Question for those who wouldn't let their kids play football
In only two weeks, we will see a whirlwind of satellite football camps. If I'm counting correctly, there are now 35 or more separate camps Michigan is involved in. Harbaugh has been very upfront about his purpose. He wants to help spread a love for the game of football. He believes that football is a great arena in which to teach many things, from teamwork to hard work to physical exercise to a host of other things. I happen to agree. In fact, I agree to the point that my son is gearing up for summer football, in preparation for the Fall season. While I seriously doubt my son will play in college, he is more than good enough to play in high school, and really enjoys the game.
However, many of you, while fans of Michigan football, would be strongly against letting your own children play football. This question is for you.
How can you justify being a fan of football if you are completely against your child participating in it? This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mind those who hate football, and I understand that there are many people who for whatever reason, aren't capable of playing ball. But if you are a Michigan football fan, but won't let your kid play ball, help me understand how you reconcile that.
(Note: this question isn't about whether or not football is dangerous, or whether or not there is a threat of CTE or concussion in playing ball. It is solely about being a fan and at the same time being against familial participation in tackle football.)
those people who chose to engage in it be able to successfully sue after they are finished participating in it?
I don't feel any moral obligation to not like football even though I consider it too dangerous for my son. I am completely at ease with supporting both positions and it's not for me to judge others with differing opinions. I do judge people who get on some moral high horse, fail to understand the definition of hypocritical, then sit smugly by with no desire to appreciate other perspectives, rather only to flout some non existent moral supremacy.
I agree with you, it is hypocritical to enjoy Michigan football knowing that these kids are risking their long term health, and I struggle with that. I have a daughter, and another one on the way, and if they wanted to play football, I would be opposed to it because of the potential effects on their developing brains. What I struggle with, is if it is so dangerous that I don't want my kids doing it, why should it be ok for other people's kids to do it? I'm strating to think more and more that it is not, and I do feel like I am also moraly responsible as someone who watches football regulary.
Now I also have a question for you. A recent study publish just this April in the Journal of Neurotrauma, showed that just one season of High School football can result in changes in the brain tissue, even for those who were not diagnosed with any concussions. Link Numerous other studies have shown a connection between playing football and changes in the brain. I realize that you have your childs best interest in mind, and certainly there are also positives to playing football, but do you not believe in the research, or do you just think that somehow nothing will happen to your own kid?
You really put your finger on it, and have asked a great and a difficult question. So far, our family has operated with the "one concussion" rule. For us, if our son experienced a single major concussion, that would be enough to say, "you're done with football. It's been a fun run, but time to hang up the cleats for good." We have felt comfortable with this because the incidence of concussion in the youth league he participated in was so low. (In 5 years of youth tackle football, with maybe 5,000 - 10,000 kids playing annually, there wasn't a single concussion. Broken bones, messed up knees, etc., but no concussions).
However, CTE stuff and changes in the brain concern me a bit more. Is my son potentially opening himself to brain diminishment and permanent brain injury? Am I failing to protect him from this? So far, he has continued to want to play, and the coaches are EXTREMELY aware of watching out for any kind of head trauma. In fact, concussion and head injury protocols now definitely go very far in the direction of caution and avoiding injury. No one wants to be the one responsible for allowing someone to play and ruin their brain. Trainers are available at every practice, and they will send kids to the ER for evaluation if there is ANY concern that they hurt their heads. They are definitely avoiding any kind of head first tackling.
We are taking things on a year by year basis. Right now, we anticipate our son will play next Fall. The minute he wants to quit, we will support him. In fact, he was hurt more in wrestling than football, and chose to give up wrestling mid-season. We supported that, and would support him leaving the football team. I'd prefer that he works hard at basball, and picks that up again.
of football players at various levels. (E.g health, career, education, marital/family status, etc.)
I highly doubt that the null hypothesis at the high school level--that football had no detrimental statistical impact on macro life outcomes--could be rejected.
your "one concussion rule" could become far more granular.
Sensors in the helmet would provide metrics as to the blows absorbed during games and practice. And just like fouling out in basketball, when you reach a certain level (perhaps in any of multiple metrics), you're done for the day/week/season.
This would also incentivize players to avoid using their helmet intentionally.
