Save the poor. Ban football.
Save the poor. Ban football.
That wasn't my point, I'm saying there is a trend and its worth considering when looking at footballs impact. I'm not calling for an end of football but there are suggestions for changing the culture of it, don't allow contact in youth football, take away helmets/pads (there are less concussions in rugby) and others.
Considering that Smoking causes lung cancer but tobacco is a multi billion dollar industry. The best they have come up with is you cant smoke around other folks inside.
Football players already cant hit people who dont play football...... this research money could be spent better elsewhere
This. Also, everyone has always known you could break your neck playing football. It happens to dozens of players every year (including a kid at Pioneer in 1995 i think). Also, I had a great uncle who played in the NFL in the 50s and his body was messed up. How is this different?
I don't have an issue with the overall discussion regarding concussions. That's all well and good but then you went off on some stupid tangent about saving poor people from themselves.
I didn't see it as saving poor people from themselves and I am sorry if it read that way, it was more a commentary that those who are born with less are going to be willing to take risks that mortgage their future more. I just think its easy for advantaged and people with knowledge about the issues to sit there and say "they" (being footbal players) know exactly what they are getting into and have tons of other good options moving forward when I don't think either of those statements are true.
They are willing to take those risks that "mortgage their future" because the risks are still a better option than their alternatives.
Football should do everything reasonable to limit brain damage. But if brain damage from football is a better option than a lifetime stuck in a culture of crime and poverty, well, I see that as an argument against crime and poverty, not football.
They should all get regular jobs like the rest of us. I'm sure that will make everyone happy.
Get rid of the NFL. Those guys are playing another 20 weeks per year, times five, ten or fifteen years. Knocking each other's brains out. The biggest and fastest and the strongest of the strong. Propelling one helmet into the other, all for the benefit of NFL Films and the billion-dollar tv contracts.
Ban the NFL. Cut college football to a ten-week season with one bowl game. Players quit playing football after they turn 21/22/whatever. Let's give that plan a try, and then see how many football CTE cases there are.
It would only do great things for college football. Players would see their degree as their main prize. Athletes into sports for the money can go play baseball or basketball; fine with me.
Hell; some of the most prized football scholarships might then be Harvard, Princeton, Yale... and Michigan.
I am being absolutely serious when I say that I HATE what the NFL does to football.
I can think of many rea$on$ why this will never ever happen
in a heartbeat. It would also eliminate the possible influence of the money associated with gambling and improve productivity in workplaces everywhere.
I don't think, "let's take away something people like to do so that they work harder" is a very compelling argument.
with the notion that adults should be able to choose, as long as information on negative affects is freely available, (which it is, plus the fact that common sense tells you bashing your head against another guys is dangerous), to choose to do dangerous things that the rest of us may or may not think is crazy? If every single potential danger out there is 100% true, and even if worse information comes out in the future, that changes my position not one single bit--free adults can choose to be as dangerous with their bodies as they like, period.
I don't like the NFL either, but wouldn't dream of enforcing that preference on others.
How long has information on these kinds of negative effects been available? Common sense never told me playing football could give me a disease that would kill me.
The stuff about freedom to choose...I'm down with all of that so long as the dangers are well known to all.
to the position I took. Each of us can only act upon the information we have at the time.
so the argument doesn't work as well there.
To be clear, I am fine with the NFL players deciding for themselves with as much information as possible whether or not to play. It's college and below that worries me. UofM football players aren't "fairly compensated" in the same way NFL players are (no long-term health care coverage, for starters), and in some cases aren't adults (pick whichever measure of adulthood you like).
The available evidence is getting to the point where I'm unwilling to pass along my appreciation for football to my son, because I don't want him to play a sport with that kind of potential long-term consequences.
Coal mining is a pretty dangerous profession, and it's just as exploitive when in many coal towns it's just about the only employment available. Working on fishing boats is extremely hazardous, and I suspect there aren't too many children of doctors working on fishing boats either.
Yes coal mining and crab fishing and axe juggling are all dangerous professions. But they are all jobs you choose to do as an adult. The difference with football is that you start playing the game as a kid. No one is in a coal mine or crab fishing when they are 9 years old. Sure you can opt out before you reach college, but by then you can have already caused long term mental and physical issues.
Its a valid question to ask as more and more information comes out about the long term mental and phyiscal risks of football (and there's plenty out there already), will parents prevent their kids from playing football?
but by then you can have already caused long term mental and physical issues.
You do? I'm glad your research is so far ahead of the rest of the scientific community's. Cause from what I've read, they don't really know anything. It's correlation based on limited data right now. They certianly don't seem to know progression.
That was more of a general comment about football being dangerous. There are plenty of stories about kids getting paralyzed or dying from playing football. Take for instance second impact syndrome. That's an issue that's specifically a problem for young kids playing contact sports and it can lead to death. That seems like a pretty long term bad case to me.
And those are the exceptions, not the rule.
And that is their choice. Just as it is an adults choice to endanger his mental health in order to play football.
250lb 4.4 guys going at it.
Almost surely, more kids get killed in car accidents going to/from games than in games.
