Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Is professional football too dangerous of a game?

By Howard B. Owens
Peter O'Brien

How about we let those that play decided if its too dangerous for them?

We don't need to outlaw a game that people get paid quite well for and is voluntary.

Its not like we are taking kids from the inner city, giving them a helmet and telling them that its prison or football..... oh wait.

But seriously, let them choose. Freedom comes with responsibility.

May 3, 2012, 7:52am Permalink
Cory Richenberg

The article didn't say anything about outlawing it, but I think I understand what Peter is saying. If it is decided that football is "too dangerous" of a game there is really only 3 ways to approach it:

1) Somehow make better equipment (helmets, pads, etc.) that will help prevent such injuries. This is the most approachable solution, in my opinion.

2) Slow down the pace of the game, and make stricter rules about hitting, and leading with the head. This is nice in theory, but I think we can agree that as the game goes on, these guys are getting bigger, stronger, and faster. This is leading to harder hits, and more uncontrolled hits. It happens, as it is a full contact game. You can't tell these guys, who have been playing football since they were children, to now play at half speed, or to only hit above the knees or below the shoulders. It won't happen. The whole idea is to go out there and give it 100%, you can't tell them to only give 50%.

3) This is where ban football comes in. This will never happen. There is too much love for the game and money involved.

I am a football lover, and a Chargers fan, so this whole Junior Seau tragedy really hit home for me. I don't think you can really blame the NFL, unless it is true that they withheld evidence of the long term effects, and I agree that this is a voluntary game, or job, and these players know what to expect. I think the article said it best in the last 3 paragraphs, about reaching out for help. I think it's the players responsibility as much as the NFL's to recognize the signs that there is a problem, and to get the appropriate help. If the player, who played this game knowing of the risks, decides not to get that help, you can't hold the game responsible.

As for the equipment changes I mentioned above, Iron Mike Ditka has a pretty, um well, different take......

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/pitt-football/former-pitt-nf…

I guess you can't argue his logic.

May 3, 2012, 9:18am Permalink
John Roach

It will not be long before the nanny state people want to ban football from school sports due to the danger. Banning it will be "for the children".

May 3, 2012, 9:59am Permalink
Mark Brudz

I just have to wonder if anyone has factored in that these guys start thier carreers at 21 or 22 years old, Are raised to the level of gladiator hero, and in some cases 4 or 5 years later sitting behind a desk much like everyone else, or in the case of Seau, 20 years of being hailed hero then gone , done.

That in itself is cause for deep depressions for some, I am not convinced that the head injuries are the root of or even a contributor to some of these suicides, the head injuries are a serious matter,but perhaps the fame to retirement swing might be a bit more the culprit.

Just a thought

May 3, 2012, 10:03am Permalink
Rich Richmond

There are many dangerous professions and professional football pays very well.

Many non-paid activities are dangerous; riding a motorcycle for example.

What it amounts to is our precious personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and something else that many of us hold dear, “the right of the dignity of risk” with those two examples of many.

I say the nanny state be damned.

May 3, 2012, 10:58am Permalink
matt riggi

Can't argue whether or not it's dangerous. It is definitely a dangerous sport. So is ultimate fighting, and wrestling, and just about any sport. Too dangerous? Im not sure I can answer that. I'm not 100% sure Junior Seau's death should yield this poll. Sure, there is a high risk of cte, especially after a 20 year career in one of the toughest positions in the game. There's the possibility of depression related to retirement. I read an article that said he hadn't seen his kids in three months. How do we know that doesn't have anything to do with his death? Too many unknowns.
Im curious of one other thing...Why is the poll specific to pro football?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032186/Parents-seek-answers-hi…

Mark- I think brain injuries play a much bigger role than anyone knows.

May 3, 2012, 10:57am Permalink
matt riggi

The more I think about this question, the more intriguing it becomes. I was reminded that this is an opinion poll. There really is no right or wrong answer. But to ask someone if it is too dangerous...too dangerous for what? Kurt Warner's remarks regarding his kids football future, and Junior Seau are very interesting. There may not be one opinion for many people.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/03/kurt-warner-would-prefe…

May 3, 2012, 11:12am Permalink
Bea McManis

Peter...
We don't need to outlaw a game that people get paid quite well for and is voluntary.

Where was it written than it should be outlawed?

But, Peter opened the door to...
John...
It will not be long before the nanny state people want to ban football from school sports due to the danger. Banning it will be "for the children".
(remember, outlawing the sport was not mentioned)

Richard...
What it amounts to is our precious personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and something else that many of us hold dear, “the right of the dignity of risk” with those two examples of many.
I say the nanny state be damned.
(Where did it say that one's personal freedoms were at risk?)

May 3, 2012, 11:39am Permalink
Mark Brudz

I didn't say that they didn't Matt, I simply posed a question similar to your own. In high school and college I did a lot of acting, it was a powerful emotion lift each and every curtain call, and a huge let down when it was gone , now multiply that by maybe 100 or even 1000 for a footbal star of Seau's stature.

High school football was the same, the lights the cheers, then the end , multiply this one by 10000.

I am just saying, seems awful quick to be associating a cause and effect at this point

May 3, 2012, 11:58am Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
Thirty years ago nobody said that smoking in a park would be illegal, Happy Meals would be banned or overweight people could be denied a job because of their weight. While this poll is about professional football, those that like the sport at the lower levels had better stay alert.

May 3, 2012, 12:27pm Permalink
matt riggi

yeah, I mean, I wasn't saying that argumentatively...You stated your opinion on brain injuries, I was just stating mine. The fact that someone decides to take their own life tells me that their is definitely something not right in the persons brain. However, as I said, at this point there are too many unknowns. And I don't feel that even dr.'s fully understand how to handle these injuries.

May 3, 2012, 12:28pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

What should be noted is that the NFL has taken great lengths in recent years to protect their players, which ultimately protects their brand, completely on their own. Commissioner Roger Goodell gets harassed for this, but it will protect the NFL from costly lawsuits and a negative image down the road.

May 3, 2012, 1:48pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

With our current Gov't's love of money, I dont see football being banned, just look at what is spent in ticket sales, stadiums, people travelling to non-home games et al. To lose all the taxes collected on all that spending just would just not be happening. I could see Govt scientists and experts coming out with ludicrous reason why its safe fun and healthy first.

May 3, 2012, 5:02pm Permalink
Rich Richmond

Hello Bea,

In answer to your question… nowhere.

Today's Poll: Is professional football too dangerous of a game?

We are requested to vote either yes or no. I voted no.

This article aside, this question about football has been controversial for my years.

John Roach and I have moved beyond the article to give examples of a nanny state and the infringement of personal freedom.

Nanny state is a term of British in origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: a government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

May 3, 2012, 5:43pm Permalink

Authentically Local