Wed 13 Sep 2017
NESCAC Suggestions, 1
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Athletics, NESCAC at 6:44 am
Some crazy Williams alum sent this letter (pdf) to all the presidents of NESCAC schools. Let’s spend three days talking about it. Today is Day 1.
Football is too dangerous.
The National Football League, which for years disputed evidence that its players had a high rate of severe brain damage, has stated in federal court documents that it expects nearly a third of retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems and that the conditions are likely to emerge at “notably younger ages” than in the general population.*
NESCAC football may be less dangerous than playing in the NFL, but there is every reason to believe that it is more dangerous, by an order of magnitude, than every other NESCAC sport. More importantly, the defenses for football are weak:
“No student is forced to play football. To the extent doing so is dangerous, it is a student’s choice, just like participation in other risky activities like rock climbing.” The vast majority of starting players on most (all?) NESCAC football teams would not have been admitted to their school if they did not agree to play football. They don’t really have any “choice,” at least if they are being honest with the coach who is recruiting them. If they tell the coach that, while they would love to go to school X, they don’t plan on playing football, the coach won’t put them on his list and they won’t be accepted.
“Ending football would be too unpopular among the alumni and/or major donors.” Connecticut College has no football program, and yet does as well as the average NESCAC school in terms of alumni giving and loyalty. Swarthmore ended football 15 years ago and, after a short-lived controversy, has raised as much money as almost any liberal arts college.
“Football may be dangerous for students but it is not dangerous for the College.” The first football lawsuit against a NESCAC school is not far away. If the NFL was willing to pay millions to injured players, even those who had only been in the league for a season or two, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to four-year NESCAC players? Do you want to be deposed by a plaintiff’s attorney about what you knew about the risks of football? Do your trustees? Organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets attract lawsuits. The more years you allow football to continue, the greater the potential liability.
* “Brain Trauma to Affect One in Three Players, N.F.L. Agrees” New York Times, September 12, 2014.
Print
• Email
| « We’re #1 (for the 15th year in a row) | For those interested in spies and tradecraft … » |
17 Responses to “NESCAC Suggestions, 1”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
frank uible says:
Is the point Football Is Too Dangerous To The Health Of The Players, or is it Football Is Too Dangerous To The Financial Health Of The Institution, or is it Something Else? If it is Something Else, then what is that Something Else?
September 13th, 2017 at 7:16 amDavid Dudley Field '25 says:
Football Is Too Dangerous To The Financial Health Of The Institution
September 13th, 2017 at 7:19 amWhitney Wilson '90 says:
@DDF: Are you the crazy alum who sent the letter?
September 13th, 2017 at 9:01 amWhitney Wilson '90 says:
Its not clear to me that football (at the NESCAC level) is too dangerous for the players, especially if the players are coached to not hit with their heads and the overall number of full contact practices is limited. It would be interesting if NESCAC specific studies could be conducted. Didn’t a Williams alum in my class try to conduct such a study?
The concussion problem would also pose risjs for hockey, lacrosse, and soccer.
One additional reason to drop football is that it is, I believe, a very expensive sport to offer.
September 13th, 2017 at 9:53 amAidan says:
Counterpoint: all elite schools – Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford (even MIT!) have football teams.
September 13th, 2017 at 10:34 amanonymous says:
Fun fact: the rules for football evolved (via Teddy Roosevelt) because of the extreme injuries (and some fatalities) suffered by players and the possibility that Harvard would drop football.
Counter-counterpoint: All elite schools should drop football or push for rule changes to protect players.
September 13th, 2017 at 11:22 amTom Foolery says:
What pansy would suggest this? You might as well become Swarthmore and limit yourself to LARPing and badminton. the last thing Williams needs is an even greater percentage of tree huggers and protester of the month club members. A small amount of testosterone and risk taking is what keeps the Williams somewhat tolerable in this age.
September 13th, 2017 at 12:08 pmanonymous says:
Mr. Foolery:
September 13th, 2017 at 1:28 pmYour microaggression has been noted and reported to the appropriate bias incident reporting officials:
(https://speakup.williams.edu/)
frank uible says:
The NFL teaches nothing on this subject about NESCAC football.A large difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.