I don't think it is known what effects those impacts have on developing brains. And forces are relative as well.
I was under the impression that this was a discussion about how the developments with Junior Seau affect this conversation. Seau's issues weren't caused by his time playing as a 9 year old. I don't have numbers for CTE rates among High School and College players, so I don't have much to add to this conversation. Without knowing the numbers either way I disagree with you. I am open to changing my mind, though.
There are no such thing as CTE rates because the research into it is still very new, and the only way to actually get diagnosed with CTE is to donate your brain to one of the groups studying it.
In general, they think that CTE is caused by concussions or sub-concussions in people that are subjected to repeated head trauma. Youth football players, high school players, and college players all get concussions and sub-concussions. So, yes Seau's time playing as a 9 year old all through his time as a pro count. Every hit to the head counts.
While CTE can indeed stem from playing football, what is not known is the circumstances required to reach irreversible levels, and its true prevalence.
It is clear that playing in the NFL is quite dangerous, but is playing in pop warner, middle school, high school, and ncaa as dangerous? There are probably millions of people that have gone through everything including high school football and have come out as perfectly fine individuals without any significant mental issues related to brain trauma. There are probably tens of thousands of similar individuals that have gone through ncaa football and have been perfectly fine in the head department.
I think something about the speed and strength of the NFL and athletes in the league is what is causing these concussions and brain injury. There's no reason to stop signing your kids up for pop warner football though, as there have probably been millions of other kids over the past 20 years that have done the same thing and are fully functioning individuals now.
Right I'm not saying ban football I'm saying that the more research that comes out the more it seems that a lifetime of football can have sever longterm mental health implications and I think its a discussion thats worth having as we move forward.
So what are you talking about then? The NFL is a "lifetime of football" .. the vast majority of people are done by 18, and the vast majority of those remaining are done by 22. I don't think there's any question that you can get injured in vastly more severe ways by playing in a league where EVERYONE is an aggressive, huge, and fast human being.
You only want to ban youth football. That would solve all your problems. But you have no idea if youth football is played at a size and speed that causes any problems. End of discussion.
Brain trauma doesn't need to be 250 lb dudes smashing for it to happen. If anything at the youth level and high school levels jt is worse as the players don't have proper body control, fundamentals, coaching and diagnosis of head trauma due to lack of trained personnel to diagnose.
We should probably be asking why children are not allowed to work in coal mines or crab fishing.
One would think that a nine year old would be able to crawl into tighter spaces within the coal mines than any grown adult and be able to come out with some extra handfuls of coal.
And coal mines are clearly more important to the economy and greater public good than football (at least more important than youth football). If we are going to sacrifice children then this should be the way.
Also, lastly, if the kids could make some money working in coal mines then they might not feel compelled to wreck their brains in a hopeless effort trying to make the NFL.
I was going to say the same thing.
He played middle linebacker for 15+ years with reckless abandon. It's sad that he had this, and concussions are a bad thing, but it comes with the territory. We know what we are getting into when we decide to play football.
In terms of the physical dangers I think that is true but most of the information about long term brain damage is more recent and I think its a mistake to think that a lot of 10 year old kids are aware of what long term brain damage really means and a lot of parents who still aren't educated on the subject.
What are we getting into when we decide to play football? There seems to be consierable disagreement about that. What medical science knows will surely change over time. What we knew when we decided to play football was generally very little.
when the players said they knew what they are getting themselves into, I really wonder if they do. No one knows what the avg lifespan of the players currently playing in the NFL, or what the incidence rate is for extreme mental disease or severe physical dehabilitation.
And the scary part is, do you think Seau would have thought he was going to blow himself away a mere years after retiring bc of the damage sustained from the NFL?
The issues with football are severe, and I don't see any way of correcting them. Does that mean we should ban it? Probably not. The only thing I know is I will not let my kids play football. IF other parents are ok with that, that's fine with me. But lets bury that statement 'we know what we are getting into'.
When you're playing a game in which you make contact virtually every play and use your head to tackle, you're telling me some people don't know that you could end up with brain damage? It seems pretty obvious that there will be some injuries to your head, especially when you play like Seau did.
Right, because the ONLY choices are to either make it rich in football or die trying.
They couldn't work hard at school and earn a scholarship, or work hard at a job and move up the blue collar ladder, or work hard at a job and move up the white collar ladder, or learn a skill/trade and open up a small business with a grant from the gov't.
Sorry, that just rubbed me the wrong way and wanted to voice my opinion.
However, as to football as a whole and the impact it has on an individual I sort of agree with you. The money is very top heavy and the people that lose the most (IMO) are highschoolers and younger. The kids, in highschool football and lower, that don't make it really put their bodies on the line and we hear stories every year about some high school kid who either died or had permanent damage done.
I am currently undecided on those in college with full scholarships, and the NFL. So I will not voice my opinion on that matter.
Other than the "choice" thing, good thread good discussion topic.
Who's they? You should watch what you're saying.
I'm not sure if you are trolling me or my sarcasm meter is broken.
"They" refers to the people from disadvantaged backgrounds that view football as a way out of their current living conditions.
