Middle class abandoning football

Submitted by LLG on September 8th, 2017 at 2:39 PM

Makes me wonder about how college football changes also.  Any thoughts?

Death of NFL inevitable as middle class abandons the game

"You really think the NFL is worried about young athletes? If so, they'd have changed the rules years ago, abandoning face masks, enlarging the ball to make it difficult to throw, switching to one platoon football."

I didn't know about one platoon football before (or the phrase).  Some research pulled up this article about Fritz Crisler:  The Man Who Changed Football

Sports Illustrated article starts:  "When the NCAA Rules Committee voted a return to two-platoon football last month, one of the least surprised men in the country—and one of the most pleased—was Fritz Crisler, athletic director of the University of Michigan. Crisler is a life member of the Rules Committee."

Comments

Madonna

September 8th, 2017 at 6:16 PM ^

"Dogwhistle" accusations are interesting. In order to truly recognize it, you have to tacitly admit to 'hearing it' yourself. That's then ripe for projecting personal failings or biases onto some out group. And if you claim to know it is a "dogwhistle," but deny any personal resonance, then again, you're basically assuming a person's worst possible motive is their only motive (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens).

Hab

September 8th, 2017 at 6:52 PM ^

Just as a physical dogwhistle can be identified by features other than the sound it makes, so too can "fake media" accusations be characterized as "dogwhistle" without actually being triggered, for lack of a better term, by the phrase.

If I blow an instrument that a trusted source has identified as a dogwhistle, don't hear anything myself, and see dogs come running or otherwise react as a dog would when a dogwhistle was blown, I would argue that a reasonable conclusion would be that the instrument is in fact a dogwhistle.  Similarly, if someone makes a fake media claim that looks like other fake media claims, and I see others respond as others are known to when someone makes such claims, I would argue that it is a reasonable conclusion that describing the accusation as a dogwhistle accusation is a fair characterization.  

Also, I can identify a "fake media" claim without thinking any less of the person making the claim.  I have assumed nothing about them and simply made my own assesment about the nature of their claim.  At what point is any of that personal?  Answer, nothing.  

Madonna

September 8th, 2017 at 9:42 PM ^

With suitable equipment, I can objectively test a claim made using inductive reasoning as to whether an object does in fact emit a frequency outside of human hearing. There's rarely anything comparably objective in ideological debates except on certain discrete facts. I'm no Rortian relatvist/constructivist, but subjectvity pervades our worldviews.

The notion that you are not making a pejorative assessment of someone when you label their opinion an unsupported "fake news" claim is laughable. It's a direct personal assessment that person in question is ignorant, gullible, and/or dishonest.

Another problematic element of the "dog whistle" accusation specifically, is that it literally relies on a dehumanizing analogy. Likening humans in out groups to other animals has an ugly history and the hypocrisy of its use speaks for itself.

The entire political subtext some of you introduced here is completely inappropriate. WD did nothing more than liken this 'hot take' on the future of football to other failed media projections. Sure, WD says some silly or immature things from time to time, like the notion football is some last bastion of manliness, but the disproportionate venom directed at him never ceases to shock me.

Hab

September 9th, 2017 at 10:14 AM ^

With suitable equipment, I can objectively test a claim made using inductive reasoning as to whether an object does in fact emit a frequency outside of human hearing. There's rarely anything comparably objective in ideological debates except on certain discrete facts. I'm no Rortian relatvist/constructivist, but subjectvity pervades our worldviews.

So you agree with me? Or do you disagree because you don't think that someone can look at the structure of an argument or the manner in which it is delivered and make an objective statement (subject to scrupulous debate no doubt) about the intent of the speaker without taking any position or making any comment on the substance of the statement itself? Perhaps it is my training and experience in looking at the structures of arguments that makes it easy to divorce the substance of an argument from the way in which it is made. Sometimes the distinction is irrelevant, other times, as here, it is.

The notion that you are not making a pejorative assessment of someone when you label their opinion an unsupported "fake news" claim is laughable. It's a direct personal assessment that person in question is ignorant, gullible, and/or dishonest. Another problematic element of the "dog whistle" accusation specifically, is that it literally relies on a dehumanizing analogy. Likening humans in out groups to other animals has an ugly history and the hypocrisy of its use speaks for itself.

In this section, you mistakenly attribute WD's disdain to the poster who called him out for making a dogwhistle argument. If you look again, you will see that the criticism is not of WD, but of the manner of his argument. There is no need to go into more. You can dehor the name modern parlance has bestowed upon the criticism, but it's no different than asserting that WD's argument is ad hominem, is hyperbolic, makes false equivalencies, is more trustworthy based upon his own prodigous MGOPoint total, or any other of a host of structural problems. One could certainly argue that there are better terms than 'dogwhistle', but the point gets across and your argument that everyone who uses the term per se intends to dehumanize, while not laughable is beyond reasonable.

