11/21/24
May 30, 2012
Bart Scott: 'I Play Football So He Won't Have To': New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott told the New York Daily News, "I don't want my son to play football. I play football so he won't have to. With what is going on, I don't know if it's really worth it. ... I don't want to have to deal with him getting a concussion and what it would be like later in life."
The Vikes' Asher Allen is walking away from the sport now.
posted by beaverboard at 08:35 PM on May 30, 2012
Why would I even care why Bart Scott plays football? Play, don't play, whatever. You'd really have to be an idiot not to know the health risks, but the idea of possibly making insane amounts of money means more to these guys. Sometimes I think these NFL players want people to think they're doing humanity a service by playing this game.
Maybe Scott's son not playing football will prove he's smarter than his dad. Could it be that a person's health is worth more than money?
posted by dyams at 09:06 PM on May 30, 2012
Why would I even care why Bart Scott plays football?
Depends on whether you care about the future of the NFL.
It says a lot about where we've come, in the short time that CTE risks have become widely publicized, that prominent players and ex-players are starting to say they don't want their kids playing football. Parents all over the U.S. are making the same decision and pushing other sports. Among the youth baseball group I've been hanging out with, none of the parents are in football. Most are hoping their kids have no interest.
posted by rcade at 10:07 PM on May 30, 2012
As long as there's money, there will be players.
posted by dyams at 10:39 PM on May 30, 2012
Where will those players come from, since there's only money in the NFL? And what happens to the NFL's money if the fans abandon the sport? Sporting appetites change. A century ago the big three in the U.S. were baseball, boxing and horse racing.
It's only a matter of time before CTE makes football uninsurable in high schools and some colleges.
posted by rcade at 11:54 PM on May 30, 2012
Maybe its time has come, then, or is coming. Anything that violent, if there's no way to combat devastating, life-altering injuries, needs to be banned. But again, I don't see it happening. Even if football wasn't played in high school, the NFL would still be able to find taker to play their game, and the guys with athletic abilities would be signing up as fast as possible. You'll always be able to fill rosters if guys see big dollar signs.
Unless pro football is banned, and I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
posted by dyams at 06:01 AM on May 31, 2012
Maybe its time has come, then, or is coming. Anything that violent, if there's no way to combat devastating, life-altering injuries, needs to be banned. But again, I don't see it happening. Even if football wasn't played in high school, the NFL would still be able to find taker to play their game, and the guys with athletic abilities would be signing up as fast as possible. You'll always be able to fill rosters if guys see big dollar signs.
Really, you honestly see a ban as the only way for NFL football to end? And yet you use the "dollar signs" argument to support your reasoning? Where do you think the money comes from?
I'll put it to you simply: if the fan base goes away, the money goes away, and there is no more NFL. There will be nowhere for your hypothetical "guys with athletic abilities" to play. If high school football ends (and I think rcade is onto something with insurance costs), there will be nowhere for these "guys" to develop their skills. If you think "guys" will manifest from somewhere else on the planet, then tell me why they haven't done so already. The money's there (for now, anyway). So why doesn't the NFL's composition look like the NHL?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:44 AM on May 31, 2012
That's a good question. Only 3.5 percent of NFL players are from other countries, and many of them came here as kids and played the sport. Others were from places like American Samoa or Tonga where they play football.
posted by rcade at 10:24 AM on May 31, 2012
I'll put it to you simply: if the fan base goes away
That "if" is too small. Should be IF. If CTE were more visible or affected current players it would be different. Football is just so entrenched right now I just can't see people running away without a fight. I have to imagine there's an easier solution to this, a rule change or some way to limit the damage.
There will be nowhere for your hypothetical "guys with athletic abilities" to play.
Those guys are totally real. Why would say they are hypothetical? Anyway, if high school football goes away the NFL could sponser all manner of youth teams. The current model is not the only way to develop talent, though it's probably the best one for the NFL's bottom line.
posted by tron7 at 10:43 AM on May 31, 2012
LBB is correct when he boils it down to fan base. No audience, no NFL. However there is an audience and will continue to be. Just like fighting in hockey, boxing, MMA, Pro Football, Auto Racing etc. The danger and violence is a big part of the appeal. Human nature being what it is, I don't see the fan base disappearing. I think the best we can hope for is the technology and knowledge to mitigate the damage and make the activity as safe as possible.
