OT: Antwaan Randle El wishes he played baseball

Submitted by SBayBlue on

Antwaan Randle El, one of the best players in B1G history, and arguably Indiana's finest football player, now wishes he had played baseball instead of football.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14603566/former-steelers-wr-antwaan-randle-el-wishes-chosen-play-football

"I ask my wife things over and over again, and she's like, 'I just told you that,'" Randle El said to the newspaper. "I'll ask her three times the night before and get up in the morning and forget. Stuff like that. I try to chalk it up as I'm busy, I'm doing a lot, but I have to be on my knees praying about it, asking God to allow me to not have these issues and live a long life. I want to see my kids raised up. I want to see my grandkids."

Wow, if this isn't a damning indictment on where things might be headed with former players.

I still love Michigan football, but when Ditka said he wouldn't let his own kid play football, that convinced me that the sport might be in trouble in the long term.

MGoBoard
Football
baseball
Injuries
Indiana
concussion
antwaan randle el

SBo

January 19th, 2016 at 6:25 PM ^

He probably would've been a very good baseball player given his athletic ability. OTOH, this is a result of playing the game for a long time. He didn't grow up being warned of those risks. Obviously, Football shouldn't be banned, read John Harbaugh's essay on it. It's an abomination that high schools are preventing people my age from playing football. However, prospective players should be notified of the potential consequences of their choices. That's how this needs to be handled

Joined: 01/02/2016

MGoPoints: 12139

Alton

January 19th, 2016 at 8:22 PM ^

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention that Antwaan Randle El was drafted in the 14th round out of high school by the Chicago Cubs.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/research.asp?Y=1997&P=June-Reg&R=1…

He might have gone even higher if he didn't have a football scholarship waiting for him.  He played a few games for Indiana, but football practice kept him from ever being a full time player there.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13309

AnthonyThomas

January 19th, 2016 at 7:03 PM ^

Boxing went from one of the country's premier sports to almost entirely irrelevant in the span of a couple of decades. Not a great example. No one is afraid of football being banned. But we'll likely see a reduction in the number of players and therefore a reduction in the product on the field as athletes opt for less dangerous sports.

Especially considering how much more money you can make playing baseball, while also not cutting decades off of your life. At some point the NFL owners will have to pony up more than they are. 

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 19382

Mr. Yost

January 19th, 2016 at 11:44 PM ^

Can't it be both?

People aren't lining up for MMA either? It's more popular, but it's not like it's one of the major sports around the world (or even in the US) from a public perception standpoint. 

The brutality in combat sports isn't nearly as popular as it was at one point.

The brutality in football are certainly going to turn people off, but I personally don't see it ever falling like boxing has. Too much money, too much personal allegiance, the entertainment value, etc. - plus, there are PLENTY of people who watch football who aren't looking to watch a big hit.

In fact, I have no way of proving it...but I'd say if you took the % of people who watch football just for the big hit. Versus the % of people who watch NASCAR for a crash, or hockey for a fight, or boxing/MMA for a knockout...football would be the lowest.

Anyway, the people running boxing definitely ruined it...but it really never had a shot in today's culture. Just like golf. Unless there's something we've never seen, like a woman who's going to dominate the PGA...it's just not going to happen for that sport.

Once sport I'm actually surprised that hasn't grown even more than it has...lacrosse. It's super regionalized right now. But lacrosse has many of the things people are looking for in team sports right now. It'll be interesting to see how that sport does over the years.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Gr1mlock

January 19th, 2016 at 7:31 PM ^

Boxing largely has become irrelevant becuase of (a) the growth of MMA (which is a bloodier, more violent boxing), (b) the lack of really compelling personalities, especially at heavyweight, (c) the growing public perception that boxing is only slightly more legitimate than pro wrestling as far as fixed matches go, and (d) the ability of elite boxers to choose their opponent and the resulting belief that champions duck top opponents, so we never get to see the fights we REALLY want.  I don't think it's as a result of people losing their taste for violence or deciding "man, all these punches must be really bad for boxers long term, i'm going to stop supporting this", it's just that many fans have moved onto other things.  Not sure boxing's downfall is a particularly good comparison.  

