New Yorker: Does Football Have a Future?

[Boom_70]

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.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/31/110131fa_fact_mcgrath

 

[TigerVols]

Jay Cutler agrees with Alan Swartz.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Football: Does New Yorker have a future?

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

 

[Boom_70]

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.

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

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

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

Every guy I know in his 50s or 60s momentarily was sure that **** Butkus killed Chuck Hughes.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

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.

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

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

 

[cranberry]

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.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/31/110131fa_fact_mcgrath

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.

 

[Boom_70]

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.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/31/110131fa_fact_mcgrath

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.

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

 

[shockey]

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.

 

[Boom_70]

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

 

[shockey]

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

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

 

[cranberry]

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.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/31/110131fa_fact_mcgrath

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.

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

Boom, please give an example of Schwarz "writing with an agenda" and explain what "understanding of the game he never played" would be needed to write this type of story. Fill in the gaps for me. What is Alan missing that only someone who has played football would understand? Do football players like to get their brains scrambled?

And Shockey, the majority of professional football players are considered interchangeable parts and treated horribly. Post-career health issues have been a nightmare for retirees and much of it is just coming to light. It certainly isn't hand-wringing.

Schwarz should win awards for his work on this topic.

 

[silent_h]

I have to respectfully disagree with Shockey's post, and the larger sentiment it reflects.

The issue isn't that football is simply hazardous to one's current and future health -- that it ruins joints and breaks bones and can leave a 40-year-old with a 80-year-old's body. (And that's just from the physical demands and collisions; no one really knows the long-term effects of continual PED use).

The issue is that football is now potentially much more hazardous than once believed to the current and future health of one's brain -- that it doesn't just destroy your body, but also destroys the essential you -- and that said destruction may be inherent to the sport the same way it's inherent to prize fighting.

That part is relatively new. It's hardly a well-known fact. And the better known -- the better understood -- it becomes, the worse off the sport likely will be, culturally and financially.

Knowing what we know, would you want your child to box?

Given what we known -- and what we are still finding out -- would you want your child to play football?

Some people will always answer yes. But many more people may begin answering no. If and when that happens -- and that's hardly a crazy, five-lifetimes-from-now proposition -- it will seriously affect the sport as we know it.

I agree with Shockey: nobody forces anyone to play or care about football. People choose to do so.

Given good reasons, people also can choose to stop.

 

[bydesign77]

So I heard something and perhaps our NCSportsJournalists.com can confirm: the NC high school association has mandated the use of only wooden bats in baseball this year. This is response to "rolling" and "shaving" composite and aluminum bats.

This is along the lines of safety in football because, I think, three pitchers were killed by batted balls last year.

It all just seems so silly to me. We spent an entire meeting last week going over legal bats. The desire for a competitive edge is outta control.

 

[shockey]

I have to respectfully disagree with Shockey's post, and the larger sentiment it reflects.

The issue isn't that football is simply hazardous to one's current and future health -- that it ruins joints and breaks bones and can leave a 40-year-old with a 80-year-old's body. (And that's just from the physical demands and collisions; no one really knows the long-term effects of continual PED use).

That part is relatively new. It's hardly a well-known fact. And the better known -- the better understood -- it becomes, the worse off the sport likely will be, culturally and financially.

Knowing what we know, would you want your child to box?

Given what we known -- and what we are still finding out -- would you want your child to play football?

Given good reasons, people also can choose to stop.

guess i'm a tele parent 'cause i allowed middle boy shockey to play h.s. football... oy, what was i thinking?

but if he suffered as much as one concussion, he was told, he'd be done with it. thankfully, not everyone who plays football sustains a concussion. but once you have you're more susceptible to others; everyone decides for themselves how many are too many -- correct me if i'm wrong or missed it, but i've never heard or read of a one-time concussion victim suffering long-term effects due to brain damage. but, sure, i covered al toon and wayne chrebet and know their stories. before them, pat ryan was the player i was around most who sustained multiple concussions. he wasn't as affected as toon and chrebet,; i suppose we'll have to wait (hopefully a looong while) before knowing if they were life-shortening or life-altering injuries.

i know some people maintain, 'oh, my child will NEVER be permitted to play organized football. that's cool. but we're certainly not nearing a time when football no longer exists because that is the typical mantra.

the evidence of players horrifically affected long-term from the violence of football isn't anywhere near convincing enough to do in the sport.

some will argue that any number of players affected long-term is too many, but even as 'evidence' like that supplied by the n.y. times piles up, thankfully the number of players affected isn't close enough to scare off most parents -- or certainly not nearly enough to scare off enough to put the game itself in any peril in our lifetimes.

i suppose as a good parent i should never let my kids drive, either.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I have often wondered where football is going to find its players because, at least in my corner of the world, the numbers in youth leagues have dropped so severely. Obviously you'll always find 85 to be on the college team and 53 for the pros, but how far is the quality going to drop? At least in my circle, there isn't a parent who would let his or her child play anything more than flag, at least not before high school. And the high school around the corner, which has sent many players to the NFL in the past 15 years, now has about 40 kids on its varsity team.

I have no illusions that my son will play anything beyond high school sports. He may not even get that far. But in my "wouldn't it be cool" moments, I think of him as a major league pitcher or a goalie in the European soccer leagues. I wouldn't even want him to get a college scholarship in football because of the long-term damage it would cause.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I have often wondered where football is going to find its players

Same places it always has.

Texas, California, Florida, Ohio and Western Pa.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I have often wondered where football is going to find its players

Same places it always has.

Texas, California, Florida, Ohio and Western Pa.

I understand that. However, I live in California, and the participation numbers are plummeting here. Are they staying high everywhere else?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I would be interested in knowing whether the drop in participation numbers actually hurts the quality of the sport. Are a lot of the kids not playing any more the 5-foot-6, 130-pound weaklings and the kids who trip over their shoe laces? With no proof of this, my intuition is that the real athletes are still out there.