$100M To Study Injuries

Poop's getting serious.
The union that represents U.S. professional football players has given Harvard University a $100 million grant for a study of the range of health problems, from brain damage to heart conditions, that affect current and former players.

Researchers with Harvard Medical School plan to spend a decade studying hundreds of former players who are members of the National Football League Players Association, university officials said on Tuesday. The aim is to develop strategies to limit the long-term damage that players suffer from years of hits on the field.

Link

Read more...

Will football die?

Two recent articles, both of which were good and interesting, popped up in light of Seau's death. We haven't even confirmed that he's shown signs of CTE. But his suicide - only a year removed from another suicide attempt - has pretty much said everything that needs to be said to spark a new round of questions and concerns about concussions in the sport.

Here's a Grantland article on what life without football would look like. 

Here's a ProFootballTalk article on how the game must evolve.

At this point I just don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the game of football is a shell of what it is today in another 10-20 years. Most people scoff when someone suggests that football could be dead in the coming decades. But, as the Grantland article notes:

Before you say that football is far too big to ever disappear, consider the history: If you look at the stocks in the Fortune 500 from 1983, for example, 40 percent of those companies no longer exist. The original version of Napster no longer exists, largely because of lawsuits. No matter how well a business matches economic conditions at one point in time, it's not a lock to be a leader in the future, and that is true for the NFL too. Sports are not immune to these pressures. In the first half of the 20th century, the three big sports were baseball, boxing, and horse racing, and today only one of those is still a marquee attraction.

The problem that I I have is, most people - including the Grantland article - believe that if football as we know it is going to die, it will be due to lawsuits financially crippling the game. I don't believe it will happen quite like that. The lawsuits I do think clearly will be the sparkplug. 

But the path I see is a bit different. And it leads me to believe that the game will be fundamentally changed some time in the next 10-20 years, and the only question left will be whether people love the game as much as they do now or not. The path to me begins with the kids. Two Oblong Spheroid articles come to mind. Jim wrote one, linked. Patrick wrote the other, but I couldn't find it...I remember it distinctly though, because it sparked a debate in which I was clearly on the wrong side, that high school and kids' football in general would have to be significantly altered, and soon. I took the stance that the game shouldn't change, and it marked for me the beginning of a total attitude shift...I eventually landed on the right side here. 

 But that, to me, is the point of main change. The lawsuits, to me, won't kill the NFL. What I think they'll do is two things. 1) They're shining light on this issue, and showing how dangerous this game is. That's going to give parents pause as to whether or not they allow their kids to play. 2) They very well may wind up pointing at the youth leagues. 

Forget former NFL players suing the NFL. Imagine instead a group of parents suing high schools because their kids are showing signs of CTE. That second point is by far the more dangerous and likely to incite sweeping changes in an exceptionally short time. But the bottom line is, I don't think it's going to take long for first the talent field to thin due to fewer parents allowing their kids to play the game, and second for schools to limit if not ban hitting, which fundamentally shifts the way the game is played at lower levels, meaning the talent is completely different at the pro level, assuming the pro level doesn't shift as well. 

 At this point, claiming the game cannot possibly see a massive shift in the next quarter century is simply naive. More than that, I no longer think it's a question of if...I think it's a question of when football undergoes massive, sweeping changes. And once that happens, the question is, will the fans stay? That's the question I think no one can really predict.

Read more...

Brain bank examines athletes' hard hits

Another good article in our tradition of educating about concussions.

Read more...

It's Time for Sweeping Changes

It’s time to use your imagination.

Let’s first rewind to Thanksgiving. You’re sitting, watching the Packers at Lions game; it’s first and ten at the Lions 40 with just over 12 minutes left in the third. Rodgers drops back to pass on a drive that could put them up by two scores. But instead of completing a pass to Greg Jennings for 19 yards, Suh beats his offensive lineman and crushes Rodgers. Rodgers holds his head, is taken to the sideline, shows signs of a concussion, and sits the rest of the game.

Three weeks later, Rodgers still doesn’t have any insight into when he can return. The season strolls on. The Packers lose two or three games down the stretch. They make a playoff appearance, but cannot overcome his loss. Rodgers, inexplicably, cannot make it back from his concussion, and no one knows why he can’t shake his symptoms, or when he’ll be able to return.

Fast forward a year from now. Rodgers didn’t play in mini-camps or the pre-season. He was only cleared for contact in August. But we’re in the first week of October before he sees his first action. Out he comes to rousing cheers! One of the best young quarterbacks in the league is back! He has a coming out party his first game, completing 80% of his passes, throwing for 450 yards and five touchdowns.

