Death of football? (1 Viewer)

'Ilov80s said:

If anything kills my interest in football it is the lack of flow. With replays and commercials, we spend more time waiting then watching. In the span of a 3.5 hour game, there is only about 15 minutes of actual action. The rest is filler, commercials, and the over analysis of a slow-mo replay. People might say soccer is boring, but at least there is actually 90 minutes of play and extended periods without commercials.

Click to expand...

'chinawildman said:

The commercials have gotten a bit out of hand, but the stoppage in between plays IMO contributes to the mounting tension of football. It's the same reason why the last 2 minutes in basketball is usually the most exciting.

'Ilov80s said:

If anything kills my interest in football it is the lack of flow. With replays and commercials, we spend more time waiting then watching. In the span of a 3.5 hour game, there is only about 15 minutes of actual action. The rest is filler, commercials, and the over analysis of a slow-mo replay. People might say soccer is boring, but at least there is actually 90 minutes of play and extended periods without commercials.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

'wiscstlatlmia said:

that article brings up a great point, would you guys honestly let your kids play football over other sports now?

Click to expand...

'Greg Russell said:

'wiscstlatlmia said:

that article brings up a great point, would you guys honestly let your kids play football over other sports now?

Click to expand...

I don't have kids, so I can only say what I think I'd do if I had some. I would let them play up through high school. But if they were a good enough athlete to play college and/or pro I'd probably counsel them towards another sport.Reason being, I suspect that we'll eventually find out that the CTE effects of playing until you're 18 are nowhere nearly as serious as what they are for someone who plays until he's 35 or 40.

Click to expand...

'wiscstlatlmia said:

'Greg Russell said:

'wiscstlatlmia said:

that article brings up a great point, would you guys honestly let your kids play football over other sports now?

Click to expand...

I don't have kids, so I can only say what I think I'd do if I had some. I would let them play up through high school. But if they were a good enough athlete to play college and/or pro I'd probably counsel them towards another sport.Reason being, I suspect that we'll eventually find out that the CTE effects of playing until you're 18 are nowhere nearly as serious as what they are for someone who plays until he's 35 or 40.

Click to expand...

totally agree with this. Little kids arn't going to be creating the same type of contact that is creating these long term situations.Its when you get to college and pro that it gets extremely dangerous. Its a really sad thing to see... I'm worried about our game, I hope they can figure something out.

Click to expand...

Take the experience of a young defensive lineman for the University of North Carolina football team, who suffered two concussions during the 2004 season. His case is one of a number studied by Kevin Guskiewicz, who runs the university’s Sports Concussion Research Program. For the past five seasons, Guskiewicz and his team have tracked every one of the football team’s practices and games using a system called HITS, in which six sensors are placed inside the helmet of every player on the field, measuring the force and location of every blow he receives to the head. Using the HITS data, Guskiewicz was able to reconstruct precisely what happened each time the player was injured.

“The first concussion was during preseason. The team was doing two-a-days,” he said, referring to the habit of practicing in both the morning and the evening in the preseason. “It was August 9th, 9:55 A.M. He has an 80-g hit to the front of his head. About ten minutes later, he has a 98-g acceleration to the front of his head.” To put those numbers in perspective, Guskiewicz explained, if you drove your car into a wall at twenty-five miles per hour and you weren’t wearing your seat belt, the force of your head hitting the windshield would be around 100 gs: in effect, the player had two car accidents that morning. He survived both without incident. “In the evening session, he experiences this 64-g hit to the same spot, the front of the head. Still not reporting anything. And then this happens.” On his laptop, Guskiewicz ran the video from the practice session. It was a simple drill: the lineman squaring off against an offensive player who wore the number 76. The other player ran toward the lineman and brushed past him, while delivering a glancing blow to the defender’s helmet. “Seventy-six does a little quick elbow. It’s 63 gs, the lowest of the four, but he sustains a concussion.”

“The second injury was nine weeks later,” Guskiewicz continued. “He’s now recovered from the initial injury. It’s a game out in Utah. In warmups, he takes a 76-g blow to the front of his head. Then, on the very first play of the game, on kickoff, he gets popped in the earhole. It’s a 102-g impact. He’s part of the wedge.” He pointed to the screen, where the player was blocking on a kickoff: “Right here.” The player stumbled toward the sideline. “His symptoms were significantly worse than the first injury.” Two days later, during an evaluation in Guskiewicz’s clinic, he had to have a towel put over his head because he couldn’t stand the light. He also had difficulty staying awake. He was sidelined for sixteen days.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz1u6eN5U9P

Click to expand...

'cvnpoka said:

'wiscstlatlmia said:

'Greg Russell said:

'wiscstlatlmia said:

that article brings up a great point, would you guys honestly let your kids play football over other sports now?

Click to expand...

I don't have kids, so I can only say what I think I'd do if I had some. I would let them play up through high school. But if they were a good enough athlete to play college and/or pro I'd probably counsel them towards another sport.Reason being, I suspect that we'll eventually find out that the CTE effects of playing until you're 18 are nowhere nearly as serious as what they are for someone who plays until he's 35 or 40.

