Attack on Football 12/25/2015
Last March Jim Harbaugh stated to the press and presumably the majority of high school football coaches in Michigan that football was under attack. Here is his response to one of the final questions of that spring presser…
How important is a day like this for recruiting? You have 800 coaches here, so in terms of getting to know people or reacquainted with people for the next recruiting class.
“Oh, sure. It's there. That's not the purpose of why we're doing this. [The purpose is] fellowship with other coaches. Guys that are ambassadors for the game of football and how important is that with football under attack these days that there are ambassadors for the game of football.
This was an interesting time in college football The football media and more importantly the media at large were onto the concussion issue and smelled blood after PBS won a Peabody for League of Denial based on the book by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru.
A month later John Harbaugh came out with his spring blog post Why Football Matters. It's clear that Jim and John are aligned on this Attack on Fooball (AoF). If you haven't read that post – you probably should.
There is a seasonality to this AoF and In this vein we about to enter into the evaluation period where a good deal of the meta discussion and policy making is done. If that sounds conspiratorial … so be it … it's happening.
In some people's minds the AoF started with the science of dementia pugilistica which is more widely known now as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Unfortunately science didn't finish it. In fact the science is just starting to roll on CTE. Here is a PubMed index for concussion and CTE research papers by year since 1962.
What most people would term "the AoF" actually started in 1994 when the NFL formed the first committee to understand concussion in the context of the spectrum of injuries to NFL players. The ineptitude of that committee and the initial intention of the NFL to downplay head injury at all cost was the first battle in the attack Jim and John Harbaugh conjecture. I've linked to the Frontline timeline above which is not definitive but provides a good run down.
The first AoF starts much earlier – as John Harbaugh outlines in his blog post…
In 1905, there were 19 player deaths and at least 137 serious injuries. Many of these occurred at the high school and college levels. Major colleges said they were going to drop football because the game had become too violent.
That’s when President Teddy Roosevelt stepped in to call a meeting with coaches and athletic advisers from Harvard, Princeton and Yale. He wanted to find a way to make the game safer. They made significant changes, introducing new rules like the forward pass and the wide receiver position. Those changes turned football more into the game we know it as today.
We made progress. Rules changed. Society evolved. The game advanced.
What John Harbaugh is saying here is misleading but he is right on point that football has been under attack before and survived. That attack and the current AoF are different far more than they are alike however.
The current AoF came back to me again when I read this editorial in Forbes in response to the politicizing of football in regards to public health. It turns out youth participation is lagging disproportionately along political boundaries. Just as with other matters of science the importance of tying data to policy is paramount to doing the right thing. Unfortunately like climate change, aids policy and many other economically and/or socially charged issues – concussion and CTE policy is not all about the data instead it involves compromise.
As John Harbaugh states in his post…
We’re at another turning point in our sport. The concussion issue is real and we have to face it.
We have to continue to get players in better helmets. We have to teach tackling the right way, and that starts at the NFL level. Change the rules. Take certain things out of the game. It’s all the right thing to do.
So there you go … there's something out there attacking Football. For the purposes of this diary I'm calling that AoF. Football has been attacked before but the current iteration started ~1994. There is a scientific basis for this attack and the research is ongoing. The current AoF is falling out along political boundaries (but in reality is more class based.) But where and how are we seeing this crop up.
By far the biggest event this month regarding the AoF is the movie Concussion produced by Ridley Scott, written by Peter Landesman and starring Will Smith out in theaters on Christmas day.
There's been quite a bit of PR, publicity and spin going on with this movie as it will be coming out this week. This more than anything else this month will possibly be the most talked about AoF event.
Will Smith has been nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance as Bennet Omalu. He's likely to get an Oscar nomination as well. The movie unfortunately is not likely to get as much acclaim. I will save judgment on that until it is released but the article on which the movie is based and the book created for the movie is a story based on the true events surrounding Omalu's discovery of CTE in MIke Webster's brain and his attempts to inform the NFL and the public of the danger.