Three weeks, 1,200 yards and 11 TD passes later, Rodgers limps off the field toward the end of the game after taking a big shot. The Packers are already up by four scores in the fourth quarter, so they sit him just in case. And then on Monday, it’s revealed he has more concussion-like symptoms. He’s no longer cleared to play, out indefinitely.

After having sat his first three seasons, Rodgers isn’t exactly a spring chicken. But it’s safe to say that people still think of him as a fairly young QB. Compare him to Brady, Manning and Brees – all in their 30s – and he still seems to be from that “next” generation. Roethlisberger is only a year older than he is, but has nearly 60% more attempts than Rodgers because he was the primary starter his first three years, and suffers several bone-jarring hits himself. When fans think of Rodgers, I believe they tend to think of him as having a shelf-life five to seven years, maybe more, beyond what these other four guys have.

But think about this scenario. He’s been a Superbowl MVP. He’s got the active and all time highest career QB rating. He’s streaking toward an auto-entry into the Hall of Fame and making people question whether we could be seeing the guy destined to be called the Greatest of All Time.

And just one year from now, Rodgers’ career suddenly looks to be in jeopardy from concussions.

How would this change the game? What would it do to fans’ mind-sets? We witness the oncoming of one of the greatest players we may ever get to see play; and without warning, his career is swept out from under him. The game would survive, of course. But how would that impact the way you think about the game? How would it impact your emotions, losing such a great player?

How big a story would it be?

The ramifications of it would likely be huge. We’ve seen single players alter the course of the game before. David the Deacon Jones got the head-slap outlawed in 1977 after perfecting the technique and becoming one of the greatest pass rushers of all time. Tom Brady took a season-ending shot to his knee, causing the implementation of a rule where defenders on the ground cannot hit a quarterback below the waist. It only makes sense to think that the threatening of one of the greatest player in America’s most popular sport would be cause for big changes. And it makes just as much sense to think that the story would be the headline story in the sports world, not just for a day or two, but for weeks. It’s a story that would rock the sports world, and likely result in a major change of direction.

This is the story of Sidney Crosby, and the potential tragedy the NHL now faces. The only difference is, Crosby is a far younger star than Rodgers is, and he’s more meaningful to his sport than Rodgers is to his.

Like him or hate him, Sidney Crosby’s greatness cannot be denied. Though he’s five-and-a-half years into his career, he’s only 24 years old. But in those six seasons, he’s won the league’s scoring title, been the league’s MVP, won the Stanley Cup and scored the game winning goal in the Olympic gold medal game. At this time last year, Crosby was the league’s scoring leader again and on a pace for an easy MVP award on a major Stanley Cup challenger.

In the Winter Classic on Jan 1, ’11, Dave Steckel and Victor Hedman hit Crosby in the head. He suffered concussion-like symptoms, and found himself out of the game for nearly a year. He returned to action Nov 21st, scoring four points and immediately sparking discussion of whether he could worm his way into contention for the scoring title by the end of the season. Less than a month later, he’s back on the bench, out indefinitely with more concussion-like symptoms.

It’s a truly tragic story for hockey fans. We face the prospect of losing what appears to be one of the greatest players of all time in his sport. Crosby seemed to be capable of challenging The Great One himself. Now, instead of wondering how many MVPs and Stanley Cups he’ll win in his career, we’re left to question whether he should retire now. And we’re left to wonder whether the game should undergo massive, sweeping changes, in the hopes that we can ensure that if Crosby can overcome this, we don’t lose him forever, and that if we do, we ensure we minimize the risk of the same thing happening to the next great player to come along, or any of the current greats we have playing the game.

This story should be bigger than it is.

It’s here where I need to note that it’s a shame that hockey isn’t even half as big or as popular in this country as football is. The story of Aaron Rodgers would dominate sports headlines for a long time. The story of Sidney Crosby is a bi-line, falling behind the ESPN recap of the 2-11 Rams losing to the 6-7 Seahawks as well as two other non-NFL related stories that night.

The true shame of this reality is that if the story were as big as it should be – if it were of the magnitude of an Aaron Rodgers-like injury – the attention it would bring to the problem of violence in these sports would likely bring about important, necessary changes. I’m hopeful that the NHL will finally begin to take a serious look at how violent the sport is, and how risky it is for all their players, including their potential all-time greats, and that it will lead to significant changes for the better. But I’m even more hopeful that we can reach that point in both of these sports prior to losing anyone beyond those that have already been lost.

