5 ms·

The NFL’s problems in one accidentally revealing ad

60 points by chwolfe 14y ago

madpanda 14y ago
What's more revealing are the players in the ad who are apart of the 4000 suing the NFL. http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolution-concussion-mel-gray-rick-upchurch-ollie-matson/1890231/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolutio... Whatever the risk/reward calculus younger players might make, the NFL will still be held responsible. They know this. Their army of lawyers know this.The rules they are a-changin'.
wtvanhest 14y ago
Obviously NFL player safety is important, but I am much more worried about youth players and people who will never get to the NFL. This is why companies like http://brainsentry.com/ http://brainsentry.com/ need to get more exposure. [added] Brain Sentry makes sensors for youth programs to detect big hits. Obviously this isn't exactly what the author was referring to, but is a great first step.
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  A technical solution to a social problem. It never works. You'd hope they take away the players' helmets so the company can go bankrupt in peace.
  - JulieM 14y ago
    The whole point is to be able to keep playing the game, but make it safer. Tech can help identify the players who should be checked for a concussion and get those players off the field. Players don't report their symptoms so the technology enhances overall awareness of the topic (helping the social problem) while adding an extra set of eyes on the field (tech component).
    - HarryHirsch 14y ago
      Everyone knows what repeated concussions do to a fellow - boxer dementia is age-old - there are regulations against fielding concussed players, yet athletes play on, out of a sense of team spirit, or something. If players and coaches don't go by the information they already have, what will cause them to listen to an electronic box? This does not seem the way forward. Since it's impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing.
      - wtvanhest 14y ago
        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is clear when people have concussions and that players simply disregard the advice of coaches and play anyway. 1) "It is not always easy to know if someone has a concussion. You don't have to pass out (lose consciousness) to have a concussion." http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concussion-overview http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concuss... "Since it's impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing." I agree, by using a G meter, we can make a specific rule that if a player's head experiences a set number of G's, the player can no longer play. That basically simplifies the entire situation because it removes the subjectivity of detecting the concussion. If I had a kid, and they wanted to play football I would want him wearing a g meter to protect my kid.
        HarryHirsch 14y ago
        At present you have the rules of the game and the helmets and padding, which encourage concussions, and they you put another device on top of that, in order to limit them. That doesn't sound as if it would lead anywhere, and past experience has shown that the evolutionary path the game has taken did nothing to improve safety, Better helmets have made the concussion problem worse. I'm not comfortable with this approach, it would be better to discourage hard hits altogether instead of limiting them with a g-meter.
- VLM 14y ago
  That's an interesting complicated technical solution to a simple problem with a simple solution. The simple solution is a can of spray paint. The other teams's helmet color shows up on you, and you get (insert appropriate penalty here). I used to be a big fan of the game back in the 90s but I got bored because its not a very deep game. Oh, its got some interesting depth, just not much. Anyway most of the helmet smashing is pointless offensive / defensive line stuff, mutually assured destruction basically, and sacking the QB. Some simple rule changes wouldn't fundamentally change the overall game while eliminating 99% of the head smashing. For example, what if sacking the QB causes a penalty on the defense instead of (typically) a loss of offensive possession? Obviously you'll need to prevent hacks to the system like no forward progress is allowed by the QB. Also no forward progress is allowed by the center sneaking a yard or two. Ta da I think you've just eliminated probably around 90%+ of serious brain damage right there. Maybe more. There are of course alternatives to my rule suggestions. Something like tag football can still be exciting if applied properly. One interesting option is weight limits. Fine, smash into each other, but no 350 pound linemen anymore... we'll go with featherweights. Another interesting option is as any kid who played informally at a park knows, fewer players on the field makes it more of a running game than a brutal smashing game. What it you simply had no linemen at all and just had people running around like sprinters?
streptomycin 14y ago
I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for people to die on the field http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h... the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level. Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905.
- edwardunknown 14y ago
  Australian football doesn't use the helmets and has 25% fewer concussions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440240457452...
  - rohansingh 14y ago