Surrounding this human story is the much larger story of CTE itself and Football with a capital "F". Having seen the documentary League of Denial there is little in actual content added from the GQ article the movie is derived from, which is not surprising since the article predates the documentary. In fact there has been much in the way of CTE reporting and league reform since the original material this movie is based on came out. But the movie is a theatrical movie and as such will probably reach a wider audience than the documentaries, articles and books that have covered this material since are capable of reaching.
If there is a person who has not heard this material already it could be conceived as inflammatory. There are reports of negotiations between the NFL and Sony Pictures in the media about the portrayal of the NFL. It's hard to tell how much of that is publicity and how much is real. Dave Duerson's family has also taken issue with Duerson's portrayal in the film. If the book or reviews are any indication none of that is beyond the poetic license taken in any movie based on a true story. The movie itself is more likely to suffer criticism cinematically than factually. So far the star power of Will Smith is the biggest selling point.
The biggest contribution of the movie to the AoF, besides perhaps being good at best, is the title itself. In this respect Football is a loser. By titling the movie Concussion – Sony has conflated concussion and CTE in a way that obscures the real nature of the movie. It should by all rights be called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or just CTE. Though understandably that doesn't have a very catchy feel, naming the movie Concussion is a disservice to sport and public health.
Concussions and CTE are not synonymous. Concussions do not cause CTE. They don't really correlate even. There are cases where CTE has been found where there is no recorded incidence of a concussion. The only real correlation of CTE and behavior wrt football is age of first exposure to the sport and/or duration of play – as in how many years one has played.
The two ailments are very different, but the movie is about CTE. Concussions can be difficult to diagnose but they are diagnosable. CTE is not diagnosable. There are studies and scans that can be done and data that has been collected but for the time being the only definitive way to diagnose CTE is by post mortem – which is really what this movie Concussion is all about … not concussions. Omalu makes his case through forensic autopsy for CTE not mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) – which is the medical term for concussion. In fact it's very difficult to diagnose a mild traumatic brain injury in a post mortem. There is a tremendous amount of physical subtlety to MTBI which can only be determined clinically.
Concussions have a "protocol" that has been instituted in the NFL this season of which all fans are more than aware. Most people know someone who has had a concussion. Concussions can be treated with rest. CTE has some experimental treatment but not any established medical protocol. It's very rare outside football players, boxers and hockey players. Very few people know a person who has had it. Finally and most importantly there is no NFL protocol to reduce CTE. In fact as linked above – the league is being coy about funding research to detect it in vivo.
By equating concussions and CTE the issue of CTE is obscured. Proponents of the AoF perhaps would not agree with that assessment but here's what I mean. As different as concussions are from CTE to limit them is certainly a positive. At least you can treat them. Blows concussive or not are the issue. But repetitive sub concussive blows are just as likely to give an athlete CTE. Nonetheless, Sony calls this movie Concussion. If this doesn't seem a big deal… it is.
Previously I showed a comparison of articles in PubMed on concussion and CTE. That presented a very skewed perspective of the relative work being done on these conditions. When you call concussion by it's technical term MTBI you get this…
What you call things is important not only to search engines but in matters of public health. Concussion science has dwarfed work on CTE. Rightfully so as many of our veterans, youth and elderly are at very high risk and it's common. The long term consequences of MTBI are grave enough not to be conflated with CTE for which the prognosis is grim and since it can't be diagnosed … scary.
But now… thanks to Sony… when you search the web for concussion… you get movie times and locations and an IMDb listing for a movie about CTE. LMGTFY link …
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Concussion
Conflating CTE and Concussion does not serve any real public good and truly does attack football. The AoF is really a battle for the hearts and minds of those who play the game and their parents. By making concussion synonymous with CTE it becomes public fear mongering.
When Teddy Roosevelt helped fend off the first attack in 1905. He did so not primarily as President of the United States, but rather as the parent of a freshman college football player. There many differences between that AoF and the current attack or 'culture war' as John Harbaugh puts it. The first one is money. There is a mother lode more money in the game than a hundred years ago. It changes everything…the motives and behavior of schools, conferences and leagues…the power of the players to set standards. A second is elitism. Back in 1905 Harvard and Yale were big players in football. College itself was the refuge of the privileged. History gets tricky when comparisons are made. The greatest similarity is perhaps that fact that Teddy Roosevelt had a reason to intercede as a parent.
