Research Question

For my research paper I would like to explore the topic of player safety in the NFL. More specifically, what role did concussions play in shaping the rule changes in NFL? I would like to go into the history of concussions in the NFL, and the health of players who have already retired. I know that there have been complaints by former players regarding the treatment of concussions when they played, but I would like to know what the NFL is doing to help these players after they retire. These athletes put their bodies at risk when they play, and until now there has been very little done to protect them. Are there systems in place that help monitors player’s health once they retire?

 After doing some google research I found that there are definitely lasting effects for players who receive concussions while playing. However, I would like to know more about the healthcare of the retired players. The NFL is doing a better job helping current players, but I am not sure about retired players. If the college database could link me to some documentaries of retired NFL players I think that would be extremely helpful. I think documentaries could help me really see how retired players have been influenced as opposed to just reading about it.

 I am interested in this topic because I have played football for 15 years. I have had 3 concussions that I know of, and it is scary to think about the possible effects this may have on me down the road. If the NFL can ignore side effects from former NFL players, what does that mean for my future health?

My View on PSU and Joe Pa

After our class discussion today, I thought it would be a good idea to blog about why I was so opinionated. What Sandusky did to those young boys on the PSU campus while coaching there is absolutely disgusting and terrible. I am confident that everybody else also feels that way. What most people disagree on is the treatment of legendary coach Joe Paterno. Based on what I have read about the situation, I believe PSU made the right decision. Joe Pa knew what happened, and simply did not do enough to help those young boys who were at risk. Yes, he reported it to higher authorities, but he did not make an effort to make sure there was something done to stop Sandusky. In fact, Paterno and the rest of the university still had a relationship with Sandusky up until the most recent allegations. Until last week, Sandusky was found on campus on a consistent basis. Joe Pa and the rest of the university should have cut their ties with this man, and made sure something was done.
To me, it seems like most people who support Joe Pa are fans of the game of football. I am a huge football fan, and have been playing the game since I was 6 yrs old. I respect the game and its history. I realize that Joe Pa has not only done great things for PSU football, but also for the school as a whole. However, this issue is bigger that the game of football. It is a moral issue. The things PSU covered up make all other recent NCAA violations seem unimportant. Jim Tressel was fired because he knew his players received money and other benefits while coaching at Ohio State, and there is no way that situation compares to the one at PSU. Just because Joe Pa is a legendary coach doesn't mean he should get a pass. The kids should be the main concern, not Joe Pa's legacy. He should have done more, and if he were as good a person as people say he is he would have. I have absolutely no problem with the university cutting ties with anybody remotely involved with the allegations.

Ndamukong Suh Meets with NFL

This past week Ndamukong Suh was granted a meeting with the NFL commissioner and other league officials. Suh requested the meeting himself after being fined several times for flagrant hits in the past year and a half. The idea behind this meeting was for Suh to get a better understanding of the leagues new style of play. The NFL has openly explained that flagrant hits to defenseless players were going to be removed from the game, yet Suh, one of the games most violent players, does not seem to understand.

I respect Suh's request for the meeting because it shows a willingness to learn the new rules which most defensive players have not welcomed too kindly. However, after the meeting Suh clearly stated "I'm not going to change the way I play." Suh believes he has just been flagged and fined because his hits just seem more violent. I have personally seen some of these plays, and I have to say they just don't seem more violent; they are more violent. Suh also believes many players receive different treatment in the NFL, which has been echoed by several other players around the NFL. If he feels this way after the meeting I don't understand how the meeting could have possibly been productive. It seems like nothing has changed in Suh's way of thinking, and therefore the meeting was a waste of time. I am not saying he is wrong for thinking this way. I think it is actually normal for defensive players to think more violently, but I think the NFL must do a better job in explaining the new style of play.

Banning Tobacco in Baseball

Since I gave my presentation on the potential banning of Tobacco in Baseball I found this article very interesting. Lawmakers urge Chewing Tobacco Ban. When I first heard of the issue I was not sure if the discussions about the topic were serious, but this article tells me that they definitely are. However, that is not what interested me most about this article. In my presentation, the focus on banning tobacco was coming from religious groups who believe using such a substance should be considered a sin. When watching the video I wondered why there is a religious focus in this issue when the real problem is the health of our athletes.

