Hruby on former 49er George Visger, and the price his brain paid for football

While I understand what you're saying and have knowledge of examples that support these views, I might prefer to see a different poster trumpeting the values of the Worldwide Leader, for obvious reasons.

 

We've had many discussions here on SJ how a lot of outstanding work gets lost in all the ESPN junk and contradictions.

 

I agree with you. In fact, I think that the coverage - this story included - that ESPN performs regarding its business partners is actually pretty courageous, all things considered. It's good to be king.

 

We are in agreement there. I have a fairly obvious conflict of interest. It is to my detriment that I feel compelled to weigh in on any of this. I would love it if others might view ESPN with a bit more nuance, but (at least from my perspective) that is often not the case. I get it. It just doesn't square with my reality.

 

I just don't know if it's possible anymore to discredit the work because of the entity. We've all read and linked a hell of a lot of stories from MLB Network employees (Verducci primarily) and NFL.com. And as the years have gone on, tons of respected writers have gone from newspapers to their local sports network, where there are all kinds of affiliation agreements. Out here in the Bay Area, not only does Comcast have the Giants TV contract, but the Giants have a large ownership stake (I think about 25 percent) in that station. But when the playoffs came around, I was still bookmarking and reading their Giants coverage because it was the best, provided by reporters and columnists who used to cover the team elsewhere.

I think Dick is drafting off the awards discussion here, but for a piece like this it's just wishing for the past to think we're going to have all these independent voices.

 

I would guess the ESPN incentive isn't to lavish praise but rather to simply cover those things more. Double Down mentioned the Alabama-LSU issue of ESPN The Magazine, but that came out after the game. Alabama and LSU both had multiple games on ESPN down the stretch.

Would ESPN do a Red Wings-Maple Leafs Game Day edition?

 

As I said, I agree with what you're saying. But it's easy for your conflict to be the focus, rather than the message.

Anyway:

- There have been studies that indicate that ESPN's coverage of major sports does not necessarily dovetail with its broadcast rights. As in, ESPN the Magazine isn't going to ignore hockey and promote the NBA.
- ESPN did need to be cajoled into paying attention to concussions. But when it focuses on a story, it steamrolls everyone. I have consumed more concussion-related media over the last year than just about anyone on this board, and ESPN has been at the forefront, especially TV-wise. But darn it, they have just got to focus on the girls soccer concussion epidemic!
- ESPN does not shy away from covering negative stories about its partners. Where else will the NFL go? ESPN is the ultimate juggernaut in sports broadcasting. If you are not on ESPN, you are not at the big table.
- Think Goodell was happy with their harping on the bounty scandal? But that coverage actually spotlighted a problem ESPN TV has, which is that with few exceptions, the stories on First Take are the stories throughout the day. They get too focused on the same thing, which is why they fell asleep on the Seau thing.
- ESPN the magazine has a lot of amazing writing, if you can sift through the "EDGY!!" presentation
- Grantland's winners' history of rock and roll is awesome
- So is 30 for 30
- People who complain about ESPN (and the BCS, for that matter) apparently want to return to the land of Wide world of sports and shared championships. ESPN has helped sports media evolve tin ways none of us could have predicted.
- Must disagree with Mr. Whitman regarding awards. Media ownership has changed so much, with so few companies owning so many outlets, that "conflicts!" aren't really worth worrying about anymore.

Would it have the access to do such an edition? Or would the NHLs' broadcast/media partners pull rank?

 

Would SI?

 

Given that Sports Illustrated doesn't do themed issues very often and that the Game Day issue is an ESPN The Magazine thing, I would think not.

 

But as I said above, there are reasons for that including access and resources.

Also:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/41492872/

Hruby is a must-read on this topic.

 

There are 5.4 million people with Alzheimers, how can you be sure that his condition was caused by football?

 

I think that's a legit question in general Boom when we talk about this issue, but if you read this piece it's pretty clear what happened to Visage was not the natural progression of aging, even with the potential for a disease like Alzheimers.

But, as we talk about the issue of football going forward, I think we're going to have to acknowledge that some brains break easier than others. And I don't think any government body is going to be able to say "Football is too dangerous in its current form, therefor we are mandating this change." I think there will be a little too much libertarian in all of us to say grown men cannot decide what risks to take with their own bodies.

We're going to have to find a way to make the game safer. Period. Because its not going away. Maybe that means the no practice contact approach of John Gagliardi (since a lot of doctors believe a series of sub-concussive events cause more damage that the big kill shots you see players getting fined for in the NFL) or maybe it means bigger foam helmets or something else entirely.

Maybe too we'll just look at football like cigarettes in a few years. Ok, we concealed some of its dangers. Here is $2 billion to square up those concerns. Going forward, you will play at your own risk, and sign a series of waivers each step of the way. And that may shrink the pool of athletes a bit, and eliminate it entirely in places of affluence where it's not culturally important, but it's not changing in the Deep South or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania any time soon.