Click to expand...

totally agree with this. Little kids arn't going to be creating the same type of contact that is creating these long term situations.Its when you get to college and pro that it gets extremely dangerous. Its a really sad thing to see... I'm worried about our game, I hope they can figure something out.

Click to expand...

i think we will find the opposite of what you think. i would not at all be surprised if developing brains getting bashed around from a young age may prove worse. ofc "Little kids arn't going to be creating the same type of contact that is creating these long term situations." but you gotta realize their bodies and brains are at a much different stage of development and likely susceptibility.

Click to expand...

'Funkley said:

Sorry but you guys are dead wrong. And lol at "little kids". Apparently you havent watched a 6th grade football game in awhile. Concussions are rare at even the middle school level. There are a lot of big, strong, fast kids playing middle school football.

Click to expand...

'cvnpoka said:

'Funkley said:

Sorry but you guys are dead wrong. And lol at "little kids". Apparently you havent watched a 6th grade football game in awhile. Concussions are rare at even the middle school level. There are a lot of big, strong, fast kids playing middle school football.

Click to expand...

the concern is that damage is being done even when there is no concussion.

Click to expand...

'WisWolvrns said:

looks like they have the technology to put sensors in all the helmets... the NFL should step up and use hard science like that if they are serious. it isn't a game rule change and just a monitoring factor. with more info on all the hits, the team medical staffs would have more info to monitor player health. especially since the macho attitude of some players seem to not want to focus on safety because it slows them down or whatever. or maybe the NFL does not want to see such data... at the end of the day it wouldn't necessarily change things, just would make the people playing more aware of the hard risks. many would still sign up on the million dollar+ line anyhow...

Click to expand...

The death of linebacker Junior Seau has triggered a flurry of comments and articles regarding the future of football. Former NFL quarterback Kurt Warner has said that he would prefer that his sons not play football (before later that same day saying he would “love” for them to play). ESPN, a network that pays billions of dollars for the right to televise football games, is showcasing on the NFL home page of its website a column that makes the case for not letting our sons play football. One of the men who currently plays the game, Ravens safety Bernard Pollard, believes football will be extinct in 20 to 30 years.

But here’s the point everyone who is pointing to the Seau suicide as a key crossroads for football is badly missing: The NFL already has arrived at the crossroads, and the NFL has embarked on the path of safety.

Against the wishes of most players and fans.

It happened in 2009 — nearly a year after Ashley Fox of ESPN.com made her own personal decision to not let her then-unborn son play football — when Congress grilled Commissioner Roger Goodell and others regarding head injuries. That relatively minor investment of political resources served as the proverbial shot across the bow, compelling the NFL to make a flurry of changes aimed at reducing the number of concussions that occur during games, diagnosing more effectively the players who have sustained concussions, and ensuring that players who have suffered concussions are not allowed back onto the field until their concussions have fully healed.

Does more need to be done? Absolutely, and I’ve been at the front of the line (to the chagrin of more than a few readers) arguing for further changes, especially as it relates to the development of safeguards and redundancies strong enough to override the all-powerful head coach when a player like Mike Vick has “dirt on his face” or when Colt McCoy clearly had been (as ESPN used to famously call it) “jacked up.”

But the challenge isn’t simply to get coaches, who are driven to win and are driven crazy when rules regarding concussions keep their best players out of action, to accept the new realities of football. Players and, ultimately, the fans must buy in, too.

As one PFT commenter recently pointed out, current players are complaining about efforts to take hard hits out of the game at a time when former players are suing the NFL for, in part, letting them hit each other too hard. For some former players, the concussion issue becomes a convenient vehicle for venting about the fact that today’s owners and players are making obscene amounts of money, and that not enough of it is being shared with the men who made the game what it is. Current players, however, continue to play the game without reservation or hesitation. Indeed, 253 draft picks and hundreds more undrafted players unanimously accepted the offers of employment that have come their way in the last 10 days.

And so, at a time when so many voices are clamoring for football to change even more, the men who play the game don’t want it to. For example, Pollard’s headline-generating prediction didn’t come from his belief that some external body will outlaw the sport, but from a concern that efforts by the NFL to make the game safer will kill it. “This is football,” Pollard said. “It’s not powder puff. When Nike unveiled their new uniforms, I’m surprised they didn’t have flags on the side. . . . You’re taking away the game of football. If a quarterback throws an interception, get his butt down or run to the sidelines. If you’re going to try to make a tackle, I’m going to look for you. I promise you, I’m going to look for you.”

The fans have a role in this, too. As the NFL has tried to make the game safer, the folks who devote money and/or time to watching it have complained, almost as loudly as the players. Those same fans, who love the hits and the intensity of the sport, can’t then wring their hands and gnash their teeth when men who know that the sport entails a significant risk of getting hurt actually, you know, get hurt.

In the end, how far must the NFL go to protect players from themselves? We remain a nation of risk-takers; in many ways, taking risks helped make our country what it is. And we routinely take far greater risks for far less money than NFL players receive.