Though modern parents don't have a bully pulpit to bring about change like Roosevelt did in 1905 the call for reform of the current game is substantially going to come from parents of the todays high school and college athletes as well. They need to do this without the attack on football setting the terms.
December 22nd, 2015 at 4:39 PM ^
I think that the way that you have metered out the differences between CTE (which may have a link to concussions - may not - and it may be related to "mini" head traumas that are much more common in football) Concussions, and MBTI, however I think that football's biggest hurdle at this point is that contact is 100% essential to the game.
Flag football is not football. You don't see 45 year old men putting on pads and running around for an hour tackling each other full contact. Contrast this with hockey - another violent sport on the professional level. Lots of old people play beer league hockey. USA Hockey and Canadian Youth Hockey have both outlawed contact for players younger than 14 - no checking. You can do this in hockey and still play essentially the same game. Not true with Football. There's a lot more research going into football and brain injuries at the moment, but what research can you trust? You hit on this with the money comments - the NFL has behaved about as well as cigarette companies when it comes to medical research.
Flag football until high school makes sense, otherwise we're just destroying young brains. Lots of people tout the benefits of Football - are any of them that much more substantial playing football than any other team sport?
December 22nd, 2015 at 7:13 PM ^
Smallest of nits on a very well thought out post: the governing body up north is Hockey Canada. I only mention it because if you're looking for data they're a good resourse (same with USA Hockey as I'm sure you know). Not a terrible follow on Twitter either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Canada
https://twitter.com/HockeyCanada
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:37 AM ^
Flag until h.s. makes a ton of sense to me given what we know about the particular vulnerability of the young developing brain. The repetitive every-down impact, particularly of the OL and defensive front 7 players, is what would dissuade me from letting my kids play. I'd rather have a kid play QB and get a concussion here or there than play on the line and get impact on every play.
As far as the OP goes, major points for stressing the misleading conflation of concussions and CTE, but as others mentioned, the "AoF" business gives the whole piece a "War on Christmas" (i.e., imaginary and paranoid) feel to it. Otherwise, a welcome and serious treatment of the issue. Good read.
December 22nd, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
I think calling it an "attack on football", right or wrong, sets a prejudicial tone. Do research. Improve equipment and methods. Change rules. But do it from a place of concern for the players' health and an objective pursuit of the truth, and it will be easier to serve as a counterpoint to those that might overreact. The phrase polarizes the discussion, for or against, and that's usually not a good way to get to the right compromise.
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:18 AM ^
December 24th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^
The basis of the argument is equivocation.
I think it's fair to call such media hit pieces one prong in an "attack on football."
John Harbaugh would probably agree. While written prior to the release of the film under discussion, the first line of Harbaugh's piece Why Football Matters begins, "Football is under attack . . . ."
As I've watched the media narrative unfold over the past few years, I would have to agree. Football--meaning the sport in its current form--is under attack. The attack is organized. So far it has resulted merely in a few rules changes, which make for regularly ludicrous calls (e.g., most every targeting call made in a Michigan game this season).
I do not believe the attack aims to stop there. I hope John Harbaugh's message of improving equipment and making rules changes is sufficient to neutralize the threat. Having watched organized politico-media attacks on various activities over the years, my fear is that it won't be. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
December 22nd, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
As John Harbaugh states in his post…
We’re at another turning point in our sport. The concussion issue is real and we have to face it.
We have to continue to get players in better helmets. We have to teach tackling the right way, and that starts at the NFL level. Change the rules. Take certain things out of the game. It’s all the right thing to do.
So there you go … there's something out there attacking Football. For the purposes of this diary I'm calling that AoF.
So, I don't get it. You're using Harbaugh's comments that the game needs to change and improve as evidence of a malevolent "ATTACK ON FOOTBALL." To me, JH's comments are more along the lines of "Yes, we do need to change and it is the right thing to do" whereas you seem to be arguing that this change is unneeded. You seem to stop one step short of "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" faux-outrage. What are you arguing?