    I prefer this comparison to the GP's since it controls for the level of medical technology. There may have been a spate of deaths in the early 20th century, but they may not have happened today. Not to mention that a single year could be an extreme outlier.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    Aside from a similar ball shape, Australian rules football is nothing like American football.
  - douglasisshiny 14y ago
    The article isn't about concussions. It's about hits that do not cause one to show visible mental effects, but are in fact a very mild form of concussion (TBI). And it's about players thousands upon thousands of those hits throughout their life.
- qeorge 14y ago
  I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the amount/intensity of the hits" argument. That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion. I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the other way on the brain injuries.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
It's basically a combat sport. These days, the players know or ought to know that is the case. I feel bad for the guys who get hurt, but the ones playing at the college and professional level are being rewarded substantially for the risks they take.
- isleyaardvark 14y ago
  That makes it basically "spectators pay players large amounts of money to injure themselves for our entertainment." I don't think that's the sign of a civilized society.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    That's overly reductionistic. We're not paying to watch them strike eachother in the head with baseball bats. We're paying them for an intense display of athletic skill, which incidentally is also extremely risky and likely to cause long-term harm. The reality is bad enough without overstating your case or taking a naive view of what people are getting out of spectating.
    - revelation 14y ago
      By the time you were fighting in the amphitheatrum novum, you had already survived a bunch of other fights and proven your abilities. And of course the citizen of Rome came for the same "intense display of athletic skill". There isn't much enjoyment in just mindless slaughter, so you add animals and weapons and shields.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        Again: the stupid, sensationalist comparison to bloodsport is not helping your case against anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Normal, rational people will read your comment and say, well, there are no swords or lions in football, nor any caesar giving the thumbs up or down, and almost no one dies on the field. Clearly this guy is off his rocker.
  - 14y ago
jessaustin 14y ago
I agree that losing the hard equipment would make the game safer (take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: much safer similar sports), but I don't agree with the implication that the owners of the NFL ever had a nefarious plan to add equipment so that the game would become watchable (again, take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: very watchable similar sports).
- rdouble 14y ago
  Aussie rules is not very similar to American football, though. Rugby Union is pretty different, too. Rugby League is about the closest thing to American football without the pads and helmets.
  - jessaustin 14y ago
    They all feature teams of players throwing, kicking, carrying, and sometimes punching an oblong ball on a long field with goal posts at either end. The object of all games is to advance the ball in a direction opposite to that of the other team, and then to score a varying number of points depending on how one moves the ball into a scoring area or kicks it between goal posts. Rough play is encouraged, and body tackling is the basic means of defense, so these games are all (with the exception of rugby union: the entire game is spent listening to the referee holler "pause, engage!" while the scrum falls apart) more enjoyable to play and watch than the sport upon which they're allegedly based. They're all more similar to each other than any of them are to baseball or tennis. Besides, the only similarity that counts for this analysis is the nature of the head trauma involved: men carrying a ball run while other men attempt to tackle them bodily to the ground.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      The hits and tackles are very different in Aussie rules or League not only because of the equipment difference, but because of rule differences. Look at some of the hits NFL line-backers put on receivers over the middle 2+ years ago (there was a rule change to partly address this). There just aren't many situations where a rugby player would get that sort of look at someone who is blind to them.
kmnc 14y ago
I would venture to guess that most NFLers that have made a career out of taking head trauma would be much more in favor of furthering post NFL support (jobs, financial guidance, mental health support), and better helmet technology then watching their game go the way of Boxing.
randylahey 14y ago
I'm no Sports-Ball expert, but two things you can do to make Football more enjoyable is lose the padding and lessen the constant pauses of the game (which frustrate me to no end, as a casual observer). These two reasons are why I find Rugby infinitely more enjoyable to watch.
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  You don't see the problem with "I don't like sport A, I like sport B. Make sport A more like sport B"? The pauses lead to a more rigid tactical game (you can't really run set plays much in rugby as you do on most downs in football). And the physical violence padding allows is also part of the appeal of the game. Just google "Clowney hit" and you see thousands of people losing their minds in praise for a hit of the kind you'll never see without padding. Of course, the second point is more what this article is about and I believe American football will eventually been seen like we view Roman gladiators. But for now, padding is a major reason why it is the biggest sport in America.