As for the willingness of the participants, well we can't seem stop people from smoking, or using drugs activities that will almost certainly lead to serious health issues, and a premature death. No matter how much we ban it in places, shun it, or warn people, they tend to do what makes them happy. They even spend money to to it. People even participate in very dangerous physical activities and extreme sports for nothing more than the pleasure or adrenalin rush.
Considering the pleasure, potential rewards of fame, riches, women and securing the future of your family etc. the risk reward of pro football doesn't seem to me to be prohibitive enough for it to dissuade significant numbers to kill the sport. I do believe liability issues may change high school level football where revenue is difficult, but also believe eager participants will indemnify the schools by waiver and purchase their own insurance, or join Pop Warner type leagues. The colleges make way too much money to worry about the liability risks which frankly they have now without much total effect. IMO the supply of potential NFL players isn't going to dry up. Even a guy like Bart Scott who no longer needs the money isn't stopping until the league doesn't want him anymore.
posted by Atheist at 11:04 AM on May 31, 2012
The danger and violence is a big part of the appeal.
There's nothing appealing about a player lying motionless on the turf for 20 minutes while trainers attend to him, the crowd watches nervously, players kneel in prayer and the announcers trot out the tired canards about how the NFL has the best-quality medical staff on hand because they care so much about safety.
The violence of the NFL is only appealing to most people when it's separated from the consequences.
posted by rcade at 11:33 AM on May 31, 2012
Others were from places like American Samoa or Tonga where they play football.
Not in Tonga itself, or in the Independent State of (formerly Western) Samoa. I've lived in both places and there are no American Football facilities or teams. Meanwhile, the territory of American Samoa has high school teams.
But Tongans and Samoans living in the States, sure.
posted by owlhouse at 11:42 AM on May 31, 2012
The violence of the NFL is only appealing to most people when it's separated from the consequences.
As it should be and as it always is. You could say the same thing about anything that can possibly have dire consequences. Riding a motorcycle is never an appealing idea when you are staring at the consequences of an accident, nor is smoking or a million other activities. That is what our minds do when faced with risk, we compartmentalize and segregate the risks from the rewards. I think that is why some can climb a mountain or drive a race car. You can't do it effectively or enjoyably, if you allow yourself to dwell on the worse case scenario no matter how plausible. The participants do it as do the spectators.
posted by Atheist at 12:21 PM on May 31, 2012
Some sports fade in popularity because the toll on the participants becomes too obvious. A person would have to be a willful idiot not to know what boxing does to boxers.
Smoking has declined sharply as people became more educated about the consequences.
When you compare the size of a football player today to one in the '70s, at the NFL level or high school, it seems likely that we're going to see much higher trends of debilitating injuries for the current players and they'll happen sooner in their lives.
I haven't found a study that backs it up, but I think running backs are a leading indicator of what's happening in the league. It used to be that a star back made it to 30 before production declines made it clear he was on the down slope of his career. Now that looks like it's happening at 26-28, and more teams are using multiple backs. The bigger, faster defenders are wearing them out in a span as short as a college career.
The era of the star running back may be over. Emmitt Smith could hold on to the career yards title for a long time.
posted by rcade at 12:54 PM on May 31, 2012
I think running backs are a leading indicator of what's happening in the league.
I agree with your general point, but might argue this one. I think the trend in running backs is a reflection of smarter personnel decisions and the move to pass-driven offenses. Why pay a stud RB on his first free agent contract (around age 26-28) when you can get 80-90% of his production in the 3rd round of the draft? It's why every star-level running back holds out after his first or second big year. They have no other leverage except to pray for good health and dumb owners/ GMs.
posted by yerfatma at 01:46 PM on May 31, 2012
rcade - all very valid points. No doubt attitudes about smoking have lessened its appeal. Smoking was just an example of how difficult it is to stop people from doing something they want to do even in the face of certain dire consequences, and they spend money to do it. I would also say social stigma and laws to restrict public smoking have had as much or more to do with reducing the number of smokers in the US as the well publicized health consequences.
I think it is clear that the size and speed of the modern player has increased but I have not seen any study that would indicate that translates toward a higher injury risk. I mean the defenders are bigger and faster, but so are the offensive players they are tackling. I remember reading that actually high school football was statistically more dangerous than pro football. It wasn't as much the size, skill and speed levels that were to blame but more the wider disparity in those levels amongst high school players versus the pros. I'm am not claiming that as fact but do remember reading it and it does make sense. I wonder if statistics are available to support a viable theory.