Odell Beckam Jr launched his body at the head of a unsuspecting and defenseless player. The next day ESPN had talking heads saying that he shouldn't be suspended at all. Ultimately, the league suspended him 1 game. And everyone thinks that's fine. They think trying to purposefully injure a defenseless player is only worth a 1-game suspension. I know I may be in the minority here, but to me this is the biggest issue facing football. In no other sport does the "launching of the body head first" happen.
I think that's why there is an "Attack on Football." At no level has there been any outlawing of launching a body. Defensive players go for the huge hit instead of trying to make a tackle. It seems like an easy fix: You cannot leave both feet and launch yourself. Period. That's the NHL rule. It might not be something popular, but I think it would be a minimal change to the gameplay, but dramatically change the safety.
Also, Sony picture studio has no responsibility to not conflate "Concussion" and "CTE." Their one and only goal is to make money. It's the NFL's responsibility to make the game safe and promote its safety.
Also, one reason that football rates are dropping disproportionately along class lines has nothing to do with the so-called "Attack on Football" and more to do with sport specialization. Upper class and upper-middle class families can afford to spend $5000 a year on Johnny playing baseball year round in hopes of ever-overrated scholarship. So they do. And Johnny never plays football or basketball or soccer or tennis. He plays baseball and, in most cases, he stops playing after senior year of high school and he's missed out on all those other sports. To me, that's the bigger issue in sports today.
December 22nd, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^
Sorry to be redundant, but..
The Beckam example is perfect. Everybody cares until a superstar does it or it hurts their team. He should be done for the year and some next year if they really want to discourage this behavior.
The Economics of youth football, hockey and baseball (live in the suburbs and see how much money dads spend on pitching/hitting/fielding lessons) have more to do with participation issues. You have equipment for at least 30 kids, fields, liability, etc. Football is expensive.
December 30th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
No doubt. It's a lot cheaper to buy your kids a basketball and a pair of basketball shoes than it is to purchase all the pads, helmet, etc. for football.
Making flag football the go to for youths before high school would also lessen the costs on parents whose children play football.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:15 AM ^
This from his blog post last April...
The AoF is a conspiracy born from the heads of those that believe in it.
Sony conflates CTE and Concussion by giving this movie its title. Football loses when parents don't understand the conflation and think that their son will get CTE if they are concussed. Sony did this to make money. When they did they attacked football (that is the thought that sprang from my head.)
I don't see a commensurate increase in baseball. This is from the politicizing link I shared in the diary post.
Lacrosse is not shown here. I assume that has a huge uptick. Soccer and Track and Field gain as well. There is no study showing family income in this article, but the losses are disproportionately in northern states. Kids can play both baseball and football due to seasons.
I will have to check this out more in depth.
100% agree on the Beckham hit. Those calls need to be made. The NFL tracks hits on defenseless players. Those are down year on year as of last year. I'm not sure about this season.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:18 PM ^
Nice post.
I don't know if the decline is really that significant, though. It looks to be less than 1% based on the graph you supplied. Basketball is the next biggest drop - maybe a half a percent. Basketball rarely has concussion talks (though it should, just as any other contact sport), but it is experiencing loss and also at a time when it's professional counterpart is experiencing record popularity.
It's interesting. I still go back to sport specialization. You're right that, traditionally, baseball and football are in different seasons. But now just about every sport is year round - for those families that will pay for it. Baseball players play in fall ball leagues. Lacrosse players play in weekend fall leagues. Soccer is the worst - with travel season in the spring/summer, a winter season in addition to the normal fall season. US Soccer is actually encouraging specialization. They schedule their elite academy leagues to coincide with high school soccer, forcing kids to quit their school teams.
January 11th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^
that most parents don't do the research. They hear someone say the words concussion and football in the same sentence and they go berserk. I will never downplay the seriousness of the concussion issue, but i am also not going to believe every "expert" claiming he is the end/all on the topic.