Read more...

Head Trauma And ALS

One of our ongoing themes here at OS is a running commentary on football and head trauma. I remain proud that in our tiny corner of the internet we were doing this before it got cool.

Steve Gleason recently revealed he has ALS. He's a folk hero in New Orleans (I had no idea about this before this morning) and will be the honorary captain for today's game. It is difficult to reconcile our great passion for football with the terrible costs that the game incurs.

Six months before Gleason's diagnosis a team of researchers from Boston University reported a link between an ALS-type disease and the repetitive head trauma suffered by some athletes.

Some peers say the study's sample size -- two former football players and a former boxer -- is insufficient to draw accurate conclusions, but evidence shows ALS strikes athletes in far greater numbers than the general population.

A 2005 paper found that Italian professional soccer players had developed the disease at rates about six times higher than normal.

The disease strikes about two in 100,000 people, which means only two or three NFL players since 1970 should have been afflicted. BU researchers identified 14 former NFL players since 1960 as having been diagnosed with ALS, a total about eight times more than what would be expected among U.S. men of similar ages. Perrin said his research shows Gleason would be the 27th former NFL player identified with the disease.

Most experts believe brain trauma is not solely responsible for diseases like ALS or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly known as CTE. Those afflicted probably have genetic factors leading to susceptibility, with concussions serving as a catalyst.

"You have people in both camps," Gleason said. "But it's getting harder and harder to say that there are no repercussions from head trauma in the NFL or in football. You can't say that anymore."

Read more...

New safety rules being considered

Ah, even with owners and players taking pot-shots at each other out of spite (I'm doing my best to avoid writing a whole post on the idiocy that is Adrian Peterson), we still cannot get away from the issue of player safety.

You have to roll to the second page of this article, but there are some pretty interesting pieces of information in it about proposals for rule changes that should make many of the more dangerous plays less likely to cause injuries.

Next week at their annual meeting, owners will consider a rules proposal to make one of football’s most dangerous plays, kickoffs, safer. Among the changes: moving the kickoff line to the 35-yard line from the 30, which would probably increase the number of touchbacks and decrease the number of returns. After a touchback, the ball would be placed at the 25 instead of the 20, where it currently goes to start a drive.

The rule change would also eliminate all wedges used in blocking and would not allow any member of the kickoff team except the kicker to line up more than 5 yards from the kickoff line. Currently, players line up as far as 15 yards behind the line to get a running start. The out of bounds penalty would be 25 yards from the kickoff line, the 40-yard line of the receiving team), instead of 30 yards from the line as it is now.

I can hear the grumbling from fans already, but the reality is that this really would remove a lot of dangerous plays from the game. Yes, we would lose several electric Devin Hester returns. And it would mean teams like the Chargers likely wouldn't miss out on the playoffs because the horror that is their special teams unit wouldn't likely off-set the incredible offense and defense they have.

But I'm sorry, if that keeps more players healthier, I'm for it. It's one of several steps needed to be taken in order to improve this game and the safety of the players involved, but it's a pretty big one (especially since it's a complete reversal of the rule to move the ball back in order to increase the likelihood of a return, instituted a few years ago). And regardless of fan grumbling about it now, two years from now, no one will likely remember it and say "Remember when we used to have all these kickoff returns before the NFL ruined itself?"

Read more...

Jim McMahon: My Memory's Gone

Jim McMahon at the 25th reunion of the 1985 Bear team;


 

Read more...

IT WILL RUIN THE GAME!!! (panic panic panic)

The concern over monstrous hits took center stage after this week's trifecta of Harrison on Cribbs / Robinson on Jackson / Meriweather on Heap crime. While the NFL clarifies suspension policies, it's decided to dole out fair warning to players rather than suspending them immediately for those violent hits. And with those hits, the chatter about being forced to take action came on strong.

Patrick wrote a quick article about one potentially aggressive, but simple and workable solution. Others have advocated similar aggressive solutions. This morning Steve Czaban suggested banning hitting on his Sporting News Radio program, which prompted me to email him, and got the blog mentioned on the show (thanks Czabe! Podcast available for download).

And with that began the cries that doing so would ruin the game! The media backlash is immense! Okay, well maybe not the media backlash...But the media is saying the fans won't take it! They don't want their product hurt! Okay, I don't know where they're getting that...But the media thinks the fans will react, and they'll shout about it! Meanwhile, lost is the reality that if you outlaw hitting and force open-arm tackles, it won't diminish the game we love, it will in fact enhance it.