As for the life of running backs, are they actually wearing out faster or is there just so much new, younger, faster, stronger or merely fresher talent available? Also the way contracts, benefits, salary cap, and free agency are structured it may also be that the business of football in its current state, just gives teams more incentive to cut loose aging, more established and expensive players, a little sooner in favor of cheaper and possibly just as productive younger players?
I suppose that with all the dangers of playing football, for health and safety purposes, maybe the league should consider limiting the playing time or amount of years a player can participate in the NFL, for their own good. Although, I am pretty sure the NFLPA would have something to say about that. Again money changes everything, and tends to override sensible ideas even if they are in the players own health interest. Again this speaks to the issue of would a player accept forced retirement to protect his health from the possibility of issues in the future or would he opt for the certainty of more money and a few more years now and take his chances? I think most make that decision base on how they feel at the time and have little doubt what most would opt for.
posted by Atheist at 02:18 PM on May 31, 2012
I would also say social stigma and laws to restrict public smoking have had as much or more to do with reducing the number of smokers in the US as the well publicized health consequences.
That and $5 $6 $7 $8 packs of cigarettes.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:32 PM on May 31, 2012
Some sports fade in popularity because the toll on the participants becomes too obvious. A person would have to be a willful idiot not to know what boxing does to boxers.
It might be the reason you stopped watching boxing but I don't think this was the main reason that boxing has faded in popularity. Other than boxing what examples are there of sports fading in popularity due to safety concerns? Gladitorial games?
posted by tron7 at 02:46 PM on May 31, 2012
If anything, it seems to me that boxing faded from popularity due to the coincidental rise of MMA, accompanied by the fact that there seems to be an absence of charismatic (American) boxers of late. And Don King. People didn't seem overly concerned about the safety of boxing when Tyson and Holyfield were in their heyday, or Sugar Shane and de la Hoya. I don't know enough about either sport, or being a fan of either sport, to formulate an opinion as to why one eclipsed the other, but I don't think safety dictated boxing's decline.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:11 PM on May 31, 2012
Boxing may have lost some audience due to competition and the fact that good fights are expensive on pay per view, but I agree with tahoemoj, it has nothing to do with safety. There really isn't to much in the way of interesting fights and MMA has lured away a big and desirable demographic . Now if Mayweather and Pacquiao can agree you will see a pretty sizable and probably record pay per view audience.
As a matter of fact one might argue that boxing lost a lot of audience because no holes barred cage fighting became available to viewers. Whether or not one is more dangerous than another is not the point. MMA which incorporates submission, boxing, Muy Thai, wrestling, jujitsu, kicking etc appears even more violent and more like real street combat which to me is why it is usurping boxing as the most popular combat sport. It actually has the advantage of appearing even more violent and dangerous, while in truth it may be safer with regard to head trauma.
posted by Atheist at 03:27 PM on May 31, 2012
The Vikes' Asher Allen is walking away from the sport now
He is a marginal player at best who has suffered a few injuries, isn't expected to start and has a lot of new competition at his position. Nowhere in the article does he give any reason for his retirement so it is merely speculation that the injuries may be the cause. It certainly seems like a stretch to say he is leaving due to the dangers of the game unless he makes that clear. The article reads to me like a writer using the hot button topic of concussion to make an assumption that isn't verified by the player himself.
posted by Atheist at 03:42 PM on May 31, 2012
Atheist:
As a matter of fact one might argue that boxing lost a lot of audience because no holes barred cage fighting became available to viewers.
Oh my. That would be quite some sight, wouldn't it?
There is no "no holes barred cage fighting" available to viewers, or even "no holds barred". MMA fights have many restrictions. A true "no holds barred" fight would look very different, and very few people who like the rules-governed MMA you see on TV would enjoy it.
In addition, I don't think the decline in boxing's appeal tracks with the rise in appeal of MMA. Seems to me boxing had largely faded before MMA came on the scene.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:49 PM on May 31, 2012
If anything, it seems to me that boxing faded from popularity due to the coincidental rise of MMA, accompanied by the fact that there seems to be an absence of charismatic (American) boxers of late.