It's a vice we were all brought up with. What can you do, none of us are always rational. But I'd support a law that made organized tackle football illegal for kids under 18, absolutely.
If that law passed, football would be done for
In fact, some of my best players came to me at about the 6th grade level, but I have do doubts they are playing tackle football somewhere without supervision unless they are involved in another sport.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Would you allow your kids to make different choices than you? Would you allow them to make a choice you don't like? Do you really disagree with Harbaugh that football is a great game we want to see continue?
I -- along with others -- don't seem to understand why this is an issue for you. You can agree with Harbaugh that football is a great game, and want to see it continue, but you can also have the viewpoint that you'd rather your own child (for safety reasons) not be a part of that future.
You can agree with Harbaugh that football is a great game that should continue without wanting to actively participate.
I don't know if this statement is too controversial for here, but a lot of this is a class issue. I don't have kids so I don't think I can totally know if I'd allow my hypothetical future son to play football, but I am safely upper-middle class. That's a huge deterrent for me wanting future kid to play. I will be able to pay for future kid's schooling and he'll have plenty of opportunity regardless of if he plays football in college.
For a lot of low-income families, however, football is an enormous opportunity. The game has been hugely beneficial for a ton of low-income communities and a ton of families of color in America. Not only does it provide a conceivable path to higher education, but it provides role models in those communities and a reason to stay off the streets for all younger people that aspire to play football in college and beyond. There are undoubtedly many sad stories out there of how football has ruined brains and lives, but for all of those there are many times more glowing success stories of how the game has given people much more than they could ever have achieved without it, both professionally and otherwise. That's why I feel no moral dilemma about supporting the game while potentially not supporting my future hypothetical son's participation.
attitude toward the game has changed overall. As I stated. I started out coaching youth football and there were a number of reasons involved. One, I wanted my son and his teammates to learn the game correctly, all of it, including the safety precautions that are very much a part of ot it. I leaned I was very good at teaching it, and it lead to roughly 20 years of getting out of work and heading for the football field. I was fortunate enough to be asked by a couple of legends that had actually worked the entire town(actually three schools, which is not close to the entire town), and they had a ton to teach. They were surprised at what I knew and I was amazed at what they knew.
But that was later. Having one son, my wife and I were also comfortable middle class- don't want to say upper, but with just one child, we had all we needed and like you, there was no problem paying for his college.
But this was the norm at this particular school atlthough, because it was public, we had kids on the lower end of the financial picture and they made up at least 20% of the teams. I actiually thought this was one of the best things about the sport, bringing kids from all income levels together.
However, as the school grew, by time my son reached 11th grade he said he couldn't stand the influx of "rich kids" as they reffered to them.Thinking abouit what he said, I recalled the school board making a deal with the neighboring district, actually the one I was coaching at then, to allow the students of some of the new, very nice sub-divisions built in the poorer district to attend my son's school for financial considerations.
Even though the district I was working for and would for about another decade,experienced a great deal of success, it was all local kids. School of choice stayed pretty much in the city. However, my son's school, once a state power, had gone a hell of a long time without fielding a decent football team. He said they just weren't drawing the same, tough kids he grew up with and most of them wanted to be on the football team for various reasons, so many who I had coached when they were young had transferred to schools that had maintained their traditions, but it was kind of sad watching a former power - the one who had given me my break- lose one of its traditions.
So many thing have come into play at changing the game as I knew it and many others in my age bracket. I had not forgotten what had happened there, but I guess your words reminded me of what could happen if the majority thought that way.
They do finish well in the Marching Band Competition though.
Nope, but then, I don't consider porn a good thing. And that's a discussion outside of the scope of mgoblog.
and FWIW, he's not the only 'prude'. in fact, even mabel calls herself a prude.
But we have a saying in our house- to each their own! (As long as it's not hurting anyone) I would even say our family saying would apply to this thread as well!
As for my kids, well....we all stink at sports. So no moral dilemma here (not that there was ever one). We're going with the academic route. We all have our own talents and gifts, right?? Hopefully?? (I'm still looking for my 'gift')
Wasn't meant as a cheap shot. It was a "how silly of me to use that analogy on the one person on MGoBlog that it'd famously be totally lost on."
nice....
he understands it just fine, as many do. he understands that it is very bad for relationships and at a minimum is emotionally unfaithful.
are just what you'd want for your kid.
