Michigan Wolverines to don the color rosita on Saturday for breast cancer awareness...
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
Needs moar Upton.
Done and done.
She's even wearing pink.
There's a thing called "breast cancer"? I never would have known if my favorite college football team didn't add a silly color to their uniform and sideline attire in an effort to sell more merchandise.
Can't wait until we add some brown and purple in future weeks to remind everyone that you can also get cancer in your butthole and your balls.
If your balls are purple you might want to get that checked out.
His name is PurpleStuff...
What did you think that meant, anyway?
I read everything you write in the voice of Ron Swanson. It works very well with this post.
I can't tell what color my balls are. They are encased in some sort of fleshy sack. Is that normal?
Maybe I'm taking you way too seriously, but there have been a fair number of studies that have shown that the number of women getting screened/treated for breast cancer has skyrocketed since the breast cancer awareness campaign started in the 90's.
Its goal is not to educate snarky dudes who watch football; the goal is to continue the progress that the progress that events like this have already made. You may not think that football players wearing pink does much, but when multiple communities collectively increase awareness, it leads to earlier detection, less deaths, more research funding, and better treatment options.
is that the awareness campaign (which was SORELY needed at its inception) has made about as much progress in the area of breast cancer as it can realistically make. Studies show that awareness campaigns can actually decrease donations; people see their symbolic efforts as "doing their part" and don't provide as much tangible support.
I lost a father to cancer when I was 9, and I appreciate any efforts people make to combat it. It's just that there are real practical questions about the best ways to do so.
The problem is the pink breast cancer thing has become a brand that robs support from other cancers. At this point if breast cancer is detected early enough its removal is a simple out patient proceedure. When I was at the Cancer Center they were processing the breast cancer patients through like a machine. Come in, have surgery or radiation therapy, perhaps some followup chemo visits and off you go. Meanwhile leukemia patients are dying for all kinds of reasons, there are types of lymphona we don't even have names for yet, etc.
Last year the NCI logged 226,870 case of female breast cancer and 39,150 deaths due to breast cancer. A sub 20% death rate. Meanwhile leukemia was 47,150 new cases, with 23,540 death, or 49.9% death rate. Lymphona is 79,910 cases with 20,130 deaths, 25% death rate. As a fun side note, 241,740 cases of prostate cancer last year. 28,170 deaths. More cases with a lower death rate, despite not having everyone decked out in brown and reminders get a finger stuck up your ass regularly.
It is very frustrating to see people like Komen set themselves up as the "donate to us and feel like you did your part against cancer" folk. Then they turn around and piss a bunch of money way in a spat with Planned Parent hood and then damage control PR. Komen even sues other charities for using pink or having relay events, claiming a trademark over pink and "race for the cure". Instead of being happy other people are racing money for cancer awareness, they're lawyering up and pissing away potential research money in court battles. The whole has taken on an aura of certain charities trying to stake a claim to donations made to fight a specific type of cancer, so they can skim a bit off the top for administration expenses. ACS is better (thankfully they're the NFL's primary pink partner, but Komen does have ties to some specific teams), but I pulled up their webpage, three of of their four front page topics are on breast cancer. They also have a high amount of overhead.
Beast cancer awareness is important, and getting checked on is key to avoiding being one of the 20% of die. However focusing solely on breast cancer hurts a lot of other research by making it less trendy/fundable/etc. I'll bet some MGoPoints that if you call up the Cancer Center and ask which cancer they'd like more money to study, the doctors aren't going to say breast cancer.
At the end of the day I'll just encourage people who might want to buy auctioned off pink gear to just call up the UMHS Cancer Center and donate directly. You don't get the pink cleats, but you get the knowledge your money won't get pissed away in a trademark battle over a color or a relay race.
Like you said, things started to improve long before Peyton Manning began wearing pink socks. I would imagine/hope every kind of cancer/disease has received increased attention and better treatment as methods/care improve in the last 20 years.
No one of reasonable intelligence isn't "aware" that breast cancer exists. Even those who aren't "aware" will still get the kind of advanced screening/treatment you talk about based on their overall level of health coverage. And I'm pretty sure every doctor in America is "aware" of breast cancer. Those who aren't going to the doctor regularly anyway are going to be just as fucked if they have the misfortune of being afflicted with this (or any other) disease.
