[akiddoc]

What about soccer with heading the ball?  Skiing and hockey for sure are not safe either.  There are a lot of risks out there.  I'm not saying we should ignore them, and I'm particularly wary about football because so many American kids play it at young ages.  Nevertheless, I do think we should avoid an outcome where people only use elliptical machines or practice yoga for exercise.

The risk of CTE in football is extremely high. No way around it. There is also data showing cognitive function is affected long before CTE kicks in.

---

And yet there are plenty of fluent and intelligible ex-NFL players that we see every Sunday on TV. 

There must be what, several hundred thousand former college football players? Maybe millions? It should be pretty feasible to determine prevalence of dementia or other neurological sequelae in this population matched against controls.

Would be more useful IMHO than these uncontrolled histology studies that seem to be most commonly in the news when it comes to CTE.

My mother was was fluent and intelligible at 85. At 91 she is not. Just because someone seems okay today doesn’t mean they will stay that way.

[akiddoc]

What about soccer with heading the ball?  Skiing and hockey for sure are not safe either.  There are a lot of risks out there.  I'm not saying we should ignore them, and I'm particularly wary about football because so many American kids play it at young ages.  Nevertheless, I do think we should avoid an outcome where people only use elliptical machines or practice yoga for exercise.

The risk of CTE in football is extremely high. No way around it. There is also data showing cognitive function is affected long before CTE kicks in.

---

And yet there are plenty of fluent and intelligible ex-NFL players that we see every Sunday on TV. 

There must be what, several hundred thousand former college football players? Maybe millions? It should be pretty feasible to determine prevalence of dementia or other neurological sequelae in this population matched against controls.

Would be more useful IMHO than these uncontrolled histology studies that seem to be most commonly in the news when it comes to CTE.

My mother was was fluent and intelligible at 85. At 91 she is not. Just because someone seems okay today doesn’t mean they will stay that way.

[lex24]

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

[lex24]

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

[M T]

Be aware that there are two different studies that are referenced in this thread.

The original post was about the Feb 2023 article about CTE in ex-NFL players (345 out of 376)  (I didn't find a research paper triggering that article.  Perhaps it is based on an update of the data used in the earlier July 2017 paper below.)

The recent revival referred to press coverage of the Aug 2023 research paper "American Football Play and Parkinson Disease Among Men" (so, not directly about CTE).  2006Alum pointed out the research a week ago in another thread, and I commented on it.

Other research that seems related:
"Association of Playing College American Football With Long-term Health Outcomes and Mortality" Apr 2022
"Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences With Poor Neuropsychiatric Health and Dementia Among Former Professional US Football Players" Mar 2022
"Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football" July 2017
"Age of first exposure to tackle football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy" May 2018
"Duration of American Football Play and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy"  Jan 2020

Boston University has a CTE research center, which explains the reason we see papers from there.  See their Significant Research Findings listing.

---

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

You make your opinion abundantly clear.

I think it will end when sufficient evidence exists to convince juries that a football institution is liable for the damage to former players and their caretakers & survivors, and a series of lawsuits threaten to bankrupt those institutions (incl. universities and school districts) who then find themselves unable to buy insurance. 

The continued existence of football between now and then only increases the liability of those institutions over the next 50 years or so until no more former players can sue.  Perhaps the institutions can cause it to become a class action lawsuit to avoid all the separate legal fees.  One article mentioned 800,000 former players.  The payout to each would likely be astronomical because the duration of the injury is for the rest of their lives.

I hope it doesn't take 10 years, but I'm afraid it might take even longer.  It has taken 60 years to mostly stop tobacco products.

[M T]

Be aware that there are two different studies that are referenced in this thread.

The original post was about the Feb 2023 article about CTE in ex-NFL players (345 out of 376)  (I didn't find a research paper triggering that article.  Perhaps it is based on an update of the data used in the earlier July 2017 paper below.)

The recent revival referred to press coverage of the Aug 2023 research paper "American Football Play and Parkinson Disease Among Men" (so, not directly about CTE).  2006Alum pointed out the research a week ago in another thread, and I commented on it.

Other research that seems related:
"Association of Playing College American Football With Long-term Health Outcomes and Mortality" Apr 2022
"Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences With Poor Neuropsychiatric Health and Dementia Among Former Professional US Football Players" Mar 2022
"Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football" July 2017
"Age of first exposure to tackle football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy" May 2018
"Duration of American Football Play and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy"  Jan 2020

Boston University has a CTE research center, which explains the reason we see papers from there.  See their Significant Research Findings listing.

---

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

You make your opinion abundantly clear.

I think it will end when sufficient evidence exists to convince juries that a football institution is liable for the damage to former players and their caretakers & survivors, and a series of lawsuits threaten to bankrupt those institutions (incl. universities and school districts) who then find themselves unable to buy insurance. 

