Follow Up On Baning Football, Now SI's Peter King Is Thinking About Banning FB

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Abode4life]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

He's not predicting ... He's ordering

He isn't ordering anything

[Pakuni]

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?

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

Who are all these boxers being compensated by the sport for their injuries?

They did not change, the industry was regulated and effectively neutered. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[Tugg Speedman]

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).

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[BallBoy]

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.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.