I think boxing was on the decline with casual sports fans before the MMA rose to popularity. MMA just made it worse. It seems to me that MMA is on free TV a lot more than boxing, too, which doesn't limit the sport to milking more dollars out of a shrinking audience.
The argument that boxers today don't have charisma like they did in the past seems like putting the cart before the horse.
If boxing was at the center of the sports culture, the media would make boxers seem charismatic. Look at LeBron James and Tiger Woods. Sourpuss dullards can be turned into fascinating figures with help from the media and sponsors like Nike.
(Muhammad Ali is, of course, an exception. He is the most charismatic athlete of the 20th century.)
posted by rcade at 03:56 PM on May 31, 2012
I don't think the decline in boxing's appeal tracks with the rise in appeal of MMA
Maybe. Maybe Not. Interesting - if less than scientific - perspectives.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:57 PM on May 31, 2012
tron7:
That "if" is too small. Should be IF. If CTE were more visible or affected current players it would be different.
Go back five years, and your statement would be greeted with "What's CTE?" Go back a year, and you still might have a case. Today? I'm not so sure. Seems like evidence of CTE is getting more and more in people's faces. At some point, the evidence of brain-wrecked former players becomes too much for people to ignore. And remember, people don't need proof, they just need to be convinced. As a case in point, I'm seriously considering resigning as commish of my company's fantasy football league. I don't know for sure that playing NFL football is a ticket to CTE, but you know what? At some point, I don't need to know. At some point, the possibility and the consequences are enough for me to withdraw my support from the activity. It's an act of conscience, to refrain from doing something that is harmful.
Meanwhile, out of the headlines, parents have been keeping their sons out of football for years. For decades. They're not taking out front page ads or making big statements, they're just deciding that they don't want to put their kid into an activity where too many harmful things happen.
Football is just so entrenched right now I just can't see people running away without a fight.
You're making the same mistake that dyams is making, i.e., assuming that regulation would be the force that would end football. I've just explained why that's not so.
I have to imagine there's an easier solution to this, a rule change or some way to limit the damage.
If it was easier, it would have been done already. If it hasn't been done already, there's something that makes it hard. The NFL doesn't like the bad publicity about CTE; if there was an easier solution (a solution, mind you, not token gesture that doesn't actually solve anything), they'd have implemented it. They've opted instead to implement some rules that don't solve the problem, and to take what heat there is, judging that the current level of heat is acceptable given the current level of money. Watch what happens when both heat and money levels change.
Anyway, if high school football goes away the NFL could sponser all manner of youth teams.
...which will also be uninsurable, and furthermore will not have facilities to use even if they were. The whole NFL "combine" starting with Pop Warner is not something the NFL can replace.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:04 PM on May 31, 2012
LBB when cage fighting first came on the scene guys like Royce Gracie and Tank Abbott and others were doing no holes barred bare knuckle tournaments that were billed as no holes barred contests by the promoters. Fighters did not compete in weight classes, fought tournament style with several fights in one night and it pitted any style against any style. This is what gained popularity and was the predecessor to the MMA we have now. Fans went crazy watching a 170 lb Joyce Gracie grab 260 lb Kimo by the hair, elbow him repeatedly to the head, and either choke him out or submit him. Many states refused to license the fights. It is certainly evolved from the tough man contests it started out as to the more rules oriented MMA you see today. It had to in order to get on mainstream TV and get athletic commission acceptance for places like Vegas and other top venues.
Originally I think the only rules were no eye gouging, biting or kicks to the groin. Whether or not you consider it no holes barred or not, there really isn't much doubt that it was way more violent and had a much higher perceived danger than the traditional Marques of Queensbury rules of boxing. Its introduction to the USA did coincide with the beginning of the decline of boxing's audience.
I personally am not saying the level of violence was the only reason. Boxing always favored certain body types. MMA does allow a fighter more options to take advantage of his particular genetic strengths, because it does not restrict them to boxing skills. I believe this is why MMA got so popular with the young white male demographic prized by advertisers. Boxing in America had become a predominately minority dominated sport. MMA brought back the prized demographic that boxing was loosing.