Joined: 12/24/2013

MGoPoints: 6257

pescadero

January 19th, 2016 at 9:42 PM ^

"(a) the growth of MMA (which is a bloodier, more violent boxing),"

 

Bloodier and more violent - but quite likely to cause significantly less brain injury issues.

 

The worst thing in boxing for brain injuries is glove weight. Bare knuckle boxing is much bloodier, but much safer from a brain injury standpoint.

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 12098

Muttley

January 20th, 2016 at 1:27 AM ^

#1 Pay-per-view as the only means of seeing anything close to a championship fight.

As a kid, I watched Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton, etc.  on network TV.  Ordinary Americans could identify with them because they saw them in their living rooms.

Now it costs a significant amount of money to see the fights, and consequently, only the boxing junkies pay up.  Which created a mass market death spiral in which ordinary Americans (like me) don't have favorite fighters, and thus no matter the ESPN hype, any fight is just between a couple of guys at best talked about on SportsCenter. (This coming from a guy who paid $25 to see Hearns/Leonard I.)

Who's the heavyweight champ?  I couldn't tell you.  That response would be unthinkable to a general sports fan when I was a kid in the 70s.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

FreddieMercuryHayes

January 19th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^

I think MMA is safer than boxing. Problem with gloves boxing is that it encourages punches to the head. Can't do as much of that with lighter gloves. A lot of MMA involves grappling, and less repeated head strikes. And as far as NASCAR, well, people like spectacular crashes, but those cars on a whole are crazy safe. Jimmie Johnson, Harvick, Earnhardt Jr...all in their 40's and going strong. Earnhardt Sr was almost 50 when he died. Racing has the potential for tragic death, but short of that doesn't seem to have the long term health consequences as other sports that rely more on the body.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/29/2010

MGoPoints: 40867

Gr1mlock

January 19th, 2016 at 8:27 PM ^

It's generally known that MMA leads to more "minor" but graphic injuries in terms of cuts, bruising, hemotomas, that sort of thing and that boxing has less of that but more concussions and brain injuries.  Boxing gloves are way heavier than MMA gloves and this increased weight leads to more internal head trauma.  Also, as you say, the amount of non-striking in an average MMA match is way more than an average boxing match so there's less opportunities for a head trauma shot.  

Joined: 12/24/2013

MGoPoints: 6257

Mr Miggle

January 19th, 2016 at 8:47 PM ^

I don't see a lot happening to the NFL. Ratings probably go down as football gets less popular at lower levels, but not dramatically so.
 

I see fewer and fewer HS teams. Some smaller schools have already started having trouble fielding teams. It's a trend that will only get stronger. Schools are going to have a tough time adequately explaining the risks and what they do to minimize them. It's not easy to stay on top of the latest research, but that should be part of their responsibility. Perhaps HS football will be largely supplanted by youth leagues.
 

College football is in the trickiest position. What the NfL does is straightforward. They offer money to grown men to assume risks. They can quit at any time. Colleges offer an education to HS students. That's their basic mission, but many football players can only get that education if they agree to play football for four years. A lot of scholarship offers go to players they would not accept as students otherwise. Then they sell them on how their degree and connections will give them a great career even if they never make the NFL. It can be an uncomfortable arrangement under normal circumstances. Add in increasing awareness of the risks these players are asked to take. It won't be too long before a school drops football citing this as the reason. It won't be a big time school. It'll probably be one that loses money on football. But it will draw a lot of attention and it won't be the last. It's easy to see some Power 5 schools like Northwestern going that path.
 
 
 
 

 

 

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47666

Sopwith

January 19th, 2016 at 6:31 PM ^

I'll never forget when I saw an interview with Earl Campbell maybe 5-7 years after his retirement. He had the movement of an 80 year old. Randle-El hits the nail on the head in the article: football players are in a car wreck every week. There's no correcting it with fancy helmets.

 

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61109

Sopwith

January 19th, 2016 at 6:41 PM ^

I think they can change tackling, especially in open space, to something closer to rugby as many have suggested, and things seem to already be trending in that direction.

