Osler's Razor

I am a best friend to a former NFLer who has emotional illness associated with traumatic brain injury suffered while playing football. I help him with issues like relating to his landlord and other tenants, protecting his assets, etc. He has a hard time making good decisions and I help him think through his options and possible outcomes.
Among other issues, he is generous to a fault with old friends and family members who expect him to give them money b/c he has always had a bit more than they have had (but doesn't now in retirement).
So, yes, I would not let my son play football, hockey, or box, but would redirect him to other sport like baseball, basketball, soccer, cycling, etc. There is too great a risk of permanent injury in the violent collisions that are an integral part of football.

We should be able to live as a society without gladiatorial combat as a national passtime!
 

Wf-- I agree with you. It is hard, though, to reconcile that with my excitement over Baylor's successful season!
 

The kid with no food:
His mom signs the dotted line.
He'll still play football.

Every time I see one of these articles, I think about who isn't saying they won't let their kids play football: the people who don't have any other hope. As long as people with money are willing to trade it to watch football, people without money will be willing to leverage their (children's) future health against the possibility of having more money than they can imagine.
 

Jeremy, that is exactly right-- and part of what I was thinking, too. Football will become a sport played by people who grew up poor, and subsidized by the rest. You put it better than I would have, though.
 

I hope and pray my kids never have any interest in this, because I am not sure how I would respond. Baseball is God's game. Everyone knows that ("In the beginning ..")!
 

I read somewhere a suggestion that they get rid of helmets and make it more like rugby. At first I thought it was crazy and then after watching rugby in New Zealand I realized it might work. Rugby players don't tackle high due to no helmets and it is against the rules to tackle low. It would be interesting to see how this might play out if you took younger kids who wanted to play and taught them without pads and helmets almost like rugby. You could create good habits from a very young age. Not guaranteed to stick though unless you removed the pads, etc in the full game. However as long as the NFL is a multi-billion dollar business this will never happen.
 

"Football will become a sport played by people who grew up poor, and subsidized by the rest."

The same could be said, to a large degree, of our current volunteer armed services.


 

Nord is correct, with the possible exception of the officer corps, the academy graduates, and the ROTC guys. Perhaps also some of the National Guard holdovers from before Iraq. It is not healthy for a democracy to have a totally professional military.
 

I think the smaller size and speed of most H.S. players limits long-term consequences of playing for a short period of time in H.S. Of course there will always be the terrible accidents in hockey and football, but I don't think that is what most people are thinking about. It is the long term effects that many are thinking of, and I think those are limited in H.S. This may be true for many college athletes as well, though not all. In contrast, the size and speed of the professional is more of a problem for them, who in turn are compensated for their pain. Whether they are compensated wisely may be worth looking at. For example, they could receive a pension and access to health care for life in lieu of, or in addition to, a large one-time cash payment.

I would be glad to be shown otherwise, but at this point, I don't think it is a sport played by the poor for the entertainment of the rich. Rich and poor enjoy playing. And rich and poor enjoy watching. That might change, but I think the perception of it changing may be limited to certain circles of people who are more self-conscious than others about risk and danger.
 

Additionally, I would go further on the issue of danger. A segment of the population embraces participating in dangerous activities, be it football, adventure sports, or something else. Joining a gang sometimes comes from the same sub-conscious desires. As a result, I don't think we can or should over-regulate access to risk. I think that things like football and MMA (Mixes Martial Arts) serve as an antidote to taking more violent paths or more dangerous paths. It is futile and misguided to try and put a complete lid on violence, particularly in young men. (Not that all young men take this approach, and some women do embrace things like hockey, but typically it is young men.) The better approach is to direct and control it in positive ways, and in ways that help mentor young people into being well-balanced men. (Something many football programs for example, do NOT do. But should.)

One example of this is former gang members and other at-risk youth learning long-term life skills from an older ex-gang member who has gotten his life turned around, while working out at a boxing or MMA gym. But it is not just "at-risk" youth who benefit. Coddled suburbanites also long to cut the apron-strings, hit something, and be hit. In a controlled environment, the exercise is a net good. This is one reason young people join the military, not to kill or be killed, but to participate in these "right-of-passage" like activities that involve pain. When the have other ways to prove themselves, they may not joint the military.

Pain can be good. Our culture avoids it like the plague, but not all cultures have. A certain percentage of young people crave the opportunity to test themselves. Sometimes that looks like joining a gang. Or it might look like suburbanites in trench coats playing with guns and fantasizing about blowing up the school, or worse. The better approach is football or MMA in a controlled positive environment. Learning from that ex-con who has gotten his life turned around and is now mentoring youth at the local MMA gym, that is a net gain.

A note: I want to define violence here in amoral terms. I’m simply thinking of kinetic energy. Striking and being struck. I don't think it is inherently immoral. For example, when two friends box, with little or no animosity between them, that is violent and good.

Also, what I have not discussed here is a sort of yin and yang that is possible. An outlet for physical aggression, combined with spiritual and emotional awareness. The goal of being both aggressive and humble, skilled in a violent craft, and kind to a fault. But that is another discussion. All I'm saying here is that I think there may be a place for violence and physical pain in the right context.



 

DB--

I didn't play football in high school, but I do know a lot of people whose body got messed up playing football them-- much more knees than brains, but still not a good thing.
 

I still cannot use my right arm above my head for more than a few seconds, 50 or so years post the hit I took playing FB as a high school student.
 

Mark, Alex is a redshirt freshman at Tulane. He has loved fb since the day he first started playing at Reicher. He excelled at tennis and soccer, but didn't"love" them like he has fb. I find it unbelievably elitist to say that only poor kids will play football in the future. We can no more stop young men from trying crazy and dangerous activities than stop the tides. The best option is to keep a close eye on injuries, and make the punishment for programs which fail to recognize and treat so severe that they don't even consider cheating.
 

Furthermore, I tried rugby in college. Anyone that thinks this is an easy sport is utterly delusional!

 

Well, yeah, Rugby looks like a psychopath convention. I can't figure out what is supposed to be going on there.

As for football, I don't think it will be only for poorer kids-- just mostly. That means fewer kids will play it, which leads to fewer great players.

Baseball went through this-- fewer kids playing baseball-- and the major leagues adjusted by having more players from other countries come in. It's an international sport in a way football is not, so that will not happen for football.

The NFL isn't going to disband or anything, but fewer players at the lower levels will mean fewer great players at the upper levels.

Beyond that, I do think the stories about the damage football can do (like the ones told by others here) does matter.

It's funny, too-- here in Minnesota, people have the same concerns (legitimately) about hockey, the sport I grew up playing. They are right, too; it is dangerous. The contact is a lot less continuous than in football, though, and the injuries are usually less severe. Still, it looks like fewer kids are playing in recent years because of these concerns.
 

Regardless of what I think (which is not so reliable when it comes to football), the objective fact is that fewer kids are playing football.

That's the reality at the ground level.
 

I guess I should have put that link in the initial post, huh?
 

Not really apropos to the actual issue at hand, but I feel compelled to point out that Brent Farvre is a jackass.
That is all.