The reasons are very simple, and almost inarguable. However, like any good Devil's Advocate, I want to start with the reason NOT to ban hitting.

"It will take away those OH MY! hits, which we as fans love and make us love this game!"

Well, really there isn't much arguing that it will largely take those away. And those hits really are cool to watch. But how many people really love this game only to see those OH MY! hit moments? Would you stop watching football if they didn't exist?

Maybe there are a few that would. But I believe the vast majority of fans wouldn't. And more to the point, for as much as I - as a fan - get charged up seeing those hits, I come down very quickly and get depressingly calm as I see the aftermath of the hit...a man lying on the ground, immobile.

The two reasons in favor of banning such hits? They both revolve around not diminishing, but enhancing the game. Patrick touched on the first in his article.

"Forcing open arm tackles forces players to play fundamentally better football."

For every bone-jarring hit out there, there are five more where the player launches himself at a ball-carrier, only to either miss or bounce off relatively harmlessly and watch the ball-carrier gain another 10, 20 or more yards because they simply failed to wrap him up. Forcing football players to make good tackles makes them play better. Football players playing better improves the product the NFL is selling. I would rather watch well executed football than players on a mission to kill each other.

"Reducing the number of crushing hits keeps players healthier, and keeps starters on the field rather than replaced with second-tier players thanks to injuries."

This is simple. No one here wants to watch UFL players playing NFL football. The better players we have on the field, the better the quality of the games we watch. Okay, Mohamed Massaquoi isn't reminding anyone of Jerry Rice. But is anyone going to argue that it's better to see Chansi Stucky or Carleton Mitchell out there in his place? And DeSean Jackson is certainly one of the better young receivers in this league, an absolutely electric player to watch. It will be a less fun game to watch next week with him on the sidelines.

Bottom line, taking aggressive action won't ruin the game we love, it will make it better. The NFL should strongly consider it, to continue the theme of protecting players, as it's done recently by protecting their quarterbacks by making blows to the head and below the knees illegal. They shouldn't just look to protect the guys under center, they should be protecting everyone, and this is a simple, easy and most importantly positive way to do it.

Read more...

A Simple Solution

We are increasingly seeing the issue of concussions discussed with regard to the NFL and to a lesser extent other injuries resulting from big hits. Obviously we are proud here at OS that we've been a bit cutting edge in the discussion, even as we understand that no one is really reading this blog much.

Peter King is on board. I hesitate to claim that he hasn't been in the past but it isn't insignificant that he leads his MMQB with it today.

The games we watched Sunday seemed as violent a collection as I've seen. Judging from the tweets and e-mails I got as the day went on, the public was astonished too. The Dunta Robinson collision with DeSean Jackson in Philadelphia, concussing both the Atlanta corner and Eagles receiver and probably kayoing the invaluable Jackson for Sunday's game at Tennessee. Several shots in Pittsburgh, two vicious ones by James Harrison of the Steelers; his helmet-to-helmet shot against Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi will certainly draw a heavy fine, and it's incredible to me no official flagged what could be the textbook definition of hitting a defenseless receiver. In New England, Brandon Meriweather lighting up Baltimore's Todd Heap with a hit to the head so vicious that either a mouthguard or something flew high into the air at the moment of impact. And so on -- six or eight shots where you wondered, "Is that guy getting up?''

I recommend the rest of King's piece. He discusses other solutions, none of which I particularly hate. It is surprising though, that given the level of clinical and national attention that was given to NFL concussions in the off-season that concussions appear to be at a local high.

Anyhow, something has been swirling my brain for a couple of months and the more I watch games, watch damage done from big hits and also embarrassingly sloppy tackling I keep returning to an idea I think would work.

Require open shoulder tackles.

Too often we see linebackers and safeties lower their shoulders and try to knock someone out rather than simply wrapping up and taking down. Require open-shoulder hits. Shoulder pads and helmets are protective devices, not weapons. Hand out 15 yard penalties for leading with the shoulder, eject players who lead with their helmets.

There would still be big hits, there surely would still be concussions. I have a hard time believing that players like Ray Lewis would be particularly limited by rules like this anyway.

From a purists standpoint I would really like to see this rule installed in the NCAA, but mainly for a selfish reason. I get sick of watching bad tackle after bad tackle. Half the time these guys whiff on their rhinoceros charges and the ballcarrier gains another ten yards anyway. Put the rule in at the NCAA and there would be more polished tacklers graduating to the NFL. It would make the game safer and it would make the game better to watch, unless you are a fan of players knocking guys down and then standing over them in some kind of male dominance ritual.