  - mattmaroon 14y ago
    Eh, the hits are only a small part of why it's the biggest sport. There are a lot of things the NFL does better than other leagues. I'd argue the biggest is the salary cap and the parity that results. But there are dozens more, and hits are probably low on the list since they're still nowhere near as exciting as the slam dunks you see on a SportsCenter highlight reel.
- madpanda 14y ago
  The constant pauses of the game have made it perfect for television--a huge part of its success and visibility.
kjackson2012 14y ago
I hate when people complain about football injuries. It's the risk and conscious choice that athletes take in order to make an enormous amount of money. If I were able to make millions of dollars for 8-10 years and risk having concussions and other physical problems later on in life, I would probably take it, especially if I came from an underprivileged background. The real tragedy is that 80% of pro athletes go bankrupt because they don't know how to handle their own money. They made a life-changing amount of money, and they waste it all because they don't have proper guidance in terms of how to retain most of it. THIS is something the NFL needs to concentrate on, that these young kids don't blow all their money away because of immaturity and arrogance.
- scott_s 14y ago
  The average career for an NFL player is not very long: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/04/18/what-is-average-nfl-player%E2%80%99s-career-length-longer-than-you-might-think-commissioner-goodell-says/ http://nflcommunications.com/2011/04/18/what-is-average-nfl-... Factor into that all of the players who don't make it to the NFL, but played all through high school and college. People start playing football before they understand the accumulated risk. I don't think that the accumulated risk is even well understood by most people at this point. There are studies that show that the incidences of depressions are significantly higher in former NFL athletes, with contributing factors likely being brain trauma and chronic pain. You can find sources here: http://www.google.com/search?q=incidence+of+depression+in+nfl http://www.google.com/search?q=incidence+of+depression+in+nf...
  - kjackson2012 14y ago
    I don't dispute any of that. My point is that it's a risk that everyone, to a great extent, knows about and are willing to take. Most of the NFL players don't care about the health effects until it gets extremely drastic, they are willing to risk their health to get the chance to make a life-changing amount of money. Some people, like Peyton Manning who suffered a grave neck injury, already have the money, but want to do it for the sheer competitive thrill. To put it into context, it's similar to a couple of college grads spending all their time trying to make a startup. Their chance of success is extremely small, and yet they are still willing to go for it. And if they work 100 hrs a week, they could suffer health problems too, including physical and mental health issues, like depression. There are several stories of startup founders committing suicide because of their lack of success. How would you feel if a bunch of non-practitioners were sitting around, and added regulations that limited your ability to form a startup because they feared the risks that you were willing to undertake for the chance to "make it rich"?
davidmspi 14y ago
If you plot concussions over helmet size you'll see the problem. Bigger/stronger helmets means more concussions. Its fairly obvious, go back to leather helmets or some softer material and players will lead with their head less. Which will mean lesser concussions. I am not saying they should play with leatherhelmets but the bigger harder plastic helmets make no sense. players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons. The helmet should be a silicon jelly ish type of material.
- evan_ 14y ago
  > players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons. Leading with the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty, ejected from the game, or both.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    And yet it happens anyway. I saw at least one instance during Sunday's game.
  - ncallaway 14y ago
    Leading with the _crown_ of the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty. The second infraction should get you ejected from the game. Leading with the front of the helmet (e.g. planting your facemask in the opponent's chest) is still perfectly legal. If I recall correctly, this rule ("spearing") was introduced to avoid _neck_ injury, as leading with the crown of the helmet puts an incredible amount of strain on the vertebrae in the neck.
- VLM 14y ago
  "stronger helmets means more concussions." Good observation, bad conclusion. The solution is not mushier or poorer protection, but something very much along the lines of "you get one helmet per game and thats it". Made outta styrofoam or something. Look, here's the big startup lesson. Say you've got a generic engineering challenge. Look at other industries. In the 50s they made car chassis that were so strong they could survive a 50 mph crash and look pretty much drivable afterward. Of course the passengers were dead jelly. Solution? Crumple zones, crush zones... Do the same with helmets. When that styrofoam cheesehead helmet is crushed or breaks off, you're done for the day. And everyone else has the same limitation, so hold back a little, else you get kicked out by everyone else, ok?
amalag 14y ago