The continued existence of football between now and then only increases the liability of those institutions over the next 50 years or so until no more former players can sue.  Perhaps the institutions can cause it to become a class action lawsuit to avoid all the separate legal fees.  One article mentioned 800,000 former players.  The payout to each would likely be astronomical because the duration of the injury is for the rest of their lives.

I hope it doesn't take 10 years, but I'm afraid it might take even longer.  It has taken 60 years to mostly stop tobacco products.

[lex24]

Be aware that there are two different studies that are referenced in this thread.

The original post was about the Feb 2023 article about CTE in ex-NFL players (345 out of 376)  (I didn't find a research paper triggering that article.  Perhaps it is based on an update of the data used in the earlier July 2017 paper below.)

The recent revival referred to press coverage of the Aug 2023 research paper "American Football Play and Parkinson Disease Among Men" (so, not directly about CTE).  2006Alum pointed out the research a week ago in another thread, and I commented on it.

Other research that seems related:
"Association of Playing College American Football With Long-term Health Outcomes and Mortality" Apr 2022
"Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences With Poor Neuropsychiatric Health and Dementia Among Former Professional US Football Players" Mar 2022
"Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football" July 2017
"Age of first exposure to tackle football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy" May 2018
"Duration of American Football Play and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy"  Jan 2020

Boston University has a CTE research center, which explains the reason we see papers from there.  See their Significant Research Findings listing.

---

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

You make your opinion abundantly clear.

I think it will end when sufficient evidence exists to convince juries that a football institution is liable for the damage to former players and their caretakers & survivors, and a series of lawsuits threaten to bankrupt those institutions (incl. universities and school districts) who then find themselves unable to buy insurance. 

The continued existence of football between now and then only increases the liability of those institutions over the next 50 years or so until no more former players can sue.  Perhaps the institutions can cause it to become a class action lawsuit to avoid all the separate legal fees.  One article mentioned 800,000 former players.  The payout to each would likely be astronomical because the duration of the injury is for the rest of their lives.

I hope it doesn't take 10 years, but I'm afraid it might take even longer.  It has taken 60 years to mostly stop tobacco products.

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

[lex24]

Be aware that there are two different studies that are referenced in this thread.

The original post was about the Feb 2023 article about CTE in ex-NFL players (345 out of 376)  (I didn't find a research paper triggering that article.  Perhaps it is based on an update of the data used in the earlier July 2017 paper below.)

The recent revival referred to press coverage of the Aug 2023 research paper "American Football Play and Parkinson Disease Among Men" (so, not directly about CTE).  2006Alum pointed out the research a week ago in another thread, and I commented on it.

Other research that seems related:
"Association of Playing College American Football With Long-term Health Outcomes and Mortality" Apr 2022
"Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences With Poor Neuropsychiatric Health and Dementia Among Former Professional US Football Players" Mar 2022
"Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football" July 2017
"Age of first exposure to tackle football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy" May 2018
"Duration of American Football Play and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy"  Jan 2020

Boston University has a CTE research center, which explains the reason we see papers from there.  See their Significant Research Findings listing.

---

Football will end when some zealots working with social services start bringing  child abuse charges against parents. I give it about 10 years.

You make your opinion abundantly clear.

I think it will end when sufficient evidence exists to convince juries that a football institution is liable for the damage to former players and their caretakers & survivors, and a series of lawsuits threaten to bankrupt those institutions (incl. universities and school districts) who then find themselves unable to buy insurance. 

The continued existence of football between now and then only increases the liability of those institutions over the next 50 years or so until no more former players can sue.  Perhaps the institutions can cause it to become a class action lawsuit to avoid all the separate legal fees.  One article mentioned 800,000 former players.  The payout to each would likely be astronomical because the duration of the injury is for the rest of their lives.

I hope it doesn't take 10 years, but I'm afraid it might take even longer.  It has taken 60 years to mostly stop tobacco products.

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

[OutsiderFan]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have mental illness etc.  It also involves those that played and did not.

But then you wouldn't get big headline-grabbing numbers like "67%." When you have to admit truth and say this "equates to .067% of the population," people won't care much.

I don't have an issue with Dr. McKee and Chris Nowinski bringing attention to CTE and other brain maladies that occur at a higher rate in football players. It's good that the data is made available so people can make informed choices about plying it. My issue is nobody is answering why so many players never get it, and not finding other activities that cause brain dysfunction. Dementia and Alzheimers in people who never have played sports is a greater concern. And given obesity and sedentary lifestyle is suspected to be a cause, getting more young people active by playing football might actually be a net benefit to society in the long run.

[OutsiderFan]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have mental illness etc.  It also involves those that played and did not.