In this article I believe lawmakers have the right approach in trying to ban tobacco from baseball. For example, they state, “These issues affect the integrity of the game, the health of your players, and most important, the health of teenagers who aspire to be like pro players.” They have taken an approach that clearly highlights the dangers of chewing tobacco. It is difficult to argue against such statements because they have been repeatedly backed up by scientific studies.

Another claim I found effective in their argument is that banning chewing tobacco will have no negative impacts on the game as a whole. Minor leaguers have successfully done so for almost twenty years. Cigarettes have also been banned for over 3 decades. To me, cigarettes and chewing tobacco are very similar substances in that if kids see their role models using them on TV they will want to use them

Ultimately, this ban will be passed because the health of our future athletes is more important than a so called “tradition” in baseball. 

A Modern 1984

      Living in an oppressive dystopian society has the potential to scare anybody who has lived in what we believe to be a free world. The novel The Handmaids Tale, written by Margaret Atwood, vividly portrays the atrocities that result from living a life that lacks freedom. In many ways this novel feels like a more modern version of Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. I am intrigued by the number of similarities between the two novels. While reading The Handmaid’s Tale, there were a number of passages that made me think that the main characters and the societies that were being portrayed in the two stories were overwhelmingly similar.

            From very early in The Handmaid’s Tale the reader can make comparisons to Orwell’s 1984. On page 8 Offred, the main character in The Hanmaid’s Tale, states, “I try not to think too much. Like other things now thought must be rationed… Thinking can hurt your chances, and I intend to last.” (8) In the novel 1984 Winston is also forced to keep himself from thinking. In both novels thinking is considered dangerous, and a threat to ones survival. The idea of keeping people from engaging in thought provoking exercises gives power to the ruling powers in each novel. The fear is that if one has the ability to think on their own they may eventually use that freedom to go against the system.

            In each of the novels those in power must convince the others that the way they are living there lives is normal. For example, in 1984 they get people excited by holding hate rallies while watching clips of a supposed revolution. In The Handmaid’s tale this job is a one person effort as Aunt Lydia is constantly telling Offred that things are the way they are supposed to be. One passage that seems extremely similar to 1984 comes when Aunt Lydia says, “Ordinary is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary.” (33) In this passage Offred has lost all concept of what is or is not ordinary. She realizes there was a time when things were different and she lived with freedom, but she is still unsure of her thoughts. This is similar to when O’Brien tells Winston that reality is what they say reality regardless of what they think. This is an important connection because Offred and Winston both live in a society where both their actions and thoughts a limited.

            The number of similarities between the two novels continues throughout the novel. There are public displays of power by the ruling classes in each novel, and emotions such as love are forbidden. The characters portrayed in the novel are afraid to too think, and relish the chances they have to slightly disobey the rules.

Should they Ban Tobacco use in Major League Baseball?

Here are two links that deal with my presentation in class. The first link is the video I will show, the second is an article posted on CBN's website.

Faith Groups Pitch Ban on Baseball's Nasty Habit

Ban Tobacco in Baseball Article

Social Reality and Selective Exposure

True Enough, written by Farhad Manjoo, is an interesting book that explores an number of different topics within the public sphere. For me the book is particularly interesting because Farhad Manjoo speaks about the thought process that goes into controversial topics such as politics, sports and conspiracy theories. My favorite example from the book includes his explanation of the controversial Princeton v. Dartmouth football game played in 1951. This is my favorite example because Manjoo uses a common occurance, a football game, as a way to prove that reality is not always something that can be agreed upon. The ideas of "social reality" (53) and unconscious bias tends to create different forms of reality that differ depending on social groups.

In his example Farhad Manjoo explains that the Princeton v. Dartmouth game was a huge topic of controversy because of the level of physicality the game was played with. For Princeton fans, the game was unusually physical because they believed the Dartmouth players intentionally attempted to hurt the Princeton players. On the other hand, Dartmouth fans believed the game was no more physical that it had been in previous years. It is understandable when there are such feelings from opposing fans after a game, but what is interesting to me is that these fans felt the same way after watching the game a second time. Manjoo poses this question, "How could people who'd watched the same game have come away with such contrary ideas of what had taken place on the field? (67) For me Manjoo is trying to say that the opposing fans watched the same game, but their biases did not allow them to process the events in the same way. He is also trying to explain that much of this bias is unconscious bias which can be seen by making the students watch the game a second time when they are a little more emotionally removed from the events. The reality is that there are two separate realities that are based on the social groups the opposing fans belong to. This idea is called “social reality”, and it is linked to the idea that people have unconscious filters when it comes to evaluating a social occurrence.

