Deep Thoughts: The State of Football
I know that MgoBlog prides itself at being a high(er)brow message board. We try to keep content north of the intellectual Mason-Dixon line. I'm not sure how this will go, so if I get positive feedback, I'll start similar posts in the future. If not, I'll change the OP to some gif of Kate Upton or something. I think there are a lot of issues we could get into about college football and Michigan that could prompt some good debate.
Today I want to ask what your take is on the perception, and in turn reality, of the sport of football. Junior Seau has been the latest in a growing line of incidents that have created buzz about the safety of playing football. Being such a tidal society, this issue is being hammered quite a bit in the media. What are the concerns that this could either fundamentally change or even destroy the sport of American football?
If you missed the recent news, Kurt Warner has stated that he does not want his children to play football. Warner's statements are echoed by many parents today, but how prevelant a number? Prior to the last year or so, I think that number has been pretty low. Chronically cautious parents have always held their kids out of contact sports, but when does the average parent take notice of the medical information coming out linking football to depression and suicide. What has to happen before the average parent decides they would rather have their son play soccer or basketball, and forego high school football. Could this type of a movement sweep the legs from beneath the powers that are the NCAA and the NFL? Are there any other factors, such as class action suits, that could directly cripple those same powers?
So... is there such a thing as the NFL or NCAAF in 10 years? How about 50? If so, does it even resemble the game that we grew up knowing?
And injuries happen. I don't think a few incidents is ever going to destroy the sport, because it makes far too much money for that to happen. I totally agree that its possible that some interest gets lost and some kids don't play football because of fear from parents, but that's why there is so much attention paid to concussions/injuries now.
It is an inherently dangerous sport, but it could get a lot safer with the concussion rules and stopping stuff like the Saints' bounty program.
The money is an excellent point. Americans want their football. And as long as they continue to want their football (forever), there will be money to be made from the sport.
And we all know what happens when there's money to be made.
I wouldn't say there have only been a few incidents, but what is scarier is the trend and the degree of these incidents. Most of these players played 10-30 years ago, but the game is faster now with more ferocious impact hits (head and otherwise). How long will it take for players of today to show these symptoms, and more importantly, to what degree and number do these brain injuries manifest in these players. What is clear is that it is only going to get worse.
Not only does the sport generate so much money, but it provides so many jobs across the country. Think about how many people would be out of a job if football was outlawed
the combo of dave duerson and junior just this week has made me cease any and all resistance to my wife's decree and proclamation that my 10-year old may not play tackle football, although i note that it seems all of the hits to the head that over time are doing this to players (making them suicidal) are the result of playing guard, center, fullback, LB and safety, and not so much to the skill guys, defensive ends/olb's and offensive and defensive tackles. maybe if my kid were faster and not a guard waiting to happen i'd let him play?
Don't forget Chris Henry was found to have CTE as well, and he was a wideout without a reported concussion. His death was a few years ago, but is another name that belongs in all of these.
EDIT: Added a bunch of hockey players' names below too. There are too many in the last couple of years to ignore.
I was thinking about this in the wake of Seau's death. I love football, but I'm finding it harder to reconcile my love of the game with the knowledge that it's obviously a lot more devastating than generally acknowledged. The degree to which it's causing long lasting traumatic harm is (rightfully) getting harder to ignore. Barring some fundamental changes that seriously alter the safety (whether it be rule changes, technology advancements, changes in style of play), I wouldn't be surprised if I had to stop supporting it.
That said, I think there will be improvement in player safety. Whether through public shame or an actual desire to help the players, the NFL is going to have to do something. Having massive class action lawsuits (the initiator of which also killed himself) and hugely popular figures like Seau committing suicide is not something the NFL can not respond to.
If football goes, I sure as hell will be depressed.
Early in the century there were many who questioned whether football could (or should) survive, and as the injuries (and deaths) continued piling up, something had to be changed, right? The century I'm referring to, of course, was the 20th.