The fact that you have to wear armor to play a contact sport games shows the quality of the game. I watch only the superbowl every year and it tells me why I don't watch the rest of the year. Soccer is just such a nicer sport. The worst that can happen is a leg injury, not cumulative dementia.
- Groxx 14y ago
  Oh really? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/14/science/la-sci-soccer-brain-injury-20121114 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/14/science/la-sci-socce... flinging your head around, then into a ball which rapidly changes the speed of your head (but not your brain) isn't the healthiest thing to do. Not that this is conclusive by any means, but it's still cumulative brain damage.
  - amalag 14y ago
    "Not that this is conclusive by any means, but it's still cumulative brain damage." Nice that you could say two different things in two parts of your sentence.
- jimmar 14y ago
  I don't think lack of injury is a great measure of a sport's quality. Otherwise, speed walking would have to be one of the greatest sports out there. Compared to speed walking, those soccer players are savages.
- brdrak 14y ago
  I played soccer growing up and some of the hardest hits I've taken to the head were from heading soccer balls. There have been studies confirming this. One example: http://www.newser.com/story/157592/soccer-heading-may-harm-brain.html http://www.newser.com/story/157592/soccer-heading-may-harm-b...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone 14y ago
  The jury is still out there on that. Heading, in particular, is linked to brain damage (http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170/Neuroimaging_of_Pro_Soccer_Players_Shows_White.4.aspx http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170... (article paywalled at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1391907) http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1391907)): "To the Editor: Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, with more than 250 million active players.1 It is the only sport in which the unprotected head is a primary point of contact when heading the ball. In other contact sports, the deleterious long-term effects of repetitive traumatic brain injury (TBI), such as impaired white matter integrity,2 are well recognized.3 However, whether frequent subconcussive blows to the head lead to TBI remains controversial,4- 5 although evidence suggests impaired neuropsychological function in soccer players.5 We evaluated concussion-naive soccer players using high-resolution diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which is highly sensitive for detecting alterations in white matter architecture." Heads can also hit each other or goalposts, for example when a keeper dives for the ball.
revelation 14y ago
Thats a strawman to the real question, and of course the top comment has already picked up on it, now claiming that "but back then it was just as unsafe". So now unsafe, back then unsafe. Seems like we should not be promoting a game that works only on brunt violence.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 14y ago
The NFL has made rule changes to reduce the incidence of head injuries, and IMO it's worth going a season or two to see if they improve things. The nature of the rules in U.S. football creates situations that are inherently more dangerous than its overseas counterparts like rugby or Aussie rules. In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. Most tackles are chase-downs where the runner is pulled to the ground at low speed. I disagree with Klein's assertion that the violence is at the heart of the NFL's appeal. There are numerous more violent or dangerous sports, like boxing, MMA, or even NHL hockey (which as straight-up fist fights) that are not nearly as popular. The sport is far less dangerous or violent today than it was 20 years ago, but it's far more popular. The NFL has reigned in the violence with rules like illegal contact on receivers, hits on defenseless receivers, roughing the passer, spearing, chop-blocking, face mask, blow to the head, horsecollar tackle, etc.--and as they have done so the game has only gained in popularity. This disproves that the violence is the heart of the appeal. Personally I think the appeal is that football is a) extremely athletic, b) extremely complex tactically and strategically, and c) perfect for TV because every single play has time for instant replay and analysis. In addition it involves a lot of ballistic trajectories, which are always popular: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074222543274268.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870377970457607...
- jessaustin 14y ago
  In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. In the absence of padding and helmets this would be rare in American football as well. Oh sure players would run toward each other. But the results would be a rugby-style wrap-arms-and-pull-down tackle rather than an NFL-style airborne earhole clock-cleaning. I agree with most of your other points; the NFL may well be safer now than at any time in the modern era. I doubt it will ever be safe, however.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    Is this really true? Those videos of old minimally padded players still look like there is substantially more violent tackling going on than what we see in those other sports.
bunderbunder 14y ago
Obligatory SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778
vaadu 14y ago
The real issue is as a society what do we do when adults knowingly engage in an activity that is self destructive. Nobody is forcing them to be football players. Nobody is forcing us to watch.

