

The NFL’s problems in one accidentally revealing ad - chwolfe
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/04/everything-thats-wrong-with-football-in-one-ad/

======
streptomycin
I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game
more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon
for people to die on the field
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.html?_r=0)

 _the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the
field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level.
Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905._

~~~
qeorge
I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the
amount/intensity of the hits" argument.

That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a
lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion.

I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly
for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the
other way on the brain injuries.

~~~
HarryHirsch
The rugby players that I know tell me that their pain limits how hard they
tackle an opponent. They would not like to see padding introduced because a
player would trust their armour overmuch and increase the risk of injury.

~~~
ncallaway
In addition to the force of the impact, a significant difference is the form
that you employ in making a tackle. In football a common technique is to put
your head in the center of the opponent's body in order to help stop their
force. In rugby, not wearing a helmet means you are _likely_ to receive a
concussion if you do this (mostly from knees). As such, in rugby a proper
tackle technique involves you putting your head to the side of your opponent,
and using your shoulder as the primary point of contact with the opponent.

The upshot of this is that your head is involved in significantly less direct
contact (though there's still some).

------
kjackson2012
I hate when people complain about football injuries. It's the risk and
conscious choice that athletes take in order to make an enormous amount of
money. If I were able to make millions of dollars for 8-10 years and risk
having concussions and other physical problems later on in life, I would
probably take it, especially if I came from an underprivileged background.

The real tragedy is that 80% of pro athletes go bankrupt because they don't
know how to handle their own money. They made a life-changing amount of money,
and they waste it all because they don't have proper guidance in terms of how
to retain most of it. THIS is something the NFL needs to concentrate on, that
these young kids don't blow all their money away because of immaturity and
arrogance.

~~~
kidgorgeous
You are mistaken in the fact that the majority of players have million dollar
contracts. The actual truth is that the majority of football players don't
make a million dollars gross in their short careers.

~~~
mattmaroon
League minimum is $390k (which can only be paid to rookies, it then goes up
every year) and the average career is about 6 years, so really the vast
majority are doing more than a million gross (and net) in their career.

Also the average salary is about $2m so you're looking at $12m gross. There's
certainly a power law there, but still, an average salary of $12m careerwise
is substantial.

~~~
jessaustin
You should use medians rather than averages for this analysis. The median
salary for those who play an entire season before getting cut is around
$800,000. The median career length is not reported anywhere I can find. Since
all sources besides the NFL claim the average career is 3.5 years, I'll
overestimate the median to be 3 years.

So, rather than $12M, we should be talking about $2.4M for a median career,
and that's just those who play an entire year before getting cut. Since the
NFLPA is toothless most NFL "contracts" allow a player to be cut at any time
for any reason and then he doesn't get any more money.

~~~
twoodfin
_Since the NFLPA is toothless most NFL "contracts" allow a player to be cut at
any time for any reason and then he doesn't get any more money._

I don't think this is because the NFLPA is toothless. I think it's because the
marginal value of the 53rd man on the roster over the first guy on the
practice squad is not high, and it doesn't increase much as you move up.
Because the NFL is such a team game, with a few major exceptions players are
largely replaceable.

That's why you hear so often about guys who were sitting on the couch watching
football one Sunday and playing the next. This effectively doesn't happen in,
say, baseball, where the supply of guys who can hit major league pitching
above the Mendoza line is quite limited. Even with a huge farm system, teams
rarely have more than a few major league-caliber players who aren't actually
on the roster.

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

~~~
rdouble
Aussie rules is not very similar to American football, though. Rugby Union is
pretty different, too. Rugby League is about the closest thing to American
football without the pads and helmets.

~~~
jessaustin
They all feature teams of players throwing, kicking, carrying, and sometimes
punching an oblong ball on a long field with goal posts at either end. The
object of all games is to advance the ball in a direction opposite to that of
the other team, and then to score a varying number of points depending on how
one moves the ball into a scoring area or kicks it between goal posts. Rough
play is encouraged, and body tackling is the basic means of defense, so these
games are all (with the exception of rugby union: the entire game is spent
listening to the referee holler "pause, engage!" while the scrum falls apart)
more enjoyable to play and watch than the sport upon which they're allegedly
based. They're all more similar to each other than any of them are to baseball
or tennis.

Besides, the only similarity that counts for this analysis is the nature of
the head trauma involved: men carrying a ball run while other men attempt to
tackle them bodily to the ground.

~~~
aidenn0
The hits and tackles are very different in Aussie rules or League not only
because of the equipment difference, but because of rule differences. Look at
some of the hits NFL line-backers put on receivers over the middle 2+ years
ago (there was a rule change to partly address this). There just aren't many
situations where a rugby player would get that sort of look at someone who is
blind to them.