So "they" don't want to work their way out of poverty through education and getting a normal job. "They" see football as their only way out? Comon man think about what you're saying.
Use the context clues please. Read the OP's full posted thread, then read what I wrote as a response to that. Please think about what you are saying.
Alright so disadvantaged people in the op and your post are the poor. Am I correct? Assuming I am then who represents the United States poor?
The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:
9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons
12.1% of all Asian persons
26.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
27.4% of all black persons
Note how this is heavily skewed towards Hispanic and Black people. So when you speak of "they" you are referring to more of one group than another. So yes I take offense to your comments.
Seriously. You're one of those unforgivably PC people who gets upset at the slightest mention of race, aren't you? Get over it.
There would have to have been a slight mention of race for this to be right. This person gets upset at the use of third person plural personal pronouns.
But the comment he got mad about was pretty delusional--the best way to make it in this country in this decade is not to work hard, but rather to be born to rich parents. Just look at the data on social mobility and you'll see that.
I'm not sure if you realize but what that poster was saying is very racially motivated. Although he blatantly did not say anything about race, speech like that is used to refer to race under the guise of referring to something else. Not to mention he basically said that all disadvantaged people don't want to work to ameliorate their lives
I don't want to get into a long discussion with you on mgoblog about it because this isn't the place but there is a theory that an undercaste exists in the United States. An undercaste is defined as a group that is so removed from the rest of society economically and through other measures that no amount of hard work can raise them up the socioeconomic ladder. Obviously there would be exceptions, there were succesful black men and women during jim crow that didn't mean that was the norm. I happen to believe this theory but like I said this isn't really the place for this discussion and wasn't the point of my bringing up the point. I just thought it was a trend and something worth discussing when considering the impact of football in society and who is generally taking the risk.
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)
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.
Stayed in school, got his degree. Went and played just enough time in the NFL to get his pension and then moved on. I don't see why "average" NFL players try so hard to hang on to the league, when if they were smart with their money from the start they wouldn't need to.
...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.
FYI - there is no such thing as a grant from the government for opening a small business.
That is all.
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.
But the guy on TV with question marks adorned all over his body told me there was.
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.
yes they get payed well to play it
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.
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.
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.
Players don't sign up without knowing the risks. I had my playing days cut short after a knee injury at 16 and had to be in a wheelchair it was that severe. And if there wasn't a serious risk of not being able to walk again, I would've went right back out there after I recovered.
My point is, if you dislike contact and don't want to take physical risks, simply don't play.
Physical risks, the mental risks are a relatively new discovery and potentially much more dangerous for long term health.
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
and you'll see leading with the head decline rapidly.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It probably is, but anyone who mentions this is being the turd in the punch bowl, turd.
it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Exactly - there's a leap between "Junior Seau had CTE" and "CTE caused his suicide".
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.
who cares? get bitches, make money, play football.
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.
Do you think that the values and ideals you learned and earned playing football have improved you as a person in a substantial way?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sexist argument, nicely done bro
Wait, I got downvoted for calling out a guy for using vaginas as an insult, implying that men are better than women? Ok
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!
"But what were you expecting?" All men who enjoy football are homophobic chauvinist pigs?
Implicit bias FTW! Hoist on your on petard.
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
There are plenty of other ways to make it out of proverty without playing professional football.
I believe the point the TC is trying to make is that many people feel the only way out of poverty is through sports or the lottery. I assure you there is little upward social mobility. Take a read
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.
Wanna link some studies? Or can you just deduce a priori as a hockey fan that nothing you like is unacceptably dangerous?
invent a better helmet?
There's no helmet invention you can make that's going to stop your brain from bouncing around inside of your skull. With the speed and force of the hits at the NFL level, the helmet can only help so much. Its like an air bag. They're great when you get hit going 35mph. But when you're going 80? Not going to help out a lot.
Because then they'll just keep using their heads as projectiles.
I think the point is that kids who play in high school and younger are not compensated for their risks. Many of these people do not make it to the NFL or even to college on a scholarship.
The parents have a say but we are not trying to blame anyone. Maybe the parents are unaware of the risks from minor hits to the head over an extended period of time? Also you don't get hurt from riding a bike. Something must happen for you to get hurt: you fall, a car hits you, etc.
The point of this debate isn't the health of nfl players, its the thousands of other people who play football too without getting paid millions. And its not about banning football, its about having a discussion to see if we can reduce risk.
And people need to stop bringing up other jobs like policemen. Those jobs are a necessary part of a functioning society, football is not. Furthermore I'm sure if you could change rules around how fires and firemen interact that made being a fireman safer most people would support that, we can do that with football and its a discussion I think is worth having, you clearly don't.
I get what you are saying but for me this isn't about seau in particular. Its using this news to spark a debate. The only way they can detect CTE is when people donate their brains, very few people do this and a lot of them are NFL players. Maybe this means CTE isn't actually caused by football and its just a poor sample or maybe it means that this is a large scale problem than can start as early as high school football but we don't know because we can't test it. I don't know enough about the science to answer those questions, I just want there to be a debate so somebody who can answer them is prompted to continue looking.