60 points by chwolfe 14y ago

What's more revealing are the players in the ad who are apart of the 4000 suing the NFL. http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolution-concussion-mel-gray-rick-upchurch-ollie-matson/1890231/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolutio... Whatever the risk/reward calculus younger players might make, the NFL will still be held responsible. They know this. Their army of lawyers know this.The rules they are a-changin'.

wtvanhest 14y ago

Obviously NFL player safety is important, but I am much more worried about youth players and people who will never get to the NFL. This is why companies like http://brainsentry.com/ http://brainsentry.com/ need to get more exposure. [added] Brain Sentry makes sensors for youth programs to detect big hits. Obviously this isn't exactly what the author was referring to, but is a great first step.

HarryHirsch 14y ago
A technical solution to a social problem. It never works. You'd hope they take away the players' helmets so the company can go bankrupt in peace.
- JulieM 14y ago
  The whole point is to be able to keep playing the game, but make it safer. Tech can help identify the players who should be checked for a concussion and get those players off the field. Players don't report their symptoms so the technology enhances overall awareness of the topic (helping the social problem) while adding an extra set of eyes on the field (tech component).
  - HarryHirsch 14y ago
    Everyone knows what repeated concussions do to a fellow - boxer dementia is age-old - there are regulations against fielding concussed players, yet athletes play on, out of a sense of team spirit, or something. If players and coaches don't go by the information they already have, what will cause them to listen to an electronic box? This does not seem the way forward. Since it's impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is clear when people have concussions and that players simply disregard the advice of coaches and play anyway. 1) "It is not always easy to know if someone has a concussion. You don't have to pass out (lose consciousness) to have a concussion." http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concussion-overview http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concuss... "Since it's impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing." I agree, by using a G meter, we can make a specific rule that if a player's head experiences a set number of G's, the player can no longer play. That basically simplifies the entire situation because it removes the subjectivity of detecting the concussion. If I had a kid, and they wanted to play football I would want him wearing a g meter to protect my kid.
      - HarryHirsch 14y ago
        At present you have the rules of the game and the helmets and padding, which encourage concussions, and they you put another device on top of that, in order to limit them. That doesn't sound as if it would lead anywhere, and past experience has shown that the evolutionary path the game has taken did nothing to improve safety, Better helmets have made the concussion problem worse. I'm not comfortable with this approach, it would be better to discourage hard hits altogether instead of limiting them with a g-meter.
VLM 14y ago
That's an interesting complicated technical solution to a simple problem with a simple solution. The simple solution is a can of spray paint. The other teams's helmet color shows up on you, and you get (insert appropriate penalty here). I used to be a big fan of the game back in the 90s but I got bored because its not a very deep game. Oh, its got some interesting depth, just not much. Anyway most of the helmet smashing is pointless offensive / defensive line stuff, mutually assured destruction basically, and sacking the QB. Some simple rule changes wouldn't fundamentally change the overall game while eliminating 99% of the head smashing. For example, what if sacking the QB causes a penalty on the defense instead of (typically) a loss of offensive possession? Obviously you'll need to prevent hacks to the system like no forward progress is allowed by the QB. Also no forward progress is allowed by the center sneaking a yard or two. Ta da I think you've just eliminated probably around 90%+ of serious brain damage right there. Maybe more. There are of course alternatives to my rule suggestions. Something like tag football can still be exciting if applied properly. One interesting option is weight limits. Fine, smash into each other, but no 350 pound linemen anymore... we'll go with featherweights. Another interesting option is as any kid who played informally at a park knows, fewer players on the field makes it more of a running game than a brutal smashing game. What it you simply had no linemen at all and just had people running around like sprinters?

streptomycin 14y ago

I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for people to die on the field http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h... the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level. Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905.