          
A social occurrence is the combination of a series of social events. Manjoo explains that a football game is similar to life because both are a series of small events strung together to create a larger occurrence.  As a result, people will unconsciously choose to ignore certain small events they find insignificant. I thought this idea was interesting because it is very similar to the idea of “selective exposure”. (30) In selective exposure people choose what information they expose themselves to base on their own beliefs. To me this is not much different because unconsciously people are deciding to ignore information that would be presented to them in a social event. I think Manjoo does a good job using the different ideas he presents in this book and weaving them together through his examples.

          
Ultimately, I believe the example of the Princeton v. Dartmouth football game is a good representative of Manjoo’s main argument that all people are affected by unconscious bias. As a result, reality is determined by your surroundings. What we unconsciously choose to expose ourselves to inevitable becomes our reality.

High School Players Dies After Head Injury

So, I read this article this weekend and it really scared me. (High School Player Dies) 

I have been playing football since I was 5 years old, and have had my fair share of concussions. However, I never considered the possibility of somebody dying after sustaining and injury on the field. With this being said I am also really surprised that this has happened because there have been a number of improvements to protective equipment in football. I would really like to know what type of helmet the player was wearing in this case because some high school teams are not completely up to date with their equipment. It would be a shame to find out that his death could have been prevented with the use of better equipment.

HGH Testing is SAFE

The topic of performance enhancing drugs has been a huge concern in practically all major sports. However, although there is knowledge about the topic until this point the people making the drugs have always been a step ahead of those people testing for them. Recently dozens of scientist from all over the world have developed and supported a safe way to test for HGH (human growth hormone)http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7093437/top-scientists-endorse-hgh-test-letter-nfl-union . This is extremely important because till this point there was no test given to athletes that could test for HGH. Now that this new test is potentially safe the new revisions added to the NFL's collective bargaining agreement will likely go into effect as long as the union agrees that it is safe. In many ways the first test for HGH given to athletes will be a ground breaking event in tyring to eliminate performance enhancing drugs from major sports.

The reason I dislike Politics

As I continue to read the book True Enough, written by Farhad Manjoo, I feel like I can use this book to justify why I dislike hearing or reading about politics. Although the ability to argue over politics is a great freedom to have as an American I just find most of them to be extremely biased. For example, when Farhad Manjoo states, "giving people information that runs contrary to their core beliefs doesn't necessarily prompt them to reconsider their ideas. Sometimes it prompts a deaf ear", I become concerned. To me the purpose of political arguments are to listen to opposing points of view in order to compare them to your own beliefs. I do not think each person must change the core beliefs after listening to an opposing argument, but I would like for people to listen to that argument. There may be pieces of that argument that you agree with, but others that you don't agree with. However, if people just shelter themselves and choose to listen to arguments that support their beliefs I think the purpose of argument loses value.

True Enough

After reading the first 25 pages of True Enough, written by Farhad Manjoo, I find the book to be pretty interesting. One of the first arguments presented to the reader was a political based argument, and I instantly felt as though I was going to struggle reading this book. When I usually listen or read about political arguments I find that I become bored very easily. However, I did find the argument presented in the first chapter to be extremely interesting. I particularly enjoyed reading about the idea that reality is no longer a common fact. Everybody can have a different perception of what is real, and that perception is most often shaped by one's beliefs.
After thinking about the chapter I had read I felt as though I now have a reason for why I do not enjoy political arguments. It is not that I don't think they are beneficial, but if each person has a different perception of what is real it is difficult for these arguments to hold a meaningful purpose. It seems as though people are no longer interested in finding the facts, but they are more interested in making them fit into their own beliefs and ideals.

Bullet Proof Football Helmets

Just a few short weeks ago a common occurrence took place when Eagles quarterback, Micheal Vick, suffered from a concussion. The fact that football players will receive concussions when they play is not a new idea, but the amount of awareness in the area is new. For example, Vick was forced to undergo several impact based test and balance testing before he was allowed to participate in the game the following week. This has become the norm not only in professional sports, but high school and college as well. It is now a rarity that players return to action while still recovering from concussion symptoms.
Another amazing component to to Vick's quick return is the role technology is playing in helping improve player safety. Concussions are such a serious issue now that Vick was fitted for a helmet which would include Kevlar. Kevlar is a bullet proof material often used in making helmets for the military, however, concussion safety has become such a growing concern that it is becoming more visible in sports. In fact, several hockey players who have suffered from multiple concussions are said to have Kevlar  in their helmets. Whether the Kevlar helps reduce the number of concussion athletes obtain in sports is not the most important thing here. What is important is that there continues to be a growing awareness and concern for player safety.