Hell, we even spend good money to take risks, whether it’s jumping out of airplanes or climbing rock walls or driving motorcycles, with or without helmets. (Ashley Fox doesn’t mention in her column whether she’ll let her son engage in any of those activities. Eventually, however, she’ll lose her vote.)

If grown men, who now can’t say they don’t know the risks of playing football, choose to play, why should anyone stop them? And even if enough parents are actually able to steer that 14-to-18-year-old with testosterone pumping through his body away from playing football to the point where there is no high school football, the best of the best young athletes will nevertheless be recruited to learn football at the college level, at which point the wishes of mom and/or dad will go out the window — especially if playing football pays for tuition and expenses that mom and/or dad otherwise couldn’t afford.

Though plenty of men choose to play college football because they hope to play pro football and not because they want a college education, plenty of men know that football ultimately serves its purpose by providing a college education that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to obtain. And if, in the end, the decision comes down to the risk of incurring CTE on a gridiron or encountering an IED on a dirt road in Afghanistan, plenty of men will gladly embrace the risks of playing college football.

Click to expand...

'footballnerd said:

Huge NFL fan, but from what I hear from people that don't like watching it, there is too much stop and go in football. I agree there is a lot of dead time but I'm used to it. So as much as people think soccer is boring, football can be considered so to others. Another question, how much does growing up playing the sport lead to becoming a fan later?

Click to expand...

'footballnerd said:

Another question, how much does growing up playing the sport lead to becoming a fan later?

Click to expand...

'WisWolvrns said:

I have to agree with the latter also.When kids are growing, that isn't the time for bashing around on a football field.Personally I'd wait till college. Have the kids play other sports up to that time and if they have superior talent, let them choose which way to go. It's happening already at some positions like TE and WR. Some people are good basketball players, but not really built for the NBA and/or like more contact which the NFL gives them. So in college, let the kids flip to football. Track stars have been WR picks for most of NFL history too. Basically, my view is to limit my son's football exposure to the least amount needed to be drafted and start getting paid to play.Albeit, the flip side is there are a lot of people out in the world which really don't have a lot of brains to work in white collar jobs or with complex subjects. And there are some people who just love hitting other people and are physically aggressive out there. Football is the sport for them. Heck, most football players don't even use as much protective gear as they can or the best gear available. So some of their claims of injury concerns are pretty weak because they themselves don't place a high premium on protecting their bodies with the best technologies. Albeit, that happens in every work place. Safety first is always the corporate montra.. but a lot of workers cut corners and then some of them get hurt because of that. In those cases, they shouldn't get a dime for any lawsuits because they choose to accept unnecessary risks. I don't think football was ever meant to be played by minors. It's a young mans game to be played from 18 to 30ish. The reason why it took off at the college level was because it raised school moral and kept potential louts focused on athletics instead of bar fighting or chasing women on weekends. The sport is too violent for children. Once the size and strength difference of puberty becomes pronounced smallish youths have no chance in competing against larger people in the same age range. I know from experience as I was about average size around my high school senior year but was "tiny" on the football field. I remember joking with my friends that I could toss around in high school gym classes that on the team I was 5'6" runty guy who got thrown in the showers by the alpha males.....There will always be some violent sports in this world because there are enough humans on the planet who like aggression. Football will die away only if the aggressive people all disappear and that isn't likely to happen. If armchair lawyers destroy the physical nature of the game, those aggressive people will move to the next new sport which highlights the use of their aggressions.Mind too there is a fine line between the physical parts of football and the intent to injure physical parts. Some rules like removing the horse collar tackle because it had higher incidents of actually injuring players make sense. Likewise with defenseless player type rules though they tend to be subjective which are always the most difficult types of rules in a game since the refs never call them the same from game to game and group to group. At the end of the day the money drives the train. So long as there are millions of dollars to be had by people playing, there will be people stepping up to collect that money no matter what the physical effects are on their bodies. Heck, there are a number of dangerous and health damaging jobs out in the world that pay a heck of a lot less than football and people are out there doing those jobs. Some have more safety precautions than others, but people can die just the same doing them if mistakes or careless behavior happens. Football is no different, it's just a huge money cow so people are lined up to suck what they can from it...

Click to expand...

'Stealthycat said:

remove the helmets - nobody is going to spear someone if they don't have a helmet on - the helmet is a weapon

how many concussions/suicided from Rugy? you know - where "tackling" is wrapping up instead of spearing with your helmet ....

Click to expand...

'CalBear said:

'Stealthycat said:

remove the helmets - nobody is going to spear someone if they don't have a helmet on - the helmet is a weapon

how many concussions/suicided from Rugy? you know - where "tackling" is wrapping up instead of spearing with your helmet ....

Click to expand...

Lots.

Click to expand...

'wiscstlatlmia said:

'CalBear said:

'Stealthycat said:

remove the helmets - nobody is going to spear someone if they don't have a helmet on - the helmet is a weapon

how many concussions/suicided from Rugy? you know - where "tackling" is wrapping up instead of spearing with your helmet ....

Click to expand...