Teddy Roosevelt as president helped bring in the era of the NCAA, eliminate unsportsmanlike play, etc., in the first few years of the 1900s. I think we'll see more evolution and protection, but just as Mark Twain's death, reports of football's [imminent] demise have been greatly exaggerated.
The problem right now is the money that's involved. That's really what is keeping the average parent from withdrawing kids from football. They see the money that's out there, both in terms of free college and NFL riches. It's a billion-dollar industry, and nobody that's on the money-making side of things wants to give up money for safety. And the only way that the sport in general starts really worrying aboutthe health issues is when the NFL starts worrying. Once the NFL starts doing something, it's all trickle-down from there.
I do think in 10 years there will still be a NFL and a NCAAF. As noted above, the money aspect will basically ensure that. I don't think anything drastic will happen on a time scale of 10 years, but perhaps in 50 years there will have been changes to the game. Not significant in terms of style (you can only change the root of the game so much), but in terms of safety, be it equipment or rule changes.
One smaller problem with everything is the thought process of those involved in the game, be it retired players, broadcasters, coaches, etc. So many involved go on and on about how you can't change the game of football, that those who play assume the risk involved in playing. But, once they get injured, whether it's a knee injury that forces a retirement or someone suffering from CTE, they want the NFL to bear the brunt of the responsibility and pay for their care. I mean, Seth's post on the front page even mentions that one of the things holding back advances in helmet designs is the aesthetic part. People are too worried about the looks of the players and the game itself rather than the safety of those involved.
I hope we can find a way to make the sport safer. On its current trajectory, it is becoming a sport wherein one must be unusually large (even "skill" positions are more and more inhabited by men well over 6' and around 200 lbs--QB and WR being examples) and possess few other options. Kids raised in supportive environments who have other options will not sign up for a sport that could literally shorten their lives. I would hate to see football become yet one more dividing line between haves and have-nots, and it become like the military is becoming--that only those without other options sign up. I think the socio-economic issues could become significant.
They need to invent some kind of turf that isn't conducive to speed. Something that has the "slowing" quality of natural grass. Make the pads heavier. Anything to slow the game down, which would lower the impact every hit has. They could make the neutral zone wider so there is some more room between the OL and DL which would lessen the impact that occurs between them on every play. As always. keep researching and innovating on the helmet front. The NFL and every football conference should have an independent department that works with every team to give players (who actually play) concussion tests as often as possible.
If the NFL is actually serious about this issue, they have to realize it starts all the way at the bottom so they need to start some kind of safety campaign at the lower levels of football instead of some stupid play 60 campaign for fat kids where everybody is bobbing their heads to some stupid music and go to some park to run around like chickens with the heads cut off. LOL sorry got a little angry there for a minute.
They need to invent some kind of turf that isn't conducive to speed. Something that has the "slowing" quality of natural grass.
Overall, it seems like a reasonable idea, but I don't know how much of a difference it would make- the game is played by slower, smaller players at the high school level but my understanding is that head injuries are pretty common even at that level.
Natural grass isn't even an option for many facilities because the maintenance costs that come with it. Watering, cutting, repairs, staff, etc. So for that reason, the only quality of natural grass that seems desirable given the discussion is the slowing quality. So instead of smartass, I would call it trying too hard to be a smartass and overlooking the meaning of a statement. =)
I agree with your thought that we need to figure out how to slow down the game, however, I think heavier pads would be a bad idea, as it just gives the guys hitting more momentum. The best way I can think of slowing the game down at the moment is switching from cleats to non-cleated shoes. That would likely slow things down considerably, as it would decrease the players ability to decelerate, however, it likely would not help make kick offs or punt returns any safer as acceleration is less of an issue when your running 50 yards or so.
You can't make guys slower. Using non-cleated shoes would mean players will slip and slide and turn the game into a farce.
You can, however, make guys smaller: institute weight limits. That should reduce the force of a lot of the collisions.
