BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Topic: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Author

Message

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/1/2012 12:20:15 PM

Thought you guys might enjoy this...

slate.me/JZZPPY

Last Edited: 5/1/2012 12:21:51 PM by Paul Graham

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/1/2012 8:28:21 PM

Of course it's all take, and no give. The education that these kids get in not of value, obviously. Or, if you prefer, they'd all get to college even without football scholarships, right? Plus, you never hear of a football player who uses their name recognition factor to build a career after football, say selling insurance or real estate or perhaps acting. It's kind of sad, too, to think that with the inevitable head injuries, they sometimes end up in dead-end jobs like being President.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,365

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/1/2012 8:35:42 PM

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.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Brian Smith (No, not that one)
General User

Member Since: 2/3/2005
Post Count: 3,016

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/1/2012 8:52:11 PM

You might think Malcolm Gladwell is a smart man. But I'm selling a book for $29.99 that posits that everything you know about Malcolm Gladwell is wrong and that he is actually a anthropomorphized Chia Pet. The book is filled with Gladwellian style logical fallacies, tomato sauce recipes, jerri curl instructions, Chuck Klosterman and Colin Cowherd quotes and a tiny packet of seeds to spread over a scale model Gladwell terra cotta head.

Quote:

Colleges are going to get sued, and they will have to decide whether they can afford their legal exposure.

"Muahahahahahaha!" - Jim Delany, sitting in a hot tub filled with bubbling cognac

Last Edited: 5/1/2012 9:01:49 PM by Brian Smith (No, not that one)

LoganElm_grad09
General User

Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: South Bloomingville, OH
Post Count: 934

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/2/2012 2:43:35 PM

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

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/2/2012 11:38:29 PM

I'm sure Seau's death will add fuel to this fire.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/3/2012 12:14:56 AM

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.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/3/2012 12:10:57 PM

From Article wrote:

"I heard on ESPN Michael Wilbon—who is one of the most influential sports journalists in the country—say that he will not let his kids play pro football. If Wilbon won't, who will?"

And what are the odds Mr. Wilbon's kids will be ASKED to play pro football? I guess he thinks he's really going out on a limb on that one.

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/3/2012 7:46:13 PM

Robert Fox wrote:

From Article wrote:

"I heard on ESPN Michael Wilbon—who is one of the most influential sports journalists in the country—say that he will not let his kids play pro football. If Wilbon won't, who will?"

And what are the odds Mr. Wilbon's kids will be ASKED to play pro football? I guess he thinks he's really going out on a limb on that one.

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

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/3/2012 10:36:58 PM

According to the article, he said pro football. The point is, he's almost certainly not denying his kids of anything, and he uses that position to make his point. That doesn't deny him his opinion, but it seems a rather silly way to stake his claim.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/4/2012 12:49:12 AM

JSF wrote:

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]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.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/4/2012 3:16:50 AM

Not buying it. The point is $100 million or whatever isn't worth the brain damage you sustain from playing the game. Having a kid with an actual shot at the NFL may make him more resolute, not less.

And it's not like he could stop his adult children from doing it. Why not bring that up?

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/4/2012 8:39:06 AM

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?

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 12:48:52 PM

L.C. wrote:

Historically that isn't true, because lots of jobs expose you to various things, such as chemicals, radioactivity, asbestos, or whatever.

The very huge and important difference is that most of those other jobs fill some important need in society, whereas in football (or boxing), we're paying money to see people debilitate each other. It doesn't serve any important function.

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 12:56:23 PM

JSF wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Historically that isn't true, because lots of jobs expose you to various things, such as chemicals, radioactivity, asbestos, or whatever.

Blood for the Blood God.

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 3:14:01 PM

I thought that's why we had Eddie Guerrero. (NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART)

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 4:24:01 PM

JSF wrote:

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.

Last Edited: 5/5/2012 4:28:45 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 5:05:48 PM

College football wants to ban Gladwell.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 8:03:04 PM

L.C. wrote:

JSF wrote:

I would argue that sports does fill an important need.

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.

Quote:

Off the top of my head, how essential were the hatters, that worked with mercury?

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

Quote:

How about the stuntmen in TV shows?

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/5/2012 9:43:11 PM

Like so many other debates, this will ultimately end up with the question, "where do you draw the line?" In this case, where you put that line depends upon your sensitivity to the "necessity" of sports--football in particular, and it depends on your definition of "debilitating."

Wherever you draw the line will not settle the argument, but it might better define your own level of acceptance. Likely where you draw the line will also have a direct correspondence to how much you like the game to begin with.

The more you like the game = more tolerance for consequences
The less you like the game = less tolerance

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/6/2012 8:34:42 AM

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.

Last Edited: 5/6/2012 12:01:01 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

The Optimist
General User

Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,597

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/6/2012 11:09:57 AM

Shouldn't we leave it up to individuals to decide if the risks/rewards of football make it worth it? Nooooo, we just love telling everyone what they can and can't do with themselves.

I've seen crazier things happen.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,497

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/6/2012 12:05:56 PM

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.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,554

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/6/2012 5:41:18 PM

L.C. wrote:

JSF, virtually all sports have some risk of injury.

Few sports carry a very real risk of severe brain damage.

Quote:

Many people play football without serious injury.

Really? What percentage of professional football players go through a career (with regular playing time) and don't suffer a serious injury? In four years, how many Bobcats avoid the injury report?

Quote:

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.

No important function in society. And football doesn't provide anything for fitness that myriad other activities cannot also provide in a much safer manner. Besides, playing football itself isn't going to do a whole lot for you; it's all the training off the field that comes into that. And who cares about "the market"? "The market" also finds value in slavery.

Quote:

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.

Another sport? Maybe he would have discovered he is a talented artist and done that. Or maybe the lightbulb in his head just would have went off. But LaVon Brazill turned his life around, not football.

Quote:

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.

Are you blatantly misrepresenting my point here? I never said nobody should work in a job without risk. That's ridiculous. The question is what is the risk and the cost as opposed to the reward. Working on an oil rig is risky, but holy crap, if nobody did it, life would grind to a screeching halt.

I'm not with Gladwell because I would rather everyone start to view football the way a lot of us now view boxing. At the very least, people need to wake the eff up and realize what's going on. You can sit back and say it's up to the individual to do it or not do it, but the reality is we give people nearly every possible incentive to be a football player. An economist can tell you people will make bad decisions if you give them enough reason to do it.

The Optimist wrote:

Shouldn't we leave it up to individuals to decide if the risks/rewards of football make it worth it? Nooooo, we just love telling everyone what they can and can't do with themselves.

"We" is one person. But I'll give you a "we." Can we, as an institution, think about whether we want to sponsor and support a particular activity? I don't want to ban or make anything illegal here. But I do want to take a long, hard look at our actions.

Last Edited: 5/6/2012 5:43:27 PM by JSF

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Gladwell wants to ban college football

Posted: 5/6/2012 6:49:36 PM

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.

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 29 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 139 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

138 Guests
1 Registered User:
	Doc Bobcat

There are no other users looking at this page.