MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on May 11, 2012, 01:18:23 AM
-
Last week I started a thread with several links from sports writers saying Football should be banned.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32449.0
These links included Buzz Bisinger the author of "Friday Night Lights" saying college football should be banned and Kurt Warner saying he doesn't want his sons playing football. So, this sentiment is not coming from pansy pacifist but from people closely involved with the game.
Now we have the most devastating of them all ... arguably the dean of Football writers, Sports Illustrated Peter King wrote this on May 8:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/05/08/eric.legrand/index.html#ixzz1uUp9Rk3B
I write in SI this week about how I feel some guilt for the way I helped (in a small way, but helped nonetheless) make Junior Seau a Superman over the years, by writing about him as if he were Superman. Not to give it away, but that's been on my mind a lot over the past week. I am thinking about the game, and about all the head trauma, and I need to do some more thinking about whether it's in anyone's long-term interests to play this game.
----
Now go ahead and tell me that the NFL makes too much money. Tell me the sport is too popular. Tell me it's a truly American sport. And I agree with all of this.
I love football as much as anyone. But I also know a death changes things. Junior Seau's suicide, following on Dave Duerson's suicide is looking more an more looking like it was a watershed event for football. The sports popularity might have peaked last week when Seau pulled the trigger.
If so, the slide will be long and slow. The sport is going nowhere for years, if ever. But don't be surprised if in say 10 years, the Packers are the only team left in the league that sells out more than two games, the games are no longer national TV but local TV, and the Superbowl audience is about the same as the Academy awards (about half its current Superbowl audience).
Maybe I'm wrong but for these people to make these statements about the sport they cover, their livelihood, is amazing. Seau's death is a real game changer and its effect on Football is going to be much bigger than most appreciate.
-
This is one person shouting at a hurricane. Something tells me the hurricane isn't going to listen.
-
Sorry AnotherMU84, I've got to agree with brewcity on this one. I guess that your thinking is that if Peter King can be brought to reflect, then it could happen to anyone. But, I think that because Peter King's life and livelihood involve pro football, he's going to look at this issue much much sooner than the average fan. Dave Duerson was a very popular player in Chicago, but his suicide hasn't dampened football fever here in Chi-town to any significant degree.
The game will change, it has to due to the threat to the NFL from lawsuits, but it ain't going anywhere.
-
While one voice now (and Peter King at that--shouldn't he be complaining about extra foam on his latest latte?) the football industry needs to jump on this fast and hard, although I think they are safe as long as boxing is allowed.
-
The game will change, it has to due to the threat to the NFL from lawsuits, but it ain't going anywhere.
Those lawsuits are the key and the insurance companies reaction to them. If insurance becomes impossible to get or so exhorbitant as to be unmanageble, high school football could cease to exist in most of the country. If high school football goes, where do colleges and subsequently the NFL teams get players from?
I also think football will lose some popularity if big hitting is legislated out of the game, which is definitely going to happen.
But the big thing that will keep it going and one of the biggest reasons it is so popular now is that it is the best sport to gamble on by far. And that won't change by softening the rules.
-
Things change.
Novell once ruled computer networking. GONE.
Microsoft rules PC desktop, but they don't influence any new technology. Not GONE yet, but irrelevancy leads to GONE.
Things change.
25 year olds gather in bars to watch Premier League Soccer. What do you think their kids will follow?
Things change.
My elementary school gave up football in 1980. This led to the slow demise (less relevancy) for the HS football team.
Things change.
-
rara
+1
I love football but I've seen this is other venues. An "incident" causes a "reappraisal and "review" and attitudes change.
Yes the lawsuit of 1,500 former players over concussions is the device for change. The NFL is going to lose. They have the money to pay but, as was said above, high schools will never be able to afford insurance. Could high school football be the first to go?
Anyone remember the lawsuits about smoking. Once attitudes started to change about smoking, guess what, the tobacco companies started losing. Now they are paying hundreds of billions in damages to the states.
Peter King, Bisinger, Kurt Warner SUGGEST that attitudes are changing. If so, the NFL loses.
-
Things change as attitudes change, but "banning" is (and should be) anathama in the U.S. We learned our lesson with alcohol. If parents are moved in droves to forbid their children from playing or if enough fans are turned off by the violence/injuries then football will gradually lose its appeal (see boxing). But banned? If that happens, what's next? I'd be very, very scared.
-
History shows there's progressive pussification. Media controls attitudes/social acceptance eventually.
-
25 year olds gather in bars to watch Premier League Soccer. What do you think their kids will follow?
Things change.
- For every 1 bar playing those games, there are 100 bars playing NCAA and NFL games.
- A sport where the best teams are playing from 6:00 am to noon on Saturdays and Sunday is not going to take over football here.
- There's still too much of a "field fairy" stigma for the mass populace to shift to soccer.
- There isn't enough interest here in the buildup, too many focus on diving and scorelines.
.
If anyone is going to support a change in our culture toward soccer, it's me. I'm a huge devotee of the sport. But it's a niche sport that isn't going to gain enough ground here to overtake American football in my lifetime.
The NFL may need to improve padding, they may need to institute rule changes, but the notion that football is going to disappear is simply ridiculous. Like I said...shouting at a hurricane.
-
The NFL may need to improve padding, they may need to institute rule changes, but the notion that football is going to disappear is simply ridiculous. Like I said...shouting at a hurricane.
So why are Bisinger and Peter King either call for banning Football or thinking about banning it?
Do they understand their careers end if they get what they want?
-
- For every 1 bar playing those games, there are 100 bars playing NCAA and NFL games.
- A sport where the best teams are playing from 6:00 am to noon on Saturdays and Sunday is not going to take over football here.
- There's still too much of a "field fairy" stigma for the mass populace to shift to soccer.
- There isn't enough interest here in the buildup, too many focus on diving and scorelines.
.
If anyone is going to support a change in our culture toward soccer, it's me. I'm a huge devotee of the sport. But it's a niche sport that isn't going to gain enough ground here to overtake American football in my lifetime.
Brew, I am 52 years old. Couldn't care less about soccer. Scream at the TV when ESPN shows freakin soccer on Top Ten Plays. That is me and my outlook. Some of the younger people working with me sit around and talk about the soccer game they watched last night, or last weekend. Not saying it will happen in my lifetime or yours, but there's a lotta sh*t happening, and you had moms not letting their kids play football before this. It can only get worse from here based on the Saints debacle.
-
- For every 1 bar playing those games, there are 100 bars playing NCAA and NFL games.
- A sport where the best teams are playing from 6:00 am to noon on Saturdays and Sunday is not going to take over football here.
- There's still too much of a "field fairy" stigma for the mass populace to shift to soccer.
- There isn't enough interest here in the buildup, too many focus on diving and scorelines.
.
If anyone is going to support a change in our culture toward soccer, it's me. I'm a huge devotee of the sport. But it's a niche sport that isn't going to gain enough ground here to overtake American football in my lifetime.
The NFL may need to improve padding, they may need to institute rule changes, but the notion that football is going to disappear is simply ridiculous. Like I said...shouting at a hurricane.
Amen.
I love soccer, I've played since I was 5 all the way up to and including the college level and I enjoy watching the sport on tv.....but it will never overtake football in this country.
Don't mistake an issue for a crisis. There is a lot of noise around the injuries, especially head injuries in football, but its just that, noise. Don't get me wrong I think the injuries are real and a tragedy but ultimately its going to boil down to the players putting themselves in this position. Hell, I've gotten 4 concussions from playing soccer myself(hazards of being a keeper) so any sport is going to have similar issues. So the league has an obligation to act now that more info is known and I think its getting there but to say this could bring down this behemoth is just crazy talk
Look at the way current players reacted to the punishment of the Saints for the bounties.....if they were concerned for their health they would have supported the suspensions but instead came out against them. Don't think that won't be factored into any legal proceedings.
Anything could change, but its not like this whole no youth football play is new. I never played football because my dad was a Joe Paterno disciple and he said kids shouldn't play until high school because of injury risk and that was in the 80s. Yet people still play. If there is money to be had people will do it, welcome to capitalism.
Also I agree with Stone Cold, some of this is a general wussification of society that is going on, but like all things in life the pendulum will swing the other way, the generation having kids now IMHO will be more likely to keep score and expect their kids to be tough because they are looking at the millenials and younger going oh my god what did we create. I just don't see enough mass to create the paradigm shift 84 is calling for.
Also don't forget about the rampant ADD in the media these days. Its a big deal right now, wait until something else comes along they'll go running after that and the injuries will be forgotten.
-
So why are Bisinger and Peter King either call for banning Football or thinking about banning it?
Do they understand their careers end if they get what they want?
You also understand their careers are based on page views and stirring the pot. They are paid to generate discussion. Peter King bloviating about something and something actually happening couldn't be further apart. Just take a look at all of his playoff and draft predictions.
-
Even if football declines, I don't see soccer taking over. Sure, it would probably go from the 7th most popular to the 6th most popular sport, but I don't see any reason for it to jump #1-#5. (I'm using the numbers generically, not sure exactly where it would be placed, but there is no way it's top 4.)
-
I look forward to Monday, when Kissing Suzy Kolber will take a Ziggy's-post-Taco-Bell level s*** all over this particular PK column...again. FWIW, I think Christmas Ape has done a very admirable job taking over for Magary.
History shows there's progressive pussification.
Yes, women voting, and black people being not enslaved. Also, indoor plumbing. Pussification, INDEED.
-
Peter King is an embarrassment of a journalist. It's pitiful that people read his nonsense.
-
So why are Bisinger and Peter King either call for banning Football or thinking about banning it?
That's not what Peter King said. He said: " I need to do some more thinking about whether it's in anyone's long-term interests to play this game."
He isn't calling for a ban.
I frankly don't think it is anyone's long-term interests to play football. But if other's want to do so, I don't have a problem with it. Free choice.
And with regards to Junior Seau, when kickoffs begin in September, it will be in front of packed stadiums and record to near record television audiences. Seau might be given a moment of silence that will be forgotten as soon as the ball is kicked off. And by the end of the week, it will largely be forgotten. You completely under-estimate how much the game of football is woven into our society.
-
That's not what Peter King said. He said: " I need to do some more thinking about whether it's in anyone's long-term interests to play this game."
He isn't calling for a ban.
I frankly don't think it is anyone's long-term interests to play football. But if other's want to do so, I don't have a problem with it. Free choice.
And with regards to Junior Seau, when kickoffs begin in September, it will be in front of packed stadiums and record to near record television audiences. Seau might be given a moment of silence that will be forgotten as soon as the ball is kicked off. And by the end of the week, it will largely be forgotten. You completely under-estimate how much the game of football is woven into our society.
Agreed. Also, the Seau "incident" is most likely more about post-retirement issues than concussions...? Some folks just can't make that transition.
-
Brew, I am 52 years old. Couldn't care less about soccer. Scream at the TV when ESPN shows freakin soccer on Top Ten Plays. That is me and my outlook. Some of the younger people working with me sit around and talk about the soccer game they watched last night, or last weekend. Not saying it will happen in my lifetime or yours, but there's a lotta sh*t happening, and you had moms not letting their kids play football before this. It can only get worse from here based on the Saints debacle.
For every thirtysomething guy chatting up soccer there are 50 in NFL fantasy leagues or gambling on NFL/NCAA games. We've been told for awhile that because so many of our kids PLAYED socceer that they would want to WATCH soccer as adults, but up til now it hasn't happened. Some sports are just more fun to play than to watch.
-
I really hope I'm not completely stepping in it here, and if so, I apologize, but is this that much different than PTSD? These guys lived their lives for the excitement and rush of the NFL and didn't have an adequate plan as to how to adjust to real life. Similar to soldiers coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq and committing suicide (in far greater numbers than ex-NFL players). No one is calling for a ban on the military, are they?
Some people commit suicide. It's unfortunate, it's tragic for the families, but it's also something that is a part of life. Would Seau and Duerson have been well-adjusted, normal functioning members of society if not for the NFL? My guess is that football was a band-aid on an already damaged psyche.
And while I disagree with Lennys about soccer being more fun to play than watch (it's far more TV friendly than American football), I don't disagree that there's a massive popularity gap that won't be overcome any time soon. Even if the NFL did go away (which it won't), I think it's more likely that basketball and hockey would fill the popularity void than soccer would.
-
For every thirtysomething guy chatting up soccer there are 50 in NFL fantasy leagues or gambling on NFL/NCAA games. We've been told for awhile that because so many of our kids PLAYED socceer that they would want to WATCH soccer as adults, but up til now it hasn't happened. Some sports are just more fun to play than to watch.
Not predicting the end of football. All I'm saying is people who think that things will remain the same are the same people caught with their pants down when a big change happens.
A year ago I could not comprehend this topic coming up. Now, here it is. It needs examination.
-
Not predicting the end of football. All I'm saying is people who think that things will remain the same are the same people caught with their pants down when a big change happens.
The OP said he wouldn't be surprised if it were "10 years." Cmon...
-
Yes, women voting, and black people being not enslaved. Also, indoor plumbing. Pussification, INDEED.
TOTALLY. You and I both know that is EXACTLY where he was going with that post. Stone Cold is clearly a racist/misogynist calling for the legalization of slavery and an end to women's suffrage. He probably won't admit to it, but you and I are super duper smart and know what he really meant.
