Hey! Are You Ready For Some Fuhball! Unnhhh! Me, not so much.

10. All but 1 of 111 NFL players' brains examined had CTE

A study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that all but one of the 111 brains of deceased NFL players examined showed signs of the neurodegenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). The brains were donated for scientific research, mostly by relatives who suspected the late players had exhibited symptoms of CTE — which can only be diagnosed with an autopsy — including memory loss, confusion, and depression. The players whose brains were examined spanned every position, from quarterbacks to running backs to linemen. Neuropathologist Ann McKee cautioned against making generalizations about the incidence of CTE in larger populations, but said the study made one thing clear: "It is no longer debatable whether or not there is a problem in football — there is a problem." Source: JAMA, The New York Times

Having (possibly) offended the 5-10% who have been or are cheerleaders, let’s go for the 50+% who are fans of football (percentages may be higher in locales where the sport is also the state religion, like Texas and Ohio, for example).

The NFL is asking for stories about “Why do you love football?” I’m pretty sure what follows won’t win me those tickets to the Super Bowl. I’m also sure I don’t care, unless they show the commercials on the stadium screen. I could sell my tickets, of course, but if you continue to read this, it’s obviously a moot point.

I used to watch football, a little, but was never a huge fan. Maybe that was a combined result of going to a high school without a football team, or to a small college where hockey was the primary sport (we did have football), followed by an urban university with no team, and a career at a high school without a team. My allegiance, tepid as it is, to football teams is more about city or state loyalty than caring about the sport.

Maybe that’s why, but I don’t think so. I know my view is a minority one, but, to me, football is a thuggish, brutish sport that glorifies violence and hurting your opponent. That’s not all it is, of course, but that’s my take on its bottom line. I’ve been conducting a completely unscientific survey. It has one question: “Would/Will you let your son play football?” Most answers to this point are immediate and negative.

A study out of Virginia and North Carolina showed that 19 boys, aged 7 & 8, had taken over 3000 hits to the head in practice and games. Players aged 9-12 had averaged 240 hits to the head per player, with more force than people might expect. Over 25,000 football players aged 8 to 19 are treated in emergency rooms for concussions each year.¹ A basic knowledge of anatomy makes the risks manifest. Helmets, no matter how well designed, cannot do the job of protecting kids’ brains, to say nothing of neck whiplashes from these blows; helmets do even less for that. 

The evidence seems clear to me that the physical dangers of the game to the players clearly outweigh any possible entertainment value. Multiple concussions leading to long-term mental health problems, arthritis resulting from joint damage, frequent surgeries, sprains and broken bones, and for what? So that half-naked drunks in body paint can scream out their own aggressions and frustrations? So that frustrated fathers can live vicariously through their children? My kid’s tougher than yours, so that makes me better. When was the last time you watched a football game (at any level) without an injury of some kind, without some player limping, wobbling, staggering, or (even worse) being carried from the field? I clearly don’t get it.

I’m less clear about the mental aspects, where I will concede the valuable lessons of teamwork, sportsmanship, sacrifice, etc. but still question the testosterone-poisoned atmosphere. As noted above, however, I’m an outsider and freely admit that there’s perhaps more benefit than I can possibly know. I would suggest, however, that those admittedly worthwhile lessons could be learned in a less violent venue. Do we really want our sons, nephews, grandsons, etc. growing up to be the stereotypical football player? Are we really willing to risk the physical, and at least occasionally long-lasting or even permanent, damage to our children? 

I concede that there are counterpoints that make this a tougher question than I’ve painted it. I’m just glad I have a daughter and granddaughter. Life is risky enough without throwing children into the middle of a violent scrum.

¹ The Week, Vol. XIII, #639, p. 20

Saying Goodbye to the Kentucky Handshake

So Kentucky is considering eliminating the post-game handshake because too many incidents were arising from encouraging good sportsmanship. Yeah, that will improve things. They’re also talking about “monitoring” the handshake. You mean the coaches aren’t involved in the first place?