A lot of simple things could make football a lot safer. I'm in favor of a strict 3 mph on-field speed limit.
Why don't we just have the players wear bras? And instead of helmets they can wear tinfoil hats, because, you know, it's the future! Then we'll have a balloon instead of a ball, and whoever catches the balloon, tries to run while all the other players hug. How about we call it Sarcastacall?
One of my favorite South Park episodes.
Everyone has always known football is dangerous, a CTE scan doesn't change that. Crossing the street is dangerous, going out at night is dangerous, riding a motorcycle is dangerous. We make choices, it's part of freedom. If we want to be safety nazis we should outlaw trans fat before worrying about football. Hell lets all bar our homes since it takes very little effort to break a window. We can pad every corner of every object, eliminate electricity because you know the accidents in homes stats, only allow healthy foods and drinks, no alcohol obviously, no tobacco products, everyone can be home schooled the bars will make the homes safe, we could only drive Volvos, all have home security systems, outlaw guns and all hand held weapons, curfews of course, hell every person should have to account for their whereabouts at all times, slip resistant flooring everywhere, same for the shoes, fire retardant clothing. We could go on and on.
Or we could simply say in a free country people need to take responsibility for the risks in which they choose to be involved.
Be careful because your argument is basically that since risk exists, and everything has risk, then everything should be allowed.
There are risks that can be avoided or mitigated or regulated.
I'm not sure there IS a way to make a helmet that can really protect you from the repeated blows to the head that someone like a lineman takes. You might be able to make something better that could mitigate the big blows--maybe something that actually had an exterior shell that slightly crumpled and absorbed some of the impact, but I think studies are saying that they are more concerned with the repeated small blows than they are with the one big knockout blow.
Of course, any helmet that wasn't rigid and was designed to take damage would be astronomically expensive for any high school program to use because they would go through so many of them, so that would probably never work.
32,367 people died in motor vehicles last year, should we ban driving?
Is the risk of football an absolutely necessary part of life as a human being? I would say no, so I'm not sure the comparison is entirely accurate.
One could very easily say the same thing about motor vehicles, then. Is the risk of motor vehicle accidents an absolutely necessary part of life as a human being?
Many other cultures would seem to say No, as well as many individuals in our very own culture.
Did I ever say ban football? There are plenty of laws around car regulations and speed limits and other driving laws that make driving safer. There can be laws and other regulations that help make football safer, I believe we should talk about possibilites because despite loving football there is something about paying to see large men attempt to hit each other as hard as possible for my enjoyment that seems a little off to me.
I'm glad that rather than attempting to have a discussion you chose to misrepresent what my post says that you could come across ignorant and bitter, solid debating skills you got there, I bet you win a lot of arguments.
because I'm having a hard time answering without insulting you. Saying that all the facts are out now is one of those most absurd statements I've ever seen on this board. Do you have any idea of why Seau's family wanted those tests done? The fact that these tests can now only be done post-mortem greatly limits how much we do know about CTE. There is a tremendous difference between knowing that a risk exists and quantifying it.
You're ak47. This is getting ridiculous. How many posters have multiple accounts on here?
With reference to the discussion, I feel like the people who are dismissing this so easily are being extremely obtuse. I am in the camp that is in favor of more research and people being given this kind of information before they allow their children to play. It's easy to say that people should know that playing a contact sport is bad for you. I understood that I could get hurt or have my bell rung. If I would have known that there could be degenerative effects that would impact my entire life then I never would have played. I'm sure that many fall in that camp too.
We don't allow kids to drive... cars and driving are heavily regulated.
Despite the downvotes, I think it's a fair question. But I was an art major, so what the hell do I know about safety?
were you actually an art major? I would never have guessed that based on your posts (please don't think I mean anything negative by that, just surprising for whatever reason). Very cool if so.
I actually was. Went to undergrad with a double major in both music performance and art. Unfortunately, two years in the Middle East can really screw with your head. I'm not the same person anymore, which is why I generally come across as a HUGE asshole on this site.
Also, I don't know what TGOY why means, but if it is what I think it is, you are sorely mistaken. I am not The God of Yodeling.
It wasn't so much asshole/non-asshole; you just seem like a guy pretty well trained in forming/making/defending arguments. I would have pegged you for philosophy, maybe English or something else heavy on rhetoric and logic. Lawyer would have been another obvious choice, although that didn't cross my mind until just now.
Sorry to hear you feel you've changed in a way you don't like, by the way.
Edit: Damn, and here I was thinking you were the resident Yodeling guy...
I applied to law school after I came back, and I'm in my third year as we speak. The change wasn't horrible, just different. I'm much more aggressive now, and less laid back/carefree. Both have their advantages. Honestly, one of the worst consequences is that I'm so intensely loyal to Michigan now that I get horribly, irrationally upset after every loss, as you have probably noticed. I absolutely despise a Michigan loss. Few things make put me in such a bad mood.
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm...but TGOY is you! It's an acronym (I found this kinda funny so I had to reply)
I haven't chimed in on the blog in awhile but I am so passionate about this subject that I feel the need tonight.
