OT: Oregon to Wear Pink Helmets...Uniformz!!!
Against Wazzu this weekend (and socks and cleats, duh). I think we can all agree a nice uniformz debate would help temper things around here. Why not discuss Oregon's methods in supporting breast cancer. Also, they'll be auctioning 25 helmets off to raise funds for the Kay Yow Cancer Fund. Read more in the following link.
Annnnd there it is...
October 17th, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^
certainly isn't pretty but it's for a good cause. I've seen players with pink facemasks this year and that helps raise awareness while not making the players look like pink highlighters
October 17th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
Honestly, how much more "awareness" of breast cancer do we need? I think we've reached the point of saturation.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
Don't be that guy.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^
Seriously, I don't think it's possible to be that guy. The attention to this single type of cancer makes no sense. The wearing pink and commenting on it and "Liking" it is more often than not pure sophistry.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
It's a major disease that kills many people every year. I'm fine with the awareness it gets because humans need to develop a cure for it (and all types of cancer). Now I will say that I agree with someone who posted below that spending the money to create these pink items is a waste and that money used to buy those things should just be donated, but that won't change more than likely.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^
Would we all wear yellow?
October 17th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
I'll take your word for it, but maybe breast cancer is a bigger deal because it is mostly women who suffer from it and people in the civilized world always believe we have to "protect the women and children." It may be a sexist thing (I don't think it is), but that is just the way it is.
October 17th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
It's a major disease that kills many people every yearAnd what about all the other diseases that kill many people every year? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in this country. Should players wear special colors for that? My issue is not that breast cancer isn't a problem or worthy of research, but that it's become this huge public fad that is overshadowing many other worthy causes. At the least, shouldn't we be focusing on cancer in general, not just this one kind?
October 17th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^
Actually, the reason it's so front-and-center is not the mortality rate (it's actually one of the most "survivable" forms of cancer), but the incidence rate. Next to prostate cancer, it's the most common type of cancer in the US. The American Cancer Society data indicates that there were about 234k new cases of breast cancer (men and women) last year, and about 40k deaths (~17% mortality).
Lung cancer, OTOH, afflicted 228k, with almost 160k deaths (70% mortality). Colon/rectal cancer afflicted 143k, with 51k deaths (36% mortality). Pancreatic cancer afflicted only 45k, but with 38k deaths (85% mortality).
Yes, breast cancer kills a lot of people every year, but it is also a "safe" cause. Lung cancer? Too many people brought it on themselves from smoking. Prostate cancer? Nobody wants to talk about a man's prostate, which is checked by sticking a finger up your butt. Ditto rectal cancer.
So is it a worthy cause? Sure. Is it at (or even past) the saturation point? Opinions vary, but I personally think so. Am I being insensitive? I don't think so. I know cancer survivors and knew cancer victims. But a lot of this is just marketing, plain and simple.
October 17th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
than most other as deserving--or more deserving, medical charities. It's just that it's politically beneficial for sports teams to do it, as an easy way to show support for women. Nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't it be nice if teams raised money for medical problems that need money far more than breast cancer does?
Breast cancer kills a lot of people, but in terms of numbers it is 11th on the list of number of people that die every year of it. Lung cancer is #1, and it, along with heart disease, kills far more people every year every year than breast cancer. Slin cancer kills more people evey year than Breast cancer. However, Breast cancer is #1 of all medical charities in money raised. Lung cancer and heart disease are way down that list
October 17th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^
The following table gives the estimated numbers of new cases and deaths for each common cancer type:
| Cancer Type | Estimated New Cases | Estimated Deaths |
|---|---|---|
| Bladder | 72,570 | 15,210 |
| Breast (Female – Male) | 232,340 – 2,240 | 39,620 – 410 |
| Colon and Rectal (Combined) | 142,820 | 50,830 |
| Endometrial | 49,560 | 8,190 |
| Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer | 59,938 | 12,586 |
| Leukemia (All Types) | 48,610 | 23,720 |
| Lung (Including Bronchus) | 228,190 | 159,480 |
| Melanoma | 76,690 | 9,480 |
| Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma | 69,740 | 19,020 |
| Pancreatic | 45,220 | 38,460 |
| Prostate | 238,590 | 29,720 |
| Thyroid | 60,220 | 1,850 |
October 17th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^
If you live in the state of Michigan, it's maize and blue all over the place. We never say it's too much.
