementioned
head trauma being chief among reasons why parents are leery of their sons playing football
but I find Kass’ statement to be unfounded. I have a 9-year old son who plays soccer but if
he decided he wanted to play football, I would not object. However, I would not object if he
wanted to continue playing soccer. My approach as a parent is that I’m not going to push
him to play football or stay away from it. I will let him make that decision on his own.  

There have been numerous rule changes, emphasis on coaching better fundamentals and
improvement to equipment. While those measures to make the game safer are well
intentioned, they won’t make the sport risk-free. Your youngster might use the right
fundamentals but who’s to say the one hitting him is following suit?

The problem I have with Kass’ analogy of football being as dead as the Marlboro Man is
that while the person himself might be dead and there are far fewer Americans that smoke
cigarettes, you still have about 20 percent of the population partaking in inhaling nicotine,
compared to about 65 percent in the mid-1960s. Is it a dramatic decrease? Yes, but you still
have a segment of smokers in the population.

I not only believe football will still exist in 20 years, I believe the sport will still remain
popular. The demographics may shift even more dramatically than now but the sport is not
going away. Kids from upper or middle class backgrounds that come from white collar
families might be more likely to steer away from the sport but they are just as likely to watch
college football or the NFL as spectators on TV. The elite level players of the game, however,
will still find a way to play regardless of background.

I also believe that football will continue to appeal to kids that come from rough and/or
impoverished backgrounds because in their minds the sport can be their ticket to escaping
that life. Kids that come from blue collar oriented families are also less likely to be steered
away from football. They come from a background that works physically and might be less
likely to resist playing football. I know that sounds like a broad generalization but you get
the point.

So as the 2018 football season approaches, be ready for more of the same “football is dead”
storylines. I don’t say that to be cynical or unconcerned. I simply say it because I know what
lies ahead.

Sizing up VVAL football as season approaches

More so than any school year than recent memory, you’ll need a lineup card to track
realignment changes as it pertains to Napa Valley high schools.

Calistoga has gone through numerous realignment changes, particularly the last 25 years
but on the Napa Valley front the change only pertained to them. In 2000, the Superior
California Athletic League, which included St. Helena and Justin-Siena from 1986-2000,
disbanded. Both schools left the CIF Sac Joaquin Section for the North Coast Section,
which represented a return trip to the NCS. St. Helena rejoined the North Central League
I while Justin entered the Marin County Athletic League. St. Helena is likely entrenched in
the NCL I for the foreseeable future but Justin is leaving the Marin County Athletic League.

Meanwhile, fellow Napa County schools Vintage, American Canyon and Napa are leaving
the SJS for the NCS. Vintage and Napa had been in the SJS since 1976 after previously
being in the NCS. American Canyon has been in the SJS since opening its doors in 2010.

The four aforementioned schools will be joining the Vine Valley Athletic League with Casa
Grande (Petaluma), Petaluma and Sonoma Valley. Last November, yours truly peered into
the future of VVAL football:

http://vincedadamo.blogspot.com/2017/11/peering-into-football-future-as-napa.html

As the 2018 high school football season beckons in five weeks, I peel another layer into
VVAL football. By my own admission, I’m giving it a lot of attention because it represents a
new journey whereas this angle will wane after the freshness disapates in future years.

Napa and Vintage are vacating the Monticello Empire League. American Canyon is leaving
the now disbanded Solano County Athletic Conference. Justin is bolting the MCAL. Casa
Grande is vacating the North Bay League while Sonoma and Petaluma are leaving the
Sonoma County League.