Read more...

Chris Henry's Brain

Under the heading of “stuff I meant to post about 3 weeks ago”, we have this:

Former Bengal Henry Found to Have Had Brain Damage
By Alan Schwarz, NYT
Dr. Julian Bailes and Dr. Bennet Omalu of the Brain Injury Research Institute at West Virginia University announced on Monday that Henry, 26, had developed chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the progressive brain disease whose recent discovery in some retired N.F.L. players has raised questions of football’s long-term safety risks. The 22nd professional football player to be given a diagnosis of C.T.E., Henry is the first to have died with the disease while active after 2007, when prior C.T.E. findings prompted the N.F.L. to begin strengthening rules regarding concussion management..

It's taken me forever to write about this; and now that I force myself to do it, I realize that the problem is that I don't really have anything to say on the subject.

Much respect to Alan Schwarz at the Grey Lady, who has kept this subject (brain deterioration in NFL players) in the forefront as a story. Ultimately I think it's THE most important football story. I'm proud of our little blog for talking about it consistently. But overall it's hard to be anything but sad.

“I was surprised in a way because of his age and because he was not known as a concussion sufferer or a big hitter. Is there some lower threshold when you become at risk for this disease? I’m struggling to see if something can come out positive out of this.”

Dr Bailes is right. If Chris Henry developed CTE by age 26, then don't all NFL players have it, to one degree or another? Has a former player ever been tested for it, and found not to have it? The only thing I can see coming out of this, ultimately, is a ban on contact football for youth players.

While we ponder the levels of moroseness and guilt appropriate to the topic of CTE and football, go read this amazing series. Rick Telander is a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, and a former Northwestern football player. He did a series of articles:

“The Team: What football did for us and – what football did to us” is a nine-part series by Sun-Times' award-winning columnist Rick Telander about the 1968-1970 Northwestern Wildcats, a team for which he played. This story begins at a brain research lab in Massachusetts, and it will end there, too. But on the way it moves about the country as Telander visits with old teammates and talks about the sport they played together years ago, the one that shaped them, rewarded them and wounded them.

This is must-read stuff.

What football did for us and - what football did to us
The story of the 1968-1970 Northwestern Wildcats
Part 1: What football did for us and - what football did to us
Part 2: 'I have lost words on air occasionally'
Part 3:The study too far ahead of its time
Part 4: 'I liked the physical contact. A lot of people don't like it. I always did.'
Part 5:'I had my concussions, but I never would allow myself to be held out of a game for that.'
Part 6:'I was fuzzy after I hit a guy's knee'
Part 7: 'I was never diagnosed with a concussion, but ...'
Part 8: 'I have to jot things down to remember them'
Part 9: 'I'm a cheerleader for the brain'

Read more...

SI Obviously Reads Oblong Spheroid

They're just a little late to the party.

I have two daughters. For years I'd cursed my parents for not allowing me to play football (my mom watched a student of hers die on the football field). I swore if I had a son I wouldn't stop him from playing. Now? I'm quite certain if I had a son I wouldn't let him anywhere near a field...

Read more...

Eastern Oregon WR dies of head injury

Buried deep in headline sports pages comes this nugget about a receiver that died of a head injury taken on the field.

I don't have the time to get into a deep post on this now, but chalk this up as another case that should be prompting more action on the head injury issue. I think first and foremost has to be redesigning the helmets in a way that is far more protective than they currently are.

More disappointing is how this at least as of now seems to hardly be getting any air-time. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I stumbled upon this, where I feel like if it was a receiver at say Florida or USC, it'd probably be SportsCenter's lead and on the front page of most sports journalism outlets.

Read more...

Real Sports on Concussions

FYI - HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumble is running I believe their full hour on our favorite topic, concussions, this week.

Read more...

Mike Leach: It's bad to be both wrong and dumb

After being fired for punishing Adam James for being unable to play without a concussion, Leach has granted an interview with ESPN, shown in its entirety here.

It's an interesting situation that warrants commentary from us given how actively we've discussed concussions here. This is an important topic that deserves the media attention that it's getting. But what I'm not certain of is how much people are truly focusing on the correct thing.

Leach is maintaining he's done nothing wrong in this situation. And this is becoming a he-said-she-said story about how big the shed was, whether there was an ice machine in the shed or not, and whether or not what he did was put the kid in danger. In the interview, Leach says:
"The most important line on this statement [by the dr that diagnosed James with the concussion] says 'According to the information given to me, no additional risks or harm were imposed on Adam by what he was asked to do.' Okay and I'm gonna read it again because I think that's the most important issue on this."

