The NCAA News - News and Features

May 12, 1997

Sports Science Newsletter
Player safety in spring football practice addressed

By Dennis Wilson
CHAIR, NCAA COMMITTEE ON COMPETITIVE SAFEGUARDS AND MEDICAL ASPECTS OF SPORTS

THE ISSUE: As part of its charge to oversee health and safety issues within the Association, the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports annually reviews data from the NCAA Injury Surveillance System. Since 1988, ISS data have consistently shown an injury rate in spring football practice that is more than double that of fall practice. Big 10 Conference football injury data, collected through a system completely independent of the ISS, reflect a similar pattern. ISS data also indicate a higher rate of significant injuries, such as concussions or those requiring surgery, in the spring. These findings are contrary to the committee's principle that student-athletes in any sport should not be exposed to an out-of season injury risk that is higher than that experienced during the regular season. Current legislation allows for 15 days of spring practice, 10 of them designated contact in full pads and five of them designated noncontact with full pads except on the knee and thigh.

HISTORY: The committee first discussed this issue with the NCAA Football Rules Committee in 1993 and subsequently reviewed its concerns about spring football injuries with representatives of the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) and the College Football Association in 1995. While acknowledging the higher injury rate in spring football, these groups recommended educating coaches but no change in legislation. Despite these efforts, during the past two years, overall spring football injury rates remained high and significant injuries continued to occur at a rate two to three times that of the rate experienced in the fall.

As a part of its charge from the Presidents Commission to create a plan to heighten awareness of health and safety issues throughout the Association, the committee began discussing a specific proposal to address injuries in spring football. This discussion ultimately led to legislative proposal No. 125, which calls for reducing the number of designated contact days from 10 to five, while maintaining 15 total practice opportunities, requiring the initial two practice opportunities to be noncontact, and removing shoulder pads from noncontact practices. The rationale for these recommendations is outlined in the convention speeches that accompany this article. The committee felt committed to submit this proposal for the 1997 NCAA Convention since no other specific plan addressing injury rates in spring football had been proposed and validated. The committee was joined in its concern by the National Athletics Trainers' Association (NATA), The American Orthopedic Association for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and The American Medical Association for Sports Medicine (AMSSM). (See supporting statements).

1997 CONVENTION: Introduction of Proposal No. 125 and subsequent discussion at the Division I-A business session are recorded in an accompanying box to this article. A motion to refer the proposed legislation to the new management council structure for consideration before the 1998 spring football season was adopted by the membership in Divisions I-A, I-AA and II. This action allows for more consensus-building among groups concerned with this issue.

POST- CONVENTION: Although the competitive-safeguards committee believes Proposal No. 125 will reduce injuries in spring football, it is open to alternative plans that effectively meet this goal, especially as it relates to significant injuries. The committee is again actively soliciting input from the football community and other groups that goes beyond opposing the proposal and begins to identify effective alternatives. A primary purpose of a meeting with AFCA representatives and Division I-A football coaches, February 7-8, involved clarifying the need to receive alternative proposals from the coaches that would effectively address the injury rate in spring football. At this meeting, individual coaches revealed a variety of spring practice plans that seemed reasonable alternatives to the proposal, including contact with limited tackling, limited full scrimmages, and a much more controlled spring game. The committee also anticipates meeting with NATA, AMSSM, AOSSM, and the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) representatives for updates and input.

The AFCA has recommended a proposal that includes two initial noncontact days with helmets only, three other days with helmets and shoulder pads only and no player contact, 10 days of full pads with contact, only five of which may involve 11-on-11 scrimmaging or games, and increased communication regarding injury prevention between coaches and medical staff.

A meeting will be scheduled in early June with representatives of the competitive-safeguards committee, Collegiate Commissioners Association and AFCA to continue discussion. It is still anticipated that a proposal regarding modification of spring football legislation will be considered by the management councils this fall. The competitive-safeguards committee welcomes the interest in this topic and will continue to work toward an effective solution.

Dennis Wilson and the competitive-safeguards committee are interested in your comments on this topic. Please send input to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, care of NCAA Sports Sciences, 6201 College Boulevard, Overland Park, Kansas 66211.

The following speeches were given on behalf of NCAA Proposal Number 125 in the Division I-A Business Session of 1997 NCAA Convention.

Dennis Wilson,

Chair, NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards

and Medical Aspects of Sports.

The NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports has developed proposed legislation to address the injury risk in spring football. The legislation proposes three changes:

a. Spring football contact days should be reduced from 10 to five while maintaining 15 total practice opportunities.

b. The initial two practice opportunities should be noncontact; and

c. Shoulder pads should not be worn in noncontact practices.

The committee has initiated this legislation because it has established a principle that student-athletes in any sport should not be exposed to an out-of season injury risk that is higher than that experienced during the regular season. Data from the NCAA Injury Surveillance System reveal that the injury risk for an individual in out-of-season (spring) football is more than twice that of fall practice. In addition, injuries that involve significant health consequences, such as concussions, injuries requiring surgery, and injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament, are two to three times more likely in the spring.

The proposed legislation is based on what the committee believes is solid research and consistent with existing legislation and, in fact, is supported by the College/University Athletic Trainers Committee, American Orthopedic Society For Sports Medicine, and the American Medical Society For Sports Medicine.

The rationale for reduced contact is as follows:

Over 80 percent of spring practice injuries occur in contact practices. To reduce the injury rate in spring practice, modification must begin with this activity.

ISS data show two specific examples when a reduction in spring practice contact days had an immediate effect on injury rates and no apparent affect on the quality of the sport. It should be noted that these practice reductions were driven by a Presidents Commission desire to decrease time demands on student-athletes in the sport of football, rather than injury concerns.

a. In the spring of 1990, Division II held only 12 spring practices, none of which involved contact. 1990 Division II spring football injury rates were more than 50 percent lower than previous or subsequent years when contact practices were allowed.

b. In the spring of 1991, Division I schools reduced spring football contact days from 15 to 10. The injury rate that year decreased 20 percent.

The rationale for two initial noncontact practices is as follows:

Existing legislation requires the first three practice dates in fall football to be limited to noncontact conditioning drills to allow the student-athlete to acclimate to the activity. The proposed legislation recognizes the need for similar acclimatization in the spring.

Finally, the rationale for no shoulder pads in noncontact
practices:

Legislation permitting the use of shoulder pads during designated noncontact spring practices was approved in 1994, against the committee's recommendation. Since that time, there has been no significant reduction in shoulder injuries in such practices, as was originally claimed. In addition, the percent of injuries occurring in noncontact practices has increased. In fact, in some institutions there is little difference between noncontact and contact practices.

In conclusion, the competitive-safeguards committee strongly believes that the difference in the regular and out-of-season football practice injury rates is real, significant and preventable. We urge your support of this legislation.

Michael Tranghese,

Chair, Division I-A Collegiate Commissioners

Association (CCA)

The CCA has met with several of the constituent groups that have an interest in this proposal. There exists real differences on a number of issues within this proposal, including the number of days to be deleted from spring practice as well as the number of days prior to when the first contact begins.

We believe that the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports should be complimented for their role in bringing this issue to the Convention's attention. Since the effective date of the legislation as proposed is August 1, making the proposal applicable for the first time for spring practice in 1998, we would like to propose that this issue be referred to the championships cabinet. The championships cabinet has the ability to work with the competitive-safeguards committee, the American Football Coaches Association, the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, as well as the National Athletics Trainers' Association and other groups that have an interest in the welfare of the football student-athlete, and to build a consensus.

The cabinet can complete its work this year and the newly constituted management council can give us a resolution in time for spring practice 1998, which is the effective date of the current proposal. Your consideration is appreciated.

Robert Sweazy -- Texas Tech University,

representing the NCAA Council Division I steering committee:

I originally rose to oppose the proposal, but now I am here to support the motion to refer.

Antonio Coley -- University of Miami,

representing the NCAA Student-Athlete

Advisory Committee.

The committee has taken no position on Number 125 because of the following reasons:

After separating the issues, we agree that it would be beneficial to the welfare of the student-athlete to not allow contact drills on the first two days of spring practices, to allow for further conditioning and acclimatization.

We also agree that no shoulder pads should be worn on designated noncontact days. As a Division I football player, I can tell you from personal experience, that as long as shoulder pads are involved in drills, there is really no difference between the contact and noncontact days.

Though they were not intended to be, shoulder pads are an offensive, not a defensive piece of equipment, and we on the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee feel that noncontact drills should be just that -- noncontact.

The primary reason behind us not taking a position on this entire issue, is that we cannot reach consensus on the issue of reducing the number of contact days from 10 to five. Although we agree that the reduction of contact days from 10 to five would be beneficial to the student-athlete in some areas, we do not support such a drastic reduction.