1984: A Survival Story

The novel 1984, written by George Orwell, should undoubtedly be read more than once in order to fully understand the meaning of the story. Being a first time reader I find it difficult for myself to determine the true purpose of the novel. However, after evaluating the stories main characters, Winston and Julia, the best way I can explain the purpose of the novel is by considering it a survival story. By living in a society that is under the watch of “Big Brother” at all times Winston and Julia must force themselves to fit in with the rest of the party members. On the other hand they also have a desire to find a meaningful purpose in life which in many ways can be considered a contradiction to the survive at all cost mentality they have throughout the early part of the novel. The way each of these characters think and act throughout the novel changes dramatically, but all their actions ultimately stem from the idea of survival.

            Early in the novel the definition of survival is clear: Do not get vaporized. Winston and all other party members including Julia must accept everything about the party. This includes accepting the constant lies they are told about history and war as well as avoiding any personal pleasures such as sex. Whether a party member believes in what they are told to do really is not an issue because they must fit in if they want to survive. The idea of conforming in order to fit in is best stated by Julia when she says “I always carry one end of the banner in processions. I always look cheerful and I never shirk anything.  Always yell with the crowd, that’s what I say. It’s the only way to be safe.” (p. 124)As the reader later finds out, nothing makes Julia more happy than revolting against the party, but in order to do so she must also be able to fit in a survive. Like Julia everybody fears being vaporized, as a result carefully follows the rules of the party. It is the clearest example of what it takes to survive, but things ultimately become more complicated when characters such as Winston and Julia question the meaning of life.

            Every human has the desire to find meaning in their life. In the novel 1984 the party attempts to eliminate any such desires. However, about midway through the novel it seems as though Winston and Julia decide that in order to survive these desires must be fulfilled. Although this idea may seem to contradict the idea of following every party rule in order to avoid being vaporized it is still a method of personal survival. For Winston life is not worth living if he does not find a purpose for it. He decides that his purpose in life is to revolt against the party, and in many ways it takes over his life. For example, the description of Winston’s health explains how his rebellion is helping him survive. The passage says “seven times they met during the month of June. Winston had dropped the habit of drinking gin at all hours. He seemed to have lost the need for it… The process of life had ceased to be intolerable.” (p. 153)With this passage it seems as though Winston found a way to manage both methods of survival and not only stay alive, but also maintain value in life.

            Although Winston’s need to find meaning in life ultimately backfires I believe he could not live without fulfilling those personal desires. In my mind Winston would have given up.  The novel 1984 is not simply a story of how to survive, but also a story of finding a reason to survive. Without having a purpose to live people lose their desire to survive.

Protecting Athletes

Recently the awareness of injuries in sports has become a major topic of discussion. With professional, collegiate, and even high school teams increasing their awareness towards injuries it is important to realize some of the positive changes that have taken place. One of the largest areas of concern in related to this topic is head injuries. Over the past few years concussion awareness has become a larger topic of discussion and we are now seeing the results of those discussions.

Just a couple months ago ESPN reported that the Ivy League implemented several rule changes in order to protect their athletes. The Ivy League’s goal in implementing these rules was to not only limit the number of concussions its football players suffer, but also to limit the over number of blows to the head.

The changes implemented by the Ivy League are not so subtle. For example, the NCAA allows for football teams to participate in full contact practice for up to 5 times a week.  The new Ivy League rule states that the teams involved in the league can only hold full contact practices twice a week. This will undoubtedly change the way coaches game plan throughout the week. More emphasis will likely be placed on film and technique as opposed to the old school way of lining up against each other and banging heads every practice.  What is interesting to see is that coaches seem to have had somewhat of a positive reaction to the rule changes. Although Steve Spurrier does not coach in the Ivy League he gives his opinion when he says “To me, it doesn't make any sense to get your own players hurt in practice. It doesn't make any sense at all. It is somewhat refreshing to hear this publicly from a coach. They idea of them supporting change will allow for an easy transition as the game continues to change.