Good sportsmanship is the responsibility of the coach. “Win with class, lose with class,” is our mantra, and we preach it from Day 1. You can be upset at the outcome, the other coach, the other players, the spectators (parents); none of that matters. What matters is your behavior, your reaction. That is what you control.

The coach, however, can, no, must, enforce, or reinforce, the desired behavior. Kids are out for a sport because they want to play, but we must remember they are still kids, no matter how gifted an athlete. Inappropriate behavior during or after a game? Then they don’t play, the next game, the next week, the rest of the season, whatever it takes to get that message across to the rest of the team. I pretty much guarantee it will take just one message (and if it’s to the best player on the team, so be it) with that kind of consequence and it’s “problem solved.”

Of course, while I can’t control the other team, the other program, I can prepare my kids for those who don’t live up to our standards. More than once I’ve reminded my teams before the handshake line gets going that, “We win with class, we lose with class.” They know what’s expected. More than once I’ve had opposing players try to “punish” me or one of my players with a hard hand-slap. Who’s the adult? The coach, and it’s the coach’s job to model the expected behavior.

If Kentucky has a problem, then it’s a problem with their coaches and their definition of sportsmanship. Schools that tolerate that kind of “leadership” from their coaches, no matter how many wins or losses (s)he generates, are complicit in that failure. One team wins and one team loses hard-fought competition. Sometimes the outcomes are unfair. You may have noticed that life, too, is often unfair. My responsibility as a coach is to make sure my girls know it’s not the outcome, it’s the process, and that includes, above all, “winning with class or losing with class.”

Addendum: If the other team is bent on mayhem, that is undeniably a different problem. If the coaches of the other team don’t have control over their players, that’s its own challenge. Sports that are predicated on violence and physical intimidation, where those attributes are encouraged and rewarded with helmet stickers (stay tuned), high fives, or pats on the back, are clearly going to be harder to monitor. Softball is obviously less of a contact sport than many others, so maybe it’s easier to manage. Still, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that a competent coach (or coaching staff) can’t recognize when a player is out of control or on the verge of going over the line. I once had to sit one of the most gifted softball athletes I’ve ever seen because she had no self-restraint. I’d like to say it was a lesson well-learned, but I fear those issues are still with her – she didn’t last the season.

On Cheering #2

Warning: If you are or were a cheerleader, you might find this offensive.

That is not my intent, not my goal. I recognize that cheerleaders can be athletic and, if their squads go to competitions, could even be considered athletes. I’ve known intelligent, ambitious, morally upright cheerleaders who did not fit the stereotype. While stereotypes do not arise out of vacuums (nobody says, “Hey, let’s make up a stereotype about __________!”) and are damaging to both the typer and typee, that isn’t the point of this, either.

I’m glad my daughter never had any desire to be the public cheerer for someone else’s accomplishments. I hope Becca wants to have her own accomplishments rather than cheering for some boy’s or group of boys. I’m not suggesting avoiding the excitement and enthusiasm for a school team’s accomplishments. I recognize that cheerleaders help organize and generate that support; but I’d rather she (or any girl) BE the athlete rather than the athlete’s cheering section. If a girl is athletic enough to do all the things required of a cheerleader (I’m talking at the games -- too snarky?), then she’s athletic enough to do a sport or other activity herself.* Let the boys come and cheer for her, not reduce herself to a subservient role.

*In all fairness, at Hancock there was only one girls sport per season for a long time (the Fall season now boasts softball, volleyball & cross country) and cheerleaders cheered ONLY at basketball games; they could, and did, participate in other sports in the other seasons. To his everlasting credit, Ed Stewart required the cheerleaders to cheer at both boys and girls games and a couple guys joined the cheerleaders in at least two years I remember.

Weighing In on the Shutdown

I’m even more disgusted than ever with the irresponsibility of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Both sides would like to paint this a struggle between right and wrong, conservatism and liberalism, progress and chaos. I submit that it’s mostly a struggle between arrogant egos and a desire for power that ignores the needs of anyone who might disagree, and, if you read the results of the 2012 elections, MOST OF THE COUNTRY. It’s playing chicken with unwilling proxies driving the cars.