Lots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If lost lawsuits start piling up, it could be lights out for NFL

We're a few years away, but it's coming. It's happening, and there's nothing any of us can do about it. In a few years, courts will start hearing class-action lawsuits filed by retired players against the NFL. And if that first wave of lawsuits ends badly for the league -- with precedent-setting rulings that the NFL owes millions of dollars in damages -- the jig's up. The game's over. The NFL is finished.

Note that I didn't write, "The NFL as we know it is finished." I didn't write that, because it's worse than that.

The NFL. Finished.

I realize I'm describing the indescribable, but I'm not imagining the unimaginable. It's pretty damn easy to see how bad this could be, because while the NFL can afford bad publicity and a tough union and the occasional suicide by a beloved former star, what it can't afford is the millions -- hundreds of millions, easy -- it would lose should its former players start winning these lawsuits.

And there's a lot more retired players out there, watching these lawsuits. Waiting. With an attorney on speed dial. I promise you that.

This is the NFL's Big Tobacco moment, only worse, because people aren't literally addicted to football like they're addicted to smoking -- and because the NFL doesn't generate billions in tax revenues. Financially speaking, this country needs the tobacco industry. We love football, but we don't need it like we need tobacco.

And things have gotten pretty bad for Big Tobacco. A pack of cigarettes is at least $6 in most states, and $14 in New York. Know why? Because when four of the country's largest tobacco companies were hit with what's known as the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998, forcing them to pay 46 states a minimum of $206 billion over 25 years, it set off a lawsuit frenzy that continues to this day. Damaged smokers everywhere realized their suffering was worth money. And they lawyered up.

So this is a big "if," but it's an "if" that cannot be ignored: If one of these first few trials goes badly for the NFL, damaged football players everywhere will realize their suffering is worth money, and they'll lawyer up. And they'll win, just like smokers keep winning. A smoker in Los Angeles was awarded $100 million in 2001. Another in Florida won $39 million in 2009. It continues to this day as a class-action lawsuit winds through Canadian courts, with plaintiffs seeking up to $27 billion.

The future of the NFL comes down to this: Will it lose any of the early, precedent-setting lawsuits? The NFL will say it shouldn't be held responsible that former players are breaking down physically. Professional football players are adults, the NFL will argue; they had to know the risks of banging repeatedly into each other. And that's a compelling argument.

The players will argue that the NFL knew about the life-altering risks of brain trauma decades ago but didn't warn them. If an NFL linebacker knew he was risking dementia at age 50, maybe he would have sought two or three times more than the average NFL salary of $90,000 in 1981. And surely he and his fellow players would have bargained for better post-career medical benefits than the nearly nonexistent coverage some receive today. That's the argument players will make -- and that, too, is a compelling argument.

Scared, my fellow football fan? Well, it gets worse.

There's also the helmets.

See, helmets are worn to protect the head of the player wearing it. As we all know, helmets haven't done it. Not well enough. Nothing against helmet makers -- I'm not sure it's possible to protect an NFL player's brain with all those nasty collisions -- but retired players have been diagnosed with dementia at rates five to 19 times higher than the general population. So the question for courts to decide is this: Should the makers of those helmets be held responsible? If that answer is "yes," then it's like I said:

Football is finished.

Because even if the NFL thinks it can survive the lawsuits by using the product on the field to stave off bankruptcy, you can't play football without a football helmet. And if helmet makers are going to be sued, they'll find something else to make, like lawn chairs.

This is all worst-case stuff, and I don't want it to happen. But sit here and pretend it can't happen? I can't do that. What I can do is watch the legal proceedings carefully, and keep track of the lawsuits filed. And what do you know? Another lawsuit was filed in the past few days. This one is led by Hall of Fame receiver Art Monk, who has sued the NFL -- and the NFL's helmet-maker, Riddell -- over his "short term memory loss, headaches and speech difficulties."

Monk was joined by 62 other former players in his class-action suit. All told, more than 2,000 players have filed almost 75 complaints against the NFL or Riddell. What's lifelong brain trauma worth to a middle-aged man? A million bucks? Multiply a million bucks times 2,000 players. OK, I'll do it for you: That's $2 billion.

And that would be just the start. After that, more lawsuits. More billions.

No more NFL.

Click to expand...

'azgroover said:

Gregg Doyel piling on.

link

If lost lawsuits start piling up, it could be lights out for NFL

We're a few years away, but it's coming. It's happening, and there's nothing any of us can do about it. In a few years, courts will start hearing class-action lawsuits filed by retired players against the NFL. And if that first wave of lawsuits ends badly for the league -- with precedent-setting rulings that the NFL owes millions of dollars in damages -- the jig's up. The game's over. The NFL is finished.

Note that I didn't write, "The NFL as we know it is finished." I didn't write that, because it's worse than that.

The NFL. Finished.

I realize I'm describing the indescribable, but I'm not imagining the unimaginable. It's pretty damn easy to see how bad this could be, because while the NFL can afford bad publicity and a tough union and the occasional suicide by a beloved former star, what it can't afford is the millions -- hundreds of millions, easy -- it would lose should its former players start winning these lawsuits.

