Thought you guys might enjoy this...

slate.me/JZZPPY

At least one thing wrong with his hypothesis: unlike boxing, football is working to address the issue of concussions.  Keeping guys out longer; better immediate treatment; improved equipment.  Actually, it's not so much concussions but spinal injuries that'll be the most damaging to football at all levels.

I really wish I didn't read that; there's another small section of my life I won't get back.

No doubt it will, but there is a big difference each time you jump a level, from high school to college, and from college to NFL, and Seau played in the NFL from 1990 to 2010, an extremely long career. I would guess that Seau is in the upper .1% of all football players in terms of number of high-impact collisions. Even then it is not clear how all that football affected him.

The odds are irrelevant. And did he say pro football or just football in general, like Pop Warner?

The odds are most certainly relevant. Suppose at one extreme, that he had a son that was believed to be the next Andrew Luck. That would be saying that he believes that so strongly that is turning down $100 million, or so, a very powerful statement. At the other extreme, suppose that he has non-athletic children. In that case he's not risking giving up anything, so his opinion is hypothetical. It's like saying that if you found a suitcase with $1 million in unmarked bills in it, you'd give it back. If you are actually holding a suitcase, and looking for the owner, it's a lot more believable than you are just talking hypothetically.

That's a good point, too, JSF- once his kids are old enough to play pro football, they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. The point is that his statement that he wouldn't let his kids play pro football is silly because he's offering to give up something he doesn't have to give in the first place. Rather than reinforcing his point, saying something like that distracts from his point by getting the discussion off track.

Pro football is not the first career out there that involves heath risks. Wouldn't it be nice if every career was safe, and no one ever got hurt? Historically that isn't true, because lots of jobs expose you to various things, such as chemicals, radioactivity, asbestos, or whatever. At least pro football pays well, so its hard to argue that the compensation isn't commensurate with the risk. That isn't to say it is for everyone.

Speaking of risk of brain injury, what about cell phones? Scientists have done a lot of research, with varying results, but even now cell phones have only been around for 15-20 years. What will be the effect of using one for 50-60 years? Should we ban them until we know for sure? Or, should we proceed as we are, and continue to try to find ways to make them safer?

Blood for the Blood God.

I would argue that sports does fill an important need. Dating back to the Greeks it has been believed that there was a connection between a healthy mind and a healthy body. Watching people at the pinnacle of fitness is an inspiration to all of us to get out and do something. I used to watch football, and then go out and toss the ball around, or play a little touch football.

As for some of the other occupations, some are more essential than others. Off the top of my head, how essential were the hatters, that worked with mercury? How about the stuntmen in TV shows? Both of those are pretty risky occupations, and have marginal necessity, in my opinion.

I do support all things to make football safer. If research shows that there is a limit beyond which we shouldn't push the human body, and they decide to limit pro football careers to, say, some number of years, like 5 years, I have no problem with that. If they want to say that after some number of concussions you have to hang up the cleats, I have no problem with that. If they come up with safer headgear, again, it's all good.

I will add that in watching football, I have never wanted to see anyone debilitated, and if I thought that's what most fans wanted, I would stop watching. There are a few bad sports that want that, but for the most part, most fans are very much saddened, I think, when anyone, on either team gets hurt.

I won't argue whether or not it fills a need (a very debatable point), but there are many other sports that fill that role without presenting a clear and present danger to its participants.



Not essential at all. They don't exist anymore.



I believe it's statistically a much safer occupation than football player. Even if it's not, I don't see how this strengthens your point.



How many of those same fans were screaming, "HIT HIM!" before the injury?

JSF, virtually all sports have some risk of injury. In my case, I was never hurt playing football, but I have arthritis in my foot from basketball, and a finger that was broken and never healed correctly from baseball. Many people play football without serious injury. You say it doesn't serve any important function, but besides the fitness aspect, it is a part of the entertainment industry. While you may think entertainment has no value, the free market seems to believe it does have value.

In addition, football provides tremendous benefit for some individuals. Consider for example the recently drafted Brazill. In his junior year of high school he was academically ineligible for football. Because he wanted to play, he turned his life around, and began studying. Now he has a career in football, and after football, he has a diploma that will help him continue to be successful. Where would he be today had it not been for football? I have no idea.

As for hatters, you are wrong - they do still exist, and actually hats are making a comeback. Over the years techniques have been changed to make the job safe, but in any case, we have exported most of those jobs to China. We can continue to export all jobs that have any risk of injury, and try to exist with an economy where all we do is sell each other insurance and advertising, but I don't think it will work very well.

The point with stuntmen is that, like football, it is an entertainment job, and an entertainment job that bears a certain amount of risk of injury. If entertainment jobs have no value, then all entertainment jobs that have any chance of injury should be eliminated.

As for the nutcases, yes, they are out there. Some schools have more of them than others. I distinctly remember that in the game were Ohio was leading Ohio A&M going into the fourth quarter, I happened to look at a Buckeye chat to see what they were saying. A common theme was that they needed to injure Boo, and this was after they took T3 out for the season. I was disgusted and ashamed for the Buckeyes.

Well said, Optimist. I'm in favor of constantly making safety improvements, such as improved helmet design. I favor limiting the number of concussions  you allow a person to have before you make him stop playing. I have no problem with a limit on the number of plays a person is allowed to participate in during their career. I believe everyone that plays should be informed of the risks. But beyond that, I think individuals should be allowed to make personal choices for themselves.

Haven't read most of the post here.  Who has time.  But it's very simple.  Football can be dangerous.  Which all know.  Great emphasis should be put on making the equipment and experience safer.  Players should be carefully watched in terms of their well-being.  No hiding of info.  And personal choice and responsibility.

End of story.