I'm not opposed to curing diseases or seeing people get better medical care. Acting like football teams wearing a touch of pink to promote one articular disease makes that happen in any meaningful way is kind of silly. Every gameday should be an All Disease and Suffering Eradication Day. I'd be a lot happier if a portion of every ticket sold went to all medical research than to see the athletic department selling pink gear once a year and everybody patting ourselves on the back.
"Acting like football teams wearing a touch of pink to promote one articular disease makes that happen in any meaningful way is kind of silly."
This is the same logic used by people who say their votes don't matter. They're right on an individual level, but this is a community wide project.
The goal is not to know that breast cancer exists. Its to keep up with current guidelines an screening recommedations. Yes, every women knows that breast cancer exists. But does every woman know the guidelines to when they should get screened? Of course not. Not every disease deserves the same attention as one that occurs in one in 9 women. I don't think it's that crazy to think one woman will watch this game an say "oh shit, I'm a year overdue for my screening." Or a college girl who lost a mother to breast cancer says "hmm that reminds me, maybe I should google the latest recommendations for screening timelines"
regardless, i don't know why you have such a problem with our football team showing solidarity with women fighting breast cancer, and assume its a money ploy.
but that doesn't mean that these "awareness campaigns" don't come with a fair amount of baggage these days.
You've got the whole political turmoil with Komen and their funding decisions, the lawsuits against 100s of small worthy cancer charities that dared use the phrase "for the cure" (like cupcakes for the cure) that are now being threatened leagally. The increasingly small % of money that actually goes to critical cancer research . . . etc.
Helping charities is wonderful, and something Michigan should be doing.
But hello, it's 2012 and there are easilily 100 other serious illnesses & worthwile foundations that the university and specifically the football team could be supporting that are more in need & aren't as controversial at the moment.
What I'm saying is Michihgan Football's contribution to breast cancer research is an infitesimal drop in the cancer research bucket, they should find a different bucket & choose to fill it instead. WOW factor for all involved.
I get that breast cancer awareness is important and all that but honestly, at this point I find all this "pink week" stuff to be downright obnoxious. It's overdone, and frankly it seems unfair to all the other medical causes out there (not to mention non-medical charities) that could use more exposure that breast cancer hogs the spotlight.
I'll give the Susan G. Komen foundation this much: it must have some amazingly effective lobbyists.
I gave $1 to breast cancer research at Kroger today, and that was a whole $1 more than the NFL managed to donate despite their ridiculous pink chinstrap campaign. Just think if Nike/NFL/Wilson pooled the $20 million they spent on pink accessories and donated it to a research facility, but then how else would the NFL sell official breast cancer game balls for only $129.99!? They couldn't!
Even the Buckeye gets it.
Wins the internet today.
kind of thing that I have avoided criticizing because it is like being the guy that says no to volunteering at a soup kitchen for a day, but this pink thing.....
"Leaders and Breasts". Kind of weird
I like 'em.
Probably just the pink wristbands and such like previous years.
*Random picture I found online, NOT evidence.
Give them to the basketball team...couldn't be any more disliked than what they're wearing...
Pink jerseys with highlighter shoes? What a combo. Dave Brandon, are you listening?
September was prostate cancer awareness month. Why did Michigan not wear light blue for that? With so many various types of cancer it is amazing the amount of publicity breast cancer garners.
breast cancer gets more publicity because of the obvious, but males can also be afflicted with the disease. So there's that.
Girlfriend had bilateral mastectomy last week and her dad had breast cancer a few years ago. Our view is that no matter how they approach it, the presence of the message is doing more good than bad. Even if the research only receives 10% of the proceeds, it's more than they had before. Also, research into breast cancer is not only helping to cure/prevent breast cancer, it can/will help to fight all cancers eventually. The pink is just a rallying point to get started.
All cancer is fucking horrible. This has become a cheap marketing gimmick that the NFL pioneered and now college teams appear to be copying. They sell more pink-trimmed hats, jerseys, etc., and you add a cheesy "Ladies Night" element to games in the mistaken hope that this will make women who aren't watching football now suddenly care deeply about the sport.
I'm pretty sure you could make a bigger, broader dent in the problem by airing the Jimmy V speech at halftime or between quarters of every college sporting event, but that would only make money for people trying to fight an awful disease.