Ta-Nehsisi Coates has written very eloquently about his ethical struggles with his love of football for a while, and particularly in the wake of Seau's suicide. Some are clipped below. I've been struggling with many of the same questions, particularly after I saw the brain scan of the 18-year-old athlete with early stage CTE. I'm not sure I will take the steps Coates will, but with knowledge of this, it is an ethical choice that I'm now forced to make.
In response to Gladwell's contention that the hardest ethical question is whether to watch pro football.
I'm not so sure that it's hard at all. The answer, at least for those displeased with pro football's response, seems pretty clear. Doing the damn thing is the hard part. I now know that I have to go. I have known it for a while now. But I have yet to walk away. For me, the hardest portion is living apart--destroying something that binds me to friends and family. With people whom I would not pass another words, I can debate the greatest running back of all time. It's like losing a language.
I'm not here to dictate other people's morality. I'm certainly not here to call for banning of the risky activities of consenting adults. And my moral calculus is my own. Surely it is a man's right to endanger his body, and just as it is my right to decline to watch. The actions of everyone in between are not my consideration.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/junior-seau-is…
The deal about losing a language is right on. It's the connections to other people that football creates that make it so hard to contemplate not watching.
Coates consistently has thought-provoking things to say on challenging topics. I need to remember to read this guy's stuff more often.
To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" You can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."
I think you gotta look at taking away or changing the helmets and teaching kids how to play without leading with their heads from a young age. Just look at the condition of the helmets by the end of the season, I don't care how much padding you put in them, if you're using the helmet to lead your hits with as a matter of technique, the brain inside the helmet is still going to accumulate a ton of damage over time.
These are people that played professional football for 10+ years... My kids will undoubtedly play football, because they will gain so much from the experience of playing the game throughout their childhood/high school (if they so choose)... And I highly doubt that they will be bashing heads with the same impact as Junior Seau...Millions of people have played football without ever suffering a concussion
You mean without being diagnosed as having a concussion. They are finding out that many collisions still cause some damage to the brain even if you never have a single known concussion. The sum total of lots of small impacts/damage adds up over time.
My mom never wanted me to play football because my dad tore up his knee doing so. I never want my kids to play football because I will worry about their brains.
They also will not be boxers, MMA fighters or play hockey in leagues where fighting is legal.
Junior Seau and Dave Duerson are the 2 most recent, highest profile football suicides, but the evidence in the last few years is just too much. To those two add Chris Henry, Derek Boogard (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sports/hockey/derek-boogaard-a-brain-going-bad.html?pagewanted=all) and 2 other NHL enforcers who killed themselves last summer. Hell, Probert just died with signs of degenerative brain disease. That's 9 people in the last few years who are 50 or younger, a few who were ACTIVE PLAYERS who died with brain damage.
I'll go one step further: I don't want my kids to be Jim McMahon. They won't play football, box, MMA fight, or be involved in hockey fights. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Jim-McMahon-My-memory-s-pretty-much-gone-?urn=nfl-284214
I am not convinced by the media storm that has followed Junior Seau's death. I am not trying to be disrespectful about the situation or dissmiss the tragedy of a persons death. However, the media has been portraying his death as the direct result of depression caused by repeated concussions. The simple fact of the matter is that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the man played football and was depressed does not meen that football = depressions.
Major depressive dissorder is suprisingly prevelant in today's society, around 5-13% of the population is affected by major depressive disorder. So far as I have seen there has not been near enough data collected to even generate a predictive correlation between brain injury and depression. Stress is actually a much better predictor of depression. Multiple studies have shown that chronic high stress can be predictive for depression, futhermore the mechanism by which stress can lead to depression has been established by multiple groups. With this in mind I would say that high stress jobs/lifestyles have lead to many more tragedies than football. Does that mean that we should completely restructure our entire society and eliminate high stress jobs because of the potential link between stress, depression, and suicides. I don't think that is realistic.
Again, I am not trying to be dissrespectfull of anything. I am just trying to get people to really think about the situation and not to be swayed so easily by the media and a few NFL stars pointing to the game of football and blaming it for one man's death. It is short sighted and dismisses the entirety of his life aside from a game.