-
I haven't seen a good counter argument made to the point someone brought up about what happens if the high school game is reduced due to insurance companies being unwilling to cover them. This, more than any national shift in preferences is the biggest danger to the NFL's behemoth status.
I don't think it would be a death knell, but it would drastically change the way the system works. Can anyone imagine a development academy system like those for Barcelona and United popping up? AAU run by teams themselves? It's happening a bit with soccer as it is (and in the process killing it since the best players in the next few years will skip high school sports altogether).
I think football is untouchable in places like Texas where Friday night is about as important as Sunday morning, but I'm not convinced many other states feel the same way.
-
1) If/when football's popularity begins to diminish, soccer's popularity won't increase proportionately. Keep in mind that nearly half of the NFL's audience is female, and I would opine that most women will simply turn off the TV rather than turn on another sport.
2) Football won't be "banned" as in made to be illegal. It simply will cease to be a varsity sport at many of the universities who currently carry the sport. If you want to get a bunch of guys together and play a game in your backyard, the police aren't going to stop you.
3) When you only have one state in the US where there are more entry-level attorney openings than people passing the bar exam, you better be prepared for the wave of wannabe Habushes and Grubers who need to make a name for themselves.
-
Things change as attitudes change, but "banning" is (and should be) anathama in the U.S. We learned our lesson with alcohol. If parents are moved in droves to forbid their children from playing or if enough fans are turned off by the violence/injuries then football will gradually lose its appeal (see boxing). But banned? If that happens, what's next? I'd be very, very scared.
But has boxing really lost its popularity due to the violence and injuries??? I think not. While it is sad to see all time legends like Ali struggle to get around, I don't think that this has anything to do with the decline of the sport. The example of this is the rising popularity of MMA, which is much more violent than boxing.
Bars sell out on Saturday night for pay-per-view events and many people host parties to watch the big MMA fights. People cannot be naive to think that these fights will not have long-term effects on those in the ring. It definitely will, perhaps more so than playing football. But we still watch.
It is sad to see some of the things that happen to those players that play this long, but I do agree with Brew and others here. A lot of the depression following football I think is figuring out what to do after football, and not quite as much the physical wear-and-tear they have taken over the years. I'm sure all of the hitting has negative effects, and on some players more than others, it might be completely detrimental to them. But this is a risk these players take when they start playing the game, just as those who compete in MMA know the risks they are getting into.
I'm a big Steelers fan, and our FS Ryan Clark tweeted this earlier about Jacob Bell, the offensive lineman that just retired because he wanted to maintain his long-term health, "I respect Jacob Bell for his decision to retire. We all have that choice. For those of us who choose other wise we know the risk!"
Football will not die, it will evolve.
-
I don't think logic follows that if football were to somehow disappear, that soccer would have to take its place. If people in this country wanted to watch soccer, they would. Those that want to, do so. It's not as if it's not available and doesn't have a chance to get popular. I understand that soccer's popularity is growing some, but honestly, I'm more likely to hear about the results to an MMA fight, and that sport is comparably brand new.
-
It's in MU's best interest if football died off.
Death to football.
-
if football starts a to die a slow death, the BBall only schools in the BEast are ahead of the curve
as long as ESPN is paying BIG $$ to the BCS conferences under long term contracts, college football will be around at least as long as the contracts run
-
And while I disagree with Lennys about soccer being more fun to play than watch (it's far more TV friendly than American football), I don't disagree that there's a massive popularity gap that won't be overcome any time soon.
Far more young adults in this country grew up playing soccer than football. Many predicted that the participation numbers would translate into young people wanting to watch soccer. They haven't. In general, those same young people prefer watching "American football" on TV.
-
But has boxing really lost its popularity due to the violence and injuries??? I think not. While it is sad to see all time legends like Ali struggle to get around, I don't think that this has anything to do with the decline of the sport. The example of this is the rising popularity of MMA, which is much more violent than boxing.
Bars sell out on Saturday night for pay-per-view events and many people host parties to watch the big MMA fights. People cannot be naive to think that these fights will not have long-term effects on those in the ring. It definitely will, perhaps more so than playing football. But we still watch.
It is sad to see some of the things that happen to those players that play this long, but I do agree with Brew and others here. A lot of the depression following football I think is figuring out what to do after football, and not quite as much the physical wear-and-tear they have taken over the years. I'm sure all of the hitting has negative effects, and on some players more than others, it might be completely detrimental to them. But this is a risk these players take when they start playing the game, just as those who compete in MMA know the risks they are getting into.
I'm a big Steelers fan, and our FS Ryan Clark tweeted this earlier about Jacob Bell, the offensive lineman that just retired because he wanted to maintain his long-term health, "I respect Jacob Bell for his decision to retire. We all have that choice. For those of us who choose other wise we know the risk!"
Football will not die, it will evolve.
All good points, but boxing isn't the "mainstream" sport it once was. When I grew up the Friday Night fights were live, prime time network TV. When Ingemar Johansson knocked out Floyd Patterson it was on the front page of the Chicago Tribune. Now it's a niche sport, with UFC and mixed martial arts closing in.
-
Far more young adults in this country grew up playing soccer than football. Many predicted that the participation numbers would translate into young people wanting to watch soccer. They haven't. In general, those same young people prefer watching "American football" on TV.
I didn't dispute that at all. I agree. What I disagree with is the assertion that American football is a more "TV friendly" sport. It's only more TV friendly for the advertisers. When you watch a 2-hour soccer game, you are watching 90 minutes of action, about 8-10 minutes of injuries and stoppages, about 8-10 minutes of halftime show, and about 10-12 minutes of commercials. When you watch a 3-hour football game, you are watching 11 minutes of action, 119 minutes of injuries, stoppages, replays, and halftime show, and 60 minutes of commercials.
We may watch more football, but it's certainly not because it's more of a TV friendly sport, at least not for the viewer who is spending 6.1% of his time watching action versus the viewer spending 75% of his time watching action.
-
All good points, but boxing isn't the "mainstream" sport it once was. When I grew up the Friday Night fights were live, prime time network TV. When Ingemar Johansson knocked out Floyd Patterson it was on the front page of the Chicago Tribune. Now it's a niche sport, with UFC and mixed martial arts closing in.
Understood, the point I was trying to make is that I do not believe that boxing's popularity has died off due to the physical nature and violence of the sport. Otherwise, MMA, which is more violent than boxing, would not be increasingly more and more popular.
-
We may watch more football, but it's certainly not because it's more of a TV friendly sport, at least not for the viewer who is spending 6.1% of his time watching action versus the viewer spending 75% of his time watching action.
I suppose it depends on what your definition of action is, since 80-90% of the action in a soccer match is inconsequential as it doesn't lead to a goal or even the threat of one. I find soccer tough to watch for that reason. Goals are very rare and seem to be the result of a defensive screw-up at least as often as an inspired play by the offense.
So I feel about soccer the way I do about opera. I have great respect for the talent of the participants, but I don't want to watch it.
-
I really hope I'm not completely stepping in it here, and if so, I apologize, but is this that much different than PTSD? These guys lived their lives for the excitement and rush of the NFL and didn't have an adequate plan as to how to adjust to real life. Similar to soldiers coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq and committing suicide (in far greater numbers than ex-NFL players). No one is calling for a ban on the military, are they?
Some people commit suicide. It's unfortunate, it's tragic for the families, but it's also something that is a part of life. Would Seau and Duerson have been well-adjusted, normal functioning members of society if not for the NFL? My guess is that football was a band-aid on an already damaged psyche.
And while I disagree with Lennys about soccer being more fun to play than watch (it's far more TV friendly than American football), I don't disagree that there's a massive popularity gap that won't be overcome any time soon. Even if the NFL did go away (which it won't), I think it's more likely that basketball and hockey would fill the popularity void than soccer would.
1. Having a military is nec so it would neve be banned. Football is entertainment that can easily be replaced.
2. PTSD is more mental. The 'mental' problems affecting players are due to physical damage to their brains. You can't be adjusted back to society I you are mentally impaired. Suicide isnt th main problem because it was the players 'choice'. The real problem is that players were affected before their suicides with brain problems. The suicides just brought the real problems to light.
-
I suppose it depends on what your definition of action is, since 80-90% of the action in a soccer match is inconsequential as it doesn't lead to a goal or even the threat of one. I find soccer tough to watch for that reason. Goals are very rare and seem to be the result of a defensive screw-up at least as often as an inspired play by the offense.
So I feel about soccer the way I do about opera. I have great respect for the talent of the participants, but I don't want to watch it.
People that don't like the sport don't like the sport. I get that. But the buildup is not inconsequential, and just because they give 7 points for a touchdown doesn't make it any more valuable than a goal.
Regardless, all I'm saying is that it's more TV friendly. 93.9% of the time spent watching an American football game is spent not watching live action. For some reason, we like that. But if any other television program only had 6.1% of the event spent viewing meaningful portions of the show, no one would watch it. Hell, of that 6.1%, how much is spent between the 20s, which is the "inconsequential" portion of the game. The NFL Network is able to break the entire meaningful portion of a game down to 7 minutes. When you're spending 3 hours on the couch for 7 worthwhile minutes, that's not good television.
-
TOTALLY. You and I both know that is EXACTLY where he was going with that post. Stone Cold is clearly a racist/misogynist calling for the legalization of slavery and an end to women's suffrage. He probably won't admit to it, but you and I are super duper smart and know what he really meant.
Yes, THAT SURE WAS THE POINT. ?-( Uh, you are aware of what the teal color means, right? Since you're super duper smart? Or is setting up an absurd, slippery slope counter-argument for the punchline that follows supposed to be in a different color? Let me know what you decide. In the meantime, stay away from New Yorker cartoons.
Speaking of irony, you getting worked up over that comment is contributing to Stone Cold's observation of the "growing pussification of America".
-
When you're spending 3 hours on the couch for 7 worthwhile minutes, that's not good television.
I agree with this, too. I don't watch a lot of football, either. I watch the Jets (my team) every week, but don't watch other games or pregame shows or post game shows and I'm usually flipping to a movie or something between plays of the Jets game. I watch a lot of college basketball that doesn't involve Marquette, though.
-
Yes, THAT SURE WAS THE POINT. ?-( Uh, you are aware of what the teal color means, right? Since you're super duper smart? Or is setting up an absurd, slippery slope counter-argument for the punchline that follows supposed to be in a different color? Let me know what you decide. In the meantime, stay away from New Yorker cartoons.
Speaking of irony, you getting worked up over that comment is contributing to Stone Cold's observation of the "growing pussification of America".
Get off me.
(http://rock.klabusterbeere.nl/she-wins.gif)
-
I agree with this, too. I don't watch a lot of football, either. I watch the Jets (my team) every week, but don't watch other games or pregame shows or post game shows and I'm usually flipping to a movie or something between plays of the Jets game. I watch a lot of college basketball that doesn't involve Marquette, though.
Basketball is a far more television friendly sport than football. It surprises me that it hasn't become more popular over here. Not sure I want to open that can of worms, though.
-
Get off me.
(http://rock.klabusterbeere.nl/she-wins.gif)
Momentum is a bitch.
-
I haven't seen a good counter argument made to the point someone brought up about what happens if the high school game is reduced due to insurance companies being unwilling to cover them. This, more than any national shift in preferences is the biggest danger to the NFL's behemoth status.
I don't think it would be a death knell, but it would drastically change the way the system works. Can anyone imagine a development academy system like those for Barcelona and United popping up? AAU run by teams themselves? It's happening a bit with soccer as it is (and in the process killing it since the best players in the next few years will skip high school sports altogether).
I think football is untouchable in places like Texas where Friday night is about as important as Sunday morning, but I'm not convinced many other states feel the same way.
The counter argument is that these injuries don't manifest themselves at the high school level at a rate any higher than any other sport. We're talking about NFL players that have been hitting things for at least 16 years(4 pee wee, 4 high school, 4 college, 4 NFL) and even then it seems take time after retiring to see the effects. High schools won't ban it because they make money off of it and the effects are too far down the road.
I agree with Brew that there is a lot of parallel to PTSD and head traumas in the military. There is both a mental and a physical element to this. There is enough attention now that perhaps a "cure" will be found that makes all this moot.
-
The counter argument is that these injuries don't manifest themselves at the high school level at a rate any higher than any other sport.
Not only that, but from a clinical standpoint when it comes to legal matters, you need the burden of proof. When the problems from concussions do manifest, how do you prove they were from organized football, and not a car accident, a fall, another sport, or playing football in the backyard?
The assertion being made is that there's a sudden rash of football-related deaths. But there aren't, not any more than we've seen in past years. Seau committed suicide years after he left the game. So the NFL, NCAA, and high schools across the country should start ponying up money? That's like saying the record companies should start paying out because Kurt Cobain shot himself.
There's no way anyone can prove that Seau or Duerson killed themselves because they played football. Thousands of people commit suicide each year. In the past few years, 2 of them were retired NFL players. I don't think you can even make a sound correlation, much less prove anything conclusively, that either of their deaths had anything to do with playing in the NFL.
When it comes to the kids that die on the field, then there's a case, but those numbers are actually on the decline. On average, fewer than 5 people die on the football field per year. Compared to 18+ pre-1970, that's pretty darn good.