The problem is, that's not the most important issue here. Not even close. Which makes Leach both wrong and stupid.

No, the most important issue in this is that Mike Leach is being accused of punishing a player for having an injury. And it doesn't sound to me like he's denying any of it.

It's one thing if Leach was saying he didn't believe James had a concussion and was punishing him for being an idiot. I could accept a story like that. And I've waited to post something about this until I got to hear Leach's position on this issue. Now that I know his stance is that he's done nothing wrong because the kid wasn't put in any additional risk, I'm happy to talk about how impressed I am with the stance Texas Tech has taken, and hope it sends a strong message to coaches around the country.

This, pure and simple, is an issue of the message Mike Leach was sending to the rest of his team. The message that having a concussion - or other type of injury - is a stigma. It's an encouragement for his kids to keep quiet about the injury and play through it.

It's a terribly dangerous message for him to send. It's tough for me to see how he doesn't understand that, but then again, I don't get a lot of the machismo crap that seems to be ingrained in many of these athlete's heads. It's a mentality that needs to change, and hopefully the actions Texas Tech have taken will begin to institute some of that change.

As a father of two young girls, I try to put myself in Craig James' position, or the position of the parents of one of the other kids on that team. And all I can think is, if I heard my kid's coach punished someone for being injured, I would explode. My kid would be off the team the next day, and then I'd be giving the coach and the school's administration an earful, and potentially getting a lawsuit ready.

Kudos to Texas Tech for firing him. Leach's inability to admit he's done anything wrong says to me honestly that he shouldn't work again, even though I'm sure he will. If he were a coach of a team my kid was considering, my kid wouldn't be considering that school any longer.

But more than that, I hope this sends a powerful message to other coaches and schools that this sort of attitude is no longer acceptable. For the sake of the kids and their safety, it's an attitude that has to change.

Read more...

Concussion Ad

In tonight's MNF game with around 6:20 left in the 3rd Q, they ran a CDC ad discussion the severity of concussions. Very interesting TV spot. Link attached here.

Read more...

Ward and Holmes' attitude toward concussions is a problem

Last night in an interview with Bob Costas, Hines Ward was asked about the team's attitude toward Roethlisberger sitting out round one of the annual Steelers / Ravens blood-bath. Ward admitted the locker room was "like a 50-50 toss-up" as to whether Ben should be playing or not.

"This game is almost like a playoff game. It's almost a must-win. I could see some players or teammates questioning, like 'It's just a concussion. I've played with a concussion before.' It's almost like a 50-50 toss-up in the locker room: Should he play? Shouldn't he play? It's really hard to say. I've been out there dinged up; the following week, got right back out there. Ben practiced all week. He split time with Dennis Dixon. And then to find out that he's still having some headaches and not playing and it came down to the doctors didn't feel that they were going to clear him or not -- it's hard to say. Unless you're the person [himself]. ... I've lied to a couple of doctors saying I'm straight, I feel good when I know that I'm not really straight."

After the game, Santonio Holmes chimed in. "Only [Roethlisberger] knows how he feels right now. It was coach's decision to not play him. We wanted him to play. We felt like he could play -- that's only the way we felt. He felt like he couldn't go, so he didn't go. We just got to get the job done."

Ward and Holmes' attitude highlights everything that is wrong with the way the NFL and its players have handled injuries in the past; in particular head injuries. Things are changing, and may be changing dramatically, very soon. And it's a good thing for the NFL and for football players everywhere that they are.

As recently as a month ago, I was leaning more in the center on this issue. Do more than we're doing now, don't take overly aggressive measures that compromise the integrity of the game. This specifically regarding the topic of banning contact in high school. The more I read on the issue, the more I'm coming to the view that exceptionally aggressive measures should be taken. I'm not ready to say we should ban contact football, but I'm getting there.

Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson is the prototypical example of what can happen if these head injuries aren't taken seriously. At age 34, his post-concussion syndrome symptoms are so severe they are essentially debilitating.

The most concerning quote from the article I linked is this: "Officially, I've probably only been listed as having three or four concussions in my career," Johnson said. "But the real number is closer to 30, maybe even more. I've been dinged so many times I've lost count."

The problem is that too many times, player's concussions go undiagnosed or simply ignored. And the two biggest reasons for that are that the players want to play through the pain, and that the NFL has a vested interest in having their best guys on the field. Tertiary to those are that fans want the players in the game, and they question their toughness if they sit.

