This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
America’s Coming Depression
No, I don’t mean an economic depression. I mean an emotional depression. I fear that a funk could hit a significant portion of the population over the next five years. Tens of millions of lives will be affected. There will be substantial economic hardship. Fortunes will be lost. Media empires will be rattled. Some municipalities will face bankruptcy. Universities and colleges across the country will face new funding pressures. The changes that I see coming will reshape a cornerstone of the American way of life.
What could possibly cause this? The answer is that American football is in very, very serious trouble.
2,450 players have now filed 89 concussion related law suits against the NFL and Riddell Athletics (helmet manufacturer) . All of the State cases are being referred to Federal Court.
.
.
I’m no expert on this topic. I follow (among others) ESPN and NFL Concussion Litigation. I have recently talked with four attorneys (none directly involved – all sue for a living). The cut to the chase question for the lawyers was:
“Will there be financial awards?”
Four out of four were quick to answer:
“Yes.”
The dark side for American football depends on whether these four attorneys are right.
The suits against the NFL/Riddle are based on the fact that a significant number of players have received permanent brain injuries while playing for the NFL. There are dozens of reports that prove this. A Michigan University study of former players found that:
“Alzheimer’s disease or similar-memory related diseases occur ‘vastly’ more often than the national population – including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30-49.”
NY Giant’s ex ace QB, Jeff Hostetler, has filed a suit against the NFL. A review of the court papers (Link – paragraphs 47-117) lists the medical conclusions that football is directly linked to permanent brain injury. It's going to be very hard for the NFL to beat this.
That football is dangerous and players might get traumatic brain injuries is old news. The basis of the suits is that the NFL teams, knowing full well the risks that the players were taking, willfully ignored the scientific evidence, and repeatedly put the players at neurological risk.
A critical issue for the teams/players is, "What did the teams do when a player incurred a head injury during play/practice?" As far back as 1999 it was shown that players who received a concussion during practice or a game were 4Xs more likely to receive another concussion in the following 10 days.
The NFL ignored this information. It was not until 2009 that it established rules that required players who exhibited any sign of concussion had to be removed from a game or practice, and be barred from returning the same day. But there are hundreds of documented cases since 2009 where players who received a head injury that produced symptoms of concussion who were returned to the playing field within minutes of the original injury.
The problem that the teams face is that it’s not possible to diagnose a minor concussion on the field. The league established a practice of identifying a player with a concussion as one who had to be carried off on a stretcher. The lawsuits allege that the teams/NFL knew the facts on concussions, and their documented actions put the players at risk. This is referred to as Willful Misconduct. If the juries agree with this (I think they have to), then the financial awards will go through the roof.
Can the NFL afford these suits? Some say they can, and point to the fact that the 32 teams have a value in excess of $40 billion, and revenues of $20+ Billion a year. I don’t think this argument stands up. There are 1,700 active pro players each year. The suits will go back at least ten-years. The evidence is that as many as 60% of all players have suffered multiple concussions during their careers. When a class action settlement is made, thousands of additional players will seek compensation. The individual awards will be in the millions. Based on this, the total damages could easily exceed $20 billion. That would put a very deep hurt on the NFL and the team owners.
An import question for the courts will be Riddell Sports’ liability. If there is liability on behalf of Riddell, it creates a major problem. Can Riddell (the official provider of helmets for the NFL) continue to make helmets knowing full well that every helmet that goes out the door is a lawsuit to be in the future? I would think not.
I’ll come back to the problems with the NFL, but first some thoughts on college, high school and pre-teen football. There has to be some very substantial changes for this group of athletes. The medical evidence is clear. The younger a person receives head injuries, the greater the chance of a lifetime consequences.
When the lawyers finish busting up the NFL, they will turn their sights onto colleges and high schools. In our litigious society more football suits are a sure thing. What will happen to the big football schools? All of these Universities have mega endowments. The schools are sitting ducks for lawsuits. Then there is the moral issue. How can a University field a team knowing that half of the players are taking life time risks?
I can imagine that Penn/Ohio State will be one of the last Universities to come to grip with this problem, but what about the Ivy’s? Can Yale, Cornell, Brown etc. stand up to the coming suits? I would think not. The legal risks are too high. Can the Trustees at Harvard (or the Army/Navy/Air Force) put their students at risk of turning their brains into Jell-O?
The only question I have is which University is going to drop football first.