edwardunknown 14y ago
Australian football doesn't use the helmets and has 25% fewer concussions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440240457452...
- rohansingh 14y ago
  I prefer this comparison to the GP's since it controls for the level of medical technology. There may have been a spate of deaths in the early 20th century, but they may not have happened today. Not to mention that a single year could be an extreme outlier.
- rdouble 14y ago
  Aside from a similar ball shape, Australian rules football is nothing like American football.
- douglasisshiny 14y ago
  The article isn't about concussions. It's about hits that do not cause one to show visible mental effects, but are in fact a very mild form of concussion (TBI). And it's about players thousands upon thousands of those hits throughout their life.
qeorge 14y ago
I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the amount/intensity of the hits" argument. That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion. I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the other way on the brain injuries.

jamesaguilar 14y ago

It's basically a combat sport. These days, the players know or ought to know that is the case. I feel bad for the guys who get hurt, but the ones playing at the college and professional level are being rewarded substantially for the risks they take.

isleyaardvark 14y ago
That makes it basically "spectators pay players large amounts of money to injure themselves for our entertainment." I don't think that's the sign of a civilized society.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  That's overly reductionistic. We're not paying to watch them strike eachother in the head with baseball bats. We're paying them for an intense display of athletic skill, which incidentally is also extremely risky and likely to cause long-term harm. The reality is bad enough without overstating your case or taking a naive view of what people are getting out of spectating.
  - revelation 14y ago
    By the time you were fighting in the amphitheatrum novum, you had already survived a bunch of other fights and proven your abilities. And of course the citizen of Rome came for the same "intense display of athletic skill". There isn't much enjoyment in just mindless slaughter, so you add animals and weapons and shields.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      Again: the stupid, sensationalist comparison to bloodsport is not helping your case against anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Normal, rational people will read your comment and say, well, there are no swords or lions in football, nor any caesar giving the thumbs up or down, and almost no one dies on the field. Clearly this guy is off his rocker.
- 14y ago

jessaustin 14y ago

I agree that losing the hard equipment would make the game safer (take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: much safer similar sports), but I don't agree with the implication that the owners of the NFL ever had a nefarious plan to add equipment so that the game would become watchable (again, take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: very watchable similar sports).

rdouble 14y ago
Aussie rules is not very similar to American football, though. Rugby Union is pretty different, too. Rugby League is about the closest thing to American football without the pads and helmets.
- jessaustin 14y ago
  They all feature teams of players throwing, kicking, carrying, and sometimes punching an oblong ball on a long field with goal posts at either end. The object of all games is to advance the ball in a direction opposite to that of the other team, and then to score a varying number of points depending on how one moves the ball into a scoring area or kicks it between goal posts. Rough play is encouraged, and body tackling is the basic means of defense, so these games are all (with the exception of rugby union: the entire game is spent listening to the referee holler "pause, engage!" while the scrum falls apart) more enjoyable to play and watch than the sport upon which they're allegedly based. They're all more similar to each other than any of them are to baseball or tennis. Besides, the only similarity that counts for this analysis is the nature of the head trauma involved: men carrying a ball run while other men attempt to tackle them bodily to the ground.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    The hits and tackles are very different in Aussie rules or League not only because of the equipment difference, but because of rule differences. Look at some of the hits NFL line-backers put on receivers over the middle 2+ years ago (there was a rule change to partly address this). There just aren't many situations where a rugby player would get that sort of look at someone who is blind to them.

kmnc 14y ago

I would venture to guess that most NFLers that have made a career out of taking head trauma would be much more in favor of furthering post NFL support (jobs, financial guidance, mental health support), and better helmet technology then watching their game go the way of Boxing.

randylahey 14y ago

I'm no Sports-Ball expert, but two things you can do to make Football more enjoyable is lose the padding and lessen the constant pauses of the game (which frustrate me to no end, as a casual observer). These two reasons are why I find Rugby infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

Kylekramer 14y ago
You don't see the problem with "I don't like sport A, I like sport B. Make sport A more like sport B"? The pauses lead to a more rigid tactical game (you can't really run set plays much in rugby as you do on most downs in football). And the physical violence padding allows is also part of the appeal of the game. Just google "Clowney hit" and you see thousands of people losing their minds in praise for a hit of the kind you'll never see without padding. Of course, the second point is more what this article is about and I believe American football will eventually been seen like we view Roman gladiators. But for now, padding is a major reason why it is the biggest sport in America.
- mattmaroon 14y ago
  Eh, the hits are only a small part of why it's the biggest sport. There are a lot of things the NFL does better than other leagues. I'd argue the biggest is the salary cap and the parity that results. But there are dozens more, and hits are probably low on the list since they're still nowhere near as exciting as the slam dunks you see on a SportsCenter highlight reel.
madpanda 14y ago
The constant pauses of the game have made it perfect for television--a huge part of its success and visibility.

