March 04--Bernie Parmalee played running back in the NFL for nine years.
Before that, from 1987-90, Parmalee was a Ball State teammate, friend and personal measuring stick in my development as a Mid-American Conference safety. For three seasons, whether the 5-foot-11-inch, 201-pounder realized it or not, Parmalee regularly provided the best proof of where I was as an open-field tackler with every speed burst and stiff arm.
When I was a sophomore, I often whiffed trying to bring down Parmalee in humbling live scrimmages and drills. As a junior, repetition improved my technique and confidence grew. By my senior year, a challenge that remained difficult seemed much less daunting.
Practice can do that, ideally simulating game situations. Trying to tackle a future NFL running back at full throttle on Wednesdays and Thursdays made Saturdays in the MAC smoother for me -- not to mention safer -- and incremental improvement during full-contact spring practices often carried over into the fall. Inflicting punishment without injuring yourself sounds easier than it is.
So when the Ivy League announced this week that its eight college football coaches had agreed to eliminate full-contact hitting from practices during the regular season, ambivalence overcame me, someone who benefited by a learning-by-doing approach.
Without question, any bold measure taken in the name of player safety during football's concussion era continues momentum and the Ivy League leading the way shifts pressure to a Power Five conference to follow suit. But my own personal experience a long time ago raised questions how players these days will hone tackling skills in practice so necessary in protecting themselves in games if rules keep limiting their opportunities to improve.
"It shouldn't be a big deal because most smart coaches don't want to injure their best players in practice anyway but, on the other hand, it's a real important message and example of the changes we're going to need to make the game safer," said Chris Nowinski, the executive director of the Concussion Legacy Foundation who also played football at Harvard.
Nowinski, a Hersey High graduate, is smart and right and his passion for progress invites admiration. Personally, the middle ground feels most comfortable, even for a sports columnist trained to avoid murky territory. But it's easy to see both sides of this.
Restricting contact Ivy League-style to reduce subconcussive hits -- which a majority of major programs already do, by the way -- makes sense as football evolves. Yet maintaining a limited number of contact practices during preseason and spring football so players can see a more direct link between instruction and execution still serves an important purpose for everybody concerned about brain injury.
As one Division I head coach pointed out, successfully developing young backups and assimilating them to college football's tempo often begins at December pre-bowl practices and spring sessions during controlled scrimmages that include contact.
Everybody agrees the game must change to survive, and overall football gradually began that process even before the Ivy League's announcement. Since the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NFL allows only 14 full-contact practices during its 18-week regular season. The NCAA permits two full-contact practices weekly during the season and up to 12 in preseason. Beginning with the 2015 season, the IHSA limited teams to 90 minutes of full-contact practice per week.
Even Thursday, for instance, Northwestern practiced without one runner hitting the ground by emphasizing pursuit angles, footwork and head placement. Yet the best way for any Wildcat to learn how to become a surer and safer tackler will come when he executes the technique during one of Northwestern's few "live" spring practices.
Gerry DiNardo, a former head coach in the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences, considers the practice culture safer than ever based on campus visits as a Big Ten Network analyst. DiNardo recalled several years ago seeing then-Penn State coach Bill O'Brien oversee a tackling demonstration that prohibited players from making contact with their helmets.
"He didn't need a rule for that," DiNardo said. "I don't think there are many coaches anymore who want to beat the hell out of their players, and I disagree with the premise that it's safer for players not to practice something at all rather than modify the way it's taught. ... Are we putting them at more risk by not teaching them something they'll be asked to do in games?"
Dartmouth coach Buddy Teevens would answer no. Teevens started banning full-contact practices in 2010 to reduce injuries and saw concussions drop from about 20 per season to a handful, according to the New York Times. Interestingly, Teevens also claimed Dartmouth's missed tackles dropped by more than 50 percent. Those numbers helped persuade the Ivy League to codify a rule with implications that bugged DiNardo.
"The one thing that irritates me is the Ivy League sending a message that players need protection from their coaches when it has been my experience that the people who care about the players the most are coaches," DiNardo said. "Many already have taken it upon themselves to do this. Do 1 percent of the coaches need legislation? Maybe. I haven't seen it."
Will we see Power Five coaches copy the Ivy League?
"Every conference owes it to their players to do this," Nowinski said.
Everybody who cares about football's future owes it to themselves to keep the conversation going.
dhaugh@tribpub.com