High school football is at risk. The evidence is clear that the earlier in life a person receives multiple head injuries, the greater the probability of medical complications later in life. Will individual towns that sponsor high school teams get sued in the future? It would appear that this is inevitable. Knowing that they may get sued will force changes. But the most compelling argument is, again, the moral one. How can a municipality support a sport that it knows will cause traumatic injury to the players? Based on the information now available, we know that football for high school is like giving kids cigarettes. A percentage of the players will be affected in their lives.
A check of the Internet shows that across the country the issue of high school football is up for discussion.
.
.
.
Now go back to the NFL. What’s the future?
- The existing suits (and those that are coming) will result in payouts to former players and substantial losses.
- The suits will force changes in the way that football is played. The suggestions on how to reduce the risk of head injuries include:
I) No kick offs or punt returns. (What?)
II) No blocking or tackling above the waist. (Impossible)
III) Strict rules on a player who does use his upper body when making plays. Players who break the new contact rules will face multiple game suspensions. Repeat offenders will not be allowed to play. (There would be few players left)
IV) Players will be forced to wear new uniforms that substantially increase padding. New helmets with both a soft and a hard surface will be the rule. Players will look like the Michelin Man on the field. The ability to run fast and maneuver will be diminished. (Think of this, it doesn't work)
V) Television will be banned from showing any hard hits. Announcers will be forced to not speak of any aggressive blocking and tackling. (The assumption is that the TV attention on those doing the hard hits contributes to the number of injuries.) (Boring....)
There will be more rules. A significant one is what will teams do when and if a player does have a head bump during practice or a game. The players will have to be monitored, assessed, evaluated or otherwise examined to insure that any transitory or permanent injury is properly recognized, diagnosed and treated before allowing return to play.
How can the NFL teams maintain this standard? If every player who had head contact was forced to sit out the rest of the game, then the teams would run out of players before the 4th quarter. (The scrubs take over at the end of a game? Where's the fun in that?)
What is the future of the NFL if/when these changes are implemented? I’m curious to hear from readers. I think it will kill the public interest in the game. From an audience perspective, the hard-hitting nature of the sport is part of the reason for the popularity. Without the speed and action (hard hits) on the field, pro football will lose fans.
I conclude that American football is going to have to go through some radical changes. High School teams will disappear; college and university ball is going to be suspended by some schools. Pro-football is going to be transformed into something that will not work.
Sorry if I have ruined some reader's Father's Day. Try to enjoy it anyway.
.
»
- advertisements -
The US Army, by placing soldiers in combat zones, have signfcantly increased their chance of getting lead poisoning.
I could give a fuck about football, football players or those who do [give a fuck].
Happy Father's Day. Every father is a motherfucker, you know.
Incorrect unless the woman has all ready had a child, unless we're crossing taboo's and speaking of an Odipous Complexed conjugal encounter, which would make you even either more incorrect to the point of you're pointlessness, or you're one sick mo'fo projecting your personal immorality upon the actions of all other men.... seems to me I had a girlfriend or two like that, not a sick-o like yourself, but projecting their minds as the basis to analyze the actions of others.
Either way you cut it, yO a sic mo'fo.... especially because you're a dude... ?... right???
Whaaaat?
well not that long ago people competed to the death in the Colloseum. So this seems watered down risk commensurate with our watered down culture.
I agree with general tenet of your article but suspect Universities are going to have funding problems far larger than football lawsuits before this becomes an issue
UFC for the win.
Im actually amazed we haven't seen more serious injuries there. I guess it hasn't been around long enough. Lets just hope they keep it on the up and up unlike what boxing became.
just raise ticket prices and cable fees. people who like football will pay any price to watch it and keep it going.
Use the World War One German helmets with the spike on top. That will at least make the game a liitle more hesitant and careful.
Baseball got its Anti-Trust exemption. I presume Congress will do something similiar for at least the NFL and probably college too. Can you imagine how the Black Caucus would react if college scholarships and NFL careers for young black men were lost?
Whine whine as if they did not understand the hazards of the sport, buy a meat slicer. understand you can get cut, get cut sue the manufacturer of the product sue the seller of the cutter support the worlds largest cess pool of lawyers it is the American way to success
the question is simple: will fotball be profitable WITHOUT helmets? (and hence much less tbi)
negative feedback is supposed to exist, meaning that if you crack your head, it is supposed to hurt. so you will stop exposing it to small forces and hence be wary of exposure to larger forces
helmets are the problem
rugby players dont sue.