-
Okay, I've let this low hanging fruit be for a while, but the title of the post talks about the "Baning" of football. BANEING of football? If so, WAYYYYYYY COOOOOOL. No way we should ban that.
http://www.youtube.com/v/0bnzCnhsCQM&fs=1&source=uds
-
But has boxing really lost its popularity due to the violence and injuries??? I think not.
I disagree as explained here
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32449.msg391635#msg391635
-
I disagree as explained here
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=32449.msg391635#msg391635
First of all, using wiki answers as your primary source might not be the best way to support an argument. Second, while I was only 5 at the time, I have never heard of Doo Duk Kim. I would imagine most people in their 30s have no idea who he is, and certainly wouldn't blame him for boxing not being popular.
But third, and most important, you are trying to compare a guy dying in the ring to guys taking their lives years after their careers ended. That isn't apples to oranges, it's apples to couches. Do you really think the families of Duerson or Seau would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting a dime out of the NFL for a wrongful death suit? If 5-10 NFL players were dying each year on the field of play, you might be on to something. But 2 guys committing suicide years later? Sorry, but that argument has less than zero traction. Unless you can prove the suicide rate of NFL players is wildly higher than the suicide rate of the average citizen (about 12/100,000), there's simply nothing to this but sensationalism.
-
I think some of you are basing your opinion on your personal biases.
" I love football, therefore it will never go away."
-
I think some of you are basing your opinion on your personal biases.
" I love football, therefore it will never go away."
Not me. I hate football. But it sure as hell ain't going anywhere in any of our lifetimes.
-
I think some of you are basing your opinion on your personal biases.
" I love football, therefore it will never go away."
Disagree. I love football, I don't think there is a chance in hell it goes away. Having said that I'm fully aware the game will change. It has evolved over the last 100 years there is zero reason it wouldn't continue to evolve. In fact, the only way the game dies in my opinion is if it stops evolving
-
First of all, using wiki answers as your primary source might not be the best way to support an argument. Second, while I was only 5 at the time, I have never heard of Doo Duk Kim. I would imagine most people in their 30s have no idea who he is, and certainly wouldn't blame him for boxing not being popular.
But third, and most important, you are trying to compare a guy dying in the ring to guys taking their lives years after their careers ended. That isn't apples to oranges, it's apples to couches. Do you really think the families of Duerson or Seau would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting a dime out of the NFL for a wrongful death suit? If 5-10 NFL players were dying each year on the field of play, you might be on to something. But 2 guys committing suicide years later? Sorry, but that argument has less than zero traction. Unless you can prove the suicide rate of NFL players is wildly higher than the suicide rate of the average citizen (about 12/100,000), there's simply nothing to this but sensationalism.
+1
-
First of all, using wiki answers as your primary source might not be the best way to support an argument. Second, while I was only 5 at the time, I have never heard of Doo Duk Kim. I would imagine most people in their 30s have no idea who he is, and certainly wouldn't blame him for boxing not being popular.
Duk Koo Kim...I didn't realize he came up in conversation. I remember that fight. I remember when he died. However, everything that fight may have done to undermine boxing, Mike Tyson's emergence undid. And when he was at his peak, he was an absolutely brutal fighter. And not all his fights were on pay-per-view. I remember when he completely annihilated Marvis Frazier on a Saturday afternoon on Wide World of Sports. He was a thing.
What undermined boxing was pay-per-view and too many champions.
-
What undermined boxing was pay-per-view and too many champions.
That coupled with a weak heavyweight division. The heavyweights have always been the prize draw, but neither the quality nor quantity is there that once was. Obviously the Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Foreman era was a golden age, and while Tyson and Holyfield were great, the quality and quantity of top heavyweights has simply dwindled.
-
First of all, using wiki answers as your primary source might not be the best way to support an argument. Second, while I was only 5 at the time, I have never heard of Doo Duk Kim. I would imagine most people in their 30s have no idea who he is, and certainly wouldn't blame him for boxing not being popular.
But third, and most important, you are trying to compare a guy dying in the ring to guys taking their lives years after their careers ended. That isn't apples to oranges, it's apples to couches. Do you really think the families of Duerson or Seau would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting a dime out of the NFL for a wrongful death suit? If 5-10 NFL players were dying each year on the field of play, you might be on to something. But 2 guys committing suicide years later? Sorry, but that argument has less than zero traction. Unless you can prove the suicide rate of NFL players is wildly higher than the suicide rate of the average citizen (about 12/100,000), there's simply nothing to this but sensationalism.
An anonymous internet message board looking down its nose at wiki's credibility. Wow, is this the pot calling the kettle black!!
What part of the Duk Doo Kim Wiki is inaccurate? I remember the fight as I watched it live and that is largely how I remember it.
The golden era of boxing was the 1910s (Jack Johnson) to the 1950s, not the 1970s. Like I noted before, the Gene Tunney Jack Dempsey "long count fight" was 1927 in Solider Field in Chicago drew 135,000. Try doing that today with anything other than the Superbowl in Soldier's Field. Try doing that with any entertainment draw today in Soldier's Field. My point is whatever you though boxing was in the 1970s, it was orders of magnitude more popular in the 1910s to 1950s. Tyson's uptick in popularity was a small correction in a larger bear market for boxing popularity driven by "cultured people" getting turned off by excessive violence and deaths. If it happened to boxing, it can happen to football.
Lastly, regarding the statement "apples to couches" ... my fear is the NFL is going to lose this lawsuit and it is going to have a profound effect on football. High school football is going to end as insurance is going to be too expensive.
http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
More players file concussion lawsuits against the NFL
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-03/worldsport/sport_nfl-lawsuit_1_concussions-deceased-nfl-players-player-safety?_s=PM:WORLDSPORT
More than 100 former professional football players, including former Atlanta Falcons Jamal Anderson, Chris Doleman, and O.J. Santiago, are adding their names a growing list of players suing the NFL.
They join more than 1,500 other players who claim that the National Football League hid the dangers of concussions from them.
The latest lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by attorney Mike McGlamry, states that the NFL "repeatedly refuted the connection between concussions and brain injury."
It goes on to assert that the organization failed "to take reasonable steps necessary to protect players from devastating head injuries. Moreover, the NFL has downplayed and misrepresented the issues and misled players concerning the risks associated with concussions."
Regarding these claims, the NFL has repeatedly stated that player safety is a priority. The NFL has said that "any allegation that the NFL intentionally sought to mislead players has no merit."
Similar suits against the NFL have already been consolidated for trial in Philadelphia, but a trial date has not been set.
The filing cites recent scientific studies that have found a connection between concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease that results in Alzheimer's-like symptoms, including memory loss and mood swings.
CTE results only from repeated blows to the head, and can be diagnosed only after death. According to the lawsuit, 12 cases of CTE have been detected in deceased NFL players.
Former Green Bay Packer Dorsey Levens, who McGlamry also represents, says that when he played in the mid-1990s, he had no idea of the consequences the game could have. He filed suit in January of this year.
At the time of the filing, Levens told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, "I wasn't worried at all, you know, because that's the way you play the game of football. We weren't aware of the long-term ramifications of concussions like we are today. So I didn't worry about it when I played."
-
The golden era of boxing was the 1910s (Jack Johnson) to the 1950s, not the 1970s. Like I noted before, the Gene Tunney Jack Dempsey "long count fight" was 1927 in Solider Field in Chicago drew 135,000. Try doing that today with anything other than the Superbowl in Soldier's Field. Try doing that with any entertainment draw today in Soldier's Field. My point is whatever you though boxing was in the 1970s, it was orders of magnitude more popular in the 1910s to 1950s. Tyson's uptick in popularity was a small correction in a larger bear market for boxing popularity driven by "cultured people" getting turned off by excessive violence and deaths. If it happened to boxing, it can happen to football.
Completely fallacious comparison. You can't compare the attendance figure of any sporting event in 1927 to modern day. Not in an era of television. People attended events because it was the only way to see them. That's not the case today. If you can't get ringside or courtside or on the 50, there are many that would rather stay at home and watch the game from the comfort of their own home. Imagine if you had a Super Bowl that wasn't televised. Think they'd have any trouble selling 135,000 seats if the venue was large enough? My bet is they could probably sell 250,000+ if they could find somewhere to house that many people and there was no televised coverage.
Lastly, regarding the statement "apples to couches" ... my fear is the NFL is going to lose this lawsuit and it is going to have a profound effect on football. High school football is going to end as insurance is going to be too expensive.
As far as either ending, they may change, but they won't end. The Levens comments are particularly relevant. He says "we weren't aware of the long-term ramifications". I have little doubt the NFL will argue they also weren't aware of those ramifications. All of these players have physicians, and with how often guys get second opinions, I'm sure not every doctor they talked to was in the NFL's pocket. If their physicians weren't telling them all the risks, why is it the NFL's duty to do additional research? I understand it should be, but from a legal perspective, it will be hard to prove the NFL culpable of deliberately covering up medical information from the players, which is what it will take to win that lawsuit.
Two things will keep youth-level football alive. The first will be a waiver system. Kids like playing football. Lots of parents, even despite the risk, like having their kids play football. I am pretty sure some schools require waivers to be signed already that take the school out of the liability equation, but those will be ramped up to make sure that the parent's insurance is responsible for the child's well-being. Second, if that fails, the NFL will simply have to follow the European soccer model and begin a club format that lets the children play under their umbrella. You'll see teams setting up youth leagues around the country and players directly funneling up the ranks to the pro level. It will essentially be a minor-league system that starts somewhere from age 8-12. It wouldn't surprise me if they even started paying some kids at those ages. And of course, waivers, waivers, waivers.
The NFL will either beat or buy out that impending lawsuit (I'd put money down that they'll beat it), make a move to "improve safety", though whether it actually does or not will remain to be seen, and they'll adapt, just as all sports must do to survive. But saying that the sport could be gone in 10 years? That's preposterous.
-
Basketball is a far more television friendly sport than football. It surprises me that it hasn't become more popular over here. Not sure I want to open that can of worms, though.
I know personally some fans that like football because the commitment is a lot less. "Television friendly" to someone that doesn't really like sports much may be only being on once a week. Wives may be more likely to get behind that that an 82 games hockey or NBA season, or a 162 game MLB season. Even with college basketball, if you like the sport as a whole, you can see games many days a week, while if you are a fan of just pro or just college football, you can theoretically get it all out of the way in a day.
-
I posted the link to this article, but am going to repost it in full. Personally, I believe that it is neither a foregone conclusion that football will go away nor that football will remain at its current level of popularity. I find it entirely plausible that football's overall popularity could go down significantly and be impacted by CTE and concussions.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559458/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football
====
What Would the End of Football Look Like?
An economic perspective on CTE and the concussion crisis
By Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier on February 9, 2012
The NFL is done for the year, but it is not pure fantasy to suggest that it may be done for good in the not-too-distant future. How might such a doomsday scenario play out and what would be the economic and social consequences?
By now we're all familiar with the growing phenomenon of head injuries and cognitive problems among football players, even at the high school level. In 2009, Malcolm Gladwell asked whether football might someday come to an end, a concern seconded recently by Jonah Lehrer.
Before you say that football is far too big to ever disappear, consider the history: If you look at the stocks in the Fortune 500 from 1983, for example, 40 percent of those companies no longer exist. The original version of Napster no longer exists, largely because of lawsuits. No matter how well a business matches economic conditions at one point in time, it's not a lock to be a leader in the future, and that is true for the NFL too. Sports are not immune to these pressures. In the first half of the 20th century, the three big sports were baseball, boxing, and horse racing, and today only one of those is still a marquee attraction.
The most plausible route to the death of football starts with liability suits.1 Precollegiate football is already sustaining 90,000 or more concussions each year. If ex-players start winning judgments, insurance companies might cease to insure colleges and high schools against football-related lawsuits. Coaches, team physicians, and referees would become increasingly nervous about their financial exposure in our litigious society. If you are coaching a high school football team, or refereeing a game as a volunteer, it is sobering to think that you could be hit with a $2 million lawsuit at any point in time. A lot of people will see it as easier to just stay away. More and more modern parents will keep their kids out of playing football, and there tends to be a "contagion effect" with such decisions; once some parents have second thoughts, many others follow suit. We have seen such domino effects with the risks of smoking or driving without seatbelts, two unsafe practices that were common in the 1960s but are much rarer today. The end result is that the NFL's feeder system would dry up and advertisers and networks would shy away from associating with the league, owing to adverse publicity and some chance of being named as co-defendants in future lawsuits.
It may not matter that the losses from these lawsuits are much smaller than the total revenue from the sport as a whole. As our broader health care sector indicates (try buying private insurance when you have a history of cancer treatment), insurers don't like to go where they know they will take a beating. That means just about everyone could be exposed to fear of legal action.
This slow death march could easily take 10 to 15 years. Imagine the timeline. A couple more college players — or worse, high schoolers — commit suicide with autopsies showing CTE. A jury makes a huge award of $20 million to a family. A class-action suit shapes up with real legs, the NFL keeps changing its rules, but it turns out that less than concussion levels of constant head contact still produce CTE. Technological solutions (new helmets, pads) are tried and they fail to solve the problem. Soon high schools decide it isn't worth it. The Ivy League quits football, then California shuts down its participation, busting up the Pac-12. Then the Big Ten calls it quits, followed by the East Coast schools. Now it's mainly a regional sport in the southeast and Texas/Oklahoma. The socioeconomic picture of a football player becomes more homogeneous: poor, weak home life, poorly educated. Ford and Chevy pull their advertising, as does IBM and eventually the beer companies.