But then you wouldn't get big headline-grabbing numbers like "67%." When you have to admit truth and say this "equates to .067% of the population," people won't care much.

I don't have an issue with Dr. McKee and Chris Nowinski bringing attention to CTE and other brain maladies that occur at a higher rate in football players. It's good that the data is made available so people can make informed choices about plying it. My issue is nobody is answering why so many players never get it, and not finding other activities that cause brain dysfunction. Dementia and Alzheimers in people who never have played sports is a greater concern. And given obesity and sedentary lifestyle is suspected to be a cause, getting more young people active by playing football might actually be a net benefit to society in the long run.

[2006alum]

My two cents as to why the CTE connection to football doesn't raise more concern is the same reason why climate change doesn't: the causes feel so attenuated from the effects, and the causes are things we really like doing (driving cars, flying in airplanes, owning single family homes, watching Sunday NFL), so there's a strong desire to willfully ignore the effects.

By contrast, boxing's sudden demise was because time between the cause and the effect was nearly instantaneous, as well as visceral, in a way long-term, chronic degradation (CTE, warming climate) is not.  But in the end, pardon my french, you'll be f*cked either way. 

OF, as to why not all players end up with CTE, I suspect a lot of it has to do with susceptibility to receive concussive and sub-concussive hits. Part of that has to do with player position, etc., but some certainly seems arbitrarily related to physiognomy. For example, most women's sports have far fewer reported cases of CTE than football, and yet there are certain outliers who have had to medically retire from sports due to concussions (in terms of Stanford alums, think of WBB player Toni Kokenis or WVB Hayley Hodson. 

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

[2006alum]

My two cents as to why the CTE connection to football doesn't raise more concern is the same reason why climate change doesn't: the causes feel so attenuated from the effects, and the causes are things we really like doing (driving cars, flying in airplanes, owning single family homes, watching Sunday NFL), so there's a strong desire to willfully ignore the effects.

By contrast, boxing's sudden demise was because time between the cause and the effect was nearly instantaneous, as well as visceral, in a way long-term, chronic degradation (CTE, warming climate) is not.  But in the end, pardon my french, you'll be f*cked either way. 

OF, as to why not all players end up with CTE, I suspect a lot of it has to do with susceptibility to receive concussive and sub-concussive hits. Part of that has to do with player position, etc., but some certainly seems arbitrarily related to physiognomy. For example, most women's sports have far fewer reported cases of CTE than football, and yet there are certain outliers who have had to medically retire from sports due to concussions (in terms of Stanford alums, think of WBB player Toni Kokenis or WVB Hayley Hodson. 

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

[Mick]

As for football being banned, the only reason boxing was is because interest in it waned. If there were millions of dollars to be made from it in high schools, there would be boxing in high schools too.

College boxing was banned after a Wisconsin boxer in 1960 slipped into a coma and died 8 days after a national championship bout with an SJSU boxer.  The previous year a Texas A&M player died after a bout.  Wisconsin, the nation's leading boxing college, pulled the plug, and the NCAA followed on its heels. 

San Jose State won the last three team boxing championships in 58, 59, and 60.  But it was no consolation for Stu Bardell, the SJSU boxer who delivered the blow. 

“All I could think of was why?” Bartell told the Mercury News in 2001. “Why was I picked to land that lethal blow? People told me that it wasn’t my fault, but they weren’t in my shoes.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/09/o...ack-clock/

Boxing fielded 20 teams in 1959, down from a peak of 55 in 1948, so it is true that its popularity was waning.  But the reason its popularity was waning had to do with growing concerns over health, and the two deaths confirmed those fears and put an end to it.

Stanford had a boxing team right up to the end, under coach Ray Lunny--later inducted into the World Boxing Hall of Fame.  Stanford student Ed Rothman placed second in his division at the last championships in 1960.

The death of the Wisconsin boxer Charlie Mohr was a terrible tragedy, reported in this issue of Sports Illustrated:
THE END OF COLLEGE BOXING - Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com

Collegiate boxing was serious at one time. Chuck Davey, a Michigan State boxer turned pro and was undefeated in 36 fights, beating Graziano and Basilio for the world welterweight titles. He became the Michigan Boxing Commissioner.

The National Collegiate Boxing Association (not sanctioned or recognized by the NCAA) is now a club sport, and mainly for working out. They have a national championship. There are 12 schools in the Eastern CBA, nine schools in the Midwest CBA, and 17 schools in the Far West CBA, including Pac-12 schools Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Washington, Utah, Oregon and Oregon State. SCU, USF and SJSU have boxing teams, as does Air Force. Not surprisingly, the military academies dominate the individual (30 of 38 entered boxers were from the military academies) and team championships.
NCBA Facebook,  www.ncbaboxing.org

At SCU, it's limited to amateurs with 10 bouts or less. They only fight 1-2 times annually, outside of the regionals and championships.