There's not a governing body of all charity efforts that regulates who gets what. Breast cancer gets more attention because the people running the breast cancer programs are better publicists and organizers than those involved with other disease awareness efforts. Football is really a perfect match for breast cancer I think, because the effort and the sport are such polar opposites. Basically, if these macho guys will wear pink for this effort then maybe the millions of men watching will realize how big a deal it is and what they can do to help. It's not their fault that other charities don't have such a good marketing strategy. If you're focusing purely on what is the worst and "most deserving" of attention, then really the most attention should go to getting people off their asses, because cardiovascular disease is by far the biggest killer in America. If you both are that concerned about the colors teams are wearing you're missing the point by a mile. All cancer IS horrible, so I could care less if the NFL makes some money out of the deal if it raises awareness and money at the same time.
Is that these campaigns are spurred by the American cancer society. Take the nfl campaign, where 5% of sales go to the ACS. The rest? Owners' pockets.
Link? I would but I don't think I could bring myself to post Jezebel on here.
I was just about to bring up "pink washing" and the nuances of gendered marketing myself
So many of the coaches, players and fans have been personally affected by breast cancer, due to the diagnosis of a mother/sister/aunt/wife. So people can relate..and I actually think even though this is specific to breast cancer awareness, it does increase awareness and support of many of these illnesses.
But, the bottom line is breast cancer advocates are organized. just like the AIDS advocates in the 90s. they got shit done because they were loud and organized. It was a different style, but being organized and rallying is what is going on.
I embrace it. I get to buy a new M hat, and I like pink, not as much as blue, but a little pink trim looks sweet.
And many coaches, players and fans have been personally affected by prostate, lung, liver and other cancers, not to mention heart disease, arthritis, Alzheimer's, autism, osteoporosis, depression...
About it..organize for your cause.. Because that is the difference.
You had me until "could care less."
I see it all the time and it is a deal breaker for me. We need to start a campaign against the misuse of that phrase. Fucking read it, people. Does that fucking sound right to you?!11!!
Don't kid yourself. Women will buy pink Michigan stuff. Just like women will buy pink NFL stuff. Men will not buy light blue Michigan stuff (or NFL stuff).
This isn't about charity, if they really wanted to make a difference they'd focus on prostate cancer and reach 60% of their audience or so. This is purely about getting more female fans.
Now, does that make it bad? No, of course not, like much of capitalism we receive a positive from people trying to make money (in this case some money goes to breast cancer research). But don't kid yourself, this is about getting women to like Michigan Football.
However, if the pink campaign was about "breaking down barriers of getting checked for men" and raising awareness about breast cancer in men, as you attest, the campaign wouldn't be based on a color overwhelmingly associated with women. The campaign overall is a good thing, but you should realize that "raising awareness" and "dialogue" are marketing efforts that make the consumer feel good for buying whatever they're buying (in this case Michigan stuff).
If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that this is about 2,200 men being diagnosed with breast cancer that's fine by me, but you should also realize that 241,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2012 and that 1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with it in their lifetime. If Michigan Football was simply trying to "raise awareness" and effectively help prevent cancer, it would focus on prostate cancer because 60% of its fanbase are men. Michigan Football participates in breast cancer awareness, but not prostate cancer awareness, because of marketing, which is what the person I was responding to was talking about.
Glad to see the support for breat cancer awareness. My mom is a breast cancer survivor so this means a lot. It's great to see the support across the various professional leagues and college sports
Why not money for breast cancer prevention? Sufficient vitamin D3, eating non-GMO foods, etc. can lower your risk. Instead we pour money into mammograms which deform and radiate the breast, actually causing cancer.
What does money for breast cancer prevention mean? I would think it would be raising awareness regarding risk factors, and raising money for research about the causes... I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing now.
but when did GMO's get linked to cancer? Sounds like the stuff of a conspiracy blog
Yes, dietary and environmental factors affect breast cancer development, however, to propose the minimal radiation dose used for a mammogram is cancer causing is false. There are multiple modalities that can be used to detect small, non palpable cancers. MRI, ultrasound and mammography all have their roles, with mammography being the most cost effective and efficient for screening. Please cite your reference that proposes screening mammography CAUSES cancer.
As a radiologist, I read thousands of mammograms a year, and the benefits are proven daily.