In the aforementioned blog entry, I examined the previous ten-year history for the VVAL
newcomers so as to get a feel for trend lines. In addition, I used the calpreps.com “project
a matchup” tool to gauge how the teams would have fared against one another. This time,
I took it a step further. I used the matchup tool to pit American Canyon, Napa, Justin and
Vintage against all teams from the NBL (Cardinal Newman, Rancho Cotate, Casa Grande,
Ukiah, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Carrillo and Montgomery), SCL (Analy, Piner, Petaluma,
Sonoma, El Molino, Healdsburg and Elsie Allen), and MCAL (Marin Catholic, Terra Linda,
San Marin, San Rafael, Redwood, Sir Francis Drake, Tamalpais and Novato). The tool also
pitted Justin against MEL (Vacaville, Vintage, Wood, Napa, Rodriguez and Armijo), SCAC
(American Canyon, Vanden, Benicia, Vallejo, Bethel and Fairfield), NBL and SCL. The
matchup tool also put Sonoma, Petaluma and Casa Grande against the MEL, SCAC and
MCAL.

I’m not going to bore you with breaking down every game matchup, that might take eons.
Also, understand that the “project a matchup” tool is exactly that -- a projection. Short of
creating 2018 John Madden EA Sports, calpreps.com and its project a matchup tool is all
we have from which to draw.

Casa Grande was projected to go 2-4 in the MEL, 4-2 in the SCAC (beating every team not
named American Canyon and Vanden) and 6-3 in the MCAL. Petaluma had exactly the
same projection against the MEL and SCAC but an 8-1 mark against the MCAL. Sonoma
was projected to go winless against the MEL, 1-5 in the SCAC (beating only Fairfield) and
3-6 against the MCAL.

Napa, Vintage and American Canyon had the exact same projections against the MCAL
(8-1), NBL (6-2) and SCL (7-0). Justin projected to go 1-5 against the MEL (beating only
Armijo), 2-4 against the SCAC, 0-8 against the NBL and 4-3 against the SCL.

The common denominator against the MCAL had every team losing to Marin Catholic only
with every team against the MEL losing to Vacaville. The matchup tool had every team
losing to Cardinal Newman and Rancho Cotate from the NBL.

The only conclusion that can truly be drawn is that if you are Napa and Vintage, there’s no
team on the level of Vacaville or the 2002-2016 version of Napa. If you are American
Canyon, Vintage is the one team that would be comparable to Vanden. If you are Justin,
you don’t see a team on Marin Catholic’s level. If you are Casa Grande, you don’t see a
team on Cardinal Newman’s level. If you are Sonoma or Petaluma, however, there are more
than a few teams superior to Analy.

In-game interviews an exercise in futility

Do you ever find yourself defending many aspects of your current or former profession but
yet find others that you simply cannot bring yourself to justify?

About three and a half years ago, I left behind the only career I knew dating back to my
college years -- sports reporter. I was blessed to have that career for 18 years but because of
the declining state of the newspaper industry and the hours not being conducive to my
family life, I felt compelled to change careers. I have since become a route sales
representative (fancy term for truck driver) for Alhambra Water. Though I do not regret the
career move, I have not given up writing entirely and nor is such in my plans.

I have made this analogy quite often but when I broke into the newspaper industry, I was 24
years old. I was young and willing to adapt. Translation, I was not jaded. Conversely, I was
42 when I changed careers and became much more jaded. By that point, I had seen changes
in the industry that were from my perspective for the worse. Therefore, I became the old,
stubborn SOB that was set in his ways. Translation, I became overrun with symptoms like
“old man yells at cloud” and “get off my lawn.” That could be construed as the cycle of life.
We see our version of normal and when it changes, we don’t like it.

For openers, I don’t have a problem with newspapers being online. Though I grew up reading
the hardcopy, I’ve moved on from that way of getting my news. Plus, I like being able to read
local perspectives outside of my own community. I would not be able to do that if newspapers
were not online. My 83-year old father and 79-year old mother insist on reading the
hardcopy and wouldn’t get caught dead reading a newspaper on the computer. The latter,
however, is not as resistant to technology as the former.