Again it is all about the money. MMA found a balance between enough rules to be acceptable and marketable while still satiating the appetite for violence and competition of its fans to maximize the money.
posted by Atheist at 04:08 PM on May 31, 2012
I absolutely love football, but CTE has increasingly made me wonder if I can continue supporting it. I've had conversations with plenty of parents of little kids about whether they ought to let their kids play tackle football (tackle football starts far too young in our community -- at 6). I doubt I'm an anomaly here. It is more likely the beginning of a trend. I'd be shocked if there are any serious football fans who haven't taken note of CTE yet.
posted by bperk at 04:35 PM on May 31, 2012
He is a marginal player at best who has suffered a few injuries, isn't expected to start and has a lot of new competition at his position. Nowhere in the article does he give any reason for his retirement so it is merely speculation that the injuries may be the cause.
So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? What do you think his reason for retiring at 24 is then? Better job offer? Love the "not expected to start": he's a nickel corner. That's a pretty valuable commodity in the NFL and he played in 36 games over 3 seasons (out of a possible 48), including 10 in his rookie season, in spite of multiple concussions. But don't let that stop you from making up whatever facts suit your position.
posted by yerfatma at 05:05 PM on May 31, 2012
You're making the same mistake that dyams is making, i.e., assuming that regulation would be the force that would end football.
No, I'm not. It's entrenched in culture. This ship won't stop on a dime.
If it was easier, it would have been done already.
Earlier you stated, "Go back five years, and your statement would be greeted with "What's CTE?" Give them some time.
IRL, I just haven't seen people turning away from football. I've not had a discussion with anyone that was so bothered by it that they were willing to stop watching and I've not talked to a parent who was rabidly against their kid playing football. Apprently you and others here have but it's hard for me to agree that the culture is changing when I've seen no change in attitudes myself.
posted by tron7 at 05:27 PM on May 31, 2012
Fighters did not compete in weight classes, fought tournament style with several fights in one night and it pitted any style against any style. This is what gained popularity and was the predecessor to the MMA we have now.
This is bullshit. The rise in popularity of MMA directly coincided with it's regulation. The early violence surely cemented some of it's cult following early on but for the mass appeal it needed to look more like a sport than a bar room brawl and that meant more rules.
Originally I think the only rules were no eye gouging, biting or kicks to the groin. Whether or not you consider it no holes barred or not
Well, I guess the eye is kind of a hole. Holds, dude, not holes.
posted by tron7 at 05:38 PM on May 31, 2012
... it's hard for me to agree that the culture is changing when I've seen no change in attitudes myself.
Fair enough. But after spending some time in youth baseball this year, I'm finding among parents here a dramatic lack of enthusiasm for their kids playing football.
posted by rcade at 05:42 PM on May 31, 2012
But holes is infinitely funnier (I know...but holes...he he). Didn't we have a thread a few years ago about "checking the oil" in a wrestling match? Turns out, that hole is barred, but only if you get caught.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:43 PM on May 31, 2012
The fact is that he has not given any reason for his retirement. Any statement to the contrary is speculation and supposition. That is all I pointed out. I read the article, the post with the link implied he did so due to the dangers of the game. So using the case of one player announcing retirement for unknown reasons, to suit a position is exactly what prompted my statements. You are making up suppositions to support an argument that doesn't exist. I am not arguing playing is not dangerous, or that players don't get leave due to injury.
Read the article, the author admits he is speculating, they player only started games due to injuries to other players. The team brought in more players at that position to specifically upgrade that aspect of their team, and the author also admits he may have retired for his own personal reasons. Maybe the player himself knows more about his ability to compete than the speculators.
I won't speculate why this guy is quitting, why would you? I am for players choosing to play or not. If ten players leave the game due to fear of injury then take what you want from that. But please don't assign reasons for their decision to suit your constant desire to call me out or to accuse me of making up facts to suit my argument. If you are waiting for a mass exodus of players, I would recommend you don't hold your breath.
Think about taking a break from attacking my posts with condescending comments. Make an intelligent argument or position, disagree with me if you like but it is clear you enjoy finding issue with almost anything I post.
posted by Atheist at 05:51 PM on May 31, 2012
I won't speculate why this guy is quitting, why would you?
Because it's the obvious question. He's 24 and was a likely contributor this season. He could have been forced to give back $181K from his signing bonus.
When Seau died you were comfortable speculating about every possible motive but CTE. Now you question all speculation about Allen.
You keep looking for reasons not to talk about something, which is a pretty big sign of denial. Face reality. CTE in the NFL is a huge deal.
posted by rcade at 06:08 PM on May 31, 2012
Tron it should have been holds barred my mistake and yes no holds were barred. Thanks
This is bullshit. The rise in popularity of MMA directly coincided with it's regulation. The early violence surely cemented some of it's cult following early on but for the mass appeal it needed to look more like a sport than a bar room brawl and that meant more rules.
