OT: Junior Seau suffered CTE, is football too dangerous?
So CTE is chronic brain damage and can be caused by repeated blows to the head as small as what a typical OL or DLinmen go through on every play. I ask this because the typical argument is that these guys are getting paid millions of dollars and are making a decision. I have two problems with this argument: 1) This sort of damage is accumulated over a lifetime, plenty of youth football players could easily be permanently damaging their brains with no real knowledge of the dangers and we probably never hear about their health issues. 2) Football is borderline exploitive. The number of professional football players from disadvantaged backgrounds is disproportianetly high. For a lot of these players something like football is the only way out of a bad neighberhood. The choice between a potentially short life in poverty where statistics say there is a greater than 50% you are going to be dead or in jail by 50 or football where you could damage your brain for life by 35 does not seem like a legitimate choice.
I'm not sure how I feel about football right now but I know the billions of dollars it generates is going to keep players futrue health low on the priority list. The board seemed kind of slow and I thought this could be a legitimate discussion. If people don't think so I apologize.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:53 PM ^
I find my self wondering sometimes if by supporting the nfl I am not inherently supporting a lot of negative consequences...
as to the original point I just want to add that if the players cared so much about health they could all donate as little as 1% of their salaries and have more than enough money for research... I don't think the average player cares. Just my opinion
And, exploitation issues aside, the guy (or gal) who mentioned coal mines and such is spot on: a majority of jobs have health risks linked to them. (think about it: from carpal tunal to suicide rates linked to jobs we all know that each job has its own inherent risk)
January 11th, 2013 at 1:19 AM ^
bank the $5 million, and retire to a disciplined upper-class lifestyle.
Of course, there are the Mike Tysons who manage to blow hundreds of millions of earnings.
January 11th, 2013 at 1:44 AM ^
January 11th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
...considering some of the foolish things that Mike Hart has said ("little brother" seriously?), you could probably argue that he is a poster boy for someone already suffering from brain damage.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:54 PM ^
FYI - there is no such thing as a grant from the government for opening a small business.
Common myth.
That is all.
January 11th, 2013 at 12:30 AM ^
After double checking, yes you are correct.
There are grants for small businesses in certain areas such as non-profit, medical research and scientific R&D, but nothing for the regular small business types that make up probably 99% of all small business.
I learned something today.
January 11th, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
But the guy on TV with question marks adorned all over his body told me there was.
January 11th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
Damn Riddler.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:22 PM ^
and it is the most exhilirating of all the major sports. that said, the head trauma and evidence of the accumlated damage it can inflict are critically important to take into consideration on a go-forward basis. i could say i wish i'd known when i was younger, but despite playing until 42 yrs old, my hitting was not such that i'm really worried about my melon. i think it is reasonable to expect some changes in methods of contact and i support some of the rule changes this year such as the 'defenseless receiver' rule in the pros.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^
Sure, hard hits get all of the attention, but its also the hundreds and thousands of little hits to the helmet during practice and games that can also cause a lot of damage. Its a little naive to think that just because you're not a lineman or linebacker delivering hits that you're not at risk.
January 11th, 2013 at 5:39 AM ^
and in some of the offenses we played i was an "H-back", and you can bet in all of them i was delivering, and taking plenty of hits.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
yes they get payed well to play it
January 10th, 2013 at 11:46 PM ^
Not high school football players. The point I was trying to make with my first argument is that thousands of people take this risk without being payed for it and very few of those people really understand the risk football can pose to longterm mental health because these findings are relatively new.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
I remember seeing a stat about how Pop Warner football was declining in sign ups. I wish I had the article to cite, however I can't find it. I think we'll be hearing more and more stories like Seau's as the years pass and this issue will become bigger and bigger. The game of football, as it is played today (such speed and tackles initiated with contact with the helmet), is not sustainable. There will have to be rule changes and/or helmet innovations to keep the game going in the long run.
January 11th, 2013 at 1:24 AM ^
Back in my day, we had three network channels and three or four sports that everybody played (hockey in the North). Sports such as soccer & lacrosse were no where near as popular as they are today.
The additional options are going to draw kids away from Pop Warner football.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 11:47 PM ^
Physical risks, the mental risks are a relatively new discovery and potentially much more dangerous for long term health.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^
I'm not sure that this kind of anecdotal evidence of the underdeveloped risk assessment skills of 16 year olds supports the position you think it supports
January 10th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
and you'll see leading with the head decline rapidly.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
Haha, I like this. Will never happen because the face mask protects from much more than just face to face contact. But I laughed anway.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:26 PM ^
Yes, playing football is a choice, but I can't help but notice how crazy hard hits - like the Jadeveon Clowney one - are glorified beyond belief. The media are still getting mileage out of that one. And I know CTE is cumulative, but sometimes you see hits (like during a Seattle San Francisco game), and you wonder, was it really necessary to take the guy out of the game? Just a girl's prospective.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:43 PM ^
Yup. Just got my Sports Illustrated in the mail. Sure enough, one of the leading off (or whatever it's called) pictures is the Clowney hit. The text tells you to go check it out on youtube.