But personally, the anecdotal evidence of 10ish people in the last few years dying with significant brain damage is enough for me to keep my kids from doing what they were doing.
The depression/suicide is one side of the story (and as you say, can be totally separate from their sports). The CTE and brain damage is another and one that I will have my kids avoid.
That's fair. There is nothing wrong with wanting to prevent brain injury. Repeated blows to the head can certainly had detrimental effects and it is up to everyone individually as to how they weigh those risks.
I think two distinctions are important to make, though:
First, we as a society don't know how to eliminate stress. I question whether it could ever be eliminated, in fact. People could, though, stop playing football. Now, you could argue that the NFL was the equivalent of a stressful office job for Junior Seau - his best way to make a living, but...
Second, head injuries change the structure of the brain in a way that is (as far as I know) much more difficult to repair than brain changes caused by stress from an office job. The officeworker who has become suicidal from stress therefore has a better chance of bouncing back.
I mentioned eliminating stress just to make a point not as a real suggestion. Although there are many ways to avoid stress based on you work environment, sleep schedule, family life, and a hundred other factors.
Your second point is an over simplification of a complex sequence of events. Everything we do changes the structure of our brain and most of the changes cannot be "repaired" in the sense of the word. Regardless, I think you may be missing my point a bit. My point was not to say that stress is bad and therefore get rid of it. My point was that causative inferances based on incomplete knowledge and missinformation should not be made. There is simply not enough data to support the kind of conclusions that people seem to be jumping too following this issue.
Yes, football has the potential to cause damage to the brain and it is an unfortunate risk of the game. That being said we should condem football all together due to a possibility of undesirable outcomes. Lots of people die falling down stairs should we get rid of them? how about cars there is an obvious risk there? fast food and poor diet lead to one of the most prominent problems in America today, obesity, which is a risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, depression, strokes, and cancers. So should we make everyone avoid the risk of unhealthy food? I say no.
You touch on a lot of points that I completely agree with. I think that your stance is well formulated and well argued. That being said, do you feel that as a collective we can rationalize as well as you have? We live in a very reactionary time where we have social ADHD.
"Oh my god, terrorists blew stuff up! We're all going to die! Let's buy Spam!"
A case study for this would be the Travon Martin killing. I don't want to debate this topic, but everybody got up in arms about it (on both sides) before anybody really knew anything. A large number of people let the media decide what they should think and then stick to their opinion steadfastly. I think that if the anti-football ball got to rolling, there may be some pretty heavy protest from this...
You are dead on in this case. Obviously there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but the media and most casual observers seem to have already concluded that Seau suffered from brain damage directly caused by playing football. While that may be the case, there is zero real evidence to back up the conclusion at this point. Until the medical/scientific tests are done, any physical causation can't just be assumed. Real evidence has to be discovered and the other potential factors need to be ruled out before you can just conclude football = suicidal depression.
People are also making sweeping generalizations based on still isolated occurences and anecdotal evidence (Duerson + Seau = incredibly dangerous trend). The media has continually quoted the figure that 8 members of the 1994 Chargers have passed away prematurely. Though that number is eye catching and troubling, even assuming football collisions and head trauma led to Seau's suicide, that would make such an injury just as likely to have taken the life of a Chargers player as being struck by lightning and three times less likely than heart disease/attack.
Yet no one is talking about the dangers of a league that virtually demands obesity from a large segment of its players and what that does to their life expectancy, though that impacts a much larger group of people. While the issue needs to be studied and clearly more needs to be done to prevent players from getting back on the field shortly after a concussion, the "This is the end of football" talk is being fueled by an overreaction to the actual statistics caused by media headlines.
You also make a good point about obesity and general player health. What's changed recently, though, is the widespread acceptance of the (apparent) fact that repeated concussions have a long-term effect on the health of the brain, something that even former NFLPA head Gene Upshaw denied. I believe that people are reacting to this differently than knee injuries and weigh problems and the like b/c brain injuries are (of course) qualitatively different than any other kind of injury. The person's very self is changed.