No argument here but what came first the chicken or the egg. The tournaments were becoming popular but in order to get more exposure which could lead to gain mass appeal, they needed television, they needed athletic commission sanctioning, thus the rules and weight divisions. So yes I suppose rules enabled it to gain the exposure which led to more popularity. I personally did not like it when it was a bunch of goons brawling and have grown to appreciate it as a sport more, but assigning credit for its gaining audience to the rules isn't totally accurate.
It's like porn, by making it more accessible through video, and the internet it has become much more mainstream and acceptable. The base attraction was always there but until it was easy to view, at home, by a larger audience it could not gain the same popularity. Tweeking the MMA rules to gain access to TV, and better live venues definitely helped it grow and get much more exposure, but I am not so sure the rules themselves made that much difference to the fan base. No doubt the skill level and athleticism of the participants have improved as a result of the money, exposure and acceptability, which in turn helps attract more and more fans.
posted by Atheist at 06:16 PM on May 31, 2012
rcade - CTE is a big deal and not just in football but many other sports also. My speculations regarding the death of Seau were only to point out that if we are going to speculate than why focus on just one possibility. Probably because it is the hot button topic but all I was trying to do is point out there are lots of possible reasons why someone might commit suicide, CTE is only one of many. I just wouldn't jump to that conclusion, especially in such a relatively rare event with so many other possible explanations. It may however be the currently most fashionable one, as PED were. I guess CTE is the new PED like issue surrounding pro sports.
posted by Atheist at 06:27 PM on May 31, 2012
I could see the NFL going away before I could envision high school football in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Alabama, etc. going away.
My point with Scott, as an example, is he plays football by choice. He's not being forced to perform like gladiators centuries ago. He plays a game that allows him to live in large homes and enjoy expensive things. That's where his priorities lie, and that's fine. He could have made other choices, such as (former Ohio State and Minn. Vikings running back) Robert Smith made. Smith chose not to subject himself to the punishment and pursued other fields. It's possible to enjoy a normal, healthy, fulfilling life without football. But as long as there are kids growing up wanting to have a shot at NFL fortunes, there will be organized football somewhere for them to learn the game and skills. Colleges will scoop them up. And the NFL will keep going just fine.
posted by dyams at 06:52 PM on May 31, 2012
It may however be the currently most fashionable one, as PED were. I guess CTE is the new PED like issue surrounding pro sports.
This is why I just post the Facepalm images. It's simply not possible to have a proper debate with you. Conversation is not something you do with an entrenching tool.
posted by yerfatma at 08:09 PM on May 31, 2012
I could see the NFL going away before I could envision high school football in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Alabama, etc. going away.
Here in Jacksonville high school football was threatened with shutdown due to school budget cuts. I don't know if they're an outlier, but it was a shock to see the possibility even raised.
The people who love high school football as players, parents, students and community members could transfer that passion to another sport and get just as much out of the experience.
posted by rcade at 09:38 PM on May 31, 2012
As a school aministrator, I know that putting a program like football on the budget chopping block in an area where football is huge is a great way to get people out to vote on the budget (in areas where the public votes on school budgets, of course). Most people could care less if teachers are cut and lose their jobs, but if football, music, etc. is threatened, the public will often be forced to turn out and vote to pass a spending plan.
I remember a baseball camp I attended when I was in high school. I roomed with guys from Oklahoma and Nebraska. These guys and their families loved football but not the NFL. All they cared about was college football. It made me understand that the NFL doesn't always impact people in many states all that much.
posted by dyams at 05:35 AM on June 01, 2012
I'd guess that high school football will become too expensive to be sustainable and that is how it will die. There are already difficulties with affording extracurricular activities. Add in regulations that may require doctors to check for concussions on the sideline and possible lawsuits (even if they are unsuccessful) and it just loses its financial viability.
posted by bperk at 09:20 AM on June 01, 2012
bperk - my guess is that in places like Texas where high school football is revered, and culturally ingrained with the population, they will find the money for football. Even it if means parents, boosters etc shell it out of their own pockets. Players and parents will not have a problem signing waivers to keep programs alive. I think a lot of folks are underestimating the passion people have for football.
