MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
https://www.landof10.com/iowa/iowa-football-custom-helmets-concussions-head-injuries
First team in the country, according to this.
First team in the country, according to this.
Iowa wearing new safer helmets this year.
- Thread starter MoseSchrute
- Start date
Seen that.
My only question is who is the pr guy in IC?
" We care about our student athletes and will always be proactive in keeping them safe." Or something like that goes a long way. Just saying, optimizing good pr is important.
I don't think enough was made of the story honestly.
This should be plastered all over every sports media outlet.
My only question is who is the pr guy in IC?
" We care about our student athletes and will always be proactive in keeping them safe." Or something like that goes a long way. Just saying, optimizing good pr is important.
I don't think enough was made of the story honestly.
This should be plastered all over every sports media outlet.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Who are the 15 players that wore them last year?
From the other article:
"Each helmet will cost more than $1,000 dollars and it will cost the team nearly $80,000 to have helmets made for all the upperclassman.
Morris says the incoming freshman won't be fitted for these new helmets for the fall season because of timing, but they should get their new helmets by December."
From the other article:
"Each helmet will cost more than $1,000 dollars and it will cost the team nearly $80,000 to have helmets made for all the upperclassman.
Morris says the incoming freshman won't be fitted for these new helmets for the fall season because of timing, but they should get their new helmets by December."
Last edited:
A very good step. If they work even 50% it is great. The money is nothing compared to the vast amounts the UI Ath Dept brings in and if it can prevent a concussion and brain injuries down the road that is great.
I wonder what research was done as in maybe sensors placed on the inside part of these pads to show there is less impact.
I wonder what research was done as in maybe sensors placed on the inside part of these pads to show there is less impact.
IDK, but I knew someone who worked for a company that makes padding. This was in their r&d about 4 years ago and they had to jump through some hoops to prove it was safer.
The biggest issue you have is the lack of concrete evidence. Sometimes it's one huge blow, like in a car accident, sometimes it's 100's upon 100's of little ones, like a fighter. Sometimes it affects one and not another.
That was the battle at first.
But ultimately it does come down to, if it only saves one, isn't that worth it?
Knowing all this, I'm very proud that Iowa was the first. Extremely proud.
The brain is a fickle biotch. That's why they abandoned the ways of one flew over the cuckoo's nest and the barbarian practices before.
Something so simple can ruin one child and make the next see things in a way never seen before.
There is no standard, everyone is different. The response to different stimuli gives different results in different people. Something more significant like an injury can't be any different.
AW all but said that once KF showed him some trust and love, he would run through a brick wall for him. The next one might need a different approach.
People are a trip, but people are what makes the trip worth while.
A customer of mine has a division or part of the company that I do not serve but they were researching something like this with helmets, I think they were using embedded sensors, like compression and acceleration sensors to gather and look at data. Someday football may very well be small time but in the meantime it is good to try to limit the impacts.
The targeting rule is working well I think and there are less kickoff returns which cant be good.
The targeting rule is working well I think and there are less kickoff returns which cant be good.
This could be true. It could be totally false.
In the middle? It is a good idea.
It works. However just like anything it works different for everyone.
One could say the same about seatbelts.
The point is it lessens the blow, big or small.
That is as far as we can conclusively determine.
After that is it genic? Is it how different synapse fire? IDK.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
Much too small a sample to tell if they are safer, but a good quick test for and glaring flaws.
I also suspect Iowa was chosen because players are very closely tracked medically and there is a high involvement of medical school in sports medicine in general and specifically in the college athletes.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
A lot more gets regularly spent for a lot less potential return.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Any attempt to protect the athlete and limit acute and chronic injuries is always a good thing, but, the problem is that the very nature of concussions hinders attempts at preventing them with padding under a protective shell.
The problem is the deceleration. The brain will move at a certain velocity and have a certain amount of momentum based upon how rapidly the cranium comes to a halt. A well padded helmet can mitigate that slightly, but the brain will still "bounce" within the cranial cavity and suffer injury.
Ironically, from a physics standpoint, the best way to limit concussions probably would be to eliminate helmets completely. Players would instinctively protect their heads and not strike with as much force. We definitely would see more head lacerations and bleeding, but probably fewer long-term adverse effects.
The problem is the deceleration. The brain will move at a certain velocity and have a certain amount of momentum based upon how rapidly the cranium comes to a halt. A well padded helmet can mitigate that slightly, but the brain will still "bounce" within the cranial cavity and suffer injury.
Ironically, from a physics standpoint, the best way to limit concussions probably would be to eliminate helmets completely. Players would instinctively protect their heads and not strike with as much force. We definitely would see more head lacerations and bleeding, but probably fewer long-term adverse effects.
Until Elon Musk merges humans with machines...........
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
They should just fire the first administrator that questions if 100k is too much to spend on the problem.
Then they can have the helmets.
100k isn't anything. That's the profit off of popcorn for a few games.
It shouldn't even be a question.
Imagine 80000 people, doing what ever it is they do.
Eat, drink, buy something, sleep in a motel,
Shit idk, what people do.
So really?? 100k? To do with safety??
I'm impressed and proud that Iowa was the first.
