Bloomberg Poll Shows Half of Americans Don't Want Their Sons Playing Football

B/R ^ | Dec 10, 2014 | Mike Chiari

[MinorityRepublican]

Football may be king in terms of sporting popularity in the United States currently, but a recent poll suggests that participation could wane in the coming years.

According to Annie Linskey of Bloomberg, 50 percent of the 1,001 American adults polled in a survey from Dec. 3-5 said they would not want their sons to play competitive football.

[Ghost of SVR4]

Teams cheer louder for a blind side hit than a touchdown.

You surmise it perfectly.

[heylady]

My grandsons, age 9 and 11, play flag football with the local YMCA. They are only in the 25 percentile for height and weight in their age group and would get killed in a tackle football game.

[ElkGroveDan]

whether you choose to believe so or not, this state is full of “men” who have not had a “traditional” upbringing, and it is blatantly obvious to anyone who pays attention.

Lod Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco are full of them -- but so are Seattle, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York etc. - it's an urban-suburban American problem. Outside of those cities American men are still normal, and that includes dozens of counties and hundreds of cities and towns across California.

[wildbill]

This is just a guess, but my experience in high school and college was that only a small percentage (50 or so out of a student body of 3600 in both cases) were interested in playing football or had the requisite physical attributes, mental attitude, or skills to do so.

That 50% of parents don’t want their kids playing is not surprising because they probably realize that their kids don’t have the interest, physical skills or mental attitude to go into the sport. Nothing wrong with those kids or their parents, but this is like saying parents with kids who have low IQs don’t want their kids to go to Harvard or MIT.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You're not from the U.S. are you? If you are, you people are just plain nuts.

I'm not! I have the good fortune of being born a glorious Texan!

[Dr. Sivana]

saw where the punter got his kick off, did an Oscar winning performance of getting ‘dumped’ etc and I figured no foul...

The old rule was ANY contact with the punter was "running into the kicker", unless you actually blocked the kick. It didn't matter what kind of actor the punter was. DON'T touch him unless you actually block the kick.

It worked well enough.

Also, a face mask was a face mask . . . period. If you don't want a 15 yard penalty, DON'T touch it. None of this flagrant stuff. Foorball should strive on having as few rules as possible based on "intent". That is where your acting comes from.

[xrmusn]

The old rule was ANY contact with the punter was “running into the kicker”
= = = = = = = = = = =
I thought it was something like that but the way I interpreted what the talking head was saying if the punter has to take evasive action (like jumping out of the way)it is ‘roughing’....
Like the QB, if they were ‘forced’ to stand in one spot and set up and throw and/or kick, could maybe see it.

But when he gets payed to throw or kick and I get payed to make sure you don’t, you get to use evasive actions and I have to play to a script.....

One of the reasons I have such a disconnect with FB and Baseball is going down that same road - especially with the replays... Takes the game out of the Umpires hands UNLESS he gets ‘fined’ for a turnover or bad call - OR at least get the same punishment a Pitcher gets if HE, THE UMPIRE, THINKS the P is throwing too close to the batter.