Also I just heard on the news that it is being reported Junior Seau had severe insomnia and was using a lot of Ambien to sleep. One of the reported side effects of Ambien is that some users may experience suicidal thoughts and tendencies. A warning is mentioned on all the advertising to discontinue use if this occurs. I am not discounting the possibility of CTE or any other cause but it does demonstrate the point about how premature it would be to blame football, when there are plenty of other possibilities.
posted by Atheist at 10:52 AM on June 01, 2012
From the Seau insomnia story: "Sleep disorders also are common among people who have experienced traumatic brain injury ..."
posted by rcade at 11:04 AM on June 01, 2012
This is why I just post the Facepalm images. It's simply not possible to have a proper debate with you.
If you are in fact an authority on what constitutes a proper debate, what can I say, although I was never aware it was proper debating etiquette to insult or belittle an opposing opinion with sarcastic or condescending comments or cartoons. I would understand if you felt you should ignore anything I posted. You may not agree with what I have to say, and I have no problem with you disagreeing, but I don't believe I deserve your subtle but transparent disrespectful insults.
posted by Atheist at 11:07 AM on June 01, 2012
It's entrenched in culture. This ship won't stop on a dime.
Who said it would? On the other hand -- since it's your analogy -- when a ship turns, slowly but surely, it's often possible for the people on board to not realize for some time that the ship is turning. Is it possible that you're one of those people?
IRL, I just haven't seen people turning away from football. I've not had a discussion with anyone that was so bothered by it that they were willing to stop watching and I've not talked to a parent who was rabidly against their kid playing football. Apprently you and others here have but it's hard for me to agree that the culture is changing when I've seen no change in attitudes myself.
That's understandable. This isn't the kind of change that happens as a result of a single large force; it's a lot of drops of water wearing away the stone. It's a parent here and there deciding not to let their kid play; it's more parents deciding that as time goes on. It's liability and the cost of insurance going through the roof and making it too expensive for schools to offer football. It's high school teams being a little less competitive because some kids are being kept out and the rest aren't as skilled, because more parents who might let their kids play in high school think that Pop Warner is too young and keep them out of that program. It's people losing interest because high schools aren't as competitive. It's more former players coming out with stories about their current condition. It's more cases of players or coaches trying to get around the current safety rules, with tragic results. It's a lot of things coming together. Once you've put a name on it, a lot of people start to look at things that previously seemed unrelated, and it all adds up to changes.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:17 AM on June 01, 2012
LLB - if what you are saying is the case, I would have to assume that as some point we would begin to see declining TV ratings, and stadium attendance for NFL and NCAA football, as well as other statistical evidence of declining participation. Even if that is a slow decline. Is anybody aware of any evidence at this point that the game is loosing popularity? Regardless of how slow a ship turns, there is evidence that it is turning if you look closely, and it doesn't take very long to realize you are on a different course.
posted by Atheist at 11:43 AM on June 01, 2012
If you are in fact an authority on what constitutes a proper debate
I'm not. But I'm pretty sure it's not being an ostrich on anything you don't like.
posted by yerfatma at 12:01 PM on June 01, 2012
If it's happening so slowly that we can't visibly see the change then I think there is time to fix the problem. Medical advances, better helmets, or rule changes all seem like more plausible endings to me than the death of football.
posted by tron7 at 12:19 PM on June 01, 2012
I'm pretty sure it is a two way street. To borrow a line from our president, let's be perfectly clear about this. I think CTE is very troubling and should be a big concern for all sports. I think study is required and full disclosure to all athletes as to the risks involved so they can make informed decisions about whether or not they want to take those risks. I also believe that everything possible should be done to ensure the game is a safe as we can possibly make it. That is not hiding from the issue.
With all that is known at this point, I personally wouldn't hesitate playing NFL football today if I had the ability, after weighing the risks against the rewards. If my son wanted to play football and had the ability, I would allow it.
I would add that every team should ensure that any athlete that has had a concussion be cleared by a doctor to resume playing. If a qualified medical staff feels a player's career should end due to concussion (s) then he should be deemed medically ineligible to play and retired with his full benefits.
posted by Atheist at 12:32 PM on June 01, 2012
... as well as other statistical evidence of declining participation.