Obviously even if it is just some small percentage of those who play for an extended period of time at the highest levels, football is clearly fucking up some people's lives. I just think that we will see a far more cautious approach to concussions, further study on the medial end, a stronger stance on taking players out of games if they display the slightests symptoms, and a continued adaptation of the rules/equipment to limit knockout blows. The game will continue to get safer and safer (let's not forget it was almost outlawed in its infancy because loads of players were dying during games). I don't think we are anywhere close to seeing the death of football, though.
Last year - ND game. Crist came back in. I could tell from row 38 that he was concussed. Kelly put him in danger because Kelly needed a win.
Dielman (SD Guard) was so obviously concussed during a game last year, but he kept playing and ended up having a seizure on the plane. He retired this offseason. NO ONE (teammate, coach, doctor, trainer) took him out of the game. Watch the film, he was obviously concussed.
Mike Smith (Phoenix goalie) was run into by the Blackhawks' Shaw and his helmet spun around. Smith was investigated by trainers. The NHL has a policy that if you take a head shot you have to go sit in a dark room for 10 minutes - leave the ice and head to the locker room for evaluation. Smith never left the game. He may have been fine (sure played like it) but by rule he should have left for his own safety.
How's this one. Last year in the playoffs, the Saints admittedly targeted Kyle William's head on kick returns due to his concussion history. Granted the Saints' coaches are targeting a lot right now, but that is just awful.
There are anecdotes to the positive as well. Remember that Denard was kept out of the 2010 Illinois game (as were both defenses... ZING!) because there was a possible concussion there.
We need a dramatic shift in the way concussions are treated by those in the sports themselves. As long as the term "concussion-like symptoms" exists we won't be taking the problem seriously enough. If you have "concussion-like symptoms" you have a concussion. A brain injury. Treat it as such, who cares about the score of the game, care about the rest of your life.
One thing that would help greatly is to change the employer of those doctors and trainers. If each NFL team is paying $500,000 for their training staff, have them kick that money to the NFL to hire a training staff accountable to the home office and not the franchises.
The same thing would work in college; at the next Big Ten meetings, just find the average dollar amount and number of sideline trainers and doctors each team carries and have the Big Ten hire that staff for the schools. When we play ND, insist they have an outside medical professional making decisions on players returning. There should never be a situation where Brian Kelly potentially causes a QB's death in Michigan Stadium simply because he cares more about the win, and Michigan (and hopefully the whole of the Big Ten) should insist on that.
But the problem that your solution faces is access. It exists today too. I do not believe that if Crist had seen a doctor the doctor would have allowed him back into the game, no matter who pays the doctor's salary. I believe that Crist never saw/was evaluated by a doctor, and that's the problem. For the typical football injury the status quo is "get them back on the field ASAP". Rolled ankle? Tape it and get him back in there. Head shot? Ask if he's OK then get him back in there.
In the wake of the Mike Smith/Shaw thing in the NHL I didn't see one member of the media ask why Smith didn't have to go to the quiet room for 10 minutes as per the NHL's headshot rules. The whole attitude has to change.
But I think if you can get the NFL and NCAA to accept that doctors have the final say on a player going in, it makes sense that they would have say on a player coming out as well. Obviously this is a touchier issue, but coaches shouldn't be playing someone who is at the point where it's clear on the sideline that something could be wrong.
A lot if starts with the lack of fundamentals. It seems that everybody is going for the kill shot nowadays instead of wrapping up and tackling. If the players stopped using themselves as projectiles and actually made a form tackle, I think that we would see a drastic reduction in the number of head injuries.
Just kidding. But seriously... Haha
Did Seau have brain damage? Have they concluded that yet? Also if he did have brain damage, does that increase the likelihood of suicide?
I'm kind of confused on the connection between brain damage and suicide occurrence.
Personally, if my kids are lucky enough to have the work ethic and talent to play professional sports, I'd let them. They will fully know the consequences due to watching TV and hearing news stories about others in their profession. Not many people have the abilities to play professional sports and I won't be derailing their dream. You know the job description when you sign up...
