Ed Cunningham Leaving Booth over Head Trauma
Ed Cunningham, who called the Shane Morris game, has walked away from ESPN "because he says the brain trauma to players is "unacceptable"
August 30th, 2017 at 2:54 PM ^
Yes, we know decisions have consequences. It is important to let people know the full consequences of their decisions, but let people make their own choices.
August 30th, 2017 at 9:24 PM ^
August 31st, 2017 at 8:58 AM ^
But it is adults making the choices. Children are incapable of giving consent, so their parents have to sign all kinds of liability waivers for them to play football. If your parents don't want you to play football you won't play.
August 31st, 2017 at 10:41 AM ^
Well then, thank heavens parents are always well-informed and have nothing but the best interest of their children in mind.
You do realize that somewhere right now in America, a drug-addicted parent is selling their pre-teen daughter into sex slavery, right?
August 31st, 2017 at 10:52 AM ^
So because some people are bad parents means that we can't trust any parents to make well informed decisions with the best interest of their child in mind? Some people are going to have better parents than others, that is an unfortunate fact of life. It seems that you are closed minded on the subject of parents deciding to let their children play football.
And to equate parents letting their son play football to sex slavery is a bit extreme, don't you think?
August 31st, 2017 at 11:15 AM ^
No, I tend to agree with you, actually, that this should be a parents' decision. But I think saying, "parents can decide, end of story" to the CTE issue is not nearly enough. Parents should clearly not be allowed to decide some things on their child's behalf, and in many cases are legally not allowed to do so. My sex slavery example was extreme, of course, but designed to show that parents sometimes do opposite of what is the best interest of the child with solid knowledge of the possible outcomes, and therefore are legally not allowed to make those decisions for their kids.
I think some "diehard football defenders" on this board misunderstand my concern with CTE. I am not some namby-pamby, overly concerned mother. In fact, I participated in the one activity maybe worse for the brain than football for many years - boxing. Now, look at what is happening to that, my favorite sport? It is slowly dying as kids and their parents look at the veterans of that sport and say, "no way!" I see football headed down the same path, and want to see the NFL (especially) take real steps to prevent that fate for football, before it's gone.
August 31st, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^
I think more information in the hands of more people is better for everyone. Risks of CTE should be studied and that information shared with everyone. If it means fewer parents let their kids play football so be it. But I think the discussion about football has shifted to only focusing on the risks and certain people have begun using CTE to attack not only football but also the fans. Nobody talks about the immense benefits of playing youth football (I include high school when I use the phrase youth football).
Personally I believe football is fairly immune to the issues that boxing faced because football is a team game. Humans are tribal by nature and I think the benefits of playing a team sport are vast. Boxing is an individual sport so I think people have a harder time getting the emotional/psychological connection to it. Just my opinion though.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:38 PM ^
This is part of the American experience: making questionable decisions early in one's adulthood because dammit this is America and I have every right to do it!
August 30th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^
I agree with you, but it would be unfortunate if people used this argument to avoid making incremental changes to the game that could benefit the players.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:20 PM ^
"Let's also not be so naive to think that players don't know about the toll it takes on their bodies."
At this point - no one (not doctors or players) really knows for certain what toll it takes on players with respect to long term brain injury.
"Nobody's saying this crap about mountain climbers, skydivers, professional wrestlers, etc."
Mountain climbing, it turns out, is pretty safe. Safer in terms of injuries per participant than hiking, skiing, or snowboarding.
Skydiving has a suprisingly similar death rate to football - and probably a lower injury rate.
...and I don't see a lot of youth skydiving/mountain climbing/professional wrestling leagues, or high schools with skydiving/mountain climbing/professional wrestling teams.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:44 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 3:01 PM ^
No, but they just as regularly as any other sport go to doctors and hospitals to be treated for their injuries.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:02 PM ^
What, didn't you see that Björn Haamerstaal is refusing to release the sherpa roster for his upcoming climb up K2?
August 30th, 2017 at 3:15 PM ^
Given that almost all people in the Sherpa tribe have the last name "Sherpa," that roster would be hilarious.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:38 PM ^
frequently. In fact, I'd say much more often than football if we take into consideration their relative popularity.
One difference between football and the other activities you mentioned is the age at which most start. Children aren't great at making decisions about their future health. Further, schools are directly profiting from the risks football players take. There's a much different dynamic there.