Personal story time so skip if you think it might be lame. I am a 33 year old man who started playing football in 5th grade and ended after a 4-year career at a small DIII school here in Michigan. I was a 3-year letterman and played those three years on the line. I recently have battled a bought of depression, mood-swings and memory loss, although the memory loss has been a longer issue than depression or mood-swings. The depression has required meds, but the funny thing is that I have what one would call a perfect life. Smokin' hot and smart wife who is the bread-winner, fulfilling job, two beautiful and healthy kids and not much debt other than student loans and a mortgage.
Depression happens for many reasons but it really does not run in my family and again, I have no reason to hate life or be disinterested. I have always been a jovial guy but over the last year or so my moods have swung. Like previously stated, my memory has always been weak but I have always chalked that up to being lazy about details.
What I am getting at is that I believe this Jr. Seau thing is no joke. The game we love, play, and worship needs to change. I don't want to lose this beautiful sport. I learned 95% about being a husband, father and man on the football field with my coaches and teammates. However, we have baby #3 on the way and if it is a boy(other two are girls), I will not let him play football. That kills me to write, but something needs to change.
Again, I may not have CTE and what we know about it is very little, but you are lying to yourself if you think collisions in the game of football aren't damaging to the brain.
If there are any Dr.'s out there that would like to use my brain for scans I would be more than happy to donate my time and energy to help the progression of education with CTE and other collision related brain diseases. I would, however, prefer the procedure where you can keep me alive.
Thanks for sharing, I'm hoping that people realize this is a call for a discussion not a dismisal of football, maybe I could have left out the part about exploitation because that rubs some people the wrong way but your story is why if nothing else there needs to be more research. Good luck and congrats on the upcoming child.
This thread represents what's great about the Internet. Many opinions and some good discussion. People who can't see this as a valid discussion don't understand what football can do for you personally. We are losing great men for a reason that can be directly connected to something we can change.
I appreciate your insights into this topic.
Football was more dangerous than it is now. Knocking guys out cold was celebrated, and targeting hits to the head, and injuring guys out of the game was the general idea. Just looking at the highlight videos the other day of The Hitman John Lynch and i'm saying to myself: "that's a fine" "and that's a fine" "that one's a suspension" "oooh, that's a fine" yet he played only recently, and was one of my favorite players. Everybody used to lead with the helmet. Now you can't because we know how dangerous that can be, and the league penalizes such hits. Studies show a good portion of damage incurred comes from high school helmet bashing during games, and amongst teammates on the sidelines. Awareness campaigns are reducing that through education as well.
Some of the comments of the 'it's their choice', 'they get paid to batter their bodies', etc. is ignoring an obvious problem. Nobody playing football in the 70s, 80s, 90s knew how bad the risk of repeated head trauma leading to serious mental health issues was. A much larger percentage of the population smoked cigarettes until repeated research showed just how hazardous to your health smoking can be. Now, fewer and fewer people smoke because of said health risks.
Claiming nothing is wrong and nothing needs to change because people choose to play football dismisses the fact that few people realized anything was risky about playing football outside of the various physical maladies (and even those stories about guys in their 50s with degenerative knees, hips, etc. are somewhat recent). Football is a dangerous, dangerous game and medicine is allowing us to see exactly how dangerous it is.
It won't matter ten years from now, but I guarantee you more and more parents aren't going to let kids play football. 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization on Earth thought forcing two people to fight to the death was acceptable. Now, not so much.
I don't want to see football die, but there has to be a push for better helmet technology, weight restrictions, something to combat the growing size and speed of modern players.
have you seen todays helmets? technology has come a long way in the last 10 years.
who knows what hits actually casues CTE. Is it the big hits? or is it the tackles and contact on every other play. Theres no way to know what the exact cause is so theres no way to find the cure. I think there was a article a few weeks ago that said that the brain rolling around in the skull actually caused more damge than the hits.
Honestly the NFL doesnt give two craps about the players. If they did they wouldnt allow them to wear 15 year old schutts just because they have better sightlnes.
Here is a blog article that I found on MGoBlog and found the facts to be interesting. Lineman had a much higher rate of collisions, therefore exposing them to a greater chance of brain damage. If you were to ask me who I thought would be the most damaged I would have said DB's and LB's.
thats the bullshit thing. whens the last time you saw a flag thrown for a MLB hitting the center helmet to helmet? The NFL wants to act like they're doing something. They penalize the the big hits on the WR's. How many Wr's have been diagnosed with CTE compared to lineman? The fact is that the OL and DL take on the most damage.
I would bet in arena football that the CTE cases are far fewer just because of the style of play.
An autopsy conducted in 2010 on the brain of Owen Thomas, a 21-year-old junior lineman at the University of Pennsylvania who committed suicide, showed early stages of CTE, making him the youngest person to be diagnosed with the condition. Thomas was the second amateur football player diagnosed with CTE, after Mike Borich, who died at 42. The doctors who performed the autopsy indicated that they found no causal connection between the nascent CTE and Thomas's suicide. There were no records of Thomas missing any playing time due to concussion, but as a player who played hard and "loved to hit people," Thomas may have played through concussions and received thousands of subconcussive impacts on the brain.
this is from the CTE wiki page
I tired of this subject just like im tired of people pretending to care about the health of people they don't know. Let people be informed and then let them live with the consequences of their own decisions good or bad. Anything less is just another excuss to tell people how to live their lives because you think you know better and you know what's good for them.
i think of demolition man everytime this subject come up..