kjackson2012 14y ago

I hate when people complain about football injuries. It's the risk and conscious choice that athletes take in order to make an enormous amount of money. If I were able to make millions of dollars for 8-10 years and risk having concussions and other physical problems later on in life, I would probably take it, especially if I came from an underprivileged background. The real tragedy is that 80% of pro athletes go bankrupt because they don't know how to handle their own money. They made a life-changing amount of money, and they waste it all because they don't have proper guidance in terms of how to retain most of it. THIS is something the NFL needs to concentrate on, that these young kids don't blow all their money away because of immaturity and arrogance.

scott_s 14y ago
The average career for an NFL player is not very long: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/04/18/what-is-average-nfl-player%E2%80%99s-career-length-longer-than-you-might-think-commissioner-goodell-says/ http://nflcommunications.com/2011/04/18/what-is-average-nfl-... Factor into that all of the players who don't make it to the NFL, but played all through high school and college. People start playing football before they understand the accumulated risk. I don't think that the accumulated risk is even well understood by most people at this point. There are studies that show that the incidences of depressions are significantly higher in former NFL athletes, with contributing factors likely being brain trauma and chronic pain. You can find sources here: http://www.google.com/search?q=incidence+of+depression+in+nfl http://www.google.com/search?q=incidence+of+depression+in+nf...
- kjackson2012 14y ago
  I don't dispute any of that. My point is that it's a risk that everyone, to a great extent, knows about and are willing to take. Most of the NFL players don't care about the health effects until it gets extremely drastic, they are willing to risk their health to get the chance to make a life-changing amount of money. Some people, like Peyton Manning who suffered a grave neck injury, already have the money, but want to do it for the sheer competitive thrill. To put it into context, it's similar to a couple of college grads spending all their time trying to make a startup. Their chance of success is extremely small, and yet they are still willing to go for it. And if they work 100 hrs a week, they could suffer health problems too, including physical and mental health issues, like depression. There are several stories of startup founders committing suicide because of their lack of success. How would you feel if a bunch of non-practitioners were sitting around, and added regulations that limited your ability to form a startup because they feared the risks that you were willing to undertake for the chance to "make it rich"?

davidmspi 14y ago

If you plot concussions over helmet size you'll see the problem. Bigger/stronger helmets means more concussions. Its fairly obvious, go back to leather helmets or some softer material and players will lead with their head less. Which will mean lesser concussions. I am not saying they should play with leatherhelmets but the bigger harder plastic helmets make no sense. players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons. The helmet should be a silicon jelly ish type of material.

evan_ 14y ago
> players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons. Leading with the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty, ejected from the game, or both.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  And yet it happens anyway. I saw at least one instance during Sunday's game.
- ncallaway 14y ago
  Leading with the _crown_ of the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty. The second infraction should get you ejected from the game. Leading with the front of the helmet (e.g. planting your facemask in the opponent's chest) is still perfectly legal. If I recall correctly, this rule ("spearing") was introduced to avoid _neck_ injury, as leading with the crown of the helmet puts an incredible amount of strain on the vertebrae in the neck.
VLM 14y ago
"stronger helmets means more concussions." Good observation, bad conclusion. The solution is not mushier or poorer protection, but something very much along the lines of "you get one helmet per game and thats it". Made outta styrofoam or something. Look, here's the big startup lesson. Say you've got a generic engineering challenge. Look at other industries. In the 50s they made car chassis that were so strong they could survive a 50 mph crash and look pretty much drivable afterward. Of course the passengers were dead jelly. Solution? Crumple zones, crush zones... Do the same with helmets. When that styrofoam cheesehead helmet is crushed or breaks off, you're done for the day. And everyone else has the same limitation, so hold back a little, else you get kicked out by everyone else, ok?

amalag 14y ago

The fact that you have to wear armor to play a contact sport games shows the quality of the game. I watch only the superbowl every year and it tells me why I don't watch the rest of the year. Soccer is just such a nicer sport. The worst that can happen is a leg injury, not cumulative dementia.