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

~~~
Kylekramer
You don't see the problem with "I don't like sport A, I like sport B. Make
sport A more like sport B"? The pauses lead to a more rigid tactical game (you
can't really run set plays much in rugby as you do on most downs in football).
And the physical violence padding allows is also part of the appeal of the
game. Just google "Clowney hit" and you see thousands of people losing their
minds in praise for a hit of the kind you'll never see without padding.

Of course, the second point is more what this article is about and I believe
American football will eventually been seen like we view Roman gladiators. But
for now, padding is a major reason why it is the biggest sport in America.

~~~
mattmaroon
Eh, the hits are only a small part of why it's the biggest sport. There are a
lot of things the NFL does better than other leagues.

I'd argue the biggest is the salary cap and the parity that results. But there
are dozens more, and hits are probably low on the list since they're still
nowhere near as exciting as the slam dunks you see on a SportsCenter highlight
reel.

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

~~~
isleyaardvark
That makes it basically "spectators pay players large amounts of money to
injure themselves for our entertainment." I don't think that's the sign of a
civilized society.

~~~
jamesaguilar
That's overly reductionistic. We're not paying to watch them strike eachother
in the head with baseball bats. We're paying them for an intense display of
athletic skill, which incidentally is also extremely risky and likely to cause
long-term harm. The reality is bad enough without overstating your case or
taking a naive view of what people are getting out of spectating.

~~~
revelation
By the time you were fighting in the amphitheatrum novum, you had already
survived a bunch of other fights and proven your abilities. And of course the
citizen of Rome came for the same "intense display of athletic skill". There
isn't much enjoyment in just mindless slaughter, so you add animals and
weapons and shields.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Again: the stupid, sensationalist comparison to bloodsport is not helping your
case against anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Normal, rational
people will read your comment and say, well, there are no swords or lions in
football, nor any caesar giving the thumbs up or down, and almost no one dies
on the field. Clearly this guy is off his rocker.

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

~~~
evan_
> players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons.

Leading with the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty, ejected from the game,
or both.

~~~
ncallaway
Leading with the _crown_ of the helmet will get you a 15 yard penalty. The
second infraction should get you ejected from the game. Leading with the front
of the helmet (e.g. planting your facemask in the opponent's chest) is still
perfectly legal.

If I recall correctly, this rule ("spearing") was introduced to avoid _neck_
injury, as leading with the crown of the helmet puts an incredible amount of
strain on the vertebrae in the neck.

------
snowwrestler
The NFL has made rule changes to reduce the incidence of head injuries, and
IMO it's worth going a season or two to see if they improve things.

The nature of the rules in U.S. football creates situations that are
inherently more dangerous than its overseas counterparts like rugby or Aussie
rules. In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and
run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. Most tackles are
chase-downs where the runner is pulled to the ground at low speed.

I disagree with Klein's assertion that the violence is at the heart of the
NFL's appeal. There are numerous more violent or dangerous sports, like
boxing, MMA, or even NHL hockey (which as straight-up fist fights) that are
not nearly as popular.

The sport is far less dangerous or violent today than it was 20 years ago, but
it's far _more_ popular. The NFL has reigned in the violence with rules like
illegal contact on receivers, hits on defenseless receivers, roughing the
passer, spearing, chop-blocking, face mask, blow to the head, horsecollar
tackle, etc.--and as they have done so the game has only gained in popularity.
This disproves that the violence is the heart of the appeal.

Personally I think the appeal is that football is a) extremely athletic, b)
extremely complex tactically and strategically, and c) perfect for TV because
every single play has time for instant replay and analysis. In addition it
involves a lot of ballistic trajectories, which are always popular:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870377970457607...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074222543274268.html)

~~~
untog
_Personally I think the appeal is that football is a) extremely athletic_

How athletic _is_ Football, when compared to other sports? I'm not too clued
into the game (grew up in Britain) so I'm genuinely curious. My instinct is
that the frequent pauses and switches between offensive and defensive players
mean that an individual player gets a much larger break than in other sports
(I'm primarily thinking of soccer and rugby here), and runs a much shorter
distance. But on the other hand, a football game goes on far longer than both
of those.

In fact, an infographic:

[http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55220000/gif/_55220300...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55220000/gif/_55220300_rugby_a_football_624.gif)

Football players run across a _considerably_ smaller distance than rugby
players, but tend to be larger and stronger. Hmm.

~~~
rdouble
Pure aerobic endurance aside, gridiron players are some of the most athletic
people on the planet when ranked on things like quickness, strength, vertical
leap, agility, and so forth. There is an event called the NFL Scouting Combine
where college athletes are tested and ranked on these factors:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Scouting_Combine>

Perhaps the most interesting differentiator between american football and
other sports is how much of it is about raw athleticism. It's a power, speed
and size arms race. Most other sports are more about how good the players are
with specific skills.