Millionaires and billionaires donate money to the school and football program. The most a lot of people will say is why not give more to the other sports or an academic program on campus. But we don't say it's too much money for the school.
People complain about how much the CEO of Komen makes, but we're paying our football coach millions. We never say it's too much.
We post topics whenever a classic game is coming on BTN or ESPN Classic. Those posts didn't get downvoted (unless it's a game we lost).
I could go on and on and on. We support this school and it's programs because it's our love, our passion, something we've been affected/inspired by.
It's pretty hypocritical to teabag breast cancer awareness month over saturation.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^
That is one heck of a non-sequitor.
So it's justified taking an entire month to shame the country into supporting a single medical cause - one that is already very well-funded and researched - while starving the other countless medical causes of publicity, because . . . Michigan football is popular?
October 17th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
Hopefully more than 8% of the proceeds go to actual breast cancer research, unlike the NFL's campaign.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
This. Raising money for breast cancer and cancer in general has become big money making machine (I know they're non-profits, but a lot of people are still collecting big paychecks from it).
When you have organizations like Susan G Komen trying to trademark the word "Cure," you know you've kinda lost sight of what's really important. (SGK by the way, is terrible at actually putting proceeds towards research vs sustaining operations, advertising, etc)
October 17th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
On the news last year, they had a little girl from Wisconsin (I believe) who organized her own little event to raise money for breast cancer using "cure" and pink ribbons and Komen sent their legal team after her.
October 17th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^
Not a fan of the SGK organization.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^
I've always wondered how much money the NFL spent of getting pink accessories, and how much of that money could've been donated to research. But then again, a straight donation doesn't get the NFL as much press and good publicity as wearing a bunch of pink crap does.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
but any football team that is manly enough to suit up in neon pink is okay by me.
October 17th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
The thing is with Oregon, they could wear these on any week and you would not bat an eye. You would just think it's the next ridculous thing up in the rotation.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
This Pinktober thing is really getting out of hand.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:54 AM ^
the tipping point for me was when I saw a pink bottle of 5-hour energy. Gag.
The problem to me is that many of these decisions are done in good spirit, but there are more useful and direct methods of "supporting the cause" than donning pink.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^
There seems to be a lot of money "wasted" in purchasing/creating all these pink products, when the money could be just...like...given to cancer research. Oh, you've got $5,000 to spend on buying pink stuff? I'm sure that money could maybe go to Little Susie's college fund since her mom is going to die next month...
I appreciate the sentiment, but it just seems to me like an example of people wanting to contribute but not really knowing how.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^
Well, people in Ohio seem to know how to contribute. The Cleveland Clinic is going to go into human testing for a breast cancer vaccine, one that was 100% effective in preventing cancer in lab tests on mice that were bred to form the same type of cancer. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more publicity.
While we are at the whole feel good medical story thing, how about a foot fungus creme that could potentially cure HIV?
October 17th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
You can't cure a virus, but I get your point and that is good news anyway.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
If he would have said "eradicated" instead, would you be happy?
October 17th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
of course
October 17th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
Wow there's a thought. I agree, Pink now equals breast cancer, but what exactly is pink making women aware of? The point of the Breast Cancer awareness is to have early detection and not to make it be a gimic to wear pink, which is the only thing that has been accomplished.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:11 AM ^
Why would you donate your money directly to Susie Q's college fund when you can buy a pink t-shirt for $X from a retailer with the knowledge that a "portion" of the proceeds go towards "fighting" cancer. The direct donation doesn't show that I am in the fight against cancer like a pink t-shirt does.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:08 AM ^
My personal tipping point was a radio ad that was advertising a breast cancer fundraising event in Providence. It talked about the need for money and so on and finished with a solemn lecture: "Remember, it's your fight too."