Groxx 14y ago
Oh really? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/14/science/la-sci-soccer-brain-injury-20121114 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/14/science/la-sci-socce... flinging your head around, then into a ball which rapidly changes the speed of your head (but not your brain) isn't the healthiest thing to do. Not that this is conclusive by any means, but it's still cumulative brain damage.
- amalag 14y ago
  "Not that this is conclusive by any means, but it's still cumulative brain damage." Nice that you could say two different things in two parts of your sentence.
jimmar 14y ago
I don't think lack of injury is a great measure of a sport's quality. Otherwise, speed walking would have to be one of the greatest sports out there. Compared to speed walking, those soccer players are savages.
brdrak 14y ago
I played soccer growing up and some of the hardest hits I've taken to the head were from heading soccer balls. There have been studies confirming this. One example: http://www.newser.com/story/157592/soccer-heading-may-harm-brain.html http://www.newser.com/story/157592/soccer-heading-may-harm-b...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Someone 14y ago
The jury is still out there on that. Heading, in particular, is linked to brain damage (http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170/Neuroimaging_of_Pro_Soccer_Players_Shows_White.4.aspx http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170... (article paywalled at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1391907) http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1391907)): "To the Editor: Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, with more than 250 million active players.1 It is the only sport in which the unprotected head is a primary point of contact when heading the ball. In other contact sports, the deleterious long-term effects of repetitive traumatic brain injury (TBI), such as impaired white matter integrity,2 are well recognized.3 However, whether frequent subconcussive blows to the head lead to TBI remains controversial,4- 5 although evidence suggests impaired neuropsychological function in soccer players.5 We evaluated concussion-naive soccer players using high-resolution diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which is highly sensitive for detecting alterations in white matter architecture." Heads can also hit each other or goalposts, for example when a keeper dives for the ball.

revelation 14y ago

Thats a strawman to the real question, and of course the top comment has already picked up on it, now claiming that "but back then it was just as unsafe". So now unsafe, back then unsafe. Seems like we should not be promoting a game that works only on brunt violence.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

snowwrestler 14y ago

The NFL has made rule changes to reduce the incidence of head injuries, and IMO it's worth going a season or two to see if they improve things. The nature of the rules in U.S. football creates situations that are inherently more dangerous than its overseas counterparts like rugby or Aussie rules. In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. Most tackles are chase-downs where the runner is pulled to the ground at low speed. I disagree with Klein's assertion that the violence is at the heart of the NFL's appeal. There are numerous more violent or dangerous sports, like boxing, MMA, or even NHL hockey (which as straight-up fist fights) that are not nearly as popular. The sport is far less dangerous or violent today than it was 20 years ago, but it's far more popular. The NFL has reigned in the violence with rules like illegal contact on receivers, hits on defenseless receivers, roughing the passer, spearing, chop-blocking, face mask, blow to the head, horsecollar tackle, etc.--and as they have done so the game has only gained in popularity. This disproves that the violence is the heart of the appeal. Personally I think the appeal is that football is a) extremely athletic, b) extremely complex tactically and strategically, and c) perfect for TV because every single play has time for instant replay and analysis. In addition it involves a lot of ballistic trajectories, which are always popular: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074222543274268.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870377970457607...

jessaustin 14y ago
In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. In the absence of padding and helmets this would be rare in American football as well. Oh sure players would run toward each other. But the results would be a rugby-style wrap-arms-and-pull-down tackle rather than an NFL-style airborne earhole clock-cleaning. I agree with most of your other points; the NFL may well be safer now than at any time in the modern era. I doubt it will ever be safe, however.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  Is this really true? Those videos of old minimally padded players still look like there is substantially more violent tackling going on than what we see in those other sports.

bunderbunder 14y ago

Obligatory SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778

vaadu 14y ago

The real issue is as a society what do we do when adults knowingly engage in an activity that is self destructive. Nobody is forcing them to be football players. Nobody is forcing us to watch.