Leaders & Breasts: Michigan to wear pink Saturday vs. Illini
October 11th, 2012 at 11:26 PM ^
October 11th, 2012 at 11:28 PM ^
Needs moar Upton.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:07 AM ^
Done and done.
She's even wearing pink.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:09 AM ^
She is?
October 12th, 2012 at 9:52 AM ^
She really is the perfect female specimen on the planet right now.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^
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.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:42 PM ^
If your balls are purple you might want to get that checked out.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:43 PM ^
/NotThatThere'sAnythingWrongWithThat
October 12th, 2012 at 12:43 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 8:04 AM ^
I read everything you write in the voice of Ron Swanson. It works very well with this post.
October 12th, 2012 at 4:02 PM ^
Everytime
October 12th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^
I can't tell what color my balls are. They are encased in some sort of fleshy sack. Is that normal?
October 12th, 2012 at 12:14 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:44 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:48 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:32 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:18 AM ^
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!
October 12th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
Even the Buckeye gets it.
October 12th, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 9:17 AM ^
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.....
October 11th, 2012 at 11:37 PM ^
"Leaders and Breasts". Kind of weird
October 12th, 2012 at 12:28 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 9:56 AM ^
I like breasts also.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:38 PM ^
Probably just the pink wristbands and such like previous years.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:45 PM ^
Not this*:
*Random picture I found online, NOT evidence.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 1:08 AM ^
Pink jerseys with highlighter shoes? What a combo. Dave Brandon, are you listening?
October 12th, 2012 at 9:27 AM ^
Somewhere Herm is having an aneurysm.
October 12th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^
Michigan basketball now sponsered by Hi-Liter, the original highlighing markers...
October 11th, 2012 at 11:39 PM ^
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.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:46 PM ^
breast cancer gets more publicity because of the obvious, but males can also be afflicted with the disease. So there's that.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:39 AM ^
October 11th, 2012 at 11:49 PM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:06 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:41 AM ^
Link? I would but I don't think I could bring myself to post Jezebel on here.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 12:56 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^
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...
October 14th, 2012 at 2:17 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 1:10 AM ^
You had me until "could care less."
October 12th, 2012 at 8:20 AM ^
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!!
October 12th, 2012 at 3:11 AM ^
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.
October 12th, 2012 at 11:35 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 5:10 PM ^
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.
October 19th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^
October 11th, 2012 at 11:44 PM ^
October 11th, 2012 at 11:48 PM ^
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.