January 11th, 2013 at 2:01 AM ^
Seatle and SF game that knocked Vernon Davis out of the game that was actually a clean .The Seatle safety hit him squarely in the chest not the head. That hit was neccassary because it was the only way to seperate the offensive player from the ball, and prevent a big play in that particular situation. The fact that that a great defenisve play, that was clean, is now flagged in the NFL is one of the reasons I don't care for the NFL anymore. The defender should be allowed to seperate the receiver from the ball as long as it is accomplished in a clean manner, without contact to the head. The defenseless receiver rule in the NFL is pure garbage, I have no problem with calling it if there is direct contact with the head or neck, but essentially the NFL has made even good plays that are clean, illegal.
At the end of the day the players are making a choice to play a violent game , you can go only go so far in terms of ensuring player safety before the game itself is fundmentally altered. Making clean hits illegal is stepping over that line. Also there was nothing wrong with Clowney's hit on Smith.Yes it sucks that happened to an UM player, but he hit him squarely in the upper chest, basically a textbook kind of hit from that perspective. The impact was so severe because Smith didn't see it coming in time to brace himself. It was a big play that changed the game, did you not expect it to get signficant attention?
January 11th, 2013 at 8:52 AM ^
but you aren't cool with the NFL trying to make that choice less dangerous? why exactly? are you entitled to watch people play sports that come with a certain minimal level of danger?
January 10th, 2013 at 11:26 PM ^
It probably is, but anyone who mentions this is being the turd in the punch bowl, turd.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:48 PM ^
sorry?
January 10th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous
January 10th, 2013 at 11:37 PM ^
It all starts in the youth league with kids learning improper ways to tackle. And it goes up through improper coaching in high schools, colleges, and by the time they get to the NFL there's no turning back.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:29 PM ^
Dangerous? Sure. But until they start disecting the brains of people who haven't played contact sports and do NOT find the same things in those brains, this is all speculative.
"Tau protein buildup from chronic head injury causes all of these problems!"
"How do you know?"
"Guys with these problems have lots of Tau protein buildup."
"Does anyone have the same problems without the buildup?"
"Oh. I don't know."
"That's alright. Does anyone who didn't have repeated chronic head injury have Tau protein buildup?"
"I don't know."
January 11th, 2013 at 6:31 AM ^
five years behind the research and are minimizing the situation. Yes, similar findings are seen in people who haven't played football - it's called Alzheimer's disease. And that is exactly the problem.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:05 AM ^
Even if this is so, how many people with Alzheimer's are killing themselves? There is still a lack of information. Most of the editorials suggest the brain injury in some manner caused Seau's depression and death, but there are so many other possible factors involved, some of which might be more important than repeated blows to the head.
January 11th, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
is compelling at this point. Junior Seau is not an isolated case. Just because the problem is not fully understood does negate the existence of the problem. The questions now are exactly why this occurs and how to prevent it, no longer whether this is a real problem.
January 11th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
But what is "the problem" ? If we are defining the problem as repeated blows to the head cause brain injury, I'm with you. But the biggest "problem" in Seau's case is that he committed suicide. What role did the brain injury play in that? How much of his depression and subsuquent suicide were unrelated to brain injury?
January 11th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
Didn't someone come up with a number that said current and former NFL players were actually committing suicide at a lower rate than other males of similar age and demographics?
There are a lot of guys in the NFL. Statistically, it's likely that some will commit suicide. You will hear a lot about their suicide. But so far I don't think it's been proven that CTE directly contributed to the suicides (only that CTE may be linked to depression).
That said CTE is bad and there are plenty of other reasons to avoid it.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:29 PM ^
who cares? get bitches, make money, play football.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:30 PM ^
I played highschool football. I wasn't on track to play in college (could have maybe, D3 level) so I wasn't great or anything but I was decent in the large school division in Iowa. I played FS. I wasn't huge but could lay a lick which means when I laid a lick or even the standard hitting that occured, I licked my own brain. I often wonder what my own brain looks like. Who knows, maybe nothing is apparent, but one never knows. Going back to the hitting, I definitely endured a few "collisions" where I went black for a split second; they say that itslef equals a concussion.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at, really. The vast knowledge that's out there that wasn't even 10 years ago makes me wonder, do I strap on the pads for the first time in 4th grade and continue to play through to the more violent football world of highschool? I don't know that answer. Probabably yes, and that right there is the kicker. Most will/would. Football is dangerous but very fun and self-rewarding. Many football players wouldn't give that up even with the knowledge and even future information to come, out there.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^
Do you think that the values and ideals you learned and earned playing football have improved you as a person in a substantial way?