December 22nd, 2015 at 5:14 PM ^
FYI, using 3D graphs with 2D data (and often even with 3D data) is a huge no-no in the dataviz world. All it does is make it harder to interpret.
But I appreciate your thoughts. CTE is looking like a big problem, and I think the health of athletes should always be the priority.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:11 AM ^
I went down the excel path for the down and dirty result and made a bad choice. I would fix it along with some silly typos but ROI is small relative to resetting the post date and other glitches that are possible with Live Writer. Opening a Live Writer post with the Drupal editor efs the formatting.
I won't do that again - I take your point.
December 22nd, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^
Doesn't Sony have to get permission from the league in order to use league logos and trademarks in the movie? Why wouldn't the NFL just deny use of them, forcing Sony to make a movie using a "fictional" league and teams?
December 22nd, 2015 at 6:49 PM ^
Without getting into the complex legal specifics of trademark law, the short answer is no--Sony doesn't need permission. Sony could get sued certainly if they portray the NFL in an egregious/false way (e.g., there's a "commissioner" in the film that snorts a bunch of blow, parties with hookers, and basically ignores all league problems presented to him--that would be quite unrealistic). I imagine the producers took care to stick as close to reality as possible, focusing more on the doctor's story and implications, and less on official league response.
December 22nd, 2015 at 7:44 PM ^
he doesn't ignore all league problems presented to him?
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:27 AM ^
December 22nd, 2015 at 11:18 PM ^
Football isn't the only sport with this problem so I don't really get the "my kid won't play football" when hockey and soccer with heading is just as bad.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^
Well, concussions in soccer don't come from heading the ball - they come from collisions more often.
CTE stuff and repeated, improper heading... who knows at this point.
December 30th, 2015 at 7:09 PM ^
those collisions happen very often while at least one player is trying to head the ball. Usually when two attempt to head it and their heads collide. So those collisions tend to be the result of trying to head the ball.
The other danger event is goalkeepers getting kneed/kicked in the head when going down for the ball.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:41 AM ^
OK, we shouldn't generalize the problem as "concussions". So what? It seems pretty conclusive to me that CTE is caused by severe and/or repeated (sub-) concussive blows to the head. Yes, maybe Sony is over-simplifying for the sake of marketing, which can be dangerous. But at the end of the day--whether caused by concussions, MTBI, etc., the root cause you always arrive at is blows to the head. Yes, the statistical analysis may, on its face, only show correlation between CTE and age of entry and duration of participation in the sport. But if these factors were causal, we'd see the same incident rate of CTE in all sports, yes? I think we can take it as a given that people enter most if not all team sports at ages as young/old as football (and one might hypothesize that it is trending younger than football, given many youth football programs are going away from pads/tackle to flag), and play as long as football (and one might hypothesize longer, given the wear and tear football seems to impose on the body). And then you state that incidents of CTE are "very rare outside football players, boxers and hockey players." This seems at odds with your earlier points about correlation? And you state AoF is seasonal...where's the data on that?
When you point out Sony's conflation, and use the phrase "Attack on Football", it comes across to me as a covert play on emotion and deflects people away from the real issue: how to make the game safer. If anything, eliminating this conflation only increases the "attack", because the frequency of sub- and/or concussive blows is higher than just "concussions". If you see evidence that people are overreacting or missing the mark in terms of potential solutions, then show data on that and make that argument.
December 23rd, 2015 at 2:40 AM ^
There are known cases of CTE where there is no history of concussion. You can either assume the history is wrong or change your model. You are absolutely right - the common denominator is blows to the head. That is the model for CTE.
Concussion however requires a severe blow. Multiple concussions - especially ones experienced concurrently without time to heal have their own long term issues aside from CTE.
Both problems are fixable. The two are not the same. The solutions are not the same. We can eliminate all concussions from the game and still have CTE. This movie title conflates the two and makes matters worse. As does the NFL's refusal today to fund in vivo testing for CTE. Eliminating conflation decreases the "attack" and gets people on the same page toward both solutions.
Football has more head contact than most all other sports. That is why we don't see this in the same way in other sports. Flag football is great as is 7 on 7.