There's a lot less money in the sport, and at first it's "the next hockey" and then it's "the next rugby," and finally the franchises start to shutter.
Along the way, you would have an NFL with much lower talent levels, less training, and probably greater player representation from poorer countries, where the demand for money is higher and the demand for safety is lower. Finally, the NFL is marginalized as less-dangerous sports gobble up its market share. People — American people — might actually start calling "soccer" by the moniker of "football."
Despite its undeniable popularity — and the sense that the game is everywhere — the aggregate economic effect of losing the NFL would not actually be that large. League revenues are around $10 billion per year while U.S. GDP is around $15,300 billion. But that doesn't mean everyone would be fine.
Big stadiums will lose a lot of their value and that will drag down neighboring bars and restaurants, causing a lot of them to shut their doors. Cable TV will be less profitable, and this will hasten the movement of TV-watching, if we can still call it that, to the web. Super Bowl Sunday will no longer be the best time to go shopping for a new car at the dealership.
Take Green Bay as a case study: A 2009 study of the economic impact of the Packers' stadium estimated "$282 million in output, 2,560 jobs and $124.3 million in earnings, and $15.2 million in tax revenues." That's small potatoes for the national economy as a whole, but for a small and somewhat remote city of 104,000, it is a big deal indeed.2
Any location where football is the only game in town will suffer. If the Jets and Giants go, New York still has numerous other pro sports teams, Broadway, high-end shopping, skyscrapers, fine dining, and many other cultural activities. If college football dies, Norman, Oklahoma (current home to one of us), has … noodling? And what about Clemson, in South Carolina, which relies on the periodic weekend football surge into town for its restaurant and retail sales? Imagine a small place of 12,000 people that periodically receives a sudden influx of 100,000 visitors or more, most of them eager to spend money on what is one of their major leisure outings. It's like a port in the Caribbean losing its cruise ship traffic. (Overall, the loss of football could actually increase migration from rural to urban areas over time. Football-dependent areas are especially prominent in rural America, and some of them will lose a lot of money and jobs.)
Outside of sports, American human capital and productivity probably rise. No football Saturdays on college campuses means less binge drinking, more studying, better grades, smarter future adults. Losing thousands of college players and hundreds of pro players might produce a few more doctors or engineers. Plus, talented coaches and general managers would gravitate toward management positions in American industry. Heck, just getting rid of fantasy football probably saves American companies hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Other losers include anything that depends heavily on football to be financially viable, including the highly subsidized non-revenue collegiate sports. No more air travel for the field hockey teams or golf squads. Furthermore, many prominent universities would lose their main claim to fame. Alabama and LSU produce a large amount of revenue and notoriety from football without much in the way of first-rate academics to back it up. Schools would have to compete more on academics to be nationally prominent, which would again boost American education.
One of the biggest winners would be basketball. To the extent that fans replace football with another sport (instead of meth or oxy), high-octane basketball is the natural substitute. On the pro level, the season can stretch out leisurely, ticket prices rise, ratings rise, maybe the league expands (more great athletes in the pool now), and some of the centers and power forwards will have more bulk. At the college level, March Madness becomes the only game in town.
Another winner would be track and field. Future Rob Gronkowskis in the decathlon? Future Jerome Simpsons in the high jump? World records would fall at a rapid pace.
This outcome may sound ridiculous, but the collapse of football is more likely than you might think. If recent history has shown anything, it is that observers cannot easily imagine the big changes in advance. Very few people were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, or the rise of China as an economic power. Once you start thinking through how the status quo might unravel, a sports universe without the NFL at its center no longer seems absurd.
So … Tennis, anyone?
Tyler and Kevin are academic economists who think the dismal science can shed some light on the inner workings of the sports world. Follow them on Twitter: Tyler is @tylercowen, Kevin is @ez_angus.
-
One more point to quote from another article
"In the last 20 years, 15,000 men have played in the NFL and less than 4% have played longer than 4 years.
This is a telling statistic because how many men can take the abuse for longer than 4 years? How many men have the skill to last longer than 4 years? Well, it is only about 652" (players).
Ever since I heard that statistic about the NFL, it's blown my mind. When you look at the list of players suffering from CTE, depression, or other long-term illnesses, think about it in the context of "out of 652 players"
-
This is not going away, and today's story is only going to increase the calls to "do something."
Junior Seau Diagnosed With Disease Caused by Hits to Head: Exclusive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/junior-seau-diagnosed-brain-disease-caused-hits-head/story?id=18171785
By JIM AVILA (@JimAvilaABC) , LAUREN PEARLE and RUSSELL GOLDMAN (@GoldmanRussell)
Jan. 10, 2013
A team of scientists who analyzed the brain tissue of renowned NFL linebacker Junior Seau after his suicide last year have concluded the football player suffered a debilitating brain disease likely caused by two decades worth of hits to the head, researchers and his family exclusively told ABC News and ESPN.
In May, Seau, 43 -- football's monster in the middle, a perennial all-star and defensive icon in the 1990s whose passionate hits made him a dominant figure in the NFL -- shot himself in the chest at his home in Oceanside, Calif., leaving behind four children and many unanswered questions.
Seau's family donated his brain to neuroscientists at the National Institutes for Health who are conducting ongoing research on traumatic brain injury and football players.
A team of independent researchers who did not know they were studying Seau's brain all concluded he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative disease typically caused by multiple hits to the head.
"What was found in Junior Seau's brain was cellular changes consistent with CTE," said Dr. Russell Lonser, chairman of the Department of Neurological Surgery at Ohio State University, who led the study of Seau's brain while he was at NIH.
Patients with CTE, which can only be diagnosed after death, display symptoms "such as impulsivity, forgetfulness, depression, [and] sometimes suicidal ideation," Lonser said.
Seau's family described to ABC News and ESPN a long descent into depression in the years prior to his death.
Gina Seau, his ex-wife with whom he remained close following their divorce, said the linebacker had difficulty sleeping and became withdrawn and "detached emotionally" from his children. In one exchange, he described his mood as "low" and "dark."
"A lot of things, towards the end of his life, patterns that we saw and things that worried us, it makes sense now," she said of the diagnosis.
The night before his death, Seau sent a text message to his ex-wife and children in which he simply wrote, "I love you." They were the last words anyone would hear from him.
More than 30 NFL players have in recent years been diagnosed with CTE, a condition once known as "punch drunk" because it affected boxers who had taken multiple blows to the head. Last year, some 4,000 retired players filed lawsuits against the league over its alleged failure to protect players from brain injuries.
The NFL has said it did not intentionally hide the dangers of concussions from players and is doing everything it can now to protect them.
Gina Seau said she and her ex-husband expected physical injuries from playing professional football but never thought "you're putting your brain and your mental health at a greater risk."
Junior Seau, she said, was never formally diagnosed with a concussion but routinely complained of symptoms associated with concussions after receiving hits to the head during games and in practices in 20 seasons in the NFL.
"The head-to-head contact, the collisions are just, they're out of control," Gina Seau said.
"He was a warrior and he loved the game," she added. "But ... I know that he didn't love the end of his life."
For the Seaus, football gave them everything and, they believe, has now taken it all away. They understand its attraction and, all too well, its routine danger.
"I think it's a gamble," Gina Seau said. "Just be extremely aware of what could potentially happen to your life."
None of the Seau children play football anymore and their mother is glad of that.
"It's not worth it for me to not have a dad," said one of the Seaus' sons, Tyler Seau, 23. "So, to me, it's not worth it."
Following the publication of this story, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy issued the following statement:
"We appreciate the Seau family's cooperation with the National Institutes of Health. The finding underscores the recognized need for additional research to accelerate a fuller understanding of CTE. The NFL, both directly and in partnership with the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and other leading organizations, is committed to supporting a wide range of independent medical and scientific research that will both address CTE and promote the long-term health and safety of athletes at all levels. The NFL clubs have already committed a $30 million research grant to the NIH, and we look forward to making decisions soon with the NFL Players Association on the investment of $100 million for medical research that is committed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We have work to do, and we're doing it."
-
And....they will "do something" and the game will continue, and generate billions, etc, etc. You might see better helmets, etc.
Some scientists are saying soccer heading leads to CTE...maybe the explains my memory loss. ;)
Smoking kills people every day, harms others, causes tremendous long term health costs to the economy.....hasn't been banned. There are risks that people take and they know full well what they are. Injuries are a part of football.
-
And....they will "do something" and the game will continue, and generate billions, etc, etc. You might see better helmets, etc.
Some scientists are saying soccer heading leads to CTE...maybe the explains my memory loss. ;)
Smoking kills people every day, harms others, causes tremendous long term health costs to the economy.....hasn't been banned. There are risks that people take and they know full well what they are. Injuries are a part of football.
I'm not arguing "they" should "do something." I'm with you and wish it would go away but it is not going away. Instead it is getting bigger and bigger.
Rather I'm saying this is like tobacco, the media is all over this and will not let it go. They will keep bringing this up over and over until they change opinion. When this happens, and the NFL loses the concussion lawsuit, that will be the end of Pop Warner and HS football as the cost of insurance will be so high no one can afford it.
People in Chiocs industry are in the middle of a speculative bubble as they promise (contracts) billions and billions to conferences and the NFL. The problem is the media will continue to pound away that football is bad and causes concussions and ruins lives until they succeed. "succeed" means the people in Chicos industry will make billions in the sale of advertising for this product against the promises (contracts) of billions of billions. Restated, they are going to lose a lot of money.
-
Smoking kills people every day, harms others, causes tremendous long term health costs to the economy.....hasn't been banned. There are risks that people take and they know full well what they are. Injuries are a part of football.
Football won't be banned, but as people learn more about the devastating consequences that can result from playing it's popularity will ebb - just as it has for smoking.
-
I love football and played it for years. My son will not.
-
Now Obama has weighed in on Football.
Get ready the sport is going to change and lose its popularity.
---
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president#
Sticking with the culture of violence, but on a much less dramatic scale: I'm wondering if you, as a fan, take less pleasure in watching football, knowing the impact that the game takes on its players.
Obama: I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.
I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about.
------
When the President says that's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about that means they are going to change the rules in a big way before next season.
-
He's been so prescient on so many other things......
-
He's been so prescient on so many other things......
He's not predicting ... He's ordering
-
When the President says that's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about that means they are going to change the rules in a big way before next season.
So we officially live in a dictatorship now?
-
When the President says that's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about that means they are going to change the rules in a big way before next season.
Uhh....no...that's not what it means at all.
-
Sheesh. Guys, take it easy. That's about as measured a statement as could be made. You may think we live in a dictatorship, but this ain't the evidence you're looking for.
-
So we officially live in a dictatorship now?
When the President makes a statement like that and your organization (NCAA) has members that accept a lot of Government money and when you're subject to a lot of government regulation (Title IX to name just one of many) you would be foolish to not pay attention.
And no, for POTUS, that is not a measured statement. That is a call to action.
-
Sure...it is a call to action. But that doesn't mean they "are going to change the rules in a big way before next season." In fact, I doubt they are going to do much more than what the NFL has already done with regards to defense-less receivers and the like.
I think the "nothing to fall back on" comment is the one to focus on. Compensation beyond a scholarship...more focus on providing a quality education, etc. is the issue here.
-
Sure...it is a call to action. But that doesn't mean they "are going to change the rules in a big way before next season." In fact, I doubt they are going to do much more than what the NFL has already done with regards to defense-less receivers and the like.
I think the "nothing to fall back on" comment is the one to focus on. Compensation beyond a scholarship...more focus on providing a quality education, etc. is the issue here.
I guess we are saying the same thing ... for the NCAA to adopt the NFL's rules on head injures and limiting of contact practice would be a big deal. The NCAA's rule are no where near as stringent as the NFL. And that could happen by next season.
-
I guess we are saying the same thing ... for the NCAA to adopt the NFL's rules on head injures and limiting of contact practice would be a big deal. The NCAA's rule are no where near as stringent as the NFL. And that could happen by next season.
Well, I don't really see that as being "in a big way." It doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the game.
-
Well, I don't really see that as being "in a big way." It doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the game.
HBO Real Sports did a segment on this exact subject. Namely, why doesn't the NCAA adopt the same rules as the NFL regarding head injuries/concussion. They concluded their was a huge push back from coaches, ADs and schools that this will change the game in a big way.
Below is the tease, if you have an HBO sign-in, you can watch it. Or, if you subscribe to HBO on your cable system, you should be able to find it in the Video on Demand section.
http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/index.html#/video/video.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrKll2WmltvmlebkqKVl5pSkFtmmpSaWlBalpqgBjbM1NLI0MDA3VkssLckvyEmstC0pKk0FANbSJKI=
-
HBO Real Sports did a segment on this exact subject. Namely, why doesn't the NCAA adopt the same rules as the NFL regarding head injuries/concussion. They concluded their was a huge push back from coaches, ADs and schools that this will change the game in a big way.