And there's a lot more retired players out there, watching these lawsuits. Waiting. With an attorney on speed dial. I promise you that.

This is the NFL's Big Tobacco moment, only worse, because people aren't literally addicted to football like they're addicted to smoking -- and because the NFL doesn't generate billions in tax revenues. Financially speaking, this country needs the tobacco industry. We love football, but we don't need it like we need tobacco.

And things have gotten pretty bad for Big Tobacco. A pack of cigarettes is at least $6 in most states, and $14 in New York. Know why? Because when four of the country's largest tobacco companies were hit with what's known as the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998, forcing them to pay 46 states a minimum of $206 billion over 25 years, it set off a lawsuit frenzy that continues to this day. Damaged smokers everywhere realized their suffering was worth money. And they lawyered up.

So this is a big "if," but it's an "if" that cannot be ignored: If one of these first few trials goes badly for the NFL, damaged football players everywhere will realize their suffering is worth money, and they'll lawyer up. And they'll win, just like smokers keep winning. A smoker in Los Angeles was awarded $100 million in 2001. Another in Florida won $39 million in 2009. It continues to this day as a class-action lawsuit winds through Canadian courts, with plaintiffs seeking up to $27 billion.

The future of the NFL comes down to this: Will it lose any of the early, precedent-setting lawsuits? The NFL will say it shouldn't be held responsible that former players are breaking down physically. Professional football players are adults, the NFL will argue; they had to know the risks of banging repeatedly into each other. And that's a compelling argument.

The players will argue that the NFL knew about the life-altering risks of brain trauma decades ago but didn't warn them. If an NFL linebacker knew he was risking dementia at age 50, maybe he would have sought two or three times more than the average NFL salary of $90,000 in 1981. And surely he and his fellow players would have bargained for better post-career medical benefits than the nearly nonexistent coverage some receive today. That's the argument players will make -- and that, too, is a compelling argument.

Scared, my fellow football fan? Well, it gets worse.

There's also the helmets.

See, helmets are worn to protect the head of the player wearing it. As we all know, helmets haven't done it. Not well enough. Nothing against helmet makers -- I'm not sure it's possible to protect an NFL player's brain with all those nasty collisions -- but retired players have been diagnosed with dementia at rates five to 19 times higher than the general population. So the question for courts to decide is this: Should the makers of those helmets be held responsible? If that answer is "yes," then it's like I said:

Football is finished.

Because even if the NFL thinks it can survive the lawsuits by using the product on the field to stave off bankruptcy, you can't play football without a football helmet. And if helmet makers are going to be sued, they'll find something else to make, like lawn chairs.

This is all worst-case stuff, and I don't want it to happen. But sit here and pretend it can't happen? I can't do that. What I can do is watch the legal proceedings carefully, and keep track of the lawsuits filed. And what do you know? Another lawsuit was filed in the past few days. This one is led by Hall of Fame receiver Art Monk, who has sued the NFL -- and the NFL's helmet-maker, Riddell -- over his "short term memory loss, headaches and speech difficulties."

Monk was joined by 62 other former players in his class-action suit. All told, more than 2,000 players have filed almost 75 complaints against the NFL or Riddell. What's lifelong brain trauma worth to a middle-aged man? A million bucks? Multiply a million bucks times 2,000 players. OK, I'll do it for you: That's $2 billion.

And that would be just the start. After that, more lawsuits. More billions.

No more NFL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

'wiscstlatlmia said:

'azgroover said:

Gregg Doyel piling on.

link

If lost lawsuits start piling up, it could be lights out for NFL

We're a few years away, but it's coming. It's happening, and there's nothing any of us can do about it. In a few years, courts will start hearing class-action lawsuits filed by retired players against the NFL. And if that first wave of lawsuits ends badly for the league -- with precedent-setting rulings that the NFL owes millions of dollars in damages -- the jig's up. The game's over. The NFL is finished.

Note that I didn't write, "The NFL as we know it is finished." I didn't write that, because it's worse than that.

The NFL. Finished.

I realize I'm describing the indescribable, but I'm not imagining the unimaginable. It's pretty damn easy to see how bad this could be, because while the NFL can afford bad publicity and a tough union and the occasional suicide by a beloved former star, what it can't afford is the millions -- hundreds of millions, easy -- it would lose should its former players start winning these lawsuits.

And there's a lot more retired players out there, watching these lawsuits. Waiting. With an attorney on speed dial. I promise you that.

This is the NFL's Big Tobacco moment, only worse, because people aren't literally addicted to football like they're addicted to smoking -- and because the NFL doesn't generate billions in tax revenues. Financially speaking, this country needs the tobacco industry. We love football, but we don't need it like we need tobacco.

And things have gotten pretty bad for Big Tobacco. A pack of cigarettes is at least $6 in most states, and $14 in New York. Know why? Because when four of the country's largest tobacco companies were hit with what's known as the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998, forcing them to pay 46 states a minimum of $206 billion over 25 years, it set off a lawsuit frenzy that continues to this day. Damaged smokers everywhere realized their suffering was worth money. And they lawyered up.