Constant change in BKMs complicates the CTE and concussion data when compared year to year or decade to decade. The increase to base 300 lb linemen in the 70s is case and point.
The AoF is seasonal because policy and rules are set seasonally. Jim and John Harbaugh made their statements assuming the "AoF" in March and April for good reason. That is when they are meeting with high school coaches to talk about issues in the game and best known practices. That is the season for those sort of discussions. Already the staffing changes are being made for next year. Once staffing is done training, practice personnel and finally gameplans will be drawn out. The AoF policies will be set in this period leading up to spring ball. Right now they are being evaluated.
I think you are overreacting and missing the mark in terms of potential solutions if you don't agree with what I just posted. My data is your impending response. I kid.
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:00 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 2:50 AM ^
for conflating CTE and Concussion. Outside of this diary I would say $$$ -"Dolla Dolla Bill Y'all".
You will have to ask Jim and John Harbaugh that question as I think they have different ideas. Note the term is theirs.
The answer to this is different depending on who is defending the game (and for what purpose.)
December 23rd, 2015 at 5:47 AM ^
I think a better term would be a "Threat to Football" because CTE is indeed a threat to the existence of the sport.
When a 40-year old player's brain looks like it is 80 years old, it is a threat to football, because it's a terrible outcome for that person that no decent society wants to have.
Fortunately, there are a lot of solutions:
- Helmet technology
- Measurement technology
- Better tackling techniques
- Probably lots of other creative things (like limiting the # of plays per player per year, or even changing the field to slow down the game a bit)
The NFL and the powers that be need to move on this stuff quickly before more parents steer their kids into different directions ... which indeed is where the threat becomes real.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:06 AM ^
Harbaugh is anything but bad copy.
Tagliabue screwed the pooch here dating back to 1994.
Goodell continues the hurt as recently as yesterday. This link got buried but the NFL just backed out of in vivo CTE studies for all the wrong reasons. This is worthy of its own board post. Looks like the NFL wants the tax payers to pick up this bill.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:02 AM ^
I saw Concussion two nights ago at a private event (my wife happens to be related to Jordyn Wieber, who was having a pre-screening in the Lansing area).
To me, this isn't really a "spoiler" type movie... we're not talking Star Wars here. Concussion is a "message" movie; but if you're an "OMG NO SPOILERS!!!" type, I'll try to not get into specifics, but you might want to move past this post.
The movie, surprisingly to me, really explored the more nefarious lengths the NFL went to in order to "surpress" the Omalu findings. I thought it would gloss over some of those things as (at least I *thought*) that the NFL gave some sort of tacit "nod" to allowing the movie to be made... i.e. the league didn't "endorse" it, but didn't fight it; presumably with the understanding that it wouldn't get "smeared" too bad in the film. Well... the film smears them pretty good. So, my assumption there was wrong.
To appeal to a wider audience, the film incorporates a "love story" element for Omalu, with a lot of "pep talks" from his significant other. These, to me, watered things down a touch. I would have preferred a more documentary type style. Movies often have to spoon feed audiences information to get them up to speed, and you feel that happening here. A necessary device no doubt, but it creates a melodrama that, given the subject matter, probably wasn't necessary. There's a religious bent and a "what it means to be an American message" that I, personally, also found to be distracting.
None-the-less, I was surprised at the shots that are taken at the NFL concerning harrassing Omalu, strong arm tactics, siccing the FBI on Dr. Wecht, surpressing what they knew and how long they knew it... towards the end it feels as though a compromise is reached along the lines of "so long as the players understand the risks they're taking, and we're not hiding it anymore, things will improve" but then the movie closes with a high school practice where two kids collide helmet to helmet. That's the movie's final message; along with a statistic that 28% of all NFL players will encounter some form of CTE in their lifetime, per scientific estimates. The movie makes you think, but it wasn't so immensely compelling that it will serve to drive the narrative any further than it was already destined to go. You learn that it was the death of Dave Duerson that really forced the league to open up.