Personally, I watch porn and would never let my daughter be a porn star.
right, but by you (and I) watching porn, someone else's daughter becomes a porn star. Why is that ok, if it's not ok for your own daughter? Lots of naive young girls get taken advantage of by the porn industry because men like us watch porn. I do feel a sense of moral responsibilty knowing that I contribute to this.
Wait, you don't think porn is a good thing or Mrs. SRK tells you you think it's not a good thing so that's what you say you think?
- I personally don't think porn is a good thing
- I don't talk to Mrs. SRK about porn.
- If I were to watch porn, I'd almost undoubtedly enjoy it on some level . . . but that doesn't mean I think it is a good thing. So I seek to avoid porn.
this whole thread is an example of why philosophy is needed in the freshman core.
Reading John Stuart Mill On Liberty...your right to cause harm stops at your ability to cause harm to others. This applies broadly to both Football and Porn but the two are not the same thing.
There are a variety of issues but at its core sex is not going to harm the participants. At its core football does cause harm to those who play (at least how it was played in years past.) To the extent porn hurts participants and society at large it's bad. An adult watching two healthy adult people have consensual sex is not bad...ever. You can choose to do that or not without moral complexity.
Mill struggles with this point as well but it's as good a foundation for tackling this subthread as any ever written. Pimping is not good. Youth football coaches are not doing that if they think what they are doing is safe. Parents aren't wrong allowing their kids to play youth football if they think they are safe. Consensual adults are a different matter.
Science is offering answers on what constitutes harm. We all need to pay attention and adjust our parenting and choices in sport and spectatorship accordingly. Currently science says there is an issue with full contact football. We aren't sure the extent of that. Society has a backlog of masculine culture that basically has told us to ignore this issue. We are dealing with this in real time. Protect your sons. Listen to your fathers. Read science. Read On Liberty.
There's more to this than reading philosophy ... I'm being preachy here...my bad. But I do think there is something to be gained by understanding the core principle of first do no harm as applied to spectatorship, parenting and sport. That said the comparison of porn to football has some merit or we wouldn't be here.
In that same vein... let me go off on this tangent and this may get pulled but it's meant in good faith. I have long been an advocate for the leagality of abortion rights on the part of parents up until their child reaches 18 years of age.
If you get the humor there then you are a parent like me. But just like porn and football this comparison draws some blood. The harm caused by football is a spectrum that spans the age of participants, the rules of the game, the equipment, the coaching... it cuts down to the nitty gritty of what it means to be a man in our society.
eh... I double posted. I should just post a picture of Kate and call it good. Somehow that doesn't seem helpful here.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
And no, I have no problem watching football while not letting my kid play. The parents of the kids on the field get to decide for them, not me. I would also prefer my son not ride bulls or box, but I watch both. Not a tough question for me.
I believe it was MGrowOld who so eloquently wrote, "I watch porn, but I'm not going to let my daughter do it."
I should point out that this would be my position even without the long-term concussion concerns, as the risk of serious injury in football is significant.
The vast majority of football players do not suffer any significant injuries. Well, I guess let's define significant first. My definition is life-long after effects.
I played for 8 years (not being Ted Bundy). I knew hundreds/thousand of guys who played. A real "holy shit" injury was very uncommon. Yes, there is a small percentage of high profile CTE cases where some really tragic things have happened and the few spinal injuries we've all heard about. That is the extremely small minority. Not saying it is nothing to address but people are acting like if you play even 1 game at any level your chances of being messed up for life go through the roof. It simply is not true.
Yeah him too!
And it's not like I have something against just football, I won't let my daughter get involved in cheerleading for the same reason. The risk of significant injury is simply too high.
and we have a need to see exciting, stimulating things. But, we also have empathy. And the feeling of empathy with a human or anything really, is strengthened by exposure. We love our family, and don't want to see them hurt, because we have deep connections with them. But, we still have a need for stimulation. Some people find football to be extremely stimulating, and are slow to adapt to that change (to stop supporting Michigan Football) and that is, without formal education on the matter, my justification. We are humans and we are baffling.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The risk is there either way. A spinal cord injury can and does happen to people who take care of their bodies and play the right way. Risk vs. reward. We all have choices.