OT - 85 percent of players polled would play in Super Bowl with a concussion
...In an NFL Nation anonymous survey, 85 percent of the 320 players polled said they would play in the Super Bowl with a concussion.
"We are competitors. We want to go out there and entertain. That's all we are. We're entertainers. Guys want to go out there," said Pollard, now with the Tennessee Titans. "They don't want to let themselves down. They don't want to let their teammates down. They want to go out there and play, not thinking about, 'OK, what can this affect later on down the line?' "...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10358874/majority-nfl-players-play-su…
January 28th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
It's not really surprising - they're people with an extremely high competitive drive and also are in the event that they wait their whole lives for; they also each want to make a difference and be 'the guy' at the big game as well. It's sad that they do want to, but completely understandable (which highlights the need for mandatory concussion testing and protocols that all teams follow).
January 28th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
File under: no shit
January 28th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
File under: " No shit I'll play" in 2014
File under: "I'm suing the NFL for my concussion syndrome" in 2024
January 28th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
I would assume (though I could be terribly wrong) that contracts today have language in them that protects the NFL against litigation considering all that has happened recently. Anyone have more on subject?
January 28th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^
The lawsuits haven't been about players suing the NFL after getting a concussion.
The former players argue that the NFL knew the severity of concussions, mislead the players and tried to hide that information from them going all the way back to the 60's. There's no protection from that.
The NFL has been bullying and buying their way out of these problems for years. Two great examples: The Playmakers and the National Institutes of Health
January 28th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^
Thanks for the info/correction.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
so what is it, a debate between assumption of risk versus duty to warn? Wouldn't the fact these guys have been wearing helmets in some capacity since the game's inception indicate knowledge on the part of the player that head injury is possible? sounds like an issue slated for an asbestos/mesothelioma track.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
Hiding information, ignoring baseline concussion tests during games, and the resulting damage that followed is a case the players could have used to prove the league was negligent.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, they decided to settle and probably lost a few billion dollars.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:30 PM ^
of their proof? Nah, we know lawyers always settle cases for far less than they think they can get in court, everyone knows that...
January 28th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
The problem was that if they didn't settle, it was either going to arbitration or to a trial that wouldn't start for a few more years. They panicked and took the first deal the NFL offered. 765 million between 4,500 players is a failure.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^
medically and that it takes no proof of injury to get added to the class action
January 28th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
The single premise of compromise/settlement is uncertainty of both parties. Without uncertainty nothing would be settled. All cases would proceed to trial. Today, less than 5% of the cases go to trial.
BTW, if an attorney knew he could get more for his client by trying the case and he/she fails to do so that may be grounds for a malpractice claim.
January 29th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
Yea, I don't know. In my opinion, the concept of self preservation seems to be so poignant and of universal acceptance that shifting the burden and potential for enormous damages to the party who simply provides a field seems ridiculous. From the dawn of football, players recognized the need to wear helmets. If you recognize the need, you've recognized your own duty to determine if a lifetime of playing football is in the best interests of your health.
Unless the NFL is actively exacerbating the problem - if there was evidence the NFL provided players with performance enhancing drugs that made them bigger, faster, stronger; and more likely to cause injury or be injured - or if the NFL adopted rules for the sake of physical spectacle and without considering the safety of the players at all - then there's a reason to hold the NFL accountable.
For me, player safety is an issue that squarely sits with the players. Reframe the issue from a negligence one to a contractual one. The players have bargaining power; to whatever extent is reasonable, they need to explore a contractual ability to ensure and insure their safety. But I don't see the duty being on the team owners or league to do the players' legwork regarding baseline concussion tests, etc. It's the players' health to protect, and ultimately it's the player who's accountable for his own health.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
even coming close to proving your point.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
Exactly my thoughts. Current players will play with concussions and bitch all day about the new rules regarding helmet to helmet contact. However, I would say the possibility that these same players accept money or blame the NFL for these concussions in 20 years is very high. Such a contradiction.
You can't reap the benefits of making 500% more than the average person for ten years and then decide you want to sue that employer (using today's players because past players were arguably not aware of the significant risks involved). You ASSUMED THE RISK.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
That if a player has a concussion, is he really helping his team by playing?
