Jump to content

College Football Week 1 Thread: HERE WE (REALLY) GO!


MikeT14

Recommended Posts

Just now, Norm said:

I mean, I was a D2 athlete and the son of a D2 coach. I've never once before today thought, wow they end up laying on the field way more often that stops games.

There's no data out there but I'd bet a bit there's not a huge disparity. But anyways, not worth me arguing about, just never thought about it before

I still don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. But I’m right:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274115/
 

There is a greater injury risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Norm said:

Oh okay, I thought you meant just straight up like they end up hurt more often, I'm sure they take more injuries than their FBS opponents, no doubt. 

No, sorry yeah miscommunication. D1 compared to 2-3 is much more prevalent for the latter. Check out the link I sent with the data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think Hafley is a fantastic coach but the momentum isn’t going how I was expecting it to for him at Boston College. Rutgers winning today isn’t great. I do think it’s highly possible in the ACC though they’re a top 4-5 team.

Edited by NateDawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MWil23 said:

No, sorry yeah miscommunication. D1 compared to 2-3 is much more prevalent for the latter. Check out the link I sent with the data. 

You win because there's no way I'm going to read that lol

It makes sense, I've just never thought of it being something really obvious and noticeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norm said:

You win because there's no way I'm going to read that lol

It makes sense, I've just never thought of it being something really obvious and noticeable. 

Results:

Over the 5 years studied, DII and DIII programs reported 252 BSIs more than 1,793,777 AEs (14.05 per 100,000 AEs), and DI programs reported 235 BSIs over 2,022,592 AEs (11.62 per 100,000 AEs). The risk ratio was significant for D1 versus DII and DIII (1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44). There was a significant difference in time lost to injury in DI versus DII and DIII, χ2(5, n = 449) = 16.54; P = .006. When data were stratified by individual sport, there were no significant divisional differences in high-risk sports.

Conclusion:

In the current study, NCAA DII and DIII athletes had higher rates of BSI than their DI counterparts. As compared with DII and DIII athletes, the DI athletes had a significantly greater proportion of BSIs that did not result in absence from participation in sport.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...