They're wrong. It hasn't changed the NFL in a "big way."
-
They're wrong. It hasn't changed the NFL in a "big way."
That's not what they said.
First to define what is the issue ...
The big change is the restriction on contact practices in the NFL. That was part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that the NFL almost had a strike about last year. They are limited to two a week (going off memory as I saw it a few weeks ago). The NCAA had no such restriction.
The piece said most of the head trauma occurs in practice, that is what is explained in the tease link above. The NFL gets this which is why the unions and owners agreed to cut back on contact practices. The NCAA has no such restriction and these kids are pounding away at each other in practice everyday.
NCAA coaches argue that college players are not as skilled as pros and need more contact practices to play the game properly. Without it, they fear that the game will change because their players will not be properly prepared for college football. The doctors say it is contact practice that is causing the head injuries (moreso than games) and long-term health problems. The NCAA refuses to budge. Now Obama has weighed in that the NCAA need to change their ways.
Now you may think it will not change the game. But coaches and the NCAA think it will change the game and are standing in the way of the rule changes.
Finally, the piece talks about the lawsuits that are piling up on the NCAA and college of long-term health problems. Once one of these cases is lost and a precedent is set, the flood gates will open and everything will change because lots of money will be involved.
-
I was listening to mike and mike this morning and they had Tony Boselli, a former O-Lineman, on talking about his thoughts on this. Over the weekend, Greenie tweeted something about the president making the above statement, and Tony responded, which they said why don't you come on and talk about it.
I thought he made some very good points in that yes they should make the game as safe as it can be, but football is violent and people are going to get hurt as that's part of the game. Tony talked about how with Junior Seau and other players committing suicide recently, everyone talks like concussions are the only problem. He mentioned how nothing else is done with helping players cope with relationship problems, financial problems, substance abuse, etc. I think this can also be said about other sports (ie Allen Iverson). So basically, yes concussions are not good and steps need to be taken to help curb that problem, but some of these players who are older played long careers without the new rules, and this hiroshima talk, that concussions are the only problem and its going to end the sport, are getting a little extreme.
-
Sure...it is a call to action. But that doesn't mean they "are going to change the rules in a big way before next season." In fact, I doubt they are going to do much more than what the NFL has already done with regards to defense-less receivers and the like.
I think the "nothing to fall back on" comment is the one to focus on. Compensation beyond a scholarship...more focus on providing a quality education, etc. is the issue here.
I think it could also mean the NCAA somehow providing care for players who never go on to make exorbitant amounts of money in the NFL but who suffer from the same debilitating head injuries from their time in college football. This is where the sport will take the major hit - organizations making billions of dollars off the players' backs will have to start compensating those players for the head injuries they suffer somehow. This will bring the issue to the forefront in a major way, and it will have a trickle-down effect to all levels, where parents will not allow their children to play the sport. It might take a generation, but the sport will surely decline in popularity.
-
I think it could also mean the NCAA somehow providing care for players who never go on to make exorbitant amounts of money in the NFL but who suffer from the same debilitating head injuries from their time in college football. This is where the sport will take the major hit - organizations making billions of dollars off the players' backs will have to start compensating those players for the head injuries they suffer somehow. This will bring the issue to the forefront in a major way, and it will have a trickle-down effect to all levels, where parents will not allow their children to play the sport. It might take a generation, but the sport will surely decline in popularity.
With over 100 D1 college football programs, not to mention D1AA, D2 and D3 that could be dozens, if not hundreds of players.
They might need billions to care for this many players.
-
I think it could also mean the NCAA somehow providing care for players who never go on to make exorbitant amounts of money in the NFL but who suffer from the same debilitating head injuries from their time in college football. This is where the sport will take the major hit - organizations making billions of dollars off the players' backs will have to start compensating those players for the head injuries they suffer somehow. This will bring the issue to the forefront in a major way, and it will have a trickle-down effect to all levels, where parents will not allow their children to play the sport. It might take a generation, but the sport will surely decline in popularity.
Except football is a voluntary activity, and it would be hard to argue going forward (if ever) that those who choose to participate do so unaware of the injury risks.
-
Except football is a voluntary activity, and it would be hard to argue going forward (if ever) that those who choose to participate do so unaware of the injury risks.
Didn't boxing make this argument?
The Tobacco industry made the same argument. How did that work out for them?
The fast food industry is making this argument now. You think no new regulation restrictions are coming down on them?
Every high risk job (i.e., mining) makes this argument and they all see regulations that fundamentally change their businesses.
So why will football be different?
-
Money talks and BS walks. BILLIONS and BILLIONS tied up in football for the next 2 decades. If they neuter the game and ratings go down, attendance goes down, then BILLIONS and BILLIONS walk away.
MONEY TALKS and BS WALKS. It's a voluntary sport, just like getting into a dragster, a NASCAR, and Indy car, lacing up the skates for a hockey game, etc.
-
I love football and played it for years. My son will not.
My son moves to high school next year. If he wants to play, he will be allowed to play. I can't baby him his whole life. I will present the facts, let him make an informed decision. Just as drugs are bad for him, ultimately I can't be nursing him every day at school and hoping he's not doing drugs, etc, etc. Give them the information, and let them make an informed decision.
He's been hurt as a goalie for soccer, with no protection at all. My daughter just started Jiu Jitsu...choke holds, etc. Life is a contact sport.
-
He's not predicting ... He's ordering
He isn't ordering anything
-
Didn't boxing make this argument?
Who are all these boxers being compensated by the sport for their injuries?
The Tobacco industry made the same argument. How did that work out for them?
Actually, all the successful suits brought against the tobacco industry have been brought by longtime smokers who began their habit before warnings were mandatory and at a time when the industry knew of the ill effects but failed to disclose them.
This is why all the suits out there against the NFL now claim the league knew about the head injury risks but failed to disclose them to players. A suit that simply alleged that football is dangerous and therefore the NFL should compensate me for my injuries would fail. And anyone who's strapped on a helmet voluntarily during the last five years would be hard-pressed to convince a jury that they were unaware of the injury risks associated with the game.
The fast food industry is making this argument now. You think no new regulation restrictions are coming down on them?
No, I don't there will be federal regulations placed on the fast food industry.
Every high risk job (i.e., mining) makes this argument and they all see regulations that fundamentally change their businesses.
So why will football be different?
I doubt very much that the government is going to intervene on football, but that said ... there's a massive gulf between arguing that there will be regulations and your ongoing assertion that the sport will be banned or simply disappear, don't you think?
-
He isn't ordering anything
Ask your Washington lobbiest friends ... he is ordering. Either the NCAA changes or the Government will force more regulation upon them.
-
Who are all these boxers being compensated by the sport for their injuries?
They did not change, the industry was regulated and effectively neutered.
-
I was listening to mike and mike this morning and they had Tony Boselli, a former O-Lineman, on talking about his thoughts on this. Over the weekend, Greenie tweeted something about the president making the above statement, and Tony responded, which they said why don't you come on and talk about it.
I thought he made some very good points in that yes they should make the game as safe as it can be, but football is violent and people are going to get hurt as that's part of the game. Tony talked about how with Junior Seau and other players committing suicide recently, everyone talks like concussions are the only problem. He mentioned how nothing else is done with helping players cope with relationship problems, financial problems, substance abuse, etc. I think this can also be said about other sports (ie Allen Iverson). So basically, yes concussions are not good and steps need to be taken to help curb that problem, but some of these players who are older played long careers without the new rules, and this hiroshima talk, that concussions are the only problem and its going to end the sport, are getting a little extreme.
Exactly, but that's how many people operate. They single out one thing and ride to that variable as if it is the only variable. How many of these guys had brain issues that had nothing to do with football? How many did drugs over the years that were contributors? How many were alcoholics? How many did steroids and what impact did that have on their brains? Instead, it's the concussions only. It's like other major debates in this country...very little depth in the analysis.
By the logic some are taking, hockey will have to be overhauled, heading in soccer banned, boxing and MMA totally banned or required to wear headgear at all times and bigger, softer padded gloves, new courts for basketball put in that have cushioning. Have people seen how many concussions happen in basketball...they would be surprised.
-
Wow. Money talks and BS walks. Chill catchphrase. Horrible analysis.
Just because BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars (less that 0.1% of GDP) are allocated to a source of entertainment, that means that it's impossible to impose regulation upon it or makes it immune from a decline in popularity over a generation?
-
Wow. Money talks and BS walks. Chill catchphrase. Horrible analysis.
Just because BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars (less that 0.1% of GDP) are allocated to a source of entertainment, that means that it's impossible to impose regulation upon it or makes it immune from a decline in popularity over a generation?
You really need to go back and read what I said.
-
They did not change, the industry was regulated and effectively neutered.
There are no national regulations of boxing. State commissions have existed since 1920s. In reality, the sport has been regulated throughout its heyday.
Could you point to one single government imposed regulation that's led to the boxing's decline in popularity?
-
I doubt very much that the government is going to intervene on football, but that said ... there's a massive gulf between arguing that there will be regulations and your ongoing assertion that the sport will be banned or simply disappear, don't you think?
First read the title and the first post. I never said football will be banned. Biz Bisinger (author of "Friday Night Lights") and guys like Peter King of SI (and Sunday Night Football) are the ones arguing that football should be banned. I argued that it will peak in popularity and slide (over many years) as the regulation is heaped upon them.
And yes, I absolutely believe that and like I said before, this is completely obvious and not hard to predict. People like you that say nothing will come of any of this (or what comes will not effect anything) are the ones making the bold calls. It is not a question if football is hurt by coming regulation but by how much.
Professionally I deal with Washington matters and I can tell you NOTHING comes out of the President's mouth by mistake or without meaning. Obama made those comments, using those specific words as an order (yes Chicos, and order) that the NCAA has to change its rules about football.
The only question is not if the sport change, that as 100% certain, but will the changes neuter the sport and will it be like all other violent sports (car racing, boxing) that has added regulation for safety cause it popularity to fall.
And when that happens, as Chicos suggested, some of the billions for football will go away (other billions will stay).
-
Didn't boxing make this argument?
The Tobacco industry made the same argument. How did that work out for them?
The fast food industry is making this argument now. You think no new regulation restrictions are coming down on them?
Every high risk job (i.e., mining) makes this argument and they all see regulations that fundamentally change their businesses.
So why will football be different?
The idea that the government can dictate the size of our soft drinks would have seemed alarming not long ago. Given the current mood, anything's possible.
-
There are no national regulations of boxing. State commissions have existed since 1920s. In reality, the sport has been regulated throughout its heyday.
Could you point to one single government imposed regulation that's led to the boxing's decline in popularity?
Pakuni is absolutely correct. We just went through this process for a new sport with a state sanctioning body.
-
I haven't seen a good counter argument made to the point someone brought up about what happens if the high school game is reduced due to insurance companies being unwilling to cover them. This, more than any national shift in preferences is the biggest danger to the NFL's behemoth status.
I don't think it would be a death knell, but it would drastically change the way the system works. Can anyone imagine a development academy system like those for Barcelona and United popping up? AAU run by teams themselves? It's happening a bit with soccer as it is (and in the process killing it since the best players in the next few years will skip high school sports altogether).
I think football is untouchable in places like Texas where Friday night is about as important as Sunday morning, but I'm not convinced many other states feel the same way.
Any good lawyer can help the schools get around this in a waiver. With that waiver the insurance companies will not have to cover the schools. For example,
By signing this waiver, the parent or guardian understands that participating in football has a series of known and documented health risks including but not limited to concussion, ptsd, injuries which may have an impact on the future health of the participants. The parent/guardian agrees that participating in football is the choice of the participant and his/her parential guardian and they agrees to hold harmless the school, its third party affiliates and anyone else thje school wants to designate.
This puts the responsibility on the family for allowing the participant to play. This leaves the school open except for the cases of gross negligence (i.e. letting a player play with a known concussion). This can and is resolved by having a doctor review the player before letting them play again.
-
First read the title and the first post. I never said football will be banned. Biz Bisinger (author of "Friday Night Lights") and guys like Peter King of SI (and Sunday Night Football) are the ones arguing that football should be banned. I argued that it will peak in popularity and slide (over many years) as the regulation is heaped upon them.
And yes, I absolutely believe that and like I said before, this is completely obvious and not hard to predict. People like you that say nothing will come of any of this (or what comes will not effect anything) are the ones making the bold calls. It is not a question if football is hurt by coming regulation but by how much.
Professionally I deal with Washington matters and I can tell you NOTHING comes out of the President's mouth by mistake or without meaning. Obama made those comments, using those specific words as an order (yes Chicos, and order) that the NCAA has to change its rules about football.
The only question is not if the sport change, that as 100% certain, but will the changes neuter the sport and will it be like all other violent sports (car racing, boxing) that has added regulation for safety cause it popularity to fall.
And when that happens, as Chicos suggested, some of the billions for football will go away (other billions will stay).
Peter King has come back to say it was tongue in cheek. The man makes his living writing about the NFL and drivel with Starbucks and his dog.