To say that everyone who plays football now understands the risks involved is flat out wrong and disingenuous to boot. It would be more accurate to say that no one understands the risks of long term brain injuries all that well, as medical experts are still debating them. The disagreements between non-medical people involved in football are vast. There is also a lot of debate as to whether they will be significantly lowered in the (perhaps near) future. That's something that could impact decisions of whether to start playing now.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:44 PM ^
"Children aren't great at making decisions about their future health."
Children are incapable of giving consent. That is why parent/guardian consent is required to play football, even in high school. Heck, even letters of intent or grant in aid for college sports require parental/guardian signatures. If parents didn't want their kid playing football he wouldn't be playing, no matter how much he may want to.
"Further, schools are directly profiting from the risks football players take. There's a much different dynamic there."
Schools are also providing education, room and board, tutoring, training, etc in exchange for the risks the football players take. If you were to add up the monetary value of all that it easily surpasses 100K and possibly even 250K depending on how you value the training, but given the coaches salaries it is probably worth quite a bit.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^
their kids from playing, you're wrong. It's asking a lot of them to be expert enough in the risks to keep their children from doing something they really want to do, that's sanctioned by their schools and their children's friends are doing.
Schools are in providing value to the players, yes. Should they be paying students to take serious health risks in order to make money? Schools have a completely different mission than pro sports leagues and it's reasonable to give different answers to that question.
Something that's unique to college sports is that players are making decisions that aren't based on making a living from football. A big part of our recruiting pitch is the 40 years after school and how a Michigan degree sets players up for life. That pitch is being delivered to a lot of teenagers who wouldn't be admitted unless they agree to take those risks. It's OK to think that's fine, but I think we're going to see it emerge as an issue down the road.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^
Perhaps parents know the risks but also know the benefits of playing football? Teamwork, leadership, physical development, self esteem, mental toughness, etc. It sounds like in your mind you've already made the decision for people, that they can't play football.
Yes, risk/reward tradeoffs are a thing.
Yes, the mission of pro sports is inherently different than that of the NCAA, or at least it should be. But we also already know that Michigan steers football players away from the engineering school, see the Da'shawn [sic] Hand recruitment saga. To me that is a bigger issue than the young men risking brain injuries in exchange for tuition, room and board, tutoring, training etc.
August 30th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
I agree there are many benefits to playing football and think it's not cut and dried whether they are outweighed by the risks.
Parents refusing to let their children play because they've heard a couple of scare stories or they just feel it's too dangerous aren't making the best decisions in the same way as those who don't carefully consider the risks.
I take issue with the ludicrous statements that all players and parents know the risks. Further, that they are well equipped to learn them on their own to give an informed consent. I think organizations that sanction or field teams have an obligation to be well informed and to make sure to share that knowledge with all of their players and parents.
We have universities ideally placed to compile and explain the current state of research into brain injuries and other relevant subjects. They could share this not only with their own players, but with state high school associations and other relevant groups. They can also keep up to date with changes in research, something hard to expect from individuals. This should be part of their mission.
August 30th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
"it's not cut and dried whether they are outweighed by the risks."
People are different and will evaluate risk differently.
I'm all for people getting as much information about CTE and brain injury risks as possible. I'm also for people getting as much information about the benefits of playing football as possible. Perhaps I should elaborate.
"I take issue with the ludicrous statements that all players and parents know the risks." I agree, I try stay away from speaking in such universal terms but I'm only human. That said it is up to the players and parents to learn the risks on their own. You can't force it upon them. So in a general, not universal sense, players and parents know the risks of football. There will always be outliers though.
"Further, that they are well equipped to learn them on their own to give an informed consent." I think parents and people in general are better equipped today than ever before to do research on a topic and come to an informed conclusion.
"I think organizations that sanction or field teams have an obligation to be well informed and to make sure to share that knowledge with all of their players and parents." I agree, and typically these organizations do inform players and parents in the form of waivers, consent documents, hold harmless, liability waivers, etc. It is up to the parents/players to actually read those documents and comprehend it. The organizations and associations can't read those forms for you.
August 31st, 2017 at 9:03 AM ^
have a presentation on the subject for parents and prospective players. It would be an opportunity for them to explain what they know about the risks, discuss what steps they take to protect the players and answer questions. They can discuss the benefits of playing too. Then ask them to sign the waiver forms.
August 31st, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^
That seems reasonable. I still think that having to sign a waiver that says among other things "your son might die playing football, and if he does you agree to not hold the coaches, referees, league, schools, etc. liable" is a big enough warning of the risks to get parents to look in to it more. But on the youth level this kind of a meeting is probably a good idea.
Good discussion.