September 13th, 2017 at 1:57 pmJCD says:
As a political scientist, I would point out that football, under its current arrangements, is pre-illegal.
September 13th, 2017 at 2:17 pm89'er says:
I think DDF may be prescient here.
As we learn more and the science becomes more defined around brain injury, the risk/reward ratio of football I think will tilt toward dropping it.
On an (un)related note, I am curious how the weight of starting linemen at NESCAC schools has changed over the last 40+ years. As NESCAC players have become bigger and faster, what has happened to injury rates?
In the next 10-20 years, will the next NESCAC school to experience protracted non-competitiveness in football be tempted to drop the sport? Might an AD or President be tempted to look at that as an opportunity to free up admission slots for other sports / activities?
I don’t think Williams will be first to do so, but I think it is a real possibility that 20 years from now, the NESCAC schools no longer play football.
September 14th, 2017 at 12:56 amDavid Dudley Field '25 says:
You’re wrong.
If you believe most of the science associated with CET, you should believe that big NFL-speed collisions, while bad enough, are not the only (or even the main) risk. Instead, the major problem is the thousands of small hits that occur on normal plays and are largely invisible to a TV audience.
The canonical example is offensive lineman butting heads with a defensive lineman. CET is (just as?) common among offensive lineman as it is among the players (running backs, wide receivers) involved in the more dramatic collisions.
This is also why there is concern about CET among soccer players — the cumulative impact of thousands of headed balls, each of which, individually, is harmless.
So, if it is lots of little hits that are the danger, there is no reason to think that NESCAC play is safe.
September 14th, 2017 at 8:20 amWilliams Alum says:
DDF –
Do you feel silly that you wrote this letter (did you write this letter? why not answer that question) and don’t know that it’s CTE, not CET?
I think NESCAC schools won’t play football in 75 years. I think the majority of them will still play in 30 years. I think both these are good things.
WA
September 14th, 2017 at 9:40 amWhitney Wilson '90 says:
I do know that its the accumulation of hits which is thought to cause cause much of the long-term damage. That is why limiting the amount of hitting in practice would make the game safer. NESCAC seasons are shorter than most other football programs, and presumably there is little off-season hitting relative to other programs. That is why I would like to know if any studies have been done on NESCAC football players. As I mentioned earlier, I recall getting a communication about participating in such a study which was being conducted by Dr. Rebekah Mannix ’90. I don’t know if she was able to get enough participants to have any meaningful data.
September 14th, 2017 at 10:44 amTom Foolery says:
anonymous:
Thank you, but it’s really my parents fault.
BTW-89’er: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
September 14th, 2017 at 5:39 pmAbel says:
You’re quite wrong to call this alum “crazy”, especially with regards to their first suggestion.
As a current student, I’d like to note that the vast majority of drug dealers and sexual-assaulters I have known in my time here were members of the football team. Note: I am not saying I know a lot of football players who are drug dealers and sexually harass women. I am saying the MAJORITY of those who I know are football players. It is not unfair to say that there is something toxic about football players on this campus. I think most current students would agree with me on this impression.
Also: they are also the most likely to quit their sport of any team on campus. Take a look at the roster, right now. There’s something like 22 freshmen and about 10 seniors. That massive disparity has nothing to do with varying recruitment class size year to year. It’s because football players quit the team, all the time. It’s a waste of spots in our freshmen class. 22 students admitted for their supposed football talent, when more than half will not play by their senior year? Let’s reassign those spots.
It’s mind boggling the amount of resources we pour into this sport. Swarthmore absolutely made the right call in the early 2000’s to cut this sport out of the equation. We all know how competitive admission is to Williams, all the immensely talented students we reject and send to formidable schools like Bowdoin or Middlebury. Imagine what would happen to the college if we gave those scholarships to students who had incredible academic merit? We’d be a school with a better student body rather than a losing football team. Seems like a good trade to me.
My two cents. Take it as you will.
September 14th, 2017 at 6:19 pm89'er says:
Of note, the football season has been expanded to 9 games from 8 starting this year.
Seems to run counter to the hypothesis that reducing the number of hits increases safety.
September 14th, 2017 at 7:05 pm