1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Yorker: Does Football Have a Future?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Jan 25, 2011.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Interesting story in this weeks New Yorker on future of football.

    Some of it summarize NYT's Alan Swartz one man quest to change the game from tackle to flag.

  2. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Jay Cutler agrees with Alan Swartz.
  3. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Football: Does New Yorker have a future?
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It is interesting to see the Austin Collie third concussion mentioned in the piece. I was watching that game. I feel silly about it now, but I was horrified that he was either dead or catastrophically brain damaged when he went down. Absolutely horrified. I think a lot of people felt the same way. It is like we're all just waiting for the inevitable.
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Some have been feeling that way since Frank Gifford went down.
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Every guy I know in his 50s or 60s momentarily was sure that Dick Butkus killed Chuck Hughes.
  7. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    A real close friend of mine's grandfather doesn't feel that way. He just says "Sorry, Frank."
  8. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Sound like you're blaming the messenger, Boom. Alan's reporting on the subject has been rock solid. But I suppose it sucks for fans to know the game is costing players not just quality of life in retirement but years off their lives.
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Swartz writes with an agenda and also writes with little understanding of a game he never played.
  10. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    i don't get all this hand-wringing. playing football is hazardous to your health. so are many other things. but not many other things are multi-billion dollar industries that give most of its employees a chance to make the kind of money, live a lifestyle, improve the environment and future possibilities for their families...

    football ain't going anywhere, not in our lifetimes, anyway. nobody forces anybody to play football; yes, i understand that healthy, strapping young men have difficulty translating what 'losing a few years' on their lives means to them or understand and decided the life that football can give them is far greater than any other life most of them consider a viable option...

    sure, i'm all for making the game AS IT IS as safe as possible for everyon who plays it.

    'smoking is hazardous to your health' is all that's grown from the revelation that smoking is a killer, has killed and will kill or infirm millions when all is said and done. 'football is hazardous to your health' is as well-known a fact as the smoking issue is. i applaud alan schwarz and others who keep us abreast of the potential consequences are and applaud all efforts to protect the players; stories like these and closer examination of player safety is great.

    but lead to the end of the sport? puh-leeze. not a chance.
  11. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    It's all a plot by the NY Times for soccer to rule the world.
  12. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    nope. i hear schwarz's next project is: HEADERS ARE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page