All I can do is guide and hope everything works out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sports/hockey/derek-boogaard-a-brain-going-bad.html?pagewanted=all it talks about brain damage and that correlation.
Seau's brain hasn't been analyzed yet but his family did say they supported sending his brain to be analyzed. Also the "group think" behind both his and Duerson's suicides - they both shot themselves in the chest - is that they shot in the chest to preserve their brains for research.
Did Seau have brain damage? Have they concluded that yet? Also if he did have brain damage, does that increase the likelihood of suicide?
His family is donating his brain for study, so we will know soon
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-junior-seau-brain-stud…
When the news of Junior Seau's death broke, this, in combination with what happened to Dave Duerson, Ray Easterling, and going back a little further, Chris Henry, Mike Webster and other players who were discovered to be suffering from the effects of CTE (although they've not ruled that in Seau's case, I believe CTE experts are examining the case), it really began to sink that it would be increasingly difficult to enjoy this game if meaningful reforms did not start happening and soon. With more cases coming out, it will be increasingly hard to justify, at least in my own mind, supporting a league financially if it cannot at least properly acknowledge the risk that players take by providing adequate care or by redesigning the equipment or the game itself to mitigate the risk.
It has reached a point where this can't be ignored or marginalized - when you have about 1,000 players suing their former employer due to remarkably similar symptoms and the league has, to date, done nothing terribly meaningful to address the issue of life-altering, even ultimately life-ending injuries, then it seems clear to me that the enjoyment of the masses sits foremost in their mind, above the safety of their players, and that doesn't sit well at all with me as a fan and as someone who works in an industry where safety is paramount. I don't think that, as fans, we can be satisfied with the statement "it's their choice" and leave it there, not when there is an obvious pattern forming here, nor can you say that it is just "a few players", so therefore it isn't really an issue - to me, a few is enough to be concerned.
I don't know if the league will perish in the coming decades. I love the sport and I hope it is still around, but I would like to see it acknowledge the physical and psychological well-being of its players in a more meaningful, organized fashion, and to that end, I am willing to accept, as a fan, changes which promote this aim.
I think this is a thread that needed to be started. My thoughts:
1. Football is a great game and an extremely physical, even violent one. When it is played well it can be a joy to watch, and not just for the hits. Does anyone here ever get tired of watching Anthony Carter make that catch and run for a TD against Indiana? How about Desmond Howard striking the Heisman pose? Or Charles Woodson making that ridiculous one-handed interception at MSU?
2. While comparisons to boxing or even to Roman gladiatorial contests are understandable, they aren't the same. A good football game isn't defined by injuries. They are a risk -- a serious risk, but not a feature. Maybe this is naive, but most fans want the players to get back up. You don't have to be a neanderthal to enjoy the game.
3. But the game is starting to look too dangerous, and is associated not only with short-term injuries that heal but long-term brain injuries that don't and leave men crippled and even suicidal. There's still a lot that isn't known but it may well turn out that the damage being done to players is of a frequency and severity that cannot be justified.
4. The game will likely need to be changed. One can hope that those changes will leave the game more or less recognizable. I for one would hate to lose things like the Michigan-OSU rivalry. But if that is going to happen, the powers that be at all levels will need to summon a rare trait -- intellectual bravery that matches the physical bravery shown by the players.
5. Part of the changes may mean, simply, playing fewer games. The brain damage in particular seems to be more cumulative than the product of a few especially hard hits. The body can take a lot of damage, but it has its limits. Fewer games means fewer hits and less damage to the brain. Maybe we just need to accept that and shorten the season. (I've said this before -- the NFL regular season is probably too long and they could do without exhibitions altogether.) Eliminate off-season contact -- Losing the OSU game would be terrible, the spring game not so much. Add a bye week or two so players have a chance to heal.