We already know that a culture change, in addition to rules changes, will have to occur for the sport to thrive long term. Classic tackling and blocking techniques often put the "attacker" at risk. The old "hat and hands!!" mantra will have to go away. But more importantly, making unnecessary contact with an opponents head will need to simply be unnacceptable on a player to player level. It will need more of that hockey mentality of "there are some things that are bush league - some things you just don't do" type of understanding.
December 23rd, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
football as it is being played now is in trouble. With players being bigger, faster and trained to be hard hitting the incidents of injuries has reached alarming levels. Watching the NFL, it seems as though every 4-5 plays a player is injured. No amount of equipment advances will protect the players from the violent nature of the sport.
Concussions are only one of many injury issues plaguing the sport.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
If football changes in ways that make it safer, and 110,000 of us still go to Michigan Stadium and millions of us irrationally let wins and losses determine our mood, and I still have reasons to wear Michigan shirts and fly Michigan flags and see things in biased ways that Buckeyes and Spartans disagree with...then I don't see the problem.
December 23rd, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^
This post stimulates an important debate. As a doctor who has written a book on the neurosciences, however, I share the view of many here that calling one viewpoint the “attack on football”—no matter where that term originated-- is misleading. It’s like Danny Kannel calling it a “war on football” (see link below). Terms like “attack” or “war” tend to make people choose sides, pitting the good against the bad. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple.
Many of us love watching football. We also admire the Harbaughs and think they are genuinely concerned about the welfare of athletes. Indeed, at the risk of negative publicity, Jim recently refused to play a disgruntled 4-5* athlete who had repeated concussions and other problems. Such actions reassuringly suggest efforts to control risk. Such efforts contrast with the NFL’s apparent suppression of knowledge about CTE, which has now made the risks of professional FB seem disturbingly unknown and uncontrolled.
As some here have suggested, the cinema does distort facts but you are doing the same. By characterizing a cinematic viewpoint merely as part of an “attack,” you may unintentionally do exactly what the NFL PR people would like: to negatively label one view of the facts.
More specifically, it is misleading to just say that “Concussions do not cause CTE. They don't really correlate even.” A lack of correlation—even if you had actual data to demonstrate this--would not imply a lack of causation. It could be due to a lack of linearity or statistical power or control for confounding factors as well as an insufficient range of variation. Indeed, if CTE could not be caused by repeated concussions severe enough to cause symptoms, then why on earth would it be caused by lesser, subconcussive events that cause no symptoms? Why would CTE even be defined as “traumatic”?
Granted, it is hard to estimate the incidence and prevalence of CTE in FB. The Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy estimates that if one assumes that all deceased players who did not come to autopsy did not have CTE, the rate in the NFL would be about 3-4%. However, that would vary by factors like position and duration of exposure, as well as the age at the time of head trauma. Thus, the NFL players will be at much higher risk than college or HS because of the duration and intensity of play and practice. Also, maybe even the NFL rate is declining with improvements in equipment and after the rules such as those prohibiting helmet to helmet contact.
The question is: what else needs to be done? There are some good suggestions in this thread. I also wonder: Do we need to disqualify players who have had too many concussions, as Jim Harbaugh did? Should we further limit practices, which contribute to sub-concussive injuries? Should the NFL—also the NCAA-- also be more vigilant against the use of steroids. These drugs may not cause CTE directly but may still increase the endless “arms race” toward stronger and stronger players, who cause more severe injuries.
Listen to SB Nation presents: The war on football is just the latest dumb, make-believe 'war' in the link: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/12/22/10645278/nfl-withdraws-funding-cte-concussion-study
CSTE link . http://www.bu.edu/cte/about/frequently-asked-questions/
December 23rd, 2015 at 5:11 PM ^
Politically, economicially and sociologically issues do fall out good vs. bad. In fact attitudes toward football are falling out unevely accross political and social boundaries. The AoF is an unfortunate term but accurate in that people in the know actually think it exists. People don't clamor for change based on insufficient data. What is going on with the AoF is a misdirection in the case of this particular essay (and maybe in all people who purport an AoF.) If it gets people to come to grips with truth then AoF is good. If it gets people to think falsehoods... let's discuss it on its merits. Yes, by all means let's drop that term. But until people in the know do that we need to take it head on.
