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.