So this is a big "if," but it's an "if" that cannot be ignored: If one of these first few trials goes badly for the NFL, damaged football players everywhere will realize their suffering is worth money, and they'll lawyer up. And they'll win, just like smokers keep winning. A smoker in Los Angeles was awarded $100 million in 2001. Another in Florida won $39 million in 2009. It continues to this day as a class-action lawsuit winds through Canadian courts, with plaintiffs seeking up to $27 billion.

The future of the NFL comes down to this: Will it lose any of the early, precedent-setting lawsuits? The NFL will say it shouldn't be held responsible that former players are breaking down physically. Professional football players are adults, the NFL will argue; they had to know the risks of banging repeatedly into each other. And that's a compelling argument.

The players will argue that the NFL knew about the life-altering risks of brain trauma decades ago but didn't warn them. If an NFL linebacker knew he was risking dementia at age 50, maybe he would have sought two or three times more than the average NFL salary of $90,000 in 1981. And surely he and his fellow players would have bargained for better post-career medical benefits than the nearly nonexistent coverage some receive today. That's the argument players will make -- and that, too, is a compelling argument.

Scared, my fellow football fan? Well, it gets worse.

There's also the helmets.

See, helmets are worn to protect the head of the player wearing it. As we all know, helmets haven't done it. Not well enough. Nothing against helmet makers -- I'm not sure it's possible to protect an NFL player's brain with all those nasty collisions -- but retired players have been diagnosed with dementia at rates five to 19 times higher than the general population. So the question for courts to decide is this: Should the makers of those helmets be held responsible? If that answer is "yes," then it's like I said:

Football is finished.

Because even if the NFL thinks it can survive the lawsuits by using the product on the field to stave off bankruptcy, you can't play football without a football helmet. And if helmet makers are going to be sued, they'll find something else to make, like lawn chairs.

This is all worst-case stuff, and I don't want it to happen. But sit here and pretend it can't happen? I can't do that. What I can do is watch the legal proceedings carefully, and keep track of the lawsuits filed. And what do you know? Another lawsuit was filed in the past few days. This one is led by Hall of Fame receiver Art Monk, who has sued the NFL -- and the NFL's helmet-maker, Riddell -- over his "short term memory loss, headaches and speech difficulties."

Monk was joined by 62 other former players in his class-action suit. All told, more than 2,000 players have filed almost 75 complaints against the NFL or Riddell. What's lifelong brain trauma worth to a middle-aged man? A million bucks? Multiply a million bucks times 2,000 players. OK, I'll do it for you: That's $2 billion.

And that would be just the start. After that, more lawsuits. More billions.

No more NFL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

lol ummmmmm .. this is a bit radical IMO... its obviously a gloomy horizon... but to say the NFL is done is a bit ridiculous at this point in time.

Click to expand...

The NFL is in a death spiral owing to its violence. Parents will let their sons play soccer or golf or house before they'll allow them to be concussed playing football. This is the word on the street.

Actually, it's the word at the intersection of Pleasant Street and Academia Boulevard. In places where football means college and a chance at a prosperous career -- the proverbial Way Out -- the word is somewhat different. In these places, kids are still playing lots of football. And the NFL is full of these kids.

"I've had single parents come to me and say, 'Coach Martin, my son needs to be tougher, can you help him?' I've never had someone ask me the opposite.'' This is Mike Martin. Martin was not an exceptional NFL player. He had a seven-year career with the Cincinnati Bengals in the 1980s. A wide receiver, Martin caught 67 passes in his career. In '84 he led the league in average yards per punt return.

Martin is a fine test case for the silly, football-is-dying notions currently being floated, though. He grew up in Southeast D.C., walking distance from the old RFK Stadium, in a lousy neighborhood. His father was an alcoholic and absent; his mother worked multiple jobs.

Martin says he played tackle football on concrete "because the dirt fields we played on had too much glass on them.'' Nevertheless, Martin got a full ride to Illinois, earned his degree, and lasted a few years longer than average in the NFL. He achieved what lots of poor, urban kids aspire to.

"It gave me a jumpstart on life,'' Martin said this week. "These kids have an opportunity for a free education and if they're really good, an opportunity to make millions of dollars.''

Apparently, we are to believe that sort of dreaming and potential is vanishing everywhere, because the league is too rough.

Jay Coakley, a "sports sociologist'' at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, recently said to a New York Times reporter, ""Football is really on the verge of a turning point here. We may see it in 15 years in pretty much the same place as boxing or ultimate fighting."

A few things about that:

(1) Can we do a story on this topic now without input from a "sports sociologist''?

(2) That's crazy.

That puts the NFL in a nice, hedge-rowed suburban box. That's not where the NFL lives.

I haven't done a study. Maybe someone has. But I've covered the NFL for close to 30 years. It is not Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. A majority of its players -- and certainly, its stars -- did not grow up with free and easy access to golf courses, tennis courts or any of the other options that parents evidently will be turning to now. I did a book with the former Chad Johnson. He grew up in the Liberty City neighborhood of Miami, host of the pre-Super Bowl riot in 1989. Chad wasn't exactly hanging out at Doral, practicing flop wedges.