Ha! Not much to get depressed over.
Everyone will be playing soccer!
Much cheaper for school systems besides.
Are people trying to act like soccer doesn't have its share of head injuries?
Try heading a soccer ball that is moving at 80 miles per hour. If you don't hit it just right it hurts like a motherfucker.
Soccer players will be wearing helmets soon.
The older soccer balls were even worse when they got wet especially in the UK because many games are played in damp conditions. Many examples of brain injuries and problems for older players. The newer balls are a little better.
Except soccer SUXZ! Make the feild smaller, the goals bigger, and allow full out tackles. That I will watch.
Perhaps full contact golf would be of interest as well.
Come on Bruce.... Run up billable hours and then settle with donation to alzheimer research. Lawyers dispose of carcass. Find new carcass to feed off of. Baseball players with hang-nails or basketball players with shin splints. Run-up billable hours and settle.
When Texas joined the Union of the USA, it specified that
There is NO question, absolutely NONE, that all races, religions, creeds, and colors would storm Austin Demanding Succession or War.
Constrictive and Liberals, Mexican,Black,White, Native, and Asian would all unite as never before to save the most important element of Sunday and social center point (except church).
Those lawyer/govment people do not know with what they tinker. There'll be hell to pay if they "mess with Texas".
The NFL is stupidand Texans who allowed Jerry Jones to screw local taxpayers to build the new Cowboys stadium are suckers. Seceed because the USSA is a police state not over something stupid like football or any sport. Stupid sheep will trade liberty for ball games and a TV clicker. Moron serfs.
I would move to Texas and join the succession movement!
Unfortionately while those might have been agreed upon at the time, the Civil War kinda nullified the "peaceful succession" part.
I totally support the Civil War ending slavery BUT a major consequence is that it set a precedence that you can't leave without a fight. Of course Texas might be able to win that fight this time around if it could join up with the Mountian states.
Imagine for a second if you will Californication and the US/Canadian West Coast creating some Socialistic paradise, the Mountian States and Texas forming a Capitalistic / Industrial powerhouse joined by Alberta, the South becoming ??? and the North East joining the EU with Quebec.
Where would you live?
I see Texas lining up with the South culturally and historically, not the mountain states but it certainly would work for me either way.
If Texas left the rest of the South would fall like dominos.
"I totally support the Civil War ending slavery BUT a major consequence is that it set a precedence that you can't leave without a fight"
Please go back and do some more research. The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about Lincoln, and his backers, murdering the constitution and forcing the nation to have the massive central government that the founders had warned against.
Slavery is the modern day excuse for the war because it is politically correct.
When it joined the Union in 1845, these stipulations may have been true. However, these options ended around 1865.
Secession has not been an option for almost 150 years.
Secession is always an option. Whether the Federal Government allows it, as it did not in 1860, is quite another question.
But there is no law preventing it.
Secession is always an option for any state, that's the whole idea of secession, did the colonies have a written document with permission to secede from Britain? Has any country/state ever had such a thing? Very few if any. The right to secede flows from the right to sovereignty, which can flow to the smallest entity, the individual. Now success in secession is what cannot be guaranteed.
Gosh, who'd a thunk it? Ramming you head into something as hard as you can to make a living proves to be harmful to your brain.
Sort of like trading in today's joke for what was once a market.
The players will be required to just sign waivers that prohibit future lawsuits.
I love sports...but football has never been one of the sports I care for...however, I realize how passionate many people are about it and how big a business it is. The odds of a series of lawsuits putting an end to such a big and uniquely American game seem very very very slim.
I won't miss the game if it does go away...but I think the threat of it going away may be one of the very few things that could ignite the American people to mass protest. Americans seem to feel like watching people getting mangled on network television is a constitutionally assured pleasure.
Football players are the modern day Gladiators...which I guess makes Americans the modern day Romans...which makes sense since many of us have long observed that America is the modern day Roman empire...and we all know how that ended, don't we?
More bread and circuses please....
Why encourage it? Kill off the bread and circuses. And F TV that manipulates the serfs. Sounds like you love it.
Reason is simple:
Rise of the black athlete
Too Black, Too Strong
LT: "Let's go out there like a pack of wild dogs."
can't fix black
can't fix football
can't fix america
@cortez
NFL quarterback Michael Vick went from being on Forbes 100 list, earning up to $130 million, and reportedly being one of the world's richest athletes to later filing bankruptcy, losing two homes and serving jail time for operating an unlawful dog ring. In 2011 Vick had not one but five Jewish bankruptcy attorneys he provides for or pays.