The player's attitude isn't likely to change any time soon. It's too ingrained in the culture of the game. Tom Jackson said tonight on Monday Night Countdown that it wasn't just about wanting to step up for your fellow teammates (which is unquestionably a huge factor to them), but about self-pride. "You feel better about playing hurt. ... That's part of the macho attitude is, 'Boy I was proud of myself when I was able to play, and play well hurt.'" The fan's attitude certainly won't change any time soon...no one has to live Ted Johnson's life; nor have to put themselves in Roethlisberger's shoes Monday morning after watching Dennis Dixon throw an OT interception in a game many think Roethlisberger would have won in regulation.

This leaves it to the NFL to step in, and I give them credit for beginning the process and seemingly being open to making sweeping changes for the betterment of the players.

The problem is, the grumbling will take place over the rules changes. Players' toughness will be questioned. Steve Czaban sarcastically quipped on his morning radio show this morning "Can Tom Brady come out and play?" And guys like Ward and Holmes are openly questioning Roethlisberger's decision to have a seat last night rather than get on the field.

In my mind, Roethlisberger unquestionably made the correct decision. I give him a lot of credit for putting his personal health and safety first, and I give the coaches even more credit for doing so, given Ben's admission that the coaches told him he should sit.

To the NFL fan, we're often too caught up in the moment of the games. We don't think of these players as people. We think of them as football players. We don't see how much it hurts them to step out of bed Monday morning after a brutal game like we saw last night. We don't get to see the guys that struggle to walk ten years after the game. The percent of NFL fans that read the Ten Johnson article can almost assuredly be counted on one hand, if not one finger.

We need to change that attitude and begin to realize that guys like Ben Roethlisberger are people first, and football players second. They give up their bodies and often their health to entertain us. They shouldn't be expected to risk horrifying, debilitating injuries simply to try to prove they're the toughest guy on the field. And in the case of Roethlisberger, they shouldn't be on the field one week after suffering a brain injury. It's dangerous, and could easily result in not only a career-ending injury, but long-term health problems.

And guys like Ward and Holmes absolutely, positively must cease questioning their teammate's toughness and resolve if and when they make a decision that is clearly the best decision for their personal lives.

Read more...

How easy is banning football?

Jim poses an interesting argument to banning football below. I started this post as a reply to Jim’s post, I feel like it’s got enough meat in it to serve as its own separate post.

I wanted to play football as a kid. My mom wouldn't let me, because she was a guidance counselor, and she watched one of her students die on the field of a broken neck. Of all the kids, I had to be the one with the responsible parent...

The idea of banning high school and below football has pretty far-reaching impacts that could go beyond football. I guess the question is, if you're going to ban football for minors, what do you have to ban beyond that? Hockey? Baseball? I played baseball up to high school and saw several kids hit in the head, either by pitches or by hard line drives.

An interesting possible solution to this beyond Patrick’s mention of rule changes across the board would be sweeping rule changes at the Pop Warner and high school level. Make it a non-contact game until they get into college. The argument would be “How much can it really prepare someone to play at the college/professional level?” As mentioned, we ban smoking and alcohol for minors. However, we don’t have professional smoking or drinking leagues, and I think we all know how pervasive underage smoking and drinking is.

I don't know if anyone here watches Penn & Teller's "Bullshit." It's on Showtime, a half an hour adult comedy/documentary series designed to debunk popular rumors like the end of the Mayan calendar/world and how good organic food really is for you. I catch it every so often when I like the subject.

They did an episode on video games, specifically on video game violence causing real violence. At the end of the episode, I thought they did a quite powerful summation of the issue, relating it to football. You can watch the clip here.

It's a sticky subject. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment of banning the sport, or at least the version we're playing now. But logistically you're not talking about simply throwing a switch and making everything stop. You're talking about a ban on a major staple in our way of life. You're talking about a ban on something that would have a MASSIVE economic impact. Right or wrong, it wouldn't be easy to actually execute, and you can of course be certain it would be met with great resistance.

The resistance is going to be the most difficult thing to overcome in this. Not because of how engrained it is in our world. But because the resistance is going to come from the people that are actually playing the sport! We are clamoring for change, but – unless I am wrong – none of the three of us have children playing football right now. The parents who would want the change will pull their kids out of football. The ones that don’t will let the kids play. And most kids – parents pulling them or not – will likely not want to stop playing.