Chad is more typical of the league than not. This isn't to say parents or guardians of kids playing football in places like Liberty City are OK with their charges getting concussed. It's to say that opportunities there are constricted, but the talent is not. If you want to declare, as Coakley did, that football faces UFC-status, you must also ignore the sociology of the game. Which is a strange thing for a sociologist to do.

Mike Martin: "I see little kids today. They love to play the game. They tell me how hard they hit someone. They brag on it. I have to ask them, 'Did you keep your head up?'''

After he retired from the NFL, Martin coached football for a decade at an inner-city high school in Cincinnati. What he heard was not, "I'm worried my son will get hurt.'' He heard, "My son needs discipline and structure. My son needs to know what it's like to work hard and earn self respect.''

Martin also heard the phrase "father figure'' tossed around quite a bit. When he arrived at Taft High, he had 25 players on his team. By the time he left, he had 70. Several received Division I football scholarships.

Are there college scholarships now for boxing?

Is there a place an urban kid can go for a free education and a college degree while also becoming a mixed martial artist?

It's easy for Coakley and Kurt Warner and Tom Brady's father to say they'd do things differently with their kids. Their kids aren't at Taft High, or in Liberty City. Or in Atlanta, for that matter.

"I saw football as a way out,'' Adam Jones said this week. "For me, it was the only way out.'' The erstwhile Pacman grew up in Atlanta, raised by mom, in less than gracious surroundings. He went to West Virginia, was the sixth player drafted in 2005 and made millions of dollars. Jones' dream was realized swiftly and shattered spectacularly. But football gave him the chance to dream.

As long as that dream is viable for kids whose dreaming is constricted by their environment, the NFL isn't going anywhere.

As a high school kid, Mike Martin earned spending money selling Cokes at Washington Redskins games. His senior year, 1978, he stopped selling sodas and instead used his vendor's pass to get into the games. "I'm going to play here one day,'' he said.

Five years later, he was a rookie with the Bengals. They played the Redskins at RFK, in a preseason game. Martin walked into the stadium and saw banners his vendor-buddies had hung to greet him: "If it doesn't work out, you can always sell Cokes.''

After the game, so many of Martin's friends from the neighborhood gathered around him on the field, he needed security to escort him to the locker room. "People from my neighborhood were crying,'' he recalled. "One of their own had made it out. A kid from the 'hood had made it to the NFL. They couldn't believe it. It was one of my fondest memories in football.''

Somewhere in Liberty City or Southeast D.C. or Atlanta, kids are dreaming the same dream today. Are the NFL's concerns regarding concussions legitimate? Of course. Will they keep kids like these from playing football?

Not in a million years.

Click to expand...

'Chazzhawk said:

I apologize if someone else wrote this but I can't read through all 4 pages of this. The downfall of football will be greed, just like with Borders, and any other company that keeps expanding until they can no longer sustain it. Football is probably at the right size, with the right number of games as it stands. The owners, and others will get greedy and expand the number of games and teams, which will cause more injuries, and you will have more players so in return the product gets worse. This is what will ruin football.

Click to expand...

'Chazzhawk said:

It was an example, and there is a couple book stores near me that are locally owned that are still going good. Look at all the Star Bucks that closed, I am sure there are other things I just can't think of them right now.

Click to expand...

The downfall of football will be greed, just like with Borders, and any other company that keeps expanding until they can no longer sustain it.

Click to expand...

'squistion said:

'Chazzhawk said:

I apologize if someone else wrote this but I can't read through all 4 pages of this. The downfall of football will be greed, just like with Borders, and any other company that keeps expanding until they can no longer sustain it. Football is probably at the right size, with the right number of games as it stands. The owners, and others will get greedy and expand the number of games and teams, which will cause more injuries, and you will have more players so in return the product gets worse. This is what will ruin football.

Click to expand...

And Borders would still be doing great business today, just like every other bookstore chain, if they hadn't been so greedy.

Click to expand...

'Ilov80s said:

I probably already said this here, but if the NFL wants to improve player health, weight limits are the key. Weight limits would positively impact head injuries, joint injuries and the greatest threat to player health: obesity.

Click to expand...

'greenroom said:

'Funkley said:

I coach youth football at the middle school level. If anything kills football in the years to come it will be Mom's. Can't begin to tell you how many Mom's I hear talking about pulling their kids out. As NFL players keep falling due to brain injury more and more kids will be forced to stop. Fall baseball and fall lacrosse are already getting popular here. And I have to admit that its getting harder for me to encourage football with my own sons.

Click to expand...

I always thought my son would play football, but the closer I get to that age, the more I am pushing him towards soccer and other sports. I love football, but the size and speed of players today is just a world of difference compared to when I played.

Click to expand...

'EBF said:

'Ilov80s said:

I probably already said this here, but if the NFL wants to improve player health, weight limits are the key. Weight limits would positively impact head injuries, joint injuries and the greatest threat to player health: obesity.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I buy this. One of the most vicious hits I've seen in recent memory was Dunta Robinson on DeSean Jackson.What is the average weight of those two? 180 pounds?There's no easy solution to football's problem because the very things that make the game interesting (i.e. monster hits/speed/strength/quickness) are the things that make it hazardous to play.