"I will surround them with AGENTS and MANAGERS and LAWYERS who will assure (1) that these black indentured servants will dutifully perform their entertainment role and (2) that their money is never used to alter the societal status quo."
a $130MM indentured servant?
And it's a little too late to stop their impact on the societal status quo
gladiator and male showboating is elite's way of disabling any physical threat to the throne.
In Mexico's Mayan civilization, kings made most fit young males play a game of basketball, and the winning team got the honorable ceremony of being sacrifices to the Gods. smart kings created the game to figure out who will be a threat, and then convinced the dumb jocks to go kill themselves willingly.
Sports = modern day gladiators = slaves fighting each other like animals for survival for entertainment.....it is for stupid people.
also what's the stat on dumb jocks going backrupted? like 30% after their avg. 2 yr long contract ends? yeah.....
Somebody saw the movie Gladiator and stunk at team sports.
A sport takes the place of hunting, and whatnot. If you had to hunt, tend crops and scavenge for food / survive you wouldn’t have time for sports, crime…..etc, etc.
Yes lets go back to a hunting and gathering society so we are all spending all of our time trying to stay alive and have no time for leisure. Also the ransacking of neighboring tribes for supplies, horses and woman! Yeah!
/Sarc off
We're working on it. Patience, it's coming.
Damn kids, always in a hurry.
My god you are a moron.. Your comment was for stupid people..
A couple of observation about your post:
1) If you are going to highlight how "dumb jocks are" because they go bankrupt after their sports career is over...perhaps you should learn to spell "bankrupt"...so you are not mistaken for a dumb jock.
2) The "sports is for stupid people" statement is one I've heard often...usually by kids that never got picked to be on any team because they were physically incapable and as clumsy as a drunk blind man on a pogo stick going down hill.
this analysis, while somewhat historically accurate, is also psychologically misguided.
Physical prowess is exciting and interesting. Football is also a very intellectual sport. Try visiting footballoutsiders.com if you don't believe it. Applying statistical management to sports, as baseball has with sabremetrics, makes them an intellectual adventure.
Bar stool logic will never go away. Even in intellectual pursuits like economics or politics. This doesn't make economics or politics "for stupid people", it just means people have different interests and enjoyments, and will usually have a point of view on those things.
While I have a hard time discussing sports with people who don't understand the kinds of statistical measures that are meaningful in football or baseball, that bar stool logic remains the order of the day and probably always will, I still enjoy the sport because it's fun to break down the numbers and analyze performance even if few people are capable of doing it effectively or intelligently.
I'm sure you find this same problem in the things you're interested in. I don't know what you may or may not be interested in, but I'll bet I can find one thing which mimics the gladatorial events you discuss - such as politics. Are you telling me that today's poltiical clime is NOT a gladatorial event in an intellectual sense? The current electoral process is designed to distract and avoid.
So is the internet and comment sections on websites. It's all part of the grand conspiracy to distract people from 'meaningful' discussion and debate.
FWIW, anyone who disagrees with the idea that physical prowess is interesting and exciting, or that sports play a viable role in society, ignore the basic premise, and enjoyment millions have, of the Olympics.
Not exactly full-contact like football, but the Olympics are intriguing and enjoyable even for nitwits who 'hate sports'.
80% of the Olympics suckz. Basketball increased enjoyment factor a lot. Hockey is fun to watch too, as are the fighting competitions and Gymnastics. The rest - I'd rather watch Golf or Baseball - which means I'd rather not watch TV at all.
First of all, you're speaking of the modern Olympics. I was pointing out that sports are a vital part of society, inasmuch the Olympics began in ancient Greece to bring societies together (and to some degree continue to do so).
Secondly, you may think 80% suck. Great. So what? I know people who enjoy the biathlon. I know people who love synchronized swimming. I don't care for either....but so? It has an element of interest for people.
Finally, who says you have to watch on TV? If I could attend an Olympics event, to be part of that spectacle of humanity and effort - I'd do so. I've attended the World Cup and I don't really enjoy soccer. It's an amazing event and one I found fascinating.
"Not exactly full-contact like football, but the Olympics are intriguing and enjoyable even for nitwits who 'hate sports'."
So is porn.
So what?