[Mick]

As for football being banned, the only reason boxing was is because interest in it waned. If there were millions of dollars to be made from it in high schools, there would be boxing in high schools too.

College boxing was banned after a Wisconsin boxer in 1960 slipped into a coma and died 8 days after a national championship bout with an SJSU boxer.  The previous year a Texas A&M player died after a bout.  Wisconsin, the nation's leading boxing college, pulled the plug, and the NCAA followed on its heels. 

San Jose State won the last three team boxing championships in 58, 59, and 60.  But it was no consolation for Stu Bardell, the SJSU boxer who delivered the blow. 

“All I could think of was why?” Bartell told the Mercury News in 2001. “Why was I picked to land that lethal blow? People told me that it wasn’t my fault, but they weren’t in my shoes.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/09/o...ack-clock/

Boxing fielded 20 teams in 1959, down from a peak of 55 in 1948, so it is true that its popularity was waning.  But the reason its popularity was waning had to do with growing concerns over health, and the two deaths confirmed those fears and put an end to it.

Stanford had a boxing team right up to the end, under coach Ray Lunny--later inducted into the World Boxing Hall of Fame.  Stanford student Ed Rothman placed second in his division at the last championships in 1960.

The death of the Wisconsin boxer Charlie Mohr was a terrible tragedy, reported in this issue of Sports Illustrated:
THE END OF COLLEGE BOXING - Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com

Collegiate boxing was serious at one time. Chuck Davey, a Michigan State boxer turned pro and was undefeated in 36 fights, beating Graziano and Basilio for the world welterweight titles. He became the Michigan Boxing Commissioner.

The National Collegiate Boxing Association (not sanctioned or recognized by the NCAA) is now a club sport, and mainly for working out. They have a national championship. There are 12 schools in the Eastern CBA, nine schools in the Midwest CBA, and 17 schools in the Far West CBA, including Pac-12 schools Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Washington, Utah, Oregon and Oregon State. SCU, USF and SJSU have boxing teams, as does Air Force. Not surprisingly, the military academies dominate the individual (30 of 38 entered boxers were from the military academies) and team championships.
NCBA Facebook,  www.ncbaboxing.org

At SCU, it's limited to amateurs with 10 bouts or less. They only fight 1-2 times annually, outside of the regionals and championships.

[M T]

My issue is nobody is answering why so many players never get it, and not finding other activities that cause brain dysfunction. Dementia and Alzheimers in people who never have played sports is a greater concern. And given obesity and sedentary lifestyle is suspected to be a cause, getting more young people active by playing football might actually be a net benefit to society in the long run.

Instead of assuming stuff, go look at the research BU CTE Center has done, both in the papers I listed and the ones in their Significant Research Findings.  They look at all who get repetitive head injuries (RHI) in other sports (hockey, soccer, etc) and professions (military) (and, they've done experiments on mice subjected to RHI).  They look for other factors in the lives of the football players to see if they could be the reason for the frequency of the maladies (see the Adverse Childhood Experiences paper).  One paper I saw indicated one gene vs another was associated with more CTE issues (IIRC: DQM).

(They do take brain donations, but only voluntary donations.  You're not allowed to nominate people ;-).

[M T]

My issue is nobody is answering why so many players never get it, and not finding other activities that cause brain dysfunction. Dementia and Alzheimers in people who never have played sports is a greater concern. And given obesity and sedentary lifestyle is suspected to be a cause, getting more young people active by playing football might actually be a net benefit to society in the long run.

Instead of assuming stuff, go look at the research BU CTE Center has done, both in the papers I listed and the ones in their Significant Research Findings.  They look at all who get repetitive head injuries (RHI) in other sports (hockey, soccer, etc) and professions (military) (and, they've done experiments on mice subjected to RHI).  They look for other factors in the lives of the football players to see if they could be the reason for the frequency of the maladies (see the Adverse Childhood Experiences paper).  One paper I saw indicated one gene vs another was associated with more CTE issues (IIRC: DQM).

(They do take brain donations, but only voluntary donations.  You're not allowed to nominate people ;-).

[M T]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

As best I can tell, BU is investigating all aspects, in a seemingly unbiased fashion.  You're welcome to look into this and decide for yourself.  Some of their studies evaluate pros, while some of their studies compare college FB players versus college non-FB athletes, and others compared college football players with the general population.  So they pass the criteria you give for a truly comprehensive study.  As for HS & such, did you look at their results (regarding the number of years of playing vs incidence) or at the conclusion about the age of first exposure?

[M T]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

As best I can tell, BU is investigating all aspects, in a seemingly unbiased fashion.  You're welcome to look into