Click to expand...

'Manster said:

good points, but what about when NFL football basically becomes two hand touch?

Click to expand...

'massraider said:

'Manster said:

good points, but what about when NFL football basically becomes two hand touch?

Click to expand...

Everyone still watches, they just have one more thing to yap about.How many fans has the NFL lost since Jack Lambert suggested putting dresses on the quarterbacks?

Click to expand...

'Ilov80s said:

'EBF said:

'Ilov80s said:

I probably already said this here, but if the NFL wants to improve player health, weight limits are the key. Weight limits would positively impact head injuries, joint injuries and the greatest threat to player health: obesity.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I buy this. One of the most vicious hits I've seen in recent memory was Dunta Robinson on DeSean Jackson.What is the average weight of those two? 180 pounds?There's no easy solution to football's problem because the very things that make the game interesting (i.e. monster hits/speed/strength/quickness) are the things that make it hazardous to play.

Click to expand...

I agree there is no easy solution, but just because a weight limit does not prevent every injury does not mean it is ineffective. There are two ways to lower the force at impact, lower the mass or the velocity. It is a lot easier to control weight than speed. Not to mention the problems excessive weight can have on joints and the heart.

Click to expand...

'massraider said:

'Manster said:

good points, but what about when NFL football basically becomes two hand touch?

Click to expand...

Everyone still watches, they just have one more thing to yap about.How many fans has the NFL lost since Jack Lambert suggested putting dresses on the quarterbacks?

Click to expand...

link

Insurer looks to part ways with NFL

A company that the NFL was hoping it could count on to help in its defense against concussion lawsuits is seeking to separate itself from the league.

Alterra America Insurance, which provided the NFL with an excess casualty insurance policy last season, has asked for a New York State Supreme Court judge to issue a declaratory judgment in its favor that would clear the firm from having to defend the league and pay for the damages associated with litigation that now involves more than 3,000 former players. Many of the player suits have been consolidated into a single case in a district court in Pennsylvania.

In a complaint filed on Monday, Alterra said the league had expressed it was expecting the company to be involved in both defending and covering the league should they lose in court.

Calls and emails made to Alterra, and a lawyer representing them, were not returned.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said league officials couldn't specifically comment because its legal team has not been served with the papers related to the action.

McCarthy provided ESPN.com with a statement the league has been using for some time.

"The NFL has long made player safety a priority and continues to do so. Any allegation that the NFL intentionally sought to mislead players has no merit. It stands in contrast to the league's actions to better protect players and advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions."

Alterra, which only covered the league for one year, is one of many insurance companies with which the league has a policy. No other insurance company that has a relationship with the league has balked in defending and perhaps paying off future claims.

As the concussion lawsuits mount, a significant amount of pressure has been put on the insurance companies. In April, Riddell, the official helmet of the league which has been included in many of the player lawsuits, filed suit in California, after it said that three of the nine companies that it had insurance policies with -- ranging in time from 1959 to 1980 -- either failed to acknowledge the league had coverage with them or contested the insurance company wasn't liable for current claims against Riddell.

Click to expand...

'azgroover said:

Last two mins of basketball kills the whole momentum of the game.Foul, free throws, time out, fouls, free throw, timeout...no thanks.

Click to expand...

'azgroover said:

This story is worthy of a mention in this thread.

link

Insurer looks to part ways with NFL

A company that the NFL was hoping it could count on to help in its defense against concussion lawsuits is seeking to separate itself from the league.

Alterra America Insurance, which provided the NFL with an excess casualty insurance policy last season, has asked for a New York State Supreme Court judge to issue a declaratory judgment in its favor that would clear the firm from having to defend the league and pay for the damages associated with litigation that now involves more than 3,000 former players. Many of the player suits have been consolidated into a single case in a district court in Pennsylvania.

In a complaint filed on Monday, Alterra said the league had expressed it was expecting the company to be involved in both defending and covering the league should they lose in court.

Calls and emails made to Alterra, and a lawyer representing them, were not returned.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said league officials couldn't specifically comment because its legal team has not been served with the papers related to the action.

McCarthy provided ESPN.com with a statement the league has been using for some time.

"The NFL has long made player safety a priority and continues to do so. Any allegation that the NFL intentionally sought to mislead players has no merit. It stands in contrast to the league's actions to better protect players and advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions."

Alterra, which only covered the league for one year, is one of many insurance companies with which the league has a policy. No other insurance company that has a relationship with the league has balked in defending and perhaps paying off future claims.

As the concussion lawsuits mount, a significant amount of pressure has been put on the insurance companies. In April, Riddell, the official helmet of the league which has been included in many of the player lawsuits, filed suit in California, after it said that three of the nine companies that it had insurance policies with -- ranging in time from 1959 to 1980 -- either failed to acknowledge the league had coverage with them or contested the insurance company wasn't liable for current claims against Riddell.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...