So some criticism over Ohio State's new playing surface

[Online Persona]

The linked article below talks about how Ohio St just put in the specific type of artificial surface that a major study linked to the highest amount of lower extremity injuries. So a few thoughts.

1) How many other big 10 schools have gone to this surface with the highest risk of injury?

2) What do recruits and their families think of this decision? They literally put in a new surface that has the highest risk to these young athletes careers. Does that enter the equation? It's not like they are playing on bags o glass, but it is one of the biggest threats to their NFL goal.

College football world blasts Ohio State's controversial move

 

[Obliviax]

This would seem to me to be a heckofa recruiting issue to bring up.

 

[Online Persona]

This would seem to me to be a heckofa recruiting issue to bring up.

I think maybe you just have to let recruits know about our surface that they'll be playing in 7/8 games per year and what we do in strength and conditioning to deal with high injury surfaces like the one Ohio St just put in. It's not a huge point for us but a suttle mention to alleviate their concerns is appropriate.

 

[Obliviax]

I think maybe you just have to let recruits know about our surface that they'll be playing in 7/8 games per year and what we do in strength and conditioning to deal with high injury surfaces like the one Ohio St just put in. It's not a huge point for us but a suttle mention to alleviate their concerns is appropriate.

I am saying we bring it up to kids considering tOSU. Why would you want to play 8 games on a high risk surface per year when you can play those same 8 games on a natural turf field that is proven to be much better for you? If you think you can play 3 years and go pro, that is a LOT more likely to happen if you haven't blown out your ACL or Achielies than if you have.

 

[Online Persona]

I am saying we bring it up to kids considering tOSU. Why would you want to play 8 games on a high risk surface per year when you can play those same 8 games on a natural turf field that is proven to be much better for you? If you think you can play 3 years and go pro, that is a LOT more likely to happen if you haven't blown out your ACL or Achielies than if you have.

Agreed but I think you bring it up in a suttle way by showing what PSUs surface is and that you've mitigated some of the risk of playing on Ohio St's high injury risk surface. Fortunately they only have to play there once every 2 years instead of 7 to 8 times a year like Ohio St players.

 

[Obliviax]

Agreed but I think you bring it up in a suttle way by showing what PSUs surface is and that you've mitigated some of the risk of playing on Ohio St's high injury risk surface. Fortunately they only have to play there once every 2 years instead of 7 to 8 times a year like Ohio St players.

kids that wouldn't get that are not going to pass statistics class. So maybe they are better off at tOSU?

 

[psu00]

The linked article below talks about how Ohio St just put in the specific type of artificial surface that a major study linked to the highest amount of lower extremity injuries. So a few thoughts.

1) How many other big 10 schools have gone to this surface with the highest risk of injury?

2) What do recruits and their families think of this decision? They literally put in a new surface that has the highest risk to these young athletes careers. Does that enter the equation? It's not like they are playing on bags o glass, but it is one of the biggest threats to their NFL goal.

College football world blasts Ohio State's controversial move

Honestly, I don’t think most kids would really care. They see themselves as invincible and the excitement over playing at OSU in the playoffs would outweigh any turf issues IMO.

 

[wilbury]

The linked article below talks about how Ohio St just put in the specific type of artificial surface that a major study linked to the highest amount of lower extremity injuries. So a few thoughts.

1) How many other big 10 schools have gone to this surface with the highest risk of injury?

2) What do recruits and their families think of this decision? They literally put in a new surface that has the highest risk to these young athletes careers. Does that enter the equation? It's not like they are playing on bags o glass, but it is one of the biggest threats to their NFL goal.

College football world blasts Ohio State's controversial move

Slightly higher risk of minor injuries. Not a big deal.

 

[Online Persona]

Slightly higher risk of minor injuries. Not a big deal.

It was by far the highest risk surface evaluated in the study and lower extremity injuries frequently end playing careers. I don't think it's just something to write off. Ehh, not my kid, right?

 

[HazletonLion]

Slightly higher risk of minor injuries. Not a big deal.

Only if it ends your career. Certain Schools aren't academically inclined.

 

[LandoComando]

It was by far the highest risk surface evaluated in the study and lower extremity injuries frequently end playing careers. I don't think it's just something to write off. Ehh, not my kid, right?