January 10th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^
That's a good question and I have actually thought about that, especially over the past few years. It's really a yes & no answer, too. For me, overall I think yes. Did I need football to garner certain wisdom and values? I just don't know (I played other sports too that can teach some of the things football can). It's a politicians answer.
We endured three Varsity coaching changes during my four years there; there was some unity but not as much as, say, a team down the road who's in the State Semi's at the least every year who maintain a "program" and churn out great "young men"/football players every year. We weren't a powerhouse program and I think there really is a difference in what one can gain by playing football at School A (football factory) versus School B (lackluster "team"), so there's that factor too. In retrospect, I do think I was able to learn some things and garner some perspectives that I carry today (and that's not counting the memories and gooshy stuff!). There were many, though, that I can honestly say probably didn't and in that regard maybe wasn't "worth the damage" for them, if that's fair to say. Am I changed, polished, am who I am today, in a substantial way because of football?! Eh, maybe not substantially.
The next question, especially if I were to say "yes, absolutely, playing football for 9 years helped make me how I am", would be, "is it worth who I am, considering I possibly cut years off of my life and have changed my brain into something inferior to the brain I was born with/what my brain could have developed into during adolescence?
January 10th, 2013 at 11:30 PM ^
is a slap in the face to every person who has been born into a disadvantaged background, and who has raised themself out of that situation by virtue of hard work and determination. How about a rough percentage of people who make a living playing professinal sports vs the number of people in a tough situation? I'm guessing it is infinitesimal. I know you said "a lot", not all, but it is a ridiculous argument.
Leave that part out and discuss whether we should allow football to be played. That will include the players who are not from disadvantaged situations too, giving you a larger sample size.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:51 PM ^
I think the fact that a large percentage of football players come from disadvantaged backgrounds has a role in the discussion but I maybe worded it poorly so I apologize if you felt that way. Its not to say its the only way, it was just saying a large majority of people in these situations do not move up the socioeconomic ladder despite working harder than a lot of people above them economically.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^
If you have to wear a helmet, it's likely dangerous. Common sense should tell us all that. These guys get enough money in their first contracts to live on if they want. They get free rides through college. They get a lot of things. If that isn't enough reward for the risk they take, they don't have to play.
To say this exploits the less fortunate guys is ridiculous. It gives far more of those less fortunate a better life than a worse life.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
Ban football and turn us all into rugby chumps. Then, instead of having to teach players how to tackle, players will be taught how to remove encrusted sand out of their vaginas.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:52 PM ^
Sexist argument, nicely done bro
January 11th, 2013 at 12:24 AM ^
Wait, I got downvoted for calling out a guy for using vaginas as an insult, implying that men are better than women? Ok
January 11th, 2013 at 8:58 AM ^
sexism (and homophobia and heteronormativity in general) is pretty rampant around here. calling it out will virtually always get you downvoted. dwelling on it more so.
but what were you expecting? this is a website largely populated by men, most of whom are here to discuss a sport played almost exclusively by men with somewhat scantily clad women decorating the sidelines.
the only sad part is that none of the biased people think they're being biased. implicit bias FTW!
January 11th, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^
Implicit bias FTW! Hoist on your on petard.
January 11th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
No unqualified claim about all men follows from my claim about likely biases among groups of men who congregate online to talk about violent sports that feature female cheerleaders. (I mean, I will give you that I think that all men are such that if groups of them congregate online to talk about violent sports that feature female cheerleaders, they are likely to find themselves in a relatively sexist setting.)
I do think all people who would have made that comment earnestly in response to what I said are bad reasoners. But having that thought doesn't require implicit bias against men so much as explicit bias against people who display this kind of evidence of poor reasoning skills.
Edit: oops, what I meant was I'm so sorry for suggesting any MGoPosters could be do anything remotely sexist. I was way off base. For example, no woman has ever been objectified here in any way. Here is a (NSFW) link to some .gif's of Kate Upton to make amends. Also just for you: \s
January 10th, 2013 at 11:33 PM ^
There are plenty of other ways to make it out of proverty without playing professional football.
January 10th, 2013 at 11:46 PM ^
January 10th, 2013 at 11:39 PM ^
Pro football has zero to do with CTE except continue what you have already done. In theory CTE will develop with 10 years of contact football. Since most kids start playing around 8 and go through high school, it has nothing to do with what kind of background you come from. Even though it's very minimal anyone who has played the sport for that long will have trauma.