Aaron Gordon does a nice take down on the AoF and Why Football Matters as well here...it has issues but all opinion does.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-football-doesnt-matter-by-not-john-harbaugh
We don't know the details of the 4/5*. To the extent we don't we are only conjecturing. I agree it looks good for Michigan especially compared to the Shane debacle.
Concussions as a subset of blows to the head cause CTE as do non concussive blows. There are many factors that contribute to who does and doesn't get CTE. Position played is not a significant determinate (this is counter my intuition) in any study I have read. Data is limited since directed post mortem is required. 3-4% is nowhere near correct given the data IMO but that doesn't mean much.
The nomenclature of CTE is not indicative of it's nature. Traumatic wrt CTE is best determined by its effect not it's severity in force. In the same vein there is nothing Mild about Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The names used here are unfortunate. Scentists are not smart in all things it turns out. Naming is one of them.
December 23rd, 2015 at 6:42 PM ^
As I said, the CSTE qualified it, They based it on what they believe to be conservative assumptions. The link I provided from them also discusses some difficulties in defining clinical signs of CTE. If you disagree and want to advance our understanding of the risk of CTE in the NFL, however, you need to specify how you arrived at your opinions, based on a review of the literature. As it stands, you don't even say in what direction the authors erred.
December 23rd, 2015 at 5:40 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 24th, 2015 at 4:29 AM ^
This is stupid. Despite all the detail, yes it's stupid.
This is partially a attack on a movie that the OP has not even seen. My god, Hollywood isn't in the business of attacking national pastimes like football! That is not their business model. They are not in the business of making enemies with tens of millions of Americans.
But they will call out the tobacco industry, utility companies, Enron, and in this case the NFL. These are easy targets. It's easy to point out how dysfunctional these institutions are, and it's easy trigger viewer’s emotions agaist a secretive intitution and keep them on the edge of their seats. That's the business model. Fans! Attacking so a movie the OP hasn't seen and suggesting it's an attack on football is ridiculous.
And further, I'm sorry that the OP is upset that his favorite "spectator sport" is subject to reform because it causes brain damage. That point of view is in there. No one ever says it directly. But it's been told for thousands of years. Did anyone see GOT last season? The absurdity always makes for great drama. But what's wrong with maximizing safety? What's wrong with putting human life first? What's wrong with decency and compassion?
And this detailed discussion of CTE vs concussions is a red herring. It doesn't matter if CTE and concussion are not the same thing or only loosly related. We can't measure CTE and we can barely know when concussoins occur. Does that mean it's not important? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what you measure. They are both up. And CTE by the OPs logic is infinately more under reported and under measured than concussions. So the CTE problem is far worse than concussions and far worse than we can know.
Finally, why is it that we have to have these debates where people reference videos (or movies) and they clearly haven't even watched the video. Debating movies and videos based on inflamed, distorted, or completely inaccurate statements (Fiorina) without actually seeing it has become a national pastime. So I propose a new sport where folks who want to engage in debate about movies and videos they haven't seen enter a cage fight. And no helmets!
In other words, if you’re not willing to put your own brain at risk, then you have no right to offer an opinion that others should.
December 31st, 2015 at 12:02 AM ^
I'm not happy with the movie's representation of fact outside of the title either but it is a Hollywood movie based on a true story so the standard is low. There is no mention of sub-concussive blows contributing to CTE - but I wasn't expecting that either.
CTE may be underreported (yes I do think it is) but not everyone who plays football or suffers a blow to the head well get it. There are complicating factors made all the worse by the nature of the disease.
When we can test for CTE in vivo we will be able to sort this out. Until then....
Go Blue!
December 24th, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^
December 24th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
These guides ever and can help you to a great extent in a crisis situation. For example, if you are camping in the middle of the forest and you suddenly realize that you have lost your way, but I check the phone will be of no use, as you might not have the network in remote locations. a luxury travel blog best travel guides
Comments