Unfortunately N=1 is a terrible study. You need to look at the broad scope studies that look at data from around the country and analyze that. I don't know what the research is on the benefits of breast cancer, but I know with the PSA test for prostate cancer, just a harmless blood test actually does more harm than good. I'm sure there are false positives with mamograms, or non malignant tumors that are detected and removed when they never would have hurt the patient anyway.
I have looked at studies on cost/benefit/risk of mammography. That's my job. My point is: not only do the studies advocate for screening mammography, but I anecdotally see the benefits daily as well (N = 1). Perhaps you should read them too, prior to clumping PSA with screening mammography. Not the same animal.
That whole idea that taking a blood test actually does more harm than good is nothing but a falsehood perpetuated by the people who don't want to pay for it. The same group of people that said you shouldn't bother with mamograms until you're in your 40's. The convenient truth they ignore when they say it causes more harm than good is that the guys who do get tested and they catch the cancer early enough live many more years but all they focus on are the few problems that can arise from having surgery. My dad is still alive today because of that blood test so maybe I'm partial but this whole idea that testing for cancer causes more harm than good screams of a pathetic attempt by insurance companies (the gov't included) in trying to save a buck. What's next? Yearly phsyicals cause more harm than good because you may find out something it wrong that otherwise you wouldn't have known? What about cholesterol screenings? The new federal health care plan will only pay for them once every 5 years whereas before most people have them covered once a year - tell me that isn't just some BS about trying to save a buck at the expense of the health of Americans...
Anecdotal Evidence from your one experience is not enough for you to make blanket sweeping statements regarding health decisions for everyone.
the National Cancer Society (not an insurance company) does not operate based on "what costs the least money." They operate on what is best for everyone, and they do not reccomend that women below the age of 40 get mammograms without good cause.
You're demonstrating a lead time bias in your analysis. Take this example:
Day 1 = your first prostate cell turns cancerous
Day 100 = you die from prostate cancer
Scenario A: you wait until you have symptoms of prostate cancer before you go to the doctor. This occurs on day 75 because the cancer has to get big enough to start interrupting your normal functions. Your survival is 25 days after diagnosis.
Scenario B: you have a test done that can identify the cancer before it starts causing symptoms. You get your diagnosis on day 50. Your survival is 50 days after diagnosis.
Don't confuse survival time after diagnosis with actual increases in survival. Both of these scenarios end with the person living 100 days with cancer. Regarding prostate cancer, two large studies in the US and Europe demonstrate no significant differences in survival for prostate cancer with PSA screening at any age.
For breast cancer screenings, the data NEVER suggested that these tests be done in your 40s. The original data sets from the 60s and 70s all said start when you're 50. It was actually several politicians who had family members who died in their 40s from breast cancer who advocated for the old guidelines. All the actual data say 50.
Please consider the data before you start criticizing everything. Please go check my bank account--us scientists aren't getting paid big bucks to lie to the public. Also--USPSTF guidelines on screening DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COSTS. They are strictly based on benefits vs harm to the patient.
Deform and cause breast cancer? Source, please.
...but must caution you that there is no link between GM foods and cancer.
There are other diseases that athletics could also show their support for in addition to breast cancer...
Now that's just crazy talk.
The people that are lining their pockets with this campaign. The "message" has been overused, and too many people are making money with it.
are their traditonal home colors of maize and blue, the wristbands, towels and gloves can be what ever color they want.
I'm all for breast cancer awareness, but you DON"T mess with the home uni or the helmet for any reason anytime for any game. The bull shit of splashy uniforms to attract recruits is crap! It's bush league, it's beneath Michigan standards. It's something Sparty does.
USC, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma haven't done it, don't do it and won't do it and these schools are traditionally if not ALWAYS in the top 5 in recruiting. If you're good and have a quality program you don't need gimmicks to attract the best players. PERIOD!
You do know that we messed with our home uniform just last season right?
This is one of the best titled threads I've ever seen.
As a reward, I give you this.
might be doing that for Justin
It would be much more helpful if they put donation boxes at the gates on Saturday! It would easily raise $250,000 or more .... and dollars are much more important than another "awareness" reminder in fighting this dreaded disease.
What a perfect combination.