And yes, we all know about the bully pulpit the POTUS has....we also know there are many things that come out of that mouth that are BS (I say that for any POTUS) and often don't come to being. Hey, is GITMO closed yet? Has that deficit been halved in 2 years? The Summer(s) of recovery? Was mission accomplished? So let's not pretend that what POTUS says becomes law of the land, either. POTUS can move a conversation and everyone gets all stirred up as a result. POTUS has also said for the last 3 decades we need to temper down violence in movies,etc....uhm, how's that going?
The reason NASCAR ratings fell have nothing to do with the safety implementations. I have two massive studies, each the size of a NYC telephone book on NASCAR ebbs and flows and what caused the downturn...let's get real.
No one is suggesting that changes can't be made or shouldn't be made, despite Jajuthehut's lack of nuance. The question is how much and what does it do to the game? This where I am saying BILLIONS AND BILLIONS are going to dictate a lot of this, especially at the NFL level. If taking away kick returns makes the game safer but people pull away from the game in droves, then they will look long and hard about doing that. If the NCAA wants to adopt the NFL rules, that's fine...it hasn't impacted the ratings or attendance. Its when they modify things so much that it impacts those dollars where you will see the backlash from fans, tv, etc. These people aren't stupid. If they go too far, there will be an attempt (may not be successful) of launching "real football" league. It would have to get pretty bad for that to have a chance to be successful, we all know the rival leagues have not done well (though the USFL actually did win it's anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL).
Let's also go back to the start of this debate where people were saying football was going to decline and all of a sudden the interest in basketball was going to fill much of that void. I think people are dreaming if they see that as the replacement.
-
Any good lawyer can help the schools get around this in a waiver. With that waiver the insurance companies will not have to cover the schools. For example,
By signing this waiver, the parent or guardian understands that participating in football has a series of known and documented health risks including but not limited to concussion, ptsd, injuries which may have an impact on the future health of the participants. The parent/guardian agrees that participating in football is the choice of the participant and his/her parential guardian and they agrees to hold harmless the school, its third party affiliates and anyone else thje school wants to designate.
This puts the responsibility on the family for allowing the participant to play. This leaves the school open except for the cases of gross negligence (i.e. letting a player play with a known concussion). This can and is resolved by having a doctor review the player before letting them play again.
Who you like the list of the thousands of cases in all walks of life where someone signed a waiver and they claimed "they did not understand" and received a hefty payment?
Until now no one has actually been paid on a case (or paid in a way that sets precedence). If one of the concussion lawsuits are lost, that is a game-changer.
-
Any good lawyer can help the schools get around this in a waiver. With that waiver the insurance companies will not have to cover the schools. For example,
By signing this waiver, the parent or guardian understands that participating in football has a series of known and documented health risks including but not limited to concussion, ptsd, injuries which may have an impact on the future health of the participants. The parent/guardian agrees that participating in football is the choice of the participant and his/her parential guardian and they agrees to hold harmless the school, its third party affiliates and anyone else thje school wants to designate.
This puts the responsibility on the family for allowing the participant to play. This leaves the school open except for the cases of gross negligence (i.e. letting a player play with a known concussion). This can and is resolved by having a doctor review the player before letting them play again.
Exactly. And that's where parents start saying "I'm not signing that, you're playing XYZsport instead." That's why I said it will likely take a decade or more, but the sport will absolutely wane in popularity because of this. Not completely go away, mind you, just not dominate like it does today.
-
Exactly. And that's where parents start saying "I'm not signing that, you're playing XYZsport instead." That's why I said it will likely take a decade or more, but the sport will absolutely wane in popularity because of this. Not completely go away, mind you, just not dominate like it does today.
The current issue of Rolling Stone (with 30 Rock cast on the cover) has a good article on brain damage and sports. It's not available on-line yet. There's a story in the article of a teenage girl who has had a few concussions from playing hockey and she wants to quit because she worries about permament brain damage but her farther won't let her because he's thinks she needs to "toughen up". It's a good read and not overly long.
-
The current issue of Rolling Stone (with 30 Rock cast on the cover) has a good article on brain damage and sports. It's not available on-line yet. There's a story in the article of a teenage girl who has had a few concussions from playing hockey and she wants to quit because she worries about permament brain damage but her farther won't let her because he's thinks she needs to "toughen up". It's a good read and not overly long.
Right. There will be anecdotal stories like these where parents will still value things like "toughening up" over permanent long-term brain damage. They will proudly sign that waiver. But at the margins, youth participation will decrease, and the fan base will likely shrink.
-
The primary reason boxing withered and died is because it moved to pay-per-view. I was in my twenties (I'm 26 now) before I saw so much as 1 round of live boxing. A lot of very good fighters have had their entire careers go by in my lifetime and I've seen none of it. If it were on network or cable, maybe I'd have gotten into the sport.
-
The current issue of Rolling Stone (with 30 Rock cast on the cover) has a good article on brain damage and sports. It's not available on-line yet. There's a story in the article of a teenage girl who has had a few concussions from playing hockey and she wants to quit because she worries about permament brain damage but her farther won't let her because he's thinks she needs to "toughen up". It's a good read and not overly long.
And when she's 50 and has early onset alzheimers or some kind of permanent brain injury I'm sure her father and the rest of the family will find consolation in her "toughness". I love sports (including football, hockey and other "collision" sports) more than is probably healthy, but any Dad who forces his son or daughter to play a sport after multiple concussions is a child abuser.
-
And when she's 50 and has early onset alzheimers or some kind of permanent brain injury I'm sure her father and the rest of the family will find consolation in her "toughness". I love sports (including football, hockey and other "collision" sports) more than is probably healthy, but any Dad who forces his son or daughter to play a sport after multiple concussions is a child abuser.
The girl told Katie Couric she would like to be a doctor. And the brain expert (A Dr. who was also on the show) told the girl in that case she'll need everyone of her brain cells to be one and the father said he still didn't see the point of quitting.
-
Right. There will be anecdotal stories like these where parents will still value things like "toughening up" over permanent long-term brain damage. They will proudly sign that waiver. But at the margins, youth participation will decrease, and the fan base will likely shrink.
(http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/63718/pillow_seller.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41w4wZ%2Bh7qL._SL500_SS500_.jpg)
-
Who you like the list of the thousands of cases in all walks of life where someone signed a waiver and they claimed "they did not understand" and received a hefty payment?
Until now no one has actually been paid on a case (or paid in a way that sets precedence). If one of the concussion lawsuits are lost, that is a game-changer.
Yes, I would like a list of the thousand cases. Even with the smoking, it wasn't because of the warning label but because the smoking company was knowingly including items but did not include those as "ingredients." Some of those "ingredients" where later determined to be a cancer causing agents. "American cigarettes in particular are wildly additive-laden, with more than 600 chemicals and flavorants used in them. (Canadian cigarettes, by contrast, are almost entirely pure tobacco, except for what's required to help them burn evenly.)"
According to what you state above, the lawsuits have to win which means someone would have to show that the NFL knew the long term impact of head injuries and intentionally hid this information. The defendants won't just be the NFL but NHL, soccer, Nascar, MMA, boxing, etc. Which means most sports as we know them would fall. How exciting is hockey going to be when you can't fight or check someone into the boards? This is why Obama said he wants them to think about it not he didn't say make changes.
-
(http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/63718/pillow_seller.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41w4wZ%2Bh7qL._SL500_SS500_.jpg)
I have no idea what you are trying to convey here. However, when youth participation declines, the fanbase declines as a result. Look at baseball. It used to be the top dog, but youth participation declined and it lost its top spot because of it. I'm not saying football will go away (baseball didn't), I'm saying the fanbase will inevitably shrink because of this phenomenon.
-
I have no idea what you are trying to convey here. However, when youth participation declines, the fanbase declines as a result. Look at baseball. It used to be the top dog, but youth participation declined and it lost its top spot because of it. I'm not saying football will go away (baseball didn't), I'm saying the fanbase will inevitably shrink because of this phenomenon.
Just like to point out a couple of things ...
1. Youth participation and attendance/fanbase size don't go hand in hand. If it did, MLS teams would be selling out 40,000-seat stadiums. Instead, most teams average under 20,000 fans per game.
2. Baseball had its fifth highest attendance ever last year. About 10 million more people went to the ballpark last year than in 2002. It's not the dominant sport anymore, but its not like it's suffered a massive decline in popularity.
-
Just like to point out a couple of things ...
1. Youth participation and attendance/fanbase size don't go hand in hand. If it did, MLS teams would be selling out 40,000-seat stadiums. Instead, most teams average under 20,000 fans per game.
2. Baseball had its fifth highest attendance ever last year. About 10 million more people went to the ballpark last year than in 2002. It's not the dominant sport anymore, but its not like it's suffered a massive decline in popularity.
Point 1 was just on ESPN last month.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1283006/blatter-chides-mls-as-'struggling'-to-take-hold?cc=5901
"Blatter said that soccer remains the U.S.'s most popular youth participation sport, outranking both football and baseball, but said that the professional league fever that rages around much of the world has never quite stuck in the U.S."
MLS started 18yrs ago as a condition for having the World Cup. That is a solid generation who would have grown up playing soccer but it still has not gained hold.
-
Bernard Pollard: NFL won’t exist in 30 years
Posted on January 28, 2013
http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/2013/01/bernard-pollard-nfl-wont-exist-in-30-years/
Despite the unparalleled success of the NFL, one former Texan doesn’t believe the ultra-popular league will be around much longer.
“Thirty years from now, I don’t think it will be in existence,” Baltimore Ravens strong safety Bernard Pollard said in an interview with CBS Sports. “I could be wrong. It’s just my opinion, but I think with the direction things are going — where (NFL rules makers) want to lighten up, and they’re throwing flags and everything else — there’s going to come a point where fans are going to get fed up with it.”
In recent years, the NFL has several made rule changes in the name of player safety — rules that have made the game safer, but have also made the jobs of defensive players such as Pollard tougher.
The seven-year safety, who is known for his big hits, including a devastating helmet-to-helmet shot on New England Patriots running back Stevan Ridley in the AFC Championship Game, said the league’s recent emphasis on player safety doesn’t match the escalating physical standards required to play in the NFL.
“The league is trying to move in the right direction [with player safety],” he said, “but, at the same time, [coaches] want bigger, stronger and faster year in and year out. And that means you’re going to keep getting big hits and concussions and blown-out knees. The only thing I’m waiting for … and, Lord, I hope it doesn’t happen … is a guy dying on the field. We’ve had everything else happen there except for a death. We understand what we signed up for, and it sucks.
“Like I said, I pray it never happens, but you’ve got guys who are 350 pounds running 4.5 and 4.4s, and these owners and coaches want scout-run blockers and linemen to move walls. At the same time, they tell you, ‘Don’t hit here, and don’t hit there, or we’ll take your money.’ Like I said, I hope I’m wrong, but I just believe one day there’s going to be a death that takes place on the field because of the direction we’re going.”
Pollard wasn’t the only one to voice his opinion on the future of football and player safety this past weekend. President Barack Obama said in an interview with The New Republic that if he had a son, he’d “have to think long and hard” before letting him play because of the physical toll the game takes.
“I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,” Obama told the magazine.
“In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”
In the interview, which will appear in the Feb. 11 issue, Obama said he worries more about college players than he does about those in the NFL.
“The NFL players have a union, they’re grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies,” Obama said. “You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That’s something that I’d like to see the NCAA think about.”
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded Sunday, “We have no higher priority than player health and safety at all levels of the game.”
-
Cavallari to steer Cutler's son away from football
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-cavallari-cutler-football-son-20130128,0,3933263.story
Kristin Cavallari -- whose fiance, Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler, has sustained numerous concussions -- says she hopes their 5-month-old son Camden doesn't play football and will steer him toward a sport that "isn't so aggressive."
-
Cavallari to steer Cutler's son away from football
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-cavallari-cutler-football-son-20130128,0,3933263.story
Kristin Cavallari -- whose fiance, Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler, has sustained numerous concussions -- says she hopes their 5-month-old son Camden doesn't play football and will steer him toward a sport that "isn't so aggressive."
Anyone tell her husband?
"At the end of the day, I think if he wants to play football, I don't know if I'm gonna have too much control over it," said Cavallari, who is a former MTV reality star. "You know, how can your dad be a football player and you tell them that they can't do it?"
During the Nov. 20 "Jay Cutler Show" on ESPN 1000, Cutler was asked if he would let his son play football.
"It is a huge number of players that have played football for numerous amount of years and don't have any symptoms from concussions and are leading completely healthy, normal lives," Cutler said. "I think as a culture and as fans of football everyone got caught up into the concussion mania and awareness, it's kind of -- I don't want to say blown out of proportion, because it is a significant issue and something that needs to be paid attention to. ... There is a lot of other things I worry about for Cam other than football. I have diabetes, our food situation in America with preservatives and everything else we put into it, that's something I worry about a lot more than him getting concussions playing football.
"So, to answer your question, would I let him play football? Absolutely."
-
During the Nov. 20 "Jay Cutler Show" on ESPN 1000, Cutler was asked if he would let his son play football.
"There is a lot of other things I worry about for Cam other than football. I have diabetes, our food situation in America with preservatives and everything else we put into it, that's something I worry about a lot more than him getting concussions playing football.
So Cutler thinks NOT eating organic food is more dangerous than football?
Maybe he really has taken too many shots to the head.
-
So Cutler thinks NOT eating organic food is more dangerous than football?