So if what you have is the participants as well as their parents resistant to making the change, how simple would it be to actually make such a change? Realistically, how would we be capable of making such a change? Where would we even start? It’s not as simple as banning the playing of the sport. Not in any realistic sense…not in this world. It’d be nice to say “You just ban it.” But that won’t happen. To institute real change, you’ve got to be realistic about how you want it done.

I don’t know. I don’t have answers for how to go about doing it. But I think that may be more a function of not caring enough to attempt to initiate that change myself. As a father of two daughters, if I had a child that wanted to play the sport, I’d start reading like crazy on the subject, and make the decision whether or not to allow my kid to play, very similar to the way my parents decided not to allow me to play.

I guess that actually means my answer lies in educating the parents so that they can make the most informed decision for their kids. It’s not a perfect solution, and it’s not the best solution.

But it’s at least a start.

Read more...

Dog fighting... uh, human fighting... uh, the NFL...

The thuggish hit by Dante Wesley on Clifton Smith yesterday brings back to the forefront the topic of concussions in the NFL. It's a topic we've discussed here at Oblong Spheroid in the past, but an article penned today by Malcolm Gladwell (the esteemed author of The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers) offers a provocative yet thoughtful point of view, juxtaposing dog fighting and the NFL. (An additional call out to Peter King's MMQB column for today, where I first saw the Gladwell article.)

It's a compelling read, and really does call out the brutal nature of the game. More than anything, it calls out to me the importance of supporting the former players, who played for little money and are left with injuries and poor medical coverage to boot but paved the way for owners and players alike to make millions today.

Read more...

Safety of Players

Football executives, from the NFL all the way down to high schools, harp constantly on how the safety of their players is critical. We have had a few conversations about concussions on this blog, and concussions are an extremely hot topic in medical studies.

And for all the talk about how the health of the players is of paramount importance, games like Florida @ LSU simply make it all lip service. Cause two weeks after a concussion so bad, Tim Tebow was puking in a hospital and not allowed to read or watch TV for days, he's playing. And playing against one of the best, most aggressive defenses in the country.

My wife had a concussion similar to Tebow's back in college. She ice skated, took a terrible fall and smashed her head on the ice. She wasn't allowed back on the ice to even practice for three weeks.

Seeing this is terribly frustrating. I'm not a Tebow fan, nor could I care less who wins this game. But I am a fan of common sense. And I hate to see a guy with a potentially bright future being allowed to put himself at risk. Regardless of whether or not he wants to be out there, at what point is common sense going to kick in here? Is it going to take a high profile guy - a guy like Tebow - wind up becoming permanently crippled, or God forbid, get killed, before this sort of thing isn't allowed?

Read more...

More on concussions

As a follow-up to this post, the NYT has this:

Controversy
By ALAN SCHWARZ

An international panel of neurologists, updating their recommendations on concussion care in the May issue of The British Journal of Sports Medicine, said that any athlete 18 or younger who was believed to have sustained a concussion during a game or practice should never be allowed to return to the playing field the same day. The group had previously said that such athletes could return if cleared by a doctor or certified athletic trainer
...
Other doctors, many of whom work the sidelines of high school athletic events, said they feared the effects of such strictness. They predicted that athletes would respond by hiding their injuries from coaches and trainers even more than they are already known to do, leaving them at risk for a second and more dangerous concussion.
...
Dr. Bob Sallis, a past president of the American College of Sports Medicine and a longtime sideline doctor in Southern California, said he saw the recommendation as a step backward. “More kids will be hurt seriously because of this, either by players not admitting they might have gotten a concussion or coaches encouraging them not to be up front about their symptoms, whether subtly or overtly,” Sallis said.
...
spotlights how some attempts to improve concussion-related safety can instead compromise it, a paradox encountered at levels as high as the N.F.L..

That's a very salient point.

The whole article is interesting, I don't want to steal its thunder by quoting too much of it. But this tidbit toward the end is particularly cool, about recovery from a concussion:

The panel also emphasized the importance of not just physical rest for players found to have a concussion, but cognitive rest as well. It said that teenagers should be kept from activities ranging from schoolwork to video games and text messaging while recovering from a concussion. “That is the No. 1 management issue in our clinic — how do we manage the cognitive activity that stresses that brain’s abnormal metabolism?” said Gerry Gioia, the chief of pediatric neuropsychology at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. “Studying for an algebra exam, reading a lengthy text, sitting in a classroom for an hour and a half trying to keep notes and keep up — it extends recovery, it feels miserable to the kid, and it’s misunderstood by the school and public.”

Fascinating.

Read more...