Your point is....what?
Lighten up, Francis.
There are some easy answers. They won't solve every problem, but mitigate substantially.
1. Any injury resulting from a CLEARLY DELIBERATE hit will have the hitter sit out the same number of games as the injured party. If that is a career-ending injury, it's a career-ending hit.
2. Helmets designed to reduce concussions exist. They look silly, but should be utilized. It won't end the problem (anymore than mouthguards have), but it will mitigate.
3. End football prior to high school. I played it, and tore ligaments in my knee. Injuries of this nature (soft tissue, broken limbs) are far more common with young football, and much talent is lost at an early age. Not to mention that the best young players are typically mediocre by the time they reach high school due to others catching up in size and intelligence. The video of Andy Reid in the PPK competition is a clear example of how an early growth spurt provides massive advantages at an early age. Young bodies are not prepared to deal with impact. Lacrosse, prior to 7th grade, does not allow any checking whatsoever for this reason (at least in my town).
4. Set up funding for insurance for concussion-related aging problems such as Alzheimer's in the NFL. Many of these players may make tons of money while they play, not as many are prepared to deal with the health issues they will face. I'm sure a 23 year old player making the NFL minimum is willing to put up 10% of his income to cover potential costs down the road for all players.
5. No replays of horrendous hits. Frankly, I was sickened by seeing Joe Theismann's or Tim Krumrie's injuries replayed as frequently as they were.
These are just a few easy changes to help ease the problems the sport faces. It will probably end the jarring "wow, did you see that!?" hits we see on TV. Does that reduce entertainment value? Perhaps. But it shifts the discussion, too. It makes the game focus on the primary facet of the game - strategy and execution - rather than on bounties and removing competition.
I meant a hit that was clearly deliberate in terms of trying to injure the opposing player. Some of these are borderline, but borderline is 'guilty', by my point of view. I saw analysis of head-to-head impacts this year on the NFL, and when asking 'did he lead with the head' was usually yes...even in borderline cases. A fellow trying to avoid impact is obvious, and if it isn't, then the judgement has to be it is deliberate.
With that clarification I agree, under the assumption that "A fellow trying to avoid impact is obvious" also is meant as "A fellow trying to avoid injury-causing impact is obvious".
Um. First, you're going to have refs render their opinion, of something which is going on in the mind of the tackler? That should be good.
Next, injuring an opposing player is just a nice-to-have because it gets that player off the field for the game, and as bonus can have a chilling effect to the other team.
I don't know if it was my university only, but we were meticulously trained to bring the maximum amount of leverage, body mass, and velocity to a tackle. The more you bring, the better probabilities for a successful unaided tackle. In the net momentum/body-mass math of football contact, this philosophy also improves your own on-the-field shelf life.
If you are on the defensive side of the ball, your prospects for starting-team glory are highly dependent on how hard you hit. It is a much valued and revered characteristic. Trust me. Your college funding will highly tolerate the occasional personal foul. It will not tolerate an inability to bring down an opposing team's player with an extreme physical prejudice.
Tackling by driving your helmet directly into the helmet or mid-mass of the body has been a personal foul "Unnecessary roughness" penalty inducer for 20+ years. "spearing" was also found to be fucking stupid as habitues of the practice tended to develop cervical spine maladies and upon occasion, total paralysis. Open-field blocking by spearing has always been an illegal block. It is also a very inefficient and sloppy way to block.
In-place, or line blocking is very much helmet-to-helmet because it happens that opposing heads are at the same height. Although there is no running start, and concussions are rare compared to open-field ass-plant-on-the-ground occurrences, lineman have a highly elevated incidence of developing shit-on-the-brain chronic dysfunctions, to differentiate them from the acute conditions developed with concussions.
Keep in mind, the incidence of the head moving into play is kinda' prerequisite to get your shoulders/arms and remainder of your body into effective utilization. As the sport is mostly running and bodies flying, sometimes the head has more initial contact than the shoulder and arms you intentioned. One could lead with their ass, balls, or legs,.. but no-one has ever proven that statistically to be productive.
This leads to the fact that as the two teams line up for the snap, there are at least a couple people on the field whose bells have been mildly rung, at any giving moment. If you have some extra responsibility on the defensive team, you will find it helps your team's outcomes to develop a sixth sense to know when one of your guys has knocked himself retarded.