Maybe he really has taken too many shots to the head.
Plenty of folks concerned about what we put in our bodies and the long term health impacts...cancers, diabetes, etc.
He correctly points out that most football players don't suffer from these issues. We are a reactionary society. Whether it's guns, concussions, snowmobile accidents (have you read the last few articles since the X Games snowmobile a in papers like the Washington Post asking "when is enough enough"), Toyota accelerator issues (which turned out to be totally bogus), silicone breast implant safety (also turned out to be bogus), etc.
There are going to be risks. Don't like the risks, don't play the game.
-
Don't ruin the game we love
http://images.burrellesluce.com/image/3570XN/3570XN_23824
-
Plenty of folks concerned about what we put in our bodies and the long term health impacts...cancers, diabetes, etc.
He correctly points out that most football players don't suffer from these issues. We are a reactionary society. Whether it's guns, concussions, snowmobile accidents (have you read the last few articles since the X Games snowmobile a in papers like the Washington Post asking "when is enough enough"), Toyota accelerator issues (which turned out to be totally bogus), silicone breast implant safety (also turned out to be bogus), etc.
There are going to be risks. Don't like the risks, don't play the game.
Chicos, you don't seem to be a guy who puts his head in the sand. You have to recognize that these concerns are a threat to be acknowledged.
I am not saying that it will be the end of football. Only that it must be factored in as corporate leadership evaluates opportunites and threats in the future.
I would have a lot less respect for the leadership at DTV if they were not looking 20 years down the road, quantifying the effect of these concerns.
-
Whether it's guns, concussions, snowmobile accidents (have you read the last few articles since the X Games snowmobile a in papers like the Washington Post asking "when is enough enough")
Caleb Moore died this morning. The x-games will change.
-
Businessweek COVER STORY this week is about the concussion lawsuit
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-31/will-brain-injury-lawsuits-doom-or-save-the-nfl#r=hp-ls
-
All this talk about football, namely college, POTENTIALLY diminishing in popularity years down the road has me thinking about the impact on Marquette basketball:
If all those schools who put huge resources into football first and basketball a distant second now put basketball first, one would have to think that Marquette would suffer as we could never keep up the likes of schools with those kinds of resources?
Or is my theoretical scenario too pessimistic?
-
All this talk about football, namely college, POTENTIALLY diminishing in popularity years down the road has me thinking about the impact on Marquette basketball:
If all those schools who put huge resources into football first and basketball a distant second now put basketball first, one would have to think that Marquette would suffer as we could never keep up the likes of schools with those kinds of resources?
Or is my theoretical scenario too pessimistic?
The flaw I see in your theoretical is that you're assuming the availability of resources remains static if the focus changed moved off of football.
For instance, if Michigan shifted its resources to basketball, the football program would suffer - perhaps irreparably - and the multi-millions in donations, TV money, ticket sales, licensing fees, etc. that were tied specifically to football would dry up overnight. So Michigan is left with less revenue (that likely wouldn't be made up by a more competitive basketball program), yet it still has to fund the rest of their Olympic sports.
In the end, shifting resources to basketball would likely leave a basketball program at a former football school with less resources than it had when it was a football school.
-
NFL must be aware of the threat Mom's pose to football.
NFL sponsored commercial with Tom Brady, focused on a Mom asking what the NFL is doing to make the game safer for her son.
-
Caleb Moore died this morning. The x-games will change.
I met with the ESPN guys yesterday at the beach bowl, we spoke of the incident. They're going to review things, but changes are not imminent. Accidents happen. It was a freak accident.
Today had a great presentation with our team from Joe Buck and other NFL folks about the state of the game and where things are going. Buck was terrific, great stories about his dad, baseball, football, etc. Very funny, also very serious about some of these topics. I think everyone in the room knows full well the financial implications, the personal responsibility (no one is putting a gun to anyone's head), but also what can be done to make things safer. My takeaway is you will see some equipment modifications, they will continue to protect the players with the refs, but unlikely anything drastic beyond that for some time, if ever. The data shows some players having trouble, it also shows most players not having trouble. As I stated the other day, you also have questions about what else were some of these players doing. In other words, is it soley based on football, or any number of other things? A lot of studies still to happen but they aren't going to throw the game away.
MU Ra-Ra.... of course you try to think ahead, plan accordingly, etc. I am not suggesting putting a head in the sand, I'm suggesting like many others that knee jerk reactions are also just as problematic as ignoring problems. Study them, truly study them, educate, etc, but knee jerk decisions lead to problems in business, gov't, etc.
-
Meanwhile, Gand drew a 48.1 rating. May end up highest rated program in history. Follow the money.
-
Meanwhile, Gand drew a 48.1 rating. May end up highest rated program in history. Follow the money.
Football may end up being the most expensive lawsuit in history, too. You can only follow the money for so long before the attorneys redirect the path to their own door.
-
Football may end up being the most expensive lawsuit in history, too. You can only follow the money for so long before the attorneys redirect the path to their own door.
The master tobacco lawsuit was settled for over $200 billion.
Something tells me if they win - and that's a massive "if" - or even force a settlement, the NFL plaintiffs aren't getting anything close to that.
-
The master tobacco lawsuit was settled for over $200 billion.
Something tells me if they win - and that's a massive "if" - or even force a settlement, the NFL plaintiffs aren't getting anything close to that.
I'm not talking about the pending NFL lawsuit...
-
I'm not talking about the pending NFL lawsuit...
Remember when the "Whiplash Willies" had everyone involved in any car accident wearing neck braces? How about a class action suit by everyone who's played football from Pop Warner to the NFL over the last 60 years? I'm getting a headache (and having memory lapses) just thinking about it.
-
I'm not talking about the pending NFL lawsuit...
Then what suit are you talking about?
Plaintiffs can't go sue "football."
-
Remember when the "Whiplash Willies" had everyone involved in any car accident wearing neck braces? How about a class action suit by everyone who's played football from Pop Warner to the NFL over the last 60 years? I'm getting a headache (and having memory lapses) just thinking about it.
Who's the defendant?
-
Who's the defendant?
What if Odessa, Tx. has had a 5th-8th grade feeder program for 40 years? And the High school has played football for that long. What say we sue the municipality, whoever manufactured the helmets, everyone who ever coached and the high school for starters. Wash, rinse, repeat in thousands of communities.
-
What if Odessa, Tx. has had a 5th-8th grade feeder program for 40 years? And the High school has played football for that long. What say we sue the municipality, whoever manufactured the helmets, everyone who ever coached and the high school for starters. Wash, rinse, repeat in thousands of communities.
Good luck to the plaintiff stating a cause of action that proves:
1. He suffered a concussion playing football up to 40 years ago.
2. That concussion, and not some other injury, is the primary cause of health problems for which damages should now be recovered.
3. Every coach who ever coached at the school is personally liable for the concussion, as well as the school, helmet manufacturer and municipality (unless, the schools are run by a school district, in which case the municipality has no involvement). Note: most school's carry liability insurance for employees, so you'd realistically never be able to sue the coaches individually.
4. The coaches/schools/government entities were not only negligent to the potential of long-term harm resulting from football-related head injuries, but knew of the potential and willfully disregarded it. Given that the research on said long-term effects is relatively recent, I doubt you'd convince a jury that Coach Gaines at Odessa Permian knew in 1985 what neurologists are only confirming today.
Texas, like most states, has limited immunity for public officials and entities, so you can't sue them for simple negligence. Have to prove their conduct (that, in this case, led to long-term brain injury) was willful.
5. Somehow getting around the statute of limitations. (The standard SOL in Texas is two years on a personal injury case).
Hmmm. Nope. Don't see it happening that way.
-
Good luck to the plaintiff stating a cause of action that proves:
1. He suffered a concussion playing football up to 40 years ago.
2. That concussion, and not some other injury, is the primary cause of health problems for which damages should now be recovered.
3. Every coach who ever coached at the school is personally liable for the concussion, as well as the school, helmet manufacturer and municipality (unless, the schools are run by a school district, in which case the municipality has no involvement). Note: most school's carry liability insurance for employees, so you'd realistically never be able to sue the coaches individually.
4. The coaches/schools/government entities were not only negligent to the potential of long-term harm resulting from football-related head injuries, but knew of the potential and willfully disregarded it. Given that the research on said long-term effects is relatively recent, I doubt you'd convince a jury that Coach Gaines at Odessa Permian knew in 1985 what neurologists are only confirming today.
Texas, like most states, has limited immunity for public officials and entities, so you can't sue them for simple negligence. Have to prove their conduct (that, in this case, led to long-term brain injury) was willful.
5. Somehow getting around the statute of limitations. (The standard SOL in Texas is two years on a personal injury case).
Hmmm. Nope. Don't see it happening that way.
The lawsuit won't be against Coach Gaines et al, the lawsuit will be against the 125 FBS schools who have derived billions of dollars in revenues from putting student-athletes at grave risk of long-term and potentially irreparable neurological issues.
A jury isn't going to be too sympathetic to a defendant who says "until a few months ago, it didn't occur to us that we should have examined the long-term consequences of 250 pound men bashing their heads against one another for the past 50 years."
-
The lawsuit won't be against Coach Gaines et al, the lawsuit will be against the 125 FBS schools who have derived billions of dollars in revenues from putting student-athletes at grave risk of long-term and potentially irreparable neurological issues.
A jury isn't going to be too sympathetic to a defendant who says "until a few months ago, it didn't occur to us that we should have examined the long-term consequences of 250 pound men bashing their heads against one another for the past 50 years."
Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?
As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?
-
Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?
As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?
Biggest misconception regarding CTE is that it's strictly concussion related. Linemen who never had a concussion have suffered some of the worst cases due to repeated sub-concussive impact (read: every time the ball is snapped). Won't be necessary to prove a concussion occurred.
-
Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?
After the FBS schools lose and are drained of money, the rest of the players from other divisions will file by the end of that day. The next day remaining schools will settle draining themselves of yet more money.
Follow the money,as Chicos said.
-
Meanwhile, Gand drew a 48.1 rating. May end up highest rated program in history. Follow the money.
Spoke too soon
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-super-bowl-2013-tv-ratings-dip-20130204,0,7786554.story
Super Bowl 2013: TV ratings dip for blackout-plagued CBS game
Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII ratings were a little like the San Francisco 49ers' offense: Still powerful, but not quite at peak form.
In a marathon game marred by an unprecedented 34-minute blackout at the Superdome in New Orleans, an average of 108.4 million total viewers tuned in to watch the Baltimore Ravens defeat the 49ers, 34-31, on CBS, according to Nielsen.
That was down 3% from last year's Super Bowl telecast, when 111.3 million tuned in. That event remains the No. 1 ratings champion in U.S. history.
Added ... and Darren Rovell, business reporter for ESPN (and formerly CNBC) tweeted yesterday that 48% of the US population did not watch one play of the game.
-
Biggest misconception regarding CTE is that it's strictly concussion related. Linemen who never had a concussion have suffered some of the worst cases due to repeated sub-concussive impact (read: every time the ball is snapped). Won't be necessary to prove a concussion occurred.
No, CTE is not strictly concussion related, but there's an obvious and strong link. That's important legally speaking, because someone who's going to court arguing that football caused CTE needs to show demonstrative proof of a head injury. A record of a concussion - or, better yet, multiple concussions - would do that.
And, again, proving that people suffered head injuries playing football is not going to win anyone a dime in court.
-
Spoke too soon
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-super-bowl-2013-tv-ratings-dip-20130204,0,7786554.story
Super Bowl 2013: TV ratings dip for blackout-plagued CBS game
Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII ratings were a little like the San Francisco 49ers' offense: Still powerful, but not quite at peak form.
In a marathon game marred by an unprecedented 34-minute blackout at the Superdome in New Orleans, an average of 108.4 million total viewers tuned in to watch the Baltimore Ravens defeat the 49ers, 34-31, on CBS, according to Nielsen.
That was down 3% from last year's Super Bowl telecast, when 111.3 million tuned in. That event remains the No. 1 ratings champion in U.S. history.
Added ... and Darren Rovell, business reporter for ESPN (and formerly CNBC) tweeted yesterday that 48% of the US population did not watch one play of the game.
The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending! Its over!
And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all. And i would bet that's not that higher historically.
-
The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending! Its over!
And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all. And i would bet that's not that higher historically.
Seriously, football is at a peak, only has one way to go ... down.
Now is a good time to sell a team if you have one, will not get a higher "real" price.
(real = adjusted for inflation and other equivalent investments)
-
Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?
As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?
"Why FBS, not FCS, DIII, etc.": Easy... deepest pockets, that's PI Rule #1.
"Limited Immunity": This may vary from state to state as some states put caps on damages or prohibit punitive damages, but not all. In any event, not all of the FBS schools are public institutions. And even for those that are, the whole basis of gov't immunity is to prevent taxpayers from footing the bill. When you have some colleges - for example Michigan - who operate a football program that is at least partially autonomous from the institution or like Temple who is considered to - despite being a public school - operate independently from the state, there is an argument to be made that gov't immunity does not apply because a judgment would be against the the football, athletic program, and/or college, not the taxpayers.