Money goes to one of the top cancer centers in the country and THE leader and best in cutting edge cancer research (and in particular breast cancer):
Ugh. Is it politically incorrect to say that I'm sick of all this boobie love? Why don't other diseases get as much attention? Isn't heart disease the leading cause of death for both men and women?
On a related note, if only the NFL cared as much about concussions as they pretended to care about breast cancer.
nothing sells better than twisting a deadly disease into a sexual campaign to "save" our mothers' titties.
While it may be a cynical viewpoint, it's been said that the NFL's Breast Cancer Awareness campaign isn't rooted in pure altruism. Rather, it's a way to help market to and grow the female fanbase.
This is actually a huge pet peeve of my wife. Sure, breast cancer is a killer of many, many women. But there are a ton of other diseases out there, many of which have virtually no current treatment, that do not get nearly as much exposure. Take ALS (Lou gherig'sdisease). there is no treatment, zero survival rate and those afflicted die horribly. Same goes for Many other neuro diseases, as well as pancreatic an other cancers. Yet breast cancer gets disproportionately more attention.
Not saying that this is not a hold cause - it is - bit you raise a great point.
Wouldn't they raise more money by simply giving the money that they spend on pink wrist bands to charity? Everyone knows about breast cancer, the only people whose awareness you are raising are too young to have any money to give to medical research.
Lung cancer. Quit smoking, ladies.....
Iung cancer has the highest mortality rate but breast cancer has the highest absolute incidence rate in the U.S.
That is exceedingly false.
Pancreatic cancer has a long-term mortality rate of nearly 94% Lung cancer has a long-term mortality rate of 84%
Sort of. Breast cancer has the highest occurrence rate in women of all cancers - i.e. more women get breast cancer than any other cancer. However, more women die of lung cancer in absolute numbers. The reason for this is the while more women get breast cancer, it has a higher survival rate (whereas lung cancer has a lower survival rate).
Pancreatic cancer has one of the worst survival rates, but because it affects far fewer people, it is not as prevalent of a killer of women.
I stand corrected. Still, you need to quit smoking, ladies.....
It is more of a fasion statement than awareness.
it's kind of funny that the NFL has been doing breast cancer awareness for years while trying their hardest to pretend they aren't aware of any link between pro football and traumatic brain injuries?
While it may have started with Snyder's wife, it is an NFL campaign. The league is behind the marketing and fund raising, which includes licensed pink gear for every team.
This year's tribute happens to coincide -- probably deliberately -- with the Saturday when UM will be honoring Gerald Ford with the Legend patch. First Lady Betty Ford was a breast cancer survivor and activist. Some good content at this link. http://www.spectrumhealth.org/bettyford
Founded all of those breast health clinics. Oh wait, her work was all about addiction. Maybe they could honor her by having an event to raise money to help the addicted.
Johnnie Walker black?
In all seriousness, why not just an embroidered pink ribbon this weekend? I get the sense that these corporate citizenship/social responsibility moves are more about good marketing benefiting the wearer more than the cancer survivor, recovering alcoholic, etc.
+1 for the thread title.
The silly thing is, the National Cancer Society does not reccomend women under 40 to get mammograms without good reason. The false positive rate is high among younger women so it can actually cause more harm than good.
Give the money to cancer research rather this once worn equipment and Unis.
What DIABEETUS said above ^^^. I think I learned more in this thread than any other I've read in my years on this here Board. +1 for everyone.
At most, 3.5% of jersey sales go to actual research. The rest into other people's pockets.
I swear, just don't touch the uniforms or I'm gonna be pissed.
The pink gear is SUCH a marketing ploy it's unreal. I see high school teams wearing & selling pink stuff now.
Enough is enough. Unless 100 or maybe even 50% of the proceeds benefit the ACS, forget it.
Wearing pink ( and giving a whole month) to breast cancer awareness is cool and all but the leading killer of women is heart disease....And if they think were wearing red on our uniforms thier nuts..i hate the color RED
Is also domestic violence awareness month. Let's wear some purple to honor the COUNTLESS victims of this terrible epidemic. Cancer is awful, I have lost 4 close family members to cancer. What is more awful is that people are making so much money off of pink things like "I heart Boobies" bracelets. How can these organizations be taken seriously with that type of stuff? Would the heads of these organizations stand on a podium and say "Boobie cancer needs to end!"?