But the helmet-to-helmet hits on every play up on the line, i.e. the repetitive sub-concussive hits that are most strongly implicated in CTE, I just don't see how those ever get addressed. Maybe we just land at better long-term health care benefits for NFL retirees. IDK, man. It's sad the way these guys get wrecked. 

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61109

bacon

January 20th, 2016 at 4:25 AM ^

Dark Helmet: [Vespa Doll] No, no, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, leave me alone! And yet, I find you strangely attractive. Dark Helmet: [Helmet doll] Of course you do. Druish princesses are often attracted to money, and power, and I have both, and you know it! Dark Helmet: [Vespa doll] No, I hate you, leave me alone! Dark Helmet: [Helmet doll] No, kiss me! Dark Helmet: [Vespa doll] No, no, yes. Dark Helmet: [Helmet doll] No. Dark Helmet: [Vespa doll] Oh, ah, ah, ah, ah, oh, ohh... ohhhh, your helmet is so big.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

East German Judge

January 19th, 2016 at 7:29 PM ^

I am no expert on how the laws pf physics intersect with CTE and consussions - even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but seriously just a thought - if we keep adding more padding, etc., will it make people more reckless and encourage more helmet-to-helmet hits ("they are more padded, so safer, right"), or could the answer be to get rid of all the helmets, padding, including shoulder pads, and even cleats so as to slow down some of the players and not encourage such physically punishing hits???  Just a thought, as like most on here I would hate to lose the game we all love.

Joined: 10/05/2014

MGoPoints: 190489

sharklover

January 19th, 2016 at 8:48 PM ^

It's shameful how inconsistently targeting is being called. It is a rule that has immense potential to protect players and make the game safer. But the way it has been going over the last season, I can't imagine the rule continuing to exist. People will not stand for it if the enforcement is arbitrary and carpricious.

Joined: 11/30/2015

MGoPoints: 6140

Gr1mlock

January 19th, 2016 at 8:00 PM ^

I actually think the "get rid of the pads" (or move to rugby style minimist padding) approach has a certain degree of logic.  People will be way less inclined to headhunt and lead with their head if there's nothing there giving a sense of safety.  I don't see it happening in our current world, but it does make a kind of sense. 

Joined: 12/24/2013

MGoPoints: 6257

MilkSteak

January 19th, 2016 at 8:11 PM ^

The only real way to do this would be to start at the lowest levels and allow the younger kids to learn the rugby type of tackling. If we converted to less padding over the off season in the NFL, NCAA, and maybe even high school I think we'd see a lot of pretty gruesome head injuries.

Joined: 04/18/2011

MGoPoints: 3070

Ray

January 19th, 2016 at 8:08 PM ^

A helmet cannot keep your brain safe from deceleration forces--the action some on this blog have characterized as "sloshing around in your skull." I agree with those (like Dhani Jones) who argue that modern helmets have contributed to the problem by creating an illusion of safety where there is none. I realize there are vast differences in size and conditioning from then to now, but it would be interesting to study whether players in the leather helmet era had as many of these problems. (or to compare to modern day rugby). I suspect not.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 7044

bluebyyou

January 19th, 2016 at 6:35 PM ^

CTE is a major problem.  Unless a biological agent is developed that can offset the pathology of a brain sloshing around in someone's head, I think the game is in big danger.  Knowing what I know now, my kids would never have played football.  

It sounds like the path that Randle-el is going down isn't going to be a fun one....hopefully things turn out well for him.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18599

mgoblueben

January 19th, 2016 at 7:29 PM ^

How exactly do you imagine a stem cell "cocktail" working. CTE is similar to Parkinson and alzheimers. Plaque build up eventually kills the cells. Neurons can regenerate axons with damage (see denard ulnar nerve damage) but once they are dead, there's just a fibrous scar left. Stem cells are great and all for leukemia or bone marrow regeneration but how are you going to rebuild someone's memories, both mental and physical, from stem cells?

Joined: 06/23/2011

MGoPoints: 2475