As do I and that is all I have to add to this subject. I played, loved it and am excited to watch it every year.
Yeah... I'm tired of those parents telling their kids what is good for them... like they think they know better and what's good for them... /s
ia4blue is tired of the subject!
Some people have empathy and some don't. You do not but others do. The problem is that people haven't been informed about the future consequences.
In the 3 years I've been coming here. The OP has some great points. As do others. Let's be honest, do we really need extensive research to realize young children ramming their heads together isn't good for their brain? If you think so you're lying to yourself. The schools and leagues these kids play for aren't sitting them down and illustrating the possible and logical long-term effects of football. If they did my guess is a lot less kids wouldn't play. In order for the sport to be sustainable it needs to become far less violent. Taking the face masks off is worthy of exploring. If that doesn't all but eliminate the horrendous effects of taking shots to the dome then it's time to make it two hand touch. I know that sounds "effeminate", but call me crazy I'd rather not see human beings suffer. Even if they choose to play and are lucky enough to make millions of dollars from it. It's still completely unnecessary for them to do that to their bodies.
ive coached youth football the last 4 years. Safety and concussions are a huge thing. if a player gets a headache, they're to be removed from the field and have to be cleared by a doctor before they can return.
Honestly i think more serious injuries occur because players dont know how to give or take a hit. At the gradeschool level there are more booboos than there are head injuries. Learning proper form early while the head injury rate is low is the way start. The last thing I would want is for my sons first year of football to be in Jr High or High School. Its too late to learn and IMO there's a larger opportunity for serious injuries.
Concussions aren't the only sign damage has been done to the brain. That's great y'all take kids out, but that still isn't addressing the issue. You take kids out AFTER they get injured. Great, you should do that. However, if they were properly educated about the dangers they'd never have concussions. We can't expect 8-10 year old kids to comprehend this.
to you, but nobody would watch football if it was two hand touch. The game would cease to exist at that point. Even though I will say that the NFL is moving closer and closer to a seven on seven drill with the rule changes, which is one the reasons why I could not care less about the NFL anymore. If people weren't aware of the risks in the past, they should sigficantly more aware with stories such as this popping up. I agree that kids and their parents need to truely understand the risks and maybe that should be the primary focus moving forward, but past that it is just like any other activity that involves risk, the person accepts the risk when they engage in said activity. Who are we to tell football players what they can and can't do with their own bodies, particurly when the compensation is so generous compared to an ordinary job?
Do you really think telling kids that football is dangerous will make them less likely to play?
People aren't rational. When it comes to risk-seeking this is valuable.
until I played football
I'm sorry, you're getting paid millions of dollars to play a pro sport. If you think it will cause harm, give up the paycheck, and get a day job.
What would they rather have, 45 years of being a millionaire and everyone knowing who you are or 90 years of only your family caring when you die?
My bet is the former every time.
Everyone may know who you are as an NFL player, but nobody really cares. If Tom Brady started sucking, do you think anyone would give two shits about him? Nope. Would fans come to his funeral? Nope. Personally, I'd take the latter every single time. I have never cared about an NFL death for more than about 2 days.
Damn double post. Time to quit life.
I could not care less who knows me when I die, outside of my family and close friends. And yes, I think 20-30 more years with your family is worth more than millions of dollars.
What do you have to say about nascar drivers that could slam into the wall at 200mph. There are risks in all sports no matter what.
Very true, although I think you could argue that crashing into a wall is such an obvious risk of racing that any driver entering NASCAR is completely aware of that possibility. Can the same be said of football? I'm not so sure. Given that doctors are still trying to sort this out, how much can a high school kid really know about the serious dangers of head injuries? Imo, it's all about protecting against unforseen risk.
Sure, kids could opt of playing, but tell that to Boobie Miles. Poor Boobie.
You could argue the same obvious risks of football.
Hey mr linebacker, your job is to slam into and tackle anyone with the ball so hard snot comes out of theirs and your nose involuntarily.
They both have obvious inherent risks.
Oh and its officially my birthday, shit im 34yrs old.
If it wasnt for the NFL, college football wouldnt be exciting.
ak47- you have repeatedly commented that you are not proposing a ban of football. What are you proposing?
I mean, I completely respect a parent's decision to not allow a kid to play football because of the risks. I also respect a parent who won't allow a kid to drive until he is 18 because of the risks. I also respect a parent's decision to allow neither or both.
Would you simply tell a parent that is unaware of the risks that their child shouldn't play? Or would you tell them about the risks of which they are unaware and let them make their own choice?
I feel like the only thing you are proposing is that we all feel bad about liking football.
People in this country have many opportunities and are free to choose their lifestyles and professions and work and play. The data needs to be presented, the facts laid out in front of everyone, and then parents and young adults are free to choose whether to play football or soccer (collisions with no protection whatsoever) or ride a motorcycle or whatever. They pay the price of their decisions and suffer both the consequences and reap the benefits.