"Statute of Limitations" and "Prove health issues today result of 20 years ago": It's not entirely about the actual "damage" that has been done, it's about what responsibility do colleges have for fostering an environment where "damage" was likely to have occurred. IOW, the plaintiffs may not get compensation for what has happened to older athletes, but they might end up winning continuing care for damage that could have happened to the younger athletes. This would potentially be to the defendants' detriment --- it's a lot cheaper to fix a problem that you know has occurred to a select number of individuals than to provide long-term care to an entire population for something that (may or) may not materialize for decades.
-
The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending! Its over!
And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all. And i would bet that's not that higher historically.
I'm sure that 3 percent dip has nothing to do with the fact this year's game pitted Baltimore and San Francisco instead of New York and Boston.
-
"Why FBS, not FCS, DIII, etc.": Easy... deepest pockets, that's PI Rule #1.
Great, but that doesn't address the point I was making.
"Limited Immunity": This may vary from state to state as some states put caps on damages or prohibit punitive damages, but not all. In any event, not all of the FBS schools are public institutions. And even for those that are, the whole basis of gov't immunity is to prevent taxpayers from footing the bill. When you have some colleges - for example Michigan - who operate a football program that is at least partially autonomous from the institution or like Temple who is considered to - despite being a public school - operate independently from the state, there is an argument to be made that gov't immunity does not apply because a judgment would be against the the football, athletic program, and/or college, not the taxpayers.
No, Benny, applying limited immunity is not at a court's discretion. It's the law. A judge isn't going to throw out more than a century of constitutionally supported case law because he/she feels this particular defendant can afford to pay.
And good luck going after all these wealthy athletic departments. Most barely break even, if that.
"Statute of Limitations" and "Prove health issues today result of 20 years ago": It's not entirely about the actual "damage" that has been done, it's about what responsibility do colleges have for fostering an environment where "damage" was likely to have occurred.
So you're suggesting that a court order damages that not only aren't proven to be the result of a football injury, but may not have even occurred or ever will occur?
So, like, the University of Michigan will be ordered to fork over a billion dollars to former football players who aren't injured, because maybe sometime they might be?
Somehow I find that unlikely.
But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?
-
But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?
I'm not... I'm merely prognosticating that there's a lawyer smarter than you out there who will figure it out.
-
I'm not... I'm merely prognosticating that there's a lawyer smarter than you out there who will figure it out.
The smart lawyers involved so far - and I'm sure they're vary smart - so far are building their case around allegations that the NFL knew of the head injury risk and not only failed to disclose it from players, but actively hid it.
They're not even trying the negligence route, and the NFL - unlike colleges - don't have immunity protections.
-
The smart lawyers involved so far - and I'm sure they're vary smart - so far are building their case around allegations that the NFL knew of the head injury risk and not only failed to disclose it from players, but actively hid it.
They're not even trying the negligence route, and the NFL - unlike colleges - don't have immunity protections.
So you're saying they don't have a shot with the former strategy?
-
But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?
"Proving" something and getting a jury to go along with you in a civil case aren't exactly the same thing. For example, the idea that customers at McDonalds were unaware (and that the evil corp. knew the HIDDEN danger) of spilled hot coffee in one's lap is preposterous on its face. The college/player scenario isn't.
-
"Proving" something and getting a jury to go along with you in a civil case aren't exactly the same thing. For example, the idea that customers at McDonalds were unaware (and that the evil corp. knew the HIDDEN danger) of spilled hot coffee in one's lap is preposterous on its face. The college/player scenario isn't.
You really ought to read the facts of that McDonald's case.
And then you'd see why it's a) not the injustice it's been sold as and b) not remotely relevant to a potential football trial.
But, really, if the plaintiffs are resting their hopes on some sort of jury nullification, then their chances are even worse than I imagine.
-
So you're saying they don't have a shot with the former strategy?
Which former strategy?
-
Which former strategy?
Former vs. latter as you laid out
Hiding info vs. negligence
-
Former vs. latter as you laid out
Hiding info vs. negligence
I think they'll ultimately try both, but the fact they're trying to claim the NFL hid information means:
1. They don't believe the negligence claims is very strong
2. Even if they succeed on negligence, they recognize damages will be relatively small (a jury will likely apportion a share - probably large share - of the blame on the players for voluntarily exposing themselves to the injury), so they need to seek higher damages by alleging conspiracy/fraud.
-
You really ought to read the facts of that McDonald's case.
And then you'd see why it's a) not the injustice it's been sold as and b) not remotely relevant to a potential football trial.
But, really, if the plaintiffs are resting their hopes on some sort of jury nullification, then their chances are even worse than I imagine.
I'm not a lawyer. I presume you are. But after some of the things that have happened in America's courtrooms in the past few decades I don't see (with all due respect) how you can be so sure on how any case might turn out. One of my best friends got a big fat check from a class action lawsuit against Millie Vanillie and their record company due to them lip synching on a live album. If those kind of "injuries" demand reparations shouldn't real ones? I think I want me some serious tort reform.
-
One of my best friends got a big fat check from a class action lawsuit against Millie Vanillie and their record company due to them lip synching on a live album.
I presume your friend was one of the lawyers, and not just a guy that bought lots of cassettes?
In a move likely to fuel debate over lip-sync fakery in the music industry, a Chicago judge granted final approval on Tuesday to a cash rebate to resolve a class-action fraud lawsuit against Milli Vanilli's record company.
Under the terms of the agreement, Arista Records and parent Bertelsmann Music Group will offer $1 refunds on Milli Vanilli singles, $2 on cassettes and vinyl albums and $3 on compact discs to fans who submit a bar-code identification tag from merchandise purchased before Nov. 27, 1990.
Fans who bought tickets to Milli Vanilli concerts before that date would also be entitled to a refund of 5%--not to exceed $2.50.
Legal experts say the biggest winners in Tuesday's settlement will be the plaintiffs' attorneys who helped design the Chicago agreement.
While legal fees are subject to court approval, the four Chicago law firms representing the plaintiffs in this case stand to make as much as $675,000.
-
I presume your friend was one of the lawyers, and not just a guy that bought lots of cassettes?
You presume correctly, O Wise One. I've been giving him grief about it ever since.
-
Football may end up being the most expensive lawsuit in history, too. You can only follow the money for so long before the attorneys redirect the path to their own door.
As one of the NFL guys told me, some of the claims are legit but many are not. By the way, if a guy in the NFL has played since Pop Warner, does that mean the NFL is at fault...not Pop Warner, not the high school, not the college...just the NFL? Then he mentioned how some of these guys have wandered into the use of drugs, steroids, PEDs, etc...what impact did that have on their brains. The list keeps going on and on. All that stuff comes out as well as contributors. Some of these guys wasted their money and are looking for a pay day. Some, are legitimately in a tough health situation and it's sad the fraud will be there, but it is there.
The NFL will do what it is doing, wage a PR campaign. Show it is concerned (which it is), fund some studies (which it is), and if there is true, concrete evidence make "some" changes. If those changes lead to a drop in dollars, ratings, etc, I suspect you won't see them made. Just my opinion, but shared by many others.
As one guy told me, all this coverage is a silver lining in many respects. The claim "I didn't know" is gone now. Personal responsibility has to kick in at some point, and this is the start of that for some. Of course, as was also stated, there have been labels on helmets for 25+ years. When I played over 20 years ago, we were warned of neck, back, leg injuries. Taught how to tackle properly to avoid those injuries. It's a violent game, that's why they have pads, helmets, etc. Anyone that doesn't know it is a violent game isn't paying attention.
-
Spoke too soon
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-super-bowl-2013-tv-ratings-dip-20130204,0,7786554.story
Super Bowl 2013: TV ratings dip for blackout-plagued CBS game
Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII ratings were a little like the San Francisco 49ers' offense: Still powerful, but not quite at peak form.
In a marathon game marred by an unprecedented 34-minute blackout at the Superdome in New Orleans, an average of 108.4 million total viewers tuned in to watch the Baltimore Ravens defeat the 49ers, 34-31, on CBS, according to Nielsen.
That was down 3% from last year's Super Bowl telecast, when 111.3 million tuned in. That event remains the No. 1 ratings champion in U.S. history.
Added ... and Darren Rovell, business reporter for ESPN (and formerly CNBC) tweeted yesterday that 48% of the US population did not watch one play of the game.
I was referencing the 48.1 rating, which is in metered markets. It was the highest ever at 48.1. The metered markets represent the top 56 markets overall.
-
Reads like CBB wrote it ...
Why Football Won’t Go the Way of Boxing (Yet)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/why-football-won-t-go-the-way-of-boxing-yet-.html
One of the most exciting American boxers in years will defend his title this weekend. You’ve probably never heard of him.
His name is Adrien Broner, and although he is the world lightweight champion, he is not exactly famous. That boxing is no longer a popular sport in the U.S. is hardly a revelation. The reasons for its demise, however, may surprise you.
As we continue to learn more about the serious long-term health risks of playing football, we keep hearing the question: Is football destined to go the way of boxing? The implication is that people stopped watching boxing because they were turned off by the spectacle of two men doing serious, possibly permanent harm to each other. The only problem with this theory is that it isn’t true.
The force most responsible for boxing’s decline is the same one that causes all sports to live or die: television.
Boxing once relied heavily on prime-time Olympic exposure to introduce its future stars to the U.S. sports-viewing public. We first met Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay -- the slender, charismatic 18-year-old light-heavyweight gold medalist in 1960 in Rome. Boxing was the highest-rated Olympic sport of the 1976 summer games in Montreal, which featured Sugar Ray Leonard as well as Michael and Leon Spinks. Just 16 years later, in Barcelona, Olympic boxing made its final prime-time appearance on U.S. broadcast television.
Network Abandonment
In the intervening period, the networks basically abandoned the sport. This happened partly because an aggressive Home Box Office executive named Seth Abraham spent a lot of money systematically luring the big fights away from the networks.
Not that the networks put up much resistance. Boxing’s fan base wasn’t necessarily shrinking, but its sponsors were turning against it. The unpredictability of the length of fights posed a problem for advertisers: A heavily promoted 1983 bout between heavyweight champion Larry Holmes and Marvis Frazier, for instance, lasted less than one round.
Advertisers also had issues with boxing’s reputation -- not for brutality but for corruption. The sport was dominated by promoters such as Don King, who served time in prison for manslaughter, and Bob Arum, who once tried to reassure the public that he could be trusted by saying, “Yesterday, I was lying, but today I’m telling the truth.”
HBO -- and later Showtime -- didn’t have to worry about satisfying advertisers; it could underwrite fights by making them pay-per-view events. This may have worked as a business strategy (Mike Tyson, in particular, was a cash cow for HBO), but it helped to turn boxing into a niche sport followed only by those willing to pay $59.95 or more to watch big bouts. It also ensured that football would become America’s socially sanctioned, violent sport of choice -- and that Adrien Broner would never become a household name.
Boxing remains plagued by corruption. Not so many years ago, a cable-TV programming manager was discovered to have been giving preferential treatment to a promoter in exchange for “dates” with a porn star. Boxing’s biggest problem, however, is a lack of recognizable stars. Blame that on not being able to watch fights for free during prime sports-viewing hours.
Before boxing’s demise, horse racing followed a similar trajectory, for similar reasons. You might still be able to tick off the names of dozens of thoroughbred horses if track owners hadn’t been so scared that TV would keep people in their living rooms instead of at the betting windows.
Network Embrace
Other sports were smarter about television. According to the mythology, it was Michael Jordan (with an assist from Commissioner David Stern) who single-handedly saved the National Basketball Association. No less important was a TV strategy that included cutting back on the glut of games available on local cable channels, changing the league’s playoff schedule to accommodate CBS and televising the annual slam-dunk contest and college draft.
Virtually every sport that has flourished in the modern era has TV to thank. The National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament has been around for almost 75 years, but it was “March Madness” -- now a joint production of CBS and Turner Sports -- that engraved it in our national sports calendar.
College football’s popularity can be traced to a 1984 Supreme Court decision, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, that freed schools and their conferences to negotiate their own contracts with the networks. (Three times as many college games were televised nationally in 1984 as in 1983; end-of-season bowl games were now available for just about any company looking to sponsor one.)
Even in the age of the digital video recorder, we still like to watch our sports live. Television rights are priced accordingly. The TV sports bubble, inflated by increasingly exorbitant national and local deals, just keeps expanding. The Los Angeles Angels, Texas Rangers and Los Angeles Dodgers have all recently signed multibillion-dollar contracts with Fox Sports affiliates. Such irrational exuberance is driving subscriber fees so high that at least one cable executive has said government intervention may be necessary.
So the next time someone asks you if football is destined to go the way of boxing, feel free to answer: Yes -- just as soon as the networks stop televising it.
(Jonathan Mahler is a sports columnist for Bloomberg View. He is the author of the best-selling “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning” and “Death Comes to Happy Valley.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
-
Homer here.
Football is the favorite sport in this country like soccer in the rest of the world.
The most popular sport doesn't go away.
I used to think it would be like boxing which has disappeared because it's so dangerous.
I was wrong on two counts.
Boxing hasn't gone away it's just been replaced by MMA.
Football will be the same. The game will change, but it will still be played. And if it's played it will still be as popular as ever.
Former players will start saying that they are ok with their kids playing because of the changes.
Peter King feels badly about Junior Seau and that's understandable.
He should have stopped there.