August 31st, 2017 at 10:12 AM ^
the parents' concerns. I'd like to hear how they handle suspected head injuries, how they teach players to avoid them and how they limit repeated sub-concussive hits. An added plus is that holding these presentations will help the coaches put good plans into place.
I agree - good discussion.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:33 PM ^
They are weighing the toll the sport takes on their body with the rewards we create as spectators. It's an ugly choice to offer somebody and a perfectly reasonable ethical argument exists that we should avoid creating such choices.
August 30th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
There are ethical arguments against eating meat but people will always be omnivores...
August 31st, 2017 at 1:53 AM ^
not so much... Six percent of Americans consider themselves Vegan - up from 1 % in 2014.
Honestly that stat doesn't jibe with my experience but it's a stat.
August 31st, 2017 at 9:01 AM ^
My point is that making an ethical argument doesn't make you right...
August 31st, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
just because it is ethical doesn't make it wrong. People will not always be omnivores necessarily. Ethics matter.
August 31st, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^
Ethics do matter, but using your ethical arguments as a moral supremacy is a logical fallacy.
And ethics can differ from person to person. I'll use an example that I'm more familiar with to illustrate this point. Bow hunting has become extremely popular over the last decade or so. It is legal to hunt with a bow and many people think it is ethical to hunt with a bow. My personal opinion is that it isn't ethical to hunt with a bow because the skill level needed to obtain quick clean kill is higher than using a firearm. Another example from the hunting world would be distance. Some hunters may view the ethics of shot distance differently. But just because I view certain things as unethical doesn't make me right and others wrong.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:30 PM ^
I also think this is correct, and it's sad how unpopular it is - I wasn't really expecting that on this board. This is not some random media personality who wants to express an opinion - this is a former player who knows players who have killed themselves. Disregard is probably not the appropriate response.
And I don't think there's a disconnect between making a statement like leaving your profession and watching football. You can watch and enjoy a game while fighting to change one aspect of it - you just probably can't get paid to do so if your employer is unhappy with that.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^
No one cares enough about Ed Cunningham to remember this in a month. He'd have been better served using this platform to call attention to it.
Now if Michael Strahan, Peyton Manning, or someone mildly famous makes this move, then I agree. But I didn't know who Ed Cunningham is, and I won't remember in a month. The cynic in me says this sounds like a ploy to get a bunch of interviews and parlay this into a basketball gig or something.
August 30th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
and was on one of ESPN's higher profile broadcast teams. It's a good job. Leaving the way he did will make it harder to get other football broadcasting work. I'm cynical too, but he didn't leave to get interviews or a basketball gig. Maybe the other work he's already doing is more lucrative and he just wanted to make a statement on the way out.
August 30th, 2017 at 8:52 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^
I like to think he quit because he didn't want to profit on the harm that ESPN was causing to people's brains.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:49 PM ^
We need to really focus on making football safe from having to listen to Stephen A. Smith.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^
He was kind of annoying anyway. He did a number of our more recent games including the Citrus Bowl versus UF.
I was never a fan of that crew.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 2:07 PM ^
to have fuck you money. If I quit my job without having something else lined up I'd be homeless in 3 months. Sucking random guys off for money in various public bathrooms, instead of doing it for free.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^
that is fantastic. I am now wiping the gatorade off my screen.
August 30th, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^
I applaud anyone standing by their principles*, and there isn't anything in that article that makes Cunningham seem insincere. I hope he's able to find another journalism gig that doesn't cause him so much internal conflict.
*Except, like, Nazis. I support people standing by their not-evil principles.**
**Takes bold anti-Nazi stance!!
August 31st, 2017 at 1:57 AM ^
Here comes the dynamite.
Reductio ad Hitlerum.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:15 PM ^
Suspended for being a sexual deviant and criminal, because when I look at Ed Cunningham, I think, right there! A criminal who was probably suspended. It's the only logical reason why he left.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^
I wonder how many of these "football needs to be safer" people are pro-drug legalization. I'm not saying they are. Maybe there's not a cross-section of these people at all. But I have a feeling that a decent number of people who think harmful drugs should be legalized are also in the group that feels like football players need to be protected from themselves.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^
I think the game should be made as safe as reasonably possible within the confines of the sport. Better helmets, pads, technology, etc. But the sport shouldn't be banned or altered significantly. Everyone knows the risks now.
I also think that most of the harm done by drug use is due to the fact that they're illegal. Many illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, yet they remain illegal.
I don't think my position is logically inconsistent.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^
Raise him high.
August 30th, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^
Drug legalization tends to make drug use a lot safer...
August 30th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
August 30th, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^