We need to allow them to choose what they wish to do, and then accept their choices as their individual weighing of the pluses and minuses for them. That goes for whether they want to play professional football or college football or high school football or like Taylor Lewan, to stay in college for another year, or like Darius Morris, to leave for pro basketball "early", or Barry Sanders to retire "early". Everyone needs to stop telling others how to make their own individual value judgements on such things, especially in sports.
I'm all for it, just change it to co-ed
They should make the women wear lingerie!
The unforeseen dangers of football are just coming into light recently. The problem is that every block and every tackle you get up at the end of the play and you feel fine. You dont realize that over a period of time that your brain is being injured with any symptoms. If you have been playing football for a while and someone came up to you and told you that you should stop playing football cuz your injuring your brain every play, you wouldnt really take them serious because you feel fine.
I would be interested to see if anyone has done comparisons to rugby. They definitely have different rules and not exactly the same typical collisions (forward pass and exposed receivers an all) but the scrums and basic tackling are the same. Wondering if they are seeing the same thing with long term and retired players. It is possible Lou Holtzzzz comment about removing facemasks might be on to something.
This is a through the grapevine/rumor mill statement, but I've heard rugby does not have these long term effects because there is not repeated head on collisions. No helmet makes players more cautious of cracking skills
I have played rugby and this is absolutely true. For two reasons:
1) we knew we had no protection and did not put ourselves at risk and;
2) there are rules in the game about tackling. Every tackle you make has to be below the shoulders and you must wrap up on the tackle. Wrapping up prevented a lot of violent collisions and forced proper form.
will lead to slurred speech
I don't think that it's exploitative like you are trying to make it sound. People from poverty may be better at football for whatever reason, but it isn't like only poor people with no other options in life would be willing to play in the NFL, like child sweatshops are in third world countries. Plenty of people from all different backgrounds love football and would kill to play in the NFL, despite the risks.
Plus, if football is an option for poeple in dangerous neighborhoods to avoid gangs/violence, like Denard said it was for him, how is taking it away protecting them? Doesn't less time playing football and practicing mean more time getting pressured into joining gangs, selling drugs, whatever? A lot of players say that football kept them away from that life; I don't see how taking football away from them would be helpful.
They could have spent that football time on something else productive; it's not like growing up poor leaves "drugs or football" as the only choices.
Right, but there is a hell of a lot of peer pressure to do the wrong thing. If you want to have any friends in some neighborhoods, you pretty much have to do stuff that could get you into trouble. The alternative is to stay inside everyday and never leave your house.
Needs to live in a bubble
If people want to do something that is risky and they are perfectly able to weigh the risk vs. reward for themselves then that is their choice. I would never take away the freedom of choice from any body. No polo, but that is what I believe America is all about.
People can't assess risk and reward effectively over long stretches of the future, even when they know what the risks are. I don't think it is commonly understood that CTE is a result of "everyday" football risk (vs. concussions), and even if they did - people act impulsively all the time, allowing their short-term selves to get the advantage of what they KNOW to be their long-term best interests.
If you were ever broke before the end of the month
If you ever ended the holiday season with a belly fully of cookies and no way to fit into your clothes
If you ever heard "honey I'm pregnant" when you hadn't been expecting to
There you have it
I thought you weren't my mom.
Three letters get you into the NFL mindset: M.O.E
This is the gd NFL we're talking about here.
Driving my car on the highway
Flying in an airplane
Snowboard half pipe
Big wave surfing
Working at a metal stamping plant
Linemen for a utility company
Crab boat fishermen
I'll think of more but I'm driving while typing this.
People don't understand the long term effects of playing football. The medical world is just starting to explore the dangers of it because of things like the Seau incident. Your list was hilarious, though. No, really. It was.
I disagree. People DO know the risks of football. The news of it is everywhere. Reports of players committing suicide, living with Alzheimers, depression, and general forgetfullness are on tv or online almost every week. They know more now than they did 5 - 10 - 20 -years ago.
Trust me, I played football through college, I coach high school football, my son played and was taking off in an ambulance from a blind side hit. He also approached me with the idea of walking on in college and I DISSUADED HIM.
But in spite of all that, it's still a game that people should be allowed to choose to play. I don't know how many living NFL and college football alumni there are in the world, but I'm guessing the overwhelming majority are living a normal, healthy life.
You really think that all of these parents and kids know about the long term effects of playing football? Nothing could happen and they could live normal happy lives or they may find themselves living the opposite of that. It's a risk and they can make that choice if they want to. I wasn't afforded the opportunity to make a choice given this kind of information ( I am still considered young too) and I would be interested to know what percentage of current middle and high school football teams give the parents and players this information before they decide to play. For some, that's the only way they'll receive knowledge on the subject.
You're missing the point.
ak47 never said banning football is the answer. He meant that he thinks there should be more rules and regulations into attempting to make it a safer sport.