I’ve written before on Health Care Reform, the views of the Founding Fathers, and various and sundry political topics. That being said, I don’t claim any unique perspective. What we have here is a failure to compromise combined with misplaced priorities that put power before people.

I understand that if you are convinced you are right, you will also likely be certain that you would be violating your core beliefs by compromising. That’s fine if you represent only yourself, perhaps even your family or your private organization. In all of those cases, your impact is limited. Members of Congress, however, are tasked with representing ALL their constituents, voluntarily accepting the responsibility to help govern the ENTIRE country. They may directly represent only a part of the country, perhaps even a state, but they are UNITED STATES Representatives and Senators. 

I also understand their claim that they were elected by their constituents based on certain promises they made in their election campaigns. I understand that they believe they must fulfill those promises in order to retain their jobs. None, however, were elected by a unanimous vote (even in a landslide victory, at least 2 out of every 5 people voted for the losing side). Question: Shouldn’t serving ALL their constituents take priority over retaining the powers, perks, and pay of their position? Obviously not, since those continue unabated during the shutdown; no sacrifices for THEM!

Here’s the inconsistency in that line of thinking that sticks out like the first zit on a teenager. Did we not have an election in 2008 in which then-candidate Obama promised universal health care and coverage? Was he not elected by a sizable majority? Was it a big surprise that this became the priority of his administration? Didn’t what passed Congress look and sound a lot like what he promised? Was there not ANOTHER election in 2012 which, in essence, served as a referendum on “Obamacare”? Did he not win again AND did not his party increase their seats in both the House AND the Senate? Didn’t the United States Supreme Court, with its clear Republican majority, affirm the Constitutionality of the act? Doesn’t logic (yes, yes, I know, logic and the real world often have no connection, sad to say) suggest, if not downright insist, that the majority of the country wants to at least try health care reform?

Those who are so locked in to what THEY believe, nay, know, is right for everyone, even those who disagree with their position, are willing to sabotage our already fragile economic recovery by throwing a political tantrum until they get EVERYTHING they want regardless of the consequences and regardless of the fact that THEY REPRESENT A MINORITY VIEW. These are the same people who insist they are protecting the vision of the Founding Fathers, despite the fact the ONLY thing the founders agreed upon was the need to compromise for the sake of the country. The founding fathers understood the role of the minority; I don’t think these clowns have a clue. That conservatives now oppose their own concept (the individual mandate idea came out of that very conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, and was the foundation for the Romney plan in Massachusetts) speaks volumes.

Incidentally, and this won’t convince a single Obama-hater, until Congress sends him something (which would, of course, require either a compromise or a so far non-existent viable alternative to the despised ACA), his threats of a veto are just that. I don’t think he’s had a bona fide chance to be an effective leader; his efforts have been sabotaged from Day 1 by the avowed efforts of the “loyal opposition” to have him fail,  but neither would I argue that he has particularly distinguished himself in that regard. This mess, however,  is on Congress, at least until it sends him a bill. 

These ODD-people (that’s Oppositional Defiant Disorder, although I’d suggest odd also works for more than a few of them) are anti-democracy and anti-republic, supporting the will of the people, but only if that will meshes exactly with their (antediluvian, IMO) notions. Their position is saying, in essence, “The voters (and the Supreme Court) were too stupid to understand what they were voting on, so we need to abrogate their electoral decision in favor of ours, because we know what’s best.” That is NOT democracy, that is NOT republicanism; that’s a prelude to Facism.

Go Team. On Cheering #1

I’m approaching the 30 year mark as a softball coach (and, in fact, have passed it, if you count the recreational teams I helped with when Nicci was a kid). I’ve coached hundreds of games (and girls) and watched many others. This piece isn’t about the kids, though, it’s about the parents; its point was hammered home with a metaphorical composite bat at our most recent tournament over the weekend.