~~~
untog
Interesting. It looks like those tests are heavily biased towards short-burst
athleticism, which would make sense looking at the figures in that
infographic. So football players excel at short-burst, but not endurance.

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

------
madpanda
What's more revealing are the players in the ad who are apart of the 4000
suing the NFL.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-
evolutio...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolution-
concussion-mel-gray-rick-upchurch-ollie-matson/1890231/)

Whatever the risk/reward calculus younger players might make, the NFL will
still be held responsible. They know this. Their army of lawyers know this.The
rules they are a-changin'.

------
wtvanhest
Obviously NFL player safety is important, but I am much more worried about
youth players and people who will never get to the NFL.

This is why companies like <http://brainsentry.com/> need to get more
exposure.

[added] Brain Sentry makes sensors for youth programs to detect big hits.
Obviously this isn't exactly what the author was referring to, but is a great
first step.

~~~
HarryHirsch
A technical solution to a social problem. It never works. You'd hope they take
away the players' helmets so the company can go bankrupt in peace.

~~~
JulieM
The whole point is to be able to keep playing the game, but make it safer.
Tech can help identify the players who should be checked for a concussion and
get those players off the field. Players don't report their symptoms so the
technology enhances overall awareness of the topic (helping the social
problem) while adding an extra set of eyes on the field (tech component).

~~~
HarryHirsch
Everyone knows what repeated concussions do to a fellow - boxer dementia is
age-old - there are regulations against fielding concussed players, yet
athletes play on, out of a sense of team spirit, or something. If players and
coaches don't go by the information they already have, what will cause them to
listen to an electronic box? This does not seem the way forward. Since it's
impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing.

~~~
wtvanhest
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is clear when people
have concussions and that players simply disregard the advice of coaches and
play anyway.

1) "It is not always easy to know if someone has a concussion. You don't have
to pass out (lose consciousness) to have a concussion."

[http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-
concuss...](http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concussion-
overview)

"Since it's impossible to fight team spirit the rules need changing."

I agree, by using a G meter, we can make a specific rule that if a player's
head experiences a set number of G's, the player can no longer play. That
basically simplifies the entire situation because it removes the subjectivity
of detecting the concussion.

If I had a kid, and they wanted to play football I would want him wearing a g
meter to protect my kid.

~~~
HarryHirsch
At present you have the rules of the game and the helmets and padding, which
encourage concussions, and they you put another device on top of that, in
order to limit them. That doesn't sound as if it would lead anywhere, and past
experience has shown that the evolutionary path the game has taken did nothing
to improve safety, Better helmets have made the concussion problem worse.

I'm not comfortable with this approach, it would be better to discourage hard
hits altogether instead of limiting them with a g-meter.

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

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

~~~
Someone
The jury is still out there on that. Heading, in particular, is linked to
brain damage
([http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170...](http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2013/01170/Neuroimaging_of_Pro_Soccer_Players_Shows_White.4.aspx)
(article paywalled at
<http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1391907)>):

 _"To the Editor: Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, with more
than 250 million active players.1 It is the only sport in which the
unprotected head is a primary point of contact when heading the ball. In other
contact sports, the deleterious long-term effects of repetitive traumatic
brain injury (TBI), such as impaired white matter integrity,2 are well
recognized.3 However, whether frequent subconcussive blows to the head lead to
TBI remains controversial,4- 5 although evidence suggests impaired
neuropsychological function in soccer players.5 We evaluated concussion-naive
soccer players using high-resolution diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which is
highly sensitive for detecting alterations in white matter architecture."_

Heads can also hit each other or goalposts, for example when a keeper dives
for the ball.

~~~
eqreqeq
>>Heads can also hit each other or goalposts, for example when a keeper dives
for the ball.

Aaaajajajajajajaja. Yes, lighting could also strike you.

~~~
philwelch
It's more frequent than you think:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSNMrcKR5Q>

[http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/2012/04/gerard-pique-
injury...](http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/2012/04/gerard-pique-injury-
barcelona-chelsea.html)

~~~
eqreqeq
Of course it happens. The same way that people get hit by lighting everyday,
or that someone wins the lottery every day. But to pretend that in soccer you
can get the same kind of dangerous injuries as in American Football is
disingenuous.

~~~
philwelch
Getting hit by lightning or winning the lottery happens orders of magnitude
less often than getting a concussion in soccer. Don't be disingenuous.

------
revelation
Thats a strawman to the real question, and of course the top comment has
already picked up on it, now claiming that "but back then it was just as
unsafe".

So now unsafe, back then unsafe. Seems like we should not be promoting a game
that works only on brunt violence.

------
vaadu
The real issue is as a society what do we do when adults knowingly engage in
an activity that is self destructive.

Nobody is forcing them to be football players. Nobody is forcing us to watch.