January 28th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^
This is the biggest achievement in their professional careers. Many of us, if not all of us put the same strain on ourselves trying to accomplish our goals as well. Stress , long hours, crappy diet, shitty health in general. We're all doing something everyday that's leading to our demise. Whether that's heart disease, cancer or brain damage you can pick your poison.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^
of ijohnb thinks the SuperBowl sucks. Most overrated sporting event in the world.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
For someone who hates the NFL, you sure manage to find your way into all the threads about it. Are you on a mission to find everything you don't like and make sure you shit all over everyone who does?
January 28th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
And that's different from any other sport.... how?
January 28th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
I don' know about you but 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls were one score games, including the last three and four of the last five and even that game was a one score game until the final minutes.
The media machine (in particular, the ridiculous advertsiing tactics and prices) grates on my nerves as much as anyone but you must not be a fan of football to say that the Super Bowl has sucked.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
In two separate situations, I played in football game with a concussion, one recieved during the week before, and once recieved during the game itself. Granted, less was known about concussions 10+ years ago, but if me as a stupid teenager would want to keep playing for a irrelevant high school varsity game, why would it be any surprise that a NFL player would suit up and stay on the field with a concussion during the ultimate game in the sport? It's kinda hard for anyone make the appropriate decision when it ultimately means standing on the sideline during what you've worked your whole life to participate in.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
More and more, I picture football players as gladiators in the Coliseum. For so many players, life after 40 is a living hell.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
In a second poll 83% of players said they would play in the fourth quarter of a meaningless pre-season game with a concussion as well if asked to by their coach.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^
It may be meaningless to the fans, but it's not for the players.
Turnover in the NFL is fast. No player in this league will sit and give his backup a chance to push for his spot.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^
Key part of that sentence: "... if asked to by their coach."
No one wants to lose their job in the most highly competitive and exclusive meritocracy in the world.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
It gets tiresome always looking out for everyone else.
Next I bet we find out:
1. People will volunteer for injury and potential death as part of the military in exchange for honor and/or a free education.
2. People would knowingly take harmful performance enhancing drugs just to get a bigger professional sports contract.
3. People would work in a physically demanding factory or farm to make a buck.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
I have never and will never understand the constant desire of so many people to protect other adults from the consequences of their choices. There are many who say NFL players shouldn't be allowed to play with a concussion. I say my choice not play to is no better or worse than another guys choice to play. It is up to the individual and should never be up to anyone else.
January 28th, 2014 at 3:11 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 4:53 PM ^
If you go here, you'll see some of what appear to be individual replies from members of various teams, or at least a summary of them. (HERE)
Some select highlights:
From the summary of the replies Colts players gave:
"All 10 players said they would play in the Super Bowl with a concussion because they feel like the NFL’s policy is too strict. And there was no hesitation from any of them in answering the question."
From the Lions' summary:
"From the vibe of the players who took the survey inside the Detroit locker room, they would play with a concussion if it meant participating in the game they have practiced and played their whole life for. Even if they knew it would be the wrong thing to do for their health in the long term."
I did not read for every singl team, but the lowest looks like it is around 8 out of 10. The safety numbers vary much more across teams.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
I consider myself reasonably intelligent and fairly safety-conscious.
I would play.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:17 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 6:35 PM ^
There was a poll several years back asking Olympic athletes if they would risk death or shortened life space if it meant winning a medal. Most would to the surprise of the questioners.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-…
The key quote from the article:
"a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.
Only recently did researchers get around to asking nonathletes the same question. In results published online in February, 2009 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, exactly 2 of the 250 people surveyed in Sydney, Australia, said that they would take a drug that would ensure both success and an early death. “We were surprised,” James Connor, Ph.D., a lecturer at the University of New South Wales and one of the study’s authors, said in an e-mail message. “I expected 10-20 percent yes.” His conclusion, unassailable if inexplicable, is that “elite athletes are different from the general population, especially on desire to win.”
That's why some are playing and the rest of us are watching on television.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^
For a million dollars, I'd do anything for two hours. Doesn't mean that all of those things should be legal or condoned.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:10 PM ^
who are the 15% that said they wouldn't? is it old guard QB guys like Brees, Manning, Brady, plus new up and comers like Kaepernick, Wilson, Newton that recognize (in their position as mental drivers of an offense) that concussions are quite dangerous?
i think there is an element of 'duh' that the number is high, yet in my hometown of San Diego we dealt with the very personal loss of a local sports hero (and future HOFer) in Junior Seau, by way of a tragic ending likely due to repeated head trauma.
forgive the pun, yet i believe concussions are in the sportsmen's and women's consciousness now. having played football and being personally competitive (albeit not to the level of pros), i find the number to be high.