I noticed a distinct difference between how our parents cheered and how the parents on the other (competitive) teams cheered. Simply stated, winning seemed far more important to our opponents’ parents than it was to us. 

I’ve always known that my off-hand, almost stand-up, comedy shtick doesn't play well in many, if not most, venues. I use teasing and (what I like to think are) funny phrases to encourage and teach my girls. That’s my style and this old dog isn’t likely to change. For the most part, though, my players and their parents seem to appreciate the approach. Opposing parents, however, who seemingly think that world peace hangs in the balance on the outcome of a high school softball game, often give me dirty looks or raise the decibel level of their cheering as a counter-measure. 

I know I can be annoying. Just ask hundreds of former co-workers. Still, I like to think I’m more often amusing and generally likable. Virtually all of my parents and players alike have been supportive of the time I’ve spent with their daughters.

Don’t misunderstand. I like to win. I want to win every game, some, where I’ve been annoyed by the opposing coach, even more than others. But mostly I want to win because it’s more fun for the girls and, most importantly, because it usually means my girls have been successful. Perhaps that’s the difference between me (and most of the parents of my players) and the rest. Softball is a team sport with outcomes that depend on individual performances and I want my girls to perform well because I’m their biggest fan. If they perform well, or at least to the best of their ability, that represents success far more than whatever the score happens to be.

I’m in the right place as far as coaching. Junior varsity and in a district where parents generally recognize that their daughter’s well-being, as well as their own, does not depend on a softball game. And while I didn’t get to see as many Hancock parents at games back in the day, I remember them similarly -- and that was a varsity team. I don’t think I could enjoy my job as much as I do if the parents were as desperate as those of so many of our opponents seem to be.

No Comment

    Why, oh why do I even look at the Comments section after reading an on-line article? I regret the wasted minutes every time. It doesn’t even matter if the topic is sports, there’s too little of value to compensate for the other, seeming majority, of comments that range from snarky to nasty to, well, just plain dumb. I’m not even factoring in the egregious grammar and spelling errors that further make me wonder if I wasted 40 years of my life trying to teach English.

Apparently I’m not the only one, however. My favorite news magazine, The Week, is considering following the lead of Popular Science in disabling or eliminating their comments section. I should have learned my lesson a few years ago when the one time I posted a comment to an article resulted in someone calling me a “Moron” for suggesting that a failure to compromise had created some bad historical outcomes. I posted a mild response, but to have continued following the thread (if, indeed, there was anything more to it) would have required more time and energy than I cared to invest. It did make me wonder what kind of life those people have who seem to have nothing better to do than “comment-bomb.”

For that reason I also avoid responding to people who think they’re going to influence someone’s opinion on guns or health care or poverty or corporate greed or, well, you get the picture, by posting on Facebook. If people are such true believers that they’re going to advertise their POVs, what can I say that will change their minds? Not much, I’m thinking.

At least most of the people on social media sites have known identities; I do share some kind of connection to my Facebook “friends.” You want to have a face-to-face discussion on some controversial topic, that might be worth my time. Even a respectful disagreement with dueling Facebook posts could possibly be intellectually challenging, if not particularly productive.

The posters in the Comments section, however, are strangers, and generally anonymous strangers with made up identities. Why subject yourself to their insults and diatribes? Wallow in those stagnant, shallow waters if you want, but I have better ways to waste my time.

Certified Organic Irony

I do love irony, especially when it’s unintentional. 

The organic movement is certainly on the upswing. When we pay more for our organic products we do so out of concern for not only our health but, ostensibly, the health of the planet. And surely second-hand organic smoke must be good for all of us!

So I was unbelievably (as in “I can't believe you believe this”) excited when I just read what I suppose the marketers viewed as a compelling advertisement for the latest product in the certified organic line: tobacco! Presumably this will improve the users’ health, because everything organic is better, right? I can hardly wait to start smoking cigarettes, now that there’s a certified organic version available!