More practical players will remove themselves from the field, but most do not want to display weakness in any manner, and will stay on the field. Many idiot Coaches consider this admirable for some sadistic and counter-productive reason which evaded me. I always saw it as the guy who is going to get beat on the next play or miss an assignment. Invariably they would, if their area of responsibility was key in that next play.
I'm aware that there is an intense voyeuristic desire for the well-compensated controlled violence of Pro Football. What I never got was why guys were so eager to mortgage the future of their heads and bodies.
All I'll say is that it's odd that players would sue now. Most every hitting position ends up physically or mentally retarded in some way. It's never been a secret, and clearly part of the risk and nature of the career.
Maybe they are suing now, because everybody prior was left too retarded to think about it in the past. Or they got a job as a color analyst.
(My apologies to anyone here who is mentally-challenged or has someone near-and-dear who is. Those folks deserve the greatest of respect. Unlike football players and Central Bankers, they did not choose, nor behave in any way deserving of the cards they were dealt. The retards of which I speak, made the free choice, to do something which would likely retard development in some part of the rest of their lives.)
The refs are only the first line of decision making. Ultimately decisions of this nature are always made with the review of tape. I'll take whatever opinions the refs share as 'meaningful', insofar as they were there and had first hand visibility. However, as we all know, eyewitness reports are frequently incorrect in many ways. We remember things differently than they actually happened for various reasons.
I like your review of what it takes to play. Friends of mine who played college and pro ball have said the same things - coaches encourage vicious behavior, etc. Intelligent players tend to leave the game to avoid injury, but some see it as the ticket - the thing that makes them who they are, and continue with the behaviors which are diminishing their long term viability.
I don't think it's odd that players would sue now. For years they've been told (many really aren't well-versed in physical sciences to make the cause and effect match up) that their injuries are minor and they can continue to play - that the will to play trumps the body's ability to play. Now that evidence has been available and withheld for years, some will claim it's their right to 'get what's theirs'. It's like smokers who sue years after the Surgeon General's warning - they know it's unhealthy, but since there seems to be evidence pointing both ways (grandma mary lived to be 90 and she smoked!), there was a belief you were safe - until you're not anymore.
There's been tons of evidence showing different types of hits injure those performing it, as much as these blocks injure the recipient. Illegality via penalties has reduced it. But make the penalty fit the crime. If you spear someone (because you're dumb enough to think it matters), and he's out for 10 games, so are you.
More to the point, the kinds of bounty plays we've seen in recent years will come to an end as defensive coordinators find their players continue to get suspended and the quality of their talent drops with each loss. The end result will be a shift from nutty "kill them all" coaches to "let's teach practical skill block and tackle techniques" coaches. They exist, and they are effective. Their success rate is not as high simply for the reasons you state - psychopathic coaches get the opposing teams' players out of the game and eventually the good coaches are left with remnants of teams rather than quality players. No matter how much good technique you teach, lower caliber is lower caliber.
The best way to raise the caliber is to reduce the damage. Hockey has improved dramatically in both quality of play, and viewership, with the tougher line it is taking toward fighting and dirty play.
I completely understand your point about how the head plays an integral role in tackling, thus exposing it to potential damage. However, there are ways to limit that damage with better protection, better rules, and better technique. The head does not lead the body in a particular direction - the hips do. This is why you're always taught to focus on the runners' hips - they give the best clue of direction, while a head fake sends an entirely different message. Thus, it is possible to avoid as much damage to the head is currently taking place.
If protection is viewed as a non-starter, then I'd go in the opposite direction. Remove the padding. Less protection will mean less risk-taking. There were fewer damaging injuries in football when leather helmets were used, for obvious reasons. Lots of blood, but fewer damaging injuries. (Who can forget the famous Y.A. Tittle sideline picture?)
In the end, it's all a question of what you're willing to trade off for the enjoyment of the sport. Frankly, I can go without the demonic hits and ugly injuries. They distract from the beauty of the game, a team working together to achieve a goal by performing individual functions in tandem, while the opposing team does the same thing - with both sides looking for that moment of weakness or error to create the breakthrough they require to snag momentum. When this is achieved by removing a star player, it reduces the talent and interest level. I may not like Eli Manning, but I'm not going to like him more on a stretcher (as a fan). I'd rather see him knocked on his ass 15 times but still in the game worrying about which direction the next blitz will come from - because that's when his real talent (panic) shows up. Leave him alone, and the guy can look like Tom Brady all day long. This is what makes the game intriguing.