Madonna

September 9th, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^

“you mistakenly attribute WD's disdain to the poster who called him out for making a dogwhistle argument”
 
I base my assessment on a long history of vitriol directed at WD.  I don’t even have to hunt down a past example of Bando’s conduct, because Bando specifically writes "as usual.” That directly indicates that his comments extend beyond the argument itself.  TIMMMAY actually goes further and writes “He has spouted the "fake news" line many, many times. He's... one of them.”  There’s no ‘mistaken attribution.’  
 
It’s not really a dog whistle argument either.  As you correctly note yourself, the argument “is ad hominem, is hyperbolic, makes false equivalencies”.  The entire point of an actual ideoligical “dog whistle” would be to signal an idea with subterfuge.  Clearly WD is not attempting that.  Both “fake news” and “dogwhistle” have become tribalistic metonyms, but that’s not the same as an actual “dog whistle” either.
 
 
"your argument that everyone who uses the term per se intends to dehumanize"
 
For some one claiming such “training and experience in looking at the structures of arguments” you straight up put words in my mouth.  I make no claims about internal motives, let alone some absurd, absolutist claim of “everyone.”  I merely examine the semantics and implications of the word itself. Frankly I would assume most people do not contemplate such aspects and use such terms out of lazy tribalism.
 
 
"beyond reasonable."
 
Your resort to flagrant misrepresentation speaks for itself.
 
 
“make an objective statement (subject to scrupulous debate no doubt) about the intent of the speaker”
 
I think the notion a person can make a “objective” assessment of a person’s internal motives regarding their ideological worldview is oxymoronic and deeply arrogant.  The game is over, I have mommy duties and can't develop the problems with this last point in full.

gopoohgo

September 8th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^

JournOList DID exist, and there appeared to be a coordinated effort between left-leaning media members across multiple print sources to at least influence the dialogue on the Reverend Wright controversy to Obama's benefit.

I think the thing that irritates the craps out of middle of the road folks is when editorial bloviating enters the news reporting realm. On both sides.

smwilliams

September 8th, 2017 at 4:59 PM ^

The JournOList thing was devoid of context (not that I was a member of it), but I get how it can come across as malevolent in some way. 

The second part of your post I do agree with. A dissolution of the line between journalism and editorializing ruined political discourse and the ability of the general public to discern what's true and what's false. 

 

GratefulBlue

September 8th, 2017 at 9:06 PM ^

Of all the criticisms you could lob at journalists, saying it's about money is the least legitimate. That may be true of publishers, but it's almost never true of the underpaid, overworked people who report for them. There's the old saying you get the ___ you deserve. If you want exhaustive, considered, honest reporting, start reading or clicking on it. 

 

evenyoubrutus

September 8th, 2017 at 3:41 PM ^

I think it's fair to say that the media has reasons to blow certain things out of proportion, and that doesn't mean they are all conspiring together to create the news. But I think WD is just saying they are making it out to be bigger than it is. It's a very sensational thing to suggest that the most popular sport in the U.S. is on the brink of collapsing, especially since head trauma in football is such a hot topic right now.

TrueBlue2003

September 8th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^

if he said it in a reasonable manner like you did, that media sensationalizes things because they literally have to in a media environment that rewards clicks over truth (which is 100 percent the fault of consumers of media), everyone would nod their heads in agreement, like we did to your post.

But to call opinion pieces "untrue" as if there is any concrete prediction that could be verifiable (there isn't) is just lazy and stupid.  Call it overblown, or disagree with the guys opinion, or say that it won' happen nearly as quickly as implied in the article, but there's nothing to even call "untrue" here because it's a guy writing a sensational piece aimed at clicks.  Nothing more.

Tyrone Biggums

September 8th, 2017 at 8:56 PM ^

Media is a monolith. Do some research yourself. 6 corporations own the overwhelming number of media outlets all over the world. If you don't think that the narratives are contrived and for the benefit of the corporations they serve, okay. If you think that the MSM is still the 4th pillar you might wanna pay more attention.

Wolverine Devotee

September 8th, 2017 at 3:52 PM ^

Good for them. And when their kids grow up, they're gonna wanna play football.

That's usually how it goes. Kids start in soccer all the time and move on to football. Harbaugh recommends it.

Football is the last bastion of hope for toughness in American men.

I'm not hate soccer guy, either. I've been to two Michigan Soccer games in the last 3 weeks.

Blue2000

September 8th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

My 9-year old son currently plays soccer, but wants to play football.  Guess what?  I'm not going to let him play football, because I'm worried about his safety.  And I know I'm not alone in my thinking.  

As for the notion that football is "the last bastion for toughness," I know Harbaugh said it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is breathtakingly stupid.  

FatGuyTouchdown

September 8th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^

asking him that is it turns into a pissing contest. Just because he was more musically gifted doesnt make him any less of a man/give him any less of a right to have an opinion on it, just like you are able to have a comment on Michigan sports despite not having attended Michigan. I play college football, and I can see why people wouldn't want their kids playing. It's a violent sport, and it's done longterm damage on my body.