While I enjoy social media in terms of staying connected to old friends, acquiantances and
family members, I think that form has gone overboard in journalism and has bastardized the
fundamentals of the English language:

https://vincedadamo.blogspot.com/2015/05/excessive-twitter-use-has-worsened.html

One sentiment that I share that I know I am not alone is my disdain for sideline interviews
with coaches during games. Such situations include but are not necessarily limited to
interviews with football coaches moments before kickoff and as the coach is leaving the
field at halftime. Another example are interviews with NBA coaches between quarters and
even interviews with Major League Baseball managers during the game.

Fortunately since I cover high school football as a hobby, in-game interviews do not enter
the equation. At the college and professional level, I will say that most coaches are generally
gracious with their time even if they do not like the practice. The one exception would be
San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich, who despises such interviews and makes
no bones. Popovich is known for giving surly and terse responses. Then again, when you are
a future Hall of Famer who has led his team to five NBA titles, you get a pass. For Popovich,
his responses are more schtick than true personality.

Granted, I can look at Popovich’s demeanor and say, perhaps the reporter does not like the
situation any more than he does but I would not blame more coaches if they took that
approach. I have long believed that in-game interviews of any sort, while they might contain
raw emotions, are a terrible idea. The coach’s mind is somewhere else and rarely do you get
any kind of introspective, any kind of depth, any kind of real meat to chew on when they
deliver the answer.

The fan is not getting much out of the interview either because even the coaches that are
being the good soldier look uncomfortable and it does nothing to enhance the broadcast.
The interview usually goes something like this:

Sideline reporter: "Coach, what do you have to do to come back from this 21-point deficit?"

Coach: "We have to play better and give 100 percent."

Granted, that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but not much.

I do not assign blame on the reporter or the coach. I blame the producers, TV executives and
league officials who put them in this position. Who set them up to look and sound bad?

Even under the best of circumstances, coaches and players often speak in cliches. Expecting
coaches and players to open up in the middle of a game is foolish.

Love them or hate them, dynasties are good for sports

Dynasty was a popular TV series in the 1980s known for big hair, big egos and
shoulder pads. Dynasties have also been an integral part of sports for decades.

Some people believe they are great for sports, others not so much. I find that to be
a euphemism for, “I wish the dynasty was my team but since it isn’t, it sucks” or “It’s
my team, of course dynasties are great.” If the dynasty is not your team, you may
hate it in the moment but appreciate it years later.

The Golden State Warriors would be considered an active dynasty having won
three NBA titles the past four years and are heavy favorites to add to the collection.
In what could fall into the rich getting richer category, Golden State signed All-Star
center DeMarcus Cousins to a one-year, $5.3 million dollar deal, otherwise known
in NBA terms as a mid-level exception. With the signing of Cousins, the Warriors
now have five All-Stars in their starting lineup: Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Klay
Thompson and Draymond Green.

The backstory to Cousins, who is averaging 21.1 points and 11.0 rebounds per
game in his eight seasons with Sacramento and New Orleans, is that he comes
with baggage. For openers, he ruptured his Achilles Tendon, which is an injury
that some do not come back from at all and others have reduced effectiveness.
Though he has never been in trouble off the court, Cousins has had behavior
issues with coaches, fans, teammates and media. Cousins is not likely to return
until after January.

The move is low risk for the Warriors. If Cousins either a) Is not healthy or b)
Behavior issues rear their head, they can send him packing. For Part B, the hope
is that being around a championship culture, as opposed to Sacramento’s
dysfunction, will put him on his best behavior.

Keep in mind, two years ago the Warriors turned the basketball world upside down
by signing Durant away from the Oklahoma City Thunder after Golden State
coughed up a 3-1 lead in the NBA Finals to the Cleveland Cavaliers. Durant has
since helped the Warriors win consecutive NBA titles.

The term “Super Team” has been bandied about more regularly the last decade
after Lebron James left the Cleveland Cavaliers to join the Miami Heat, forming a
team with fellow All-Stars Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. The Heat reached the
finals four straight years, winning two.