Here's one turn:
Research from the National Sporting Goods Association indicates overall football participation across all age ranges has decreased from 10.1 million in 2006 to 9 million in 2011, with the most significant drops in the 12-17 and 18-24 age groups. ...One reason why:
According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, the number of high school boys playing 11-man football rose from 886,840 in 1992-93 to 1,112,303 in 2008-09. But after 16 years of nearly uninterrupted growth, the number of players has declined slightly during the two most recent years for which data was available: to 1,109,278 in 2009-10 and 1,108,441 in 2010-11.
In 8- to 13-year-old children, the greatest number of [emergency department] visits for concussion during OTS resulted from football, followed by basketball, baseball, soccer, and ice hockey (Table 2). A similar order was observed in the older age group, with football showing higher and basketball lower overall percentages.Football accounts for 22 percent of all ER visits due to concussions among youth sports.
posted by rcade at 12:40 PM on June 01, 2012
overall football participation across all age ranges has decreased from 10.1 million in 2006 to 9 million in 2011
That isn't really meaningful without knowing what happened to high school populations during the time period. It would also be nice to know the overall number of high school football programs during that time (though that could be affected by schools purposely dropping football due to health concerns).
posted by yerfatma at 12:59 PM on June 01, 2012
The story says the number of 11-man football programs continued to grow over that period. The age 15 to 19 population was 21.3 million in 2006 and 21.3 million in 2011.
posted by rcade at 01:09 PM on June 01, 2012
If it's happening so slowly that we can't visibly see the change then I think there is time to fix the problem. Medical advances, better helmets, or rule changes all seem like more plausible endings to me than the death of football.
Yes, because we human beings have such an excellent track record of practively solving slowly approaching problems rather than waiting for them to crush us. "Icebergs are reported!" "Yeah, that's nice, not a real issue though." "Hey, got icebergs close by on the radar." "Ok, good to know, thanks." "HOLY CRAP ICEBERG LOOMING UP OUT OF THE FOGBANK!" "WHAT?? TURN THE SHIP!! TURN THE SHI--"
*crash*
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:14 PM on June 01, 2012
You really like this ship analogy, eh?
posted by tron7 at 04:53 PM on June 01, 2012
You really like this ship analogy, eh?
Yeah, it's kinda awesome. Thanks for bringing it to the party.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:31 PM on June 02, 2012
Sounds good and makes him seem pretty altruistic, but I am going to guess that Bart Scott played football long before he even had a son, and is still playing so that he can continue to make a lot of money. I hate this kind of rhetoric. It reminds me of the time Mike Tyson justified biting off Hollyfield's ear and claimed he had to defend himself as Hollyfield was endangering his livelihood and trying to take food out of his children's mouths. Of course at the time he was worth a few hundred million dollars, but he needed to make sure his kids got fed.
I suppose if he feels football isn't worth the risk he can stop at anytime. My guess his kid won't have to play football anyway (unless he wants to) and there are other professions. I suggest Mr. Scott quit so he can be there for his son and help his son get an education so he will have choices. Playing football is not a way to ensure your son won't have to. If anything is sets up a pretty convincing role model for the boy to follow in dad's footsteps.
I think this (below) is the reason Bart Scott is playing football and yes his son will not have to.
The New York Jets signed free agent LB Bart Scott to a 6 year 48 million dollar contract on February 27, 2009. The deal included 22 million in guarantees. Scott received a $3.5 million dollar signing bonus and will receive a 10 million dollar option bonus in 2010.
Prior to the start of the 2009 season, Scott renegotiated his contract to change his base salaries in 2009 and 2010 and restructure his option bonus due in 2010. The increase in salary reduced Scott's 2010 option bonus by 3 million dollars. Scott received 4 million dollars of the 2010 bonus in 2009 and converted the remaining 3 million dollars to a roster bonus due in 2010. and will earn base salaries of $7,500,000(2009), $3,600,000(2010), $4,900,000(2011), $5,600,000(2012), $6,900,000(2013), and $7,750,000(2014).
On July 29, 2011 Scott agreed to reduce his 2011 base salary to $3,900,000 in retrun for a full guarantee on his 2012 salary.New base salaries are $3,900,000(2011), $4,200,000(2012), $6,900,000(2013) and $7,750,000(2014)
I know some dads who work several shitty jobs that are slowly killing them so their son's might have a chance to go to college. If there is any reason Bart Scott is still playing football, his sons financial future is probably no longer the reason.