Adding to that, added awareness and information of the dangers of prolonged play such as CTE should be given to parents of kids signing their kids up for Pop Warner. The only problem is, the research is so new and ongoing that most people don't know more than the basic "oh well it's a contact sport, there's going to be the usual cuts and bruises and maybe if he's unlucky something a bit worse" physical damage. The mental health/damage complications should be talked about more.
Have you watched a Pop Warner game? If there helmets and shoulder pads were mae of eggshells, they don't generate enough force to break them. They also have weight limits to protect the smaller kids from the bigger ones (clearly something they LEARNED over the years). High School Sports is when you start to separate the athletes and it's when you start to see big licks. And yet, of the millions of kids currently playing high school football - all of whom are aware of the inherent dangers, I'm sure - there will be MAYBE 100 severe head/neck injuries this year.
High Schools are beginning to implement IMPACT testing and requiring players to take a baseline test before the season starts. Again, this is something we've LEARNED to do.
Do we know everything there is to know about concussions and head/neck injuries resulting from football? Nope. But like every other affliction, we are learning more and more each day.
Finally: ,ore rules and regulations? The only thing that will change the dynamics of the game are to either remove helmets (a la Rugby*) or put flags on the players.
*I wonder if long-retired Rugby players are experiencing the same post-career neurological iissues as NFL players.
It doesn't necessarily happen from big hits. It's everyday plays that do the most damage. On any given snap, linemen are bumping heads. Those do more damage than the occasional guy getting laid out by a safety. The little hits here and there that people don't report or really think twice about are the one's that do the damage. Most players that get "dinged" don't report it, or maybe sit out a play or two just to gather themselves.
I agree, the weight limits are a good start. It's a good step to making the game safer.
When you say that there's maybe 100 severe head/neck injuries a year -- which is, in my opinion, too low of a guess -- you're talking about physical injuries. Yes, everyone who has done any kind of sport knows that there is a risk of physical injury. It's the mental damage that is not apparent which is the bigger, less-known danger. The studies are new and, while they've been talked about a lot in the media, many people don't think they're at risk for whatever reason (not in the NFL, don't get hit hard, wear a good helmet...)
Rugby doesn't have the same neurological issues. The rules are strict about tackling. Only from the shoulders down. They don't lead with their head, obviously, since they aren't wearing any protection. It's much more fundamental than what football has become
If, as you claim, the normal collision of helmets that occur at the snap of the ball are the root cause of these severe instances of head trauma, then there's no answer other than to stop the game of football. You simply cannot play the game without linemen blocking linemen at the snap of the ball.
Personally, I disagree with your statement.
I...uh...shit. Well I backed myself into a corner.
Reading what I was saying earlier, yes the logical conclusion is in fact to eliminate football. Which is not the point I was trying to make. I just got off track completely.
My english/argumentative skills need work. I also need to research this a bit more. Sorry for dragging you into an argument where we both have the same basic agreement.
When Vince Lombardi "let the genie out of the bottle" and became the first head coach with a mandatory weightlifting program, it was downhill from there. Players are bigger, stronger, faster, have spikes that give them insane amounts of leverage, and have equipment that gives the illusion of impunity, but merely allows them to be damaged in a way that doesn't show up til years after they have finished playing.
I would like to see spikeless shoes,soft pads, and leather helmets with no facemasks. Modern equipment allows players to generate too much force, and that force seems to be "funnelled" into the inside of the cranium, as the brain crashes against the inside of the skull.
Or, they can just play 7-on-7 passing camp football.
How about we just mandate that noone can tie their shoelaces?
about some relevant technology. http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/11/mc10-reebok-checklight-hands-on/?ncid=webmail1
is a challenging subject to evaluate. On one hand, there are important lessons that football teaches, in my opinion, better than any sport (work ethic, sacrifice, teamwork, commitment), but on the other hand there exists the violence and sometimes misplaced masculinity the game promotes.
Technology, science, healthcare and improved education are important components in the fight to raise awareness of the very real dangers of CTE. However, the less talked about fight that must take place is on the culture of invincibility absorbed by players and appreciated by fans. This culture makes it difficult for current and former players to admit that they're hurt or ask for help from fear of losing their place in the game.
My dad, former Michigan RB Rob Lytle, had CTE and a body pieced together by pins, screws and scars as a result of his dedication to football. Despite the pain, all he ever wanted after he retired was for one more play on any playing field. It hurt me to see how much he missed playing the game. If given the chance to do everything over again, knowing the risks involved, he would have made the same choices and played.
Football is violent, aggressive and dangerous. In turn, the men who play it must be violent, aggressive and dangerous on the field. My wish is that former players grow able to admit their physical and emotional struggles after leaving the game.
I wrote more on this subject on my site: kellylytle.com/2013/01/11/my-wish-for-football/
I dropped 500 MGoPoints in your account, so you should be able to post original content here; from glancing at your blog that would be appreciated if you ever get the urge.
In the upper left corner of your screen there is now a tab that says "create content". Hovering over that gives you two options: diary and board post. A diary would be similar to what you write on your site (an original piece >200 words), while a board topic could be, for example, a link to your site and a brief description or discussion questions.
Hope you enjoy your time here, and I enjoyed what I saw of your writing.