Though I know I’ll get pushback for saying this, I don’t care. There is a difference
between Durant’s move and James’ move that some people can’t see past their
nose. James, who recently signed a free agent contract with the Los Angeles
Lakers, had two stints in Cleveland (2003-2010; 2014-2018).  In the first stint,
Cleveland reached the finals in 2007, getting swept by a superior San Antonio
Spurs team. Besides the Spurs, the Orlando Magic (2009) and Boston Celtics
(2008, 2010) also derailed James and his team from reaching the finals. James,
however, joined the Heat to beat the Magic, Celtics and Spurs. He did not join
them.

In 2016, the Thunder led the 73-win Warriors, 3-1 in the Western Conference
Finals, only to lose the series. The Game 6 loss was especially haunting with the
Thunder leading by seven points in the last five minutes but Durant and then
teammate Russell Westbrook’s supbar play in the fourth quarter contributed to
Oklahoma City’s collapse. Weeks later, Durant signed with the Warriors. While
Durant is an incredible talent and future Hall of Famer, I’m unimpressed with the
two titles he has contributed to Golden State. I would be more impressed if he left
the Thunder for another team to beat the Warriors.

Though some people knock James for changing teams for the third time in his
career, at least he is going to a team to beat the Warriors as opposed to joining
them.

The myth is that James started the trend of Super Team and Durant continued it.
I say nonsense to both because that’s when the term started getting used.

Take those legendary Celtics teams from the 1950s and ’60s, for instance. They
were virtual All-Star teams. Take the ’62 Celtics, just to pick one year out of a hat.
That team featured six Hall of Famers (Bill Russell, John Havlicek Clyde Lovellette,
Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones) plus superb role players Satch Sanders and
Jim Loscutoff. Those Celtics teams defined the NBA in its early years, winning 11
championships in 13 years.

Then the 1970s arrived and the ABA created a level of parity not seen in any
decade before or since. Eight different teams won the NBA championship in the
1970s, and the league struggled to attract the public’s interest. Along came the
’80s, widely considered the golden age of the NBA, and literally only five teams
were relevant for a full 10 years: Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, Pistons, Rockets. Only
the first four won titles during the decade. Then the Bulls won six titles in the ’90s,
and interest in the league went international. Not only are Super Teams not a new
creation, history shows they are incredibly good for the NBA from a business
standpoint, which is why the league does not really want to put a stop to the
practice.

The NBA, MLB, NFL, college football and college basketball have always been
top-heavy with a handful of elite teams at the top and the rest either rebuilding or
retooling. The one difference, however, that you can sell is that the NFL, college
football and college basketball have a one-game playoff. Sure, the New England
Patriots, Alabama, Kentucky, Villanova, Duke, etc. are the creme de la creme.
However, in those sports, you can sell “any given day, any one can beat anyone.”
MLB is also a best of seven playoff format but if you have dominant pitching like
the 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers (Orel Hershiser), 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
(Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling) and 2014 San Francisco Giants (Madison
Bumgarner), that is a great equalizer against a more talented club.

In the NBA, it is a best of seven with no real equalizer to help a less talented club.
There is an eventuality that the better team wins over seven games. Better team,
however, does not equal higher seed. Vegas Insider has booked the Warriors as
2-to-3 odds to win the 2019 title followed by Boston and the LA Lakers at 5-1,
Houston at 8-1 and Philadelphia at 10-1. The next closest is San Antonio at 40-1.

There have been those who say they won’t bother to watch the NBA, you might as
well hand the Warriors the title now. Granted, barring injuries or the team bus
driving off the Bay Bridge, Golden State is going to win the title. However, sports
seasons do not have a script. They have a human element. Injuries, chemistry
issues, etc. can always derail a team.

I’m not even a Warrior fan but I don’t buy the argument that dynasties are bad for
sports. Anyone that says that is a damn hypocrite because if their team is
dominating, they are loving it. If the dominant team is not yours, you hate and
envy them.

Love them or hate them, dynasties are a big reason you watch sports and there
is no evidence that they have ever been bad for sports.