My cynical, conspiracy theorist side wants to let you all know, without basis of evidence, that without these campaigns, a cure for cancer may have already been achieved. You can't make money off of something that does not exist.
...also "Detroit Tigers need our support to win the World Series month" so I think Michigan should add orange to their uniforms and temporarily replace the winged helmet with an olde English D.
Sounds stupid but it's really just about as logical as all this fucking pink shit everywhere.
I'm supportive of the cause.
I just really, really hate the color pink.
One of my former roommates in Ann Arbor is now an epidemiologist at Columbia in NYC.
Dan & I had this discussion years ago, and I just called him to verify what I vaguely remembered. He would concur with the general premise in many of the posts, namely, there are some popular disease causes that receive lots of funding, when there are other diseases with a much higher mortality rate that aren't so popular in terms of funding. If you are interested, just do a google search on "causes of mortality" and you can find charts galore, from WHO (World Health Organization) and the CDC and others.
Of course, the definition for a serious disease is one that affects me, or affects someone I love. If I'm sick, or my wife is sick, or my kids or folks or sisters are sick, then I care about it. That's true for almost all of us. Because so many of us know women who have had breast cancer, it is a high visibility disease. This also affects a number of women somewhat in the prime of life, rather than only at the latter stages.
Unfortunately, there is also the PR and peer pressure aspect of something like breast cancer awareness. Last season, my son (i.e., "me,") was "offered" the opportunity to buy a pink helmet sticker for $10. I thought it was a waste of money, but when Kyle was the only one without a sticker, you kind of feel like you have to do something. This year, when his feet grew and we went to play it again sports for the next size up, he found some awesome cleats with pink studs/spikes on the bottom and pink laces. So he gets the cred for wearing pink, when the reality is, they were great, cheap football cleats.
As long as it's small, like a patch or a helmet sticker, I'm okay with it. Please dear God no pink jersey though.
I think supporting those with cancer is awesome. I think seeing pink during football every year now is getting old and thanks to CRex I don't have to be a bad person to say that. I made the same remark about there being more variety of cancers that are more deadly to my wife when she jumped on me for complaining about all the pink in the NFL. Unfortunately, now my favorite team will probably do this every year. I'm not heartless. I lost a co-worker to lymphona and have seen many suffer from cancer. I think it is just better to give directly to research and I'm not a fan of for profit promotions. It feels dirty when so much money is made off of people's well intentioned giving. Feels dirty.....
I don't think it makes you heartless to be tired of all the pinkwashing. As has been well-recorded already, a lot of it is just crass marketing nonsense, and not only that but the onslaught of pink has a way of sending the message that there's only one kind of cancer that matters. If I had some other kind of cancer or a family member did, I'd probably be downright offended, as if the presence of a better marketing machine and more PR people made breast cancer more important.
the home uniform last year. That is exactly my point. THEY WERE HORRENDOUS! They looked stupid. The maize and blue bumble bee thing didn't convince anyone to come to Michigan to play football.
Just like Alabama's crimson helmets with a single white stripe and e the plain looking unis didn't convince one 17 or 18 yr old kid to commit somewhere else.
They change uniforms to make money and drive the sales for the manufacturer. It doesn't improve recruiting. If a kid goes to Oregon simply because of the uniforms, let him go. I don't want him. The kids go there to play that style of football. They may like the unis, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the recruiting class.
If you base your donations on what color a football team adds to their uniform shame on you. If you are mad because one form of cancer gets more attention than another you are missing the point. If you think survival rates of breast cancer aren't related to publicity you must be out of your mind. The earlier breast cancer is caught the better the survival rate, this is a fact. If your preferred form of cancer is not getting the publicity you think it deserves, it is not Susan B Kolmen's families fault it is yours. Start your own foundation raise the money and yell from the roof tops. I can't understand why people think that someones preffered cause is bad because it is successful. People are out walking, wearing pink or what ever the hell these crazy women do because they were likely effected and don't want someone else to go through it. If your cause is "ass cancer" and you think people should wear brown so guys will remember to get the finger tickle, make that your cause. Or if you think that too many mamograms are causing breast cancer, besides the facts, make that your cause. But being upset because your team is wearing pink and it messes up the look of there classic uniform you are just dumb. Cancer is more important than football.