I thought, wait a sec. Nobody in my family has died of breast cancer. They have died of things like pancreatic cancer and cystic fibrosis, but nobody gets on the radio and lectures people who have not been affected by those diseases about how it's their fight too, nor should they. Everyone has things that've affected their families, not all of which is breast cancer, and we don't need to be told we're obligated to join a cause that is already dominating every product, headline, and football uniform for a month. In fact, we shouldn't have to be guilt-tripped into joining the fight for any particular cause at all. There's an overload in general, but that guilt trip was my particular straw on the camel's back.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
is pretty clear. the "save the ta ta's" awareness campaign was maybe the lowest, scumiest "charity" i can really think of.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
that an awareness campaign would better benefit diseases that are preventable rather than awareness that you should go to a doctor. for instance, november is diabetes month and their color is light blue. diabetes affects 8% of the american population and 2 million people get diagnosed with it per year, opposed to the 24,000 with breast cancer per year. one kind of diabetes is largely preventable, by getting some exercise, eating right, and drinking less. awareness of this on the level the NFL gives breast cancer could really impact this country's health. how about a commercial during nfl diabetes awareness month that says "if you get diabetes you are more likely to be impotent and have a dick that oozes crystalline pus. now go take a walk and eat a salad." or how about some more commercials about how easy it is to live with diabetes?
do you think the NFL that gets a ton of money from unhealthy food companies, alcoholic beverages and car companies is interested in raising this kind of awareness? doubt it.
everyone that i know and i myself have been affected by cancer and i hate it and wish we could cure it and make the world better, but i don't think this current awareness campaign does much and if we could raise awareness of something that can affect 100x more people, it seems like that is the right thing to do.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^
All excellent points. I'm glad to hear others have grown weary of all the pink, I was starting to think I am a horrible person (may still be true, but for different reasons). Breast cancer is obviously terrible, but frankly all forms of cancer are and I believe it gets the attention it does because of the particular body part it affects and the ridiculous marketing scheme that has developed. With a lot of these "pink" campaigns, the amount of money that actually goes to cancer research is a very small percentage, which to me feels slimy.
I think its time for another ailment to have the spotlight and I really like your idea of diabetes. It affects way too many people in this country and is largely preventable with lifestyle changes.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:10 AM ^
But that would require companies to actually give money to charity, instead of only pretending to.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
The most obvious, ham-fisted, hairy-thumbed commercialization of the "pink" wave I've seen to date.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
It spreads awareness? I'm pretty sure if you asked 100 people if they know what breast cancer is, all 100 of them would say "Yes. I know what breast cancer is."
We don't really need any more "awareness" of it. We need money for a cure
October 17th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
What Lionsfan meant was, he is extremely sorry to hear that you are going through such a tough time. Cancer is a very tragic thing, and he hopes that you and your wife are able to stay strong in the face of such adversity.
With two young kids myself, I really, really hate to hear this. I wish that condolences could mean something to you at this time.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
But that's just the point. All this money going to pink crap is money NOT going to helping people with cancer. Oregon's helmets don't help anybody.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
...you seem to have missed the point. Many are advocating that instead of promoting silly "wear pink campaigns to increase awareness" that the focus can shift to having people and corporations donate directly to the cause to fund the search for a cure. The NFL has spent millions on promotion and buying pink towels that get used for 3 games, what if they gave those millions to the Mayo Clinc? Cleveland Clinic? Harvard? Johns Hopkins? Something that would create a tangible value, instead of awareness campaigns of a disease that many people are very much aware and informed about.
That said, I'm sorry to hear about your wife and I hope that she continues to get treatment and pulls through this.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
T-shirts, towels, commercials, and the like all cost money. They're not saying the portion of the proceeds (whatever percentage that is...depending on the charity it can be a lot or insignificant) isnt actually going to research; just that it would be better if ALL the money went to research. Instead of NFL pink day, how about the NFL just writes a big honking check to a leading research institution?
October 17th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
And what's the breakdown of the organization's intake to research and administratve costs?