Another major rule change will take place after each game is played. Similar to the NFL the Ivy League will be reviewing any helmet to helmet hits that might occur during a game. Punishments for these types of hits could include possible suspensions depending on the severity of the hit.

With the rule changes that were implemented it is clear that the Ivy League is serious about limiting the number of serious head injuries in sports. They are forcing coaches and programs to adapt for the greater safety of players, which seems to be the path many major contact sports are taking. There is no doubt that similar rules will continue to arise not only in football, but also in other major contact sports. The safety of athletes is and should be becoming the main concern in sports.

Star Athletes

As a sports ambassador I would like to focus on star athletes and their role in sports. Many times star athletes are treated different whether it be good or bad. For example, some star athletes are put under a microscope when it comes to a media standpoint. Some star athletes are also said to receive different officiating when they play. Other star athletes are paid significantly more money due to the marketability rather than their performance. These are all topics I would like to potentially discuss in this blog.

For my first topic of discussion I would like to speak about Mick Vick and his reemerged status as a star quarterback in the NFL. This topic is always heavily debated, and I would simply like to add my opinion. Personally, I am happy to see Vick doing well. After being in prison for about 2 full years he has once again emerged as a star on the field. In fact, Vick has recently signed a 100 million dollar contract to play for the Philadelphia Eagles for the next 6 years. To add to that he has also regained a few of his larger endorsements such as Nike. However, this is not why I am impressed with Vick. I am a firm believer that everybody deserves a second chance, and I believe Vick is making the best of his. He is not only speaking out against the abuse of animals, but he has changed his entire image. However, there are people who continue to state that Vick is a monster. To me I believe that is a bit extreme. Yes, what he did was terrible, but from what we can see he has changed. That is all I can ask of him. Personally, I believe star athletes deserve the same rights as normal people. He has served his punishment, and now he is making the most out of his opportunity.

Response to After Class, Skimpy Equality

After reading this article I found myself thinking about my own personal experiences. Although I have just arrived as a freshman on a college campus I believe this article was also relevant to my high school experience. Similar to the article, in my experiences the men tend to be the host of the larger parties, however, I always found that women controlled the general theme of the party often times setting the tone by the way they dressed. Nobody told the girls to dress a certain way, but they usually still showed up wearing “slutty” clothing. That is what I find the most interesting about this article. Although the men from the fraternity are wrong for saying the women must dress a particular way in order to attend the party women still attended the party in slutty clothing. So who is to blame? I believe it is the women. If women feel as though attending such parties is detrimental to women’s equality then they should simply not attend them. Personally I feel as though men desire women more than women desire men. For that reason I agree with Jared Griffin in that women hold the power not the men. As I stated before, if women find it to be wrong or disgusting in anyway they should really blame themselves before they look to destroy such men’s fraternities. If they do so men would quickly give them the respect they say they are looking for.

Mountains Beyond Mountains Question Response

It would be extremely difficult to say that any normal individual can replicate the extraordinary things Doctor Paul Farmer did. Although “normal people” have indeed contributed to society in extraordinary ways throughout history I find that Paul Farmer is different in that he made doing great things for the less fortunate his life mission. His dedication and determination in achieving his goal is simply something I cannot call normal. For example, I find that normal people set goals that are often easier to achieve. Realistically Paul Farmer cannot cure all of the less fortunate of their diseases, but it certainly does not stop him from attempting to do so. A passage found in Mountains Beyond Mountains that displays Farmer’s abnormal dedication comes early in the story when Farmer says “I can’t sleep. There’s always somebody not getting treatment. I can’t stand that.” (p. 24) This passage makes Farmer seem as though he is a saint which certainly would not be considered normal. For the most part, normal people tend to do great things when the results can benefit them in some way. Instead Farmer sacrifices his own health for the health of less fortunate individuals. Another example of Farmer’s dedication is his relationship with women and his family. He basically neglects any form of affection he may desire and focuses on the goal he has set. Any normal individual would have to fill these needs for love and affection in some way.

After hearing Tracy Kidder speak about Farmer I find Farmer to be even more extraordinary than I previously believed. The most interesting thing that the author from Mountains Beyond Mountains said was that he could not find a single person that disliked Farmer. Although he said that he found people that disagreed with him he also said everybody he spoke to respected him. For any normal individual there will always be people that dislike that person. It is the way life works. Humans are not meant to like everybody, but Farmer has through his work found a way for everybody to respect him and what he does.