6. And maybe there will need to be more. I don't know. Maybe the game is by nature so rough, and the brain so vulnerable to injury, that minimizing the damage to the brain to a level that we can accept in good conscience would make the game unrecognizable.
7. Life is full of risks and tradeoffs. Football isn't the only dangerous activity and not even the only way to damage one's brain. I suffered a concussion once, it didn't come from playing football. We don't need to make football safe -- lots of worthwhile things are unsafe. We do need to be sure that the game isn't a meat grinder. I for one would like to watch the game and think that generally speaking the guys out there will be okay over the long haul, however much they might be hurting today.
should always put safety first. You can make the sport safer and have it continue.
In the past 50 years, or so, we have seen the addition of batting helmets in baseball, hockey helmets and face guards, football rib pads and improved helmet designs and numerous rules changes. Those sports continue to be popular and safer.
Automobile racing is a good example of this. Thirty years ago the cars, particularly the open-wheeled ones, were death traps. The Porsche 917, one of the greatest sports racing cars ever, could graze 240 mph on the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans with exposed trees close to the road on either side, the driver's feet a foot from the front of the car, and an aerodynamic profile that produced so much lift the car was almost undriveable.
Many of the greatest F-1 stars of the first decades of the series died on the track. Safety procedures were dreadful. It's scary just watching the cars drive at speed on Youtube.
Things are different now. 200 mph will never be completely safe, but it's a whole lot safer than it used to be.
The same can happen in football. When the pressure becomes great enough, changes will occur that will help fix the issues. In all likelihood, it will involve a combination of changes; equipment invented that will reduce G forces to the head, and rules that prevent full-frontal hits that are so devastating over time, and stricter drug enforcement that shrinks the players back to human size. But it will happen. And 20 years from now we'll watch highlights of huge hits and cringe in horror instead of crowing in admiration.
Man old school racing was sweet. The Can-Am series was pretty much "No Rules" racing. Engine size limits? restrictor plates? Who needs 'em!! The 917 had a flat 12 that was pretty much 2 911 Turbo engines bolted together. Legend has it that once on a dyno the exhaust waste gate got stuck (meaning more pressure went into the turbos than was designed for) and the thing developed like 1500 HP at the wheels. It went wheel-to-wheel with 8 liter V-8 powered McClarens and all kinds of other crazy machines.
I still think the 70s must have been a cool time to grow up in.
More parents refusing to let their kids play football isn't going to have any impact on the business of football. The participation numbers are already fairly low. Far more kids play soccer and baseball than participate in organized tackle football before high school (the sport is quite expensive and as pointed out parents can worry about a lot more potential drawbacks than long-term head trauma). As long as people are watching football and buying tickets (the role virtually all of us play in the equation), then there will be more than enough folks playing the sport to field 32 NFL teams.
Also, assuming there are 300 million Americans, only one in ever 180,000+ people is currently on an NFL active roster. Parents making decisions based on what might happen if their kid plays for 15 years in the NFL is just silly. The fact remains that even if every parent encouraged their kid to play football, the overwhelming majority wouldn't make their high school team and even fewer would actually play. People patting themselves on the back based on what they hypothetically will or won't let their kids do is pretty useless to the discussion.
What about the role of anabolic steroid use in conjunction with repeated blows to the head? This is something that I've not heard discussed in the media. It's been known for some time that roid use can permenently change brain chemistry. I wonder if roid-induced changes makes one more prone to develop CTE or similar pathoplogies, and also might make some suicidal.
Speaking about potential changes, I think there will equipment improvement -- necessity drives innovation -- and changes to the rules governing tackling and blocking. Unfortunately for players playing currently, or in the recent past, these changes won't really take effect until they're enforced from Pop Warner to the NFL. I think the NFL is trying with the implementation of recent rules regarding leading with the head, defenseless receiver, etc. but unfortunately, a 15 yard penalty isn't going to stop the injury. Football as an entire game needs to reinvent the notion of proper tackling, as the OP said. Leading with the head, going for the kill shot, etc. will eventually evolve out of the game just like closelining and leg whipping.