“models suggest there are 2-3 more non-contact lower extremity injuries per season per stadium on slit film surfaces than other types of synthetic turf fields.”

That's a huge difference statistically.

 

[Online Persona]

“models suggest there are 2-3 more non-contact lower extremity injuries per season per stadium on slit film surfaces than other types of synthetic turf fields.”

That's a huge difference statistically.

It is. There are only 22 starters. 2 or 3 more non contact injuries (often ACL, MCL that can end a career). As a recruit, do you want to be one of those 2 or 3 per year or 8 to 12 more injuries per 4 year career? Several of those will likely never play again, all because of the least safe field surface in football.

 

[LandoComando]

It is. There are only 22 starters. 2 or 3 more non contact injuries (often ACL, MCL that can end a career). As a recruit, do you want to be one of those 2 or 3 per year or 8 to 12 more injuries per 4 year career? Several of those will likely never play again, all because of the least safe field surface in football.

Starters? Why are you assuming a starter gets injured? That includes everyone on the field. Why would "several never play again"?

The reality is we should use that to actively recruit against them
The reality also is it won't work

 

[Online Persona]

Starters? Why are you assuming a starter gets injured? That includes everyone on the field. Why would "several never play again"?

The reality is we should use that to actively recruit against them
The reality also is it won't work

Math. And I am not assuming only starters. 22 guys getting the majority of the reps. Probably a backup or 2 in the extra 8 to 12 non-contact injuries. Not sure that it matters as it is still additional players getting injuries simply because of the most dangerous choice of field surface.

Statistically out of 8 to 12 additional non-contact injuries, several would likely end their playing careers. They should be obvious.

 

[LandoComando]

Math. And I am not assuming only starters. 22 guys getting the majority of the reps. Probably a backup or 2 in the extra 8 to 12 non-contact injuries. Not sure that it matters as it is still additional players getting injuries simply because of the most dangerous choice of field surface.

Statistically out of 8 to 12 additional non-contact injuries, several would likely end their playing careers. They should be obvious.

You're not using math or statistics. Why would it end most of their careers? Most players return from those.
Again, use it as a recruiting tool. maybe one out of 50 kids listen but I'll take that one kid

 

[Online Persona]

You're not using math or statistics. Why would it end most of their careers? Most players return from those.
Again, use it as a recruiting tool. maybe one out of 50 kids listen but I'll take that one kid

Who said most? You're an idiot.

Again, 8 to 12 additional non-contact injuries during an Ohio St player's career. Statistically, several of those will end players' careers.

Since you question that, let's be more precise and add granularity. The link below gives stats from an NFL study of over 500 injuries. 20% of ACL tears ended careers and were noted as one of the 2 most common types of injuries to result in decline in performance by the 80% that did attempt a comeback.

For Ohio St's 8 to 12 ADDITIONAL non-contact injuries that yields 2 to 3 ADDITIONAL college careers ended because of their playing surface (on top of the normal rate sustained at other schools with safer playing surfaces). Further, the significant decline in performance noted in the NFL study of the 6 to 9 ADDITIONAL players with non-contact injuries that attempt a comeback likely ends NFL aspirations for several more.

Football injuries most likely to end career

Can you stop cheerleading Ohio St for a minute to understand this?

 

[LandoComando]

Who said most? You're an idiot.

Again, 8 to 12 additional non-contact injuries during an Ohio St player's career. Statistically, several of those will end players' careers.

Since you question that, let's be more precise and add granularity. The link below gives stats from an NFL study of over 500 injuries. 20% of ACL tears ended careers and were noted as one of the 2 most common types of injuries to result in decline in performance by the 80% that did attempt a comeback.

For Ohio St's 8 to 12 ADDITIONAL non-contact injuries that yields 2 to 3 ADDITIONAL college careers ended because of their playing surface (on top of the normal rate sustained at other schools with safer playing surfaces). Further, the significant decline in performance noted in the NFL study of the 6 to 9 ADDITIONAL players with non-contact injuries that attempt a comeback likely ends NFL aspirations for several more.

Football injuries most likely to end career

Can you stop cheerleading Ohio St for a minute to understand this?

How is this cheerleading for Ohio State?
You're not being realistic here at all. You just blindly want to attack. Reality is kids won't care about this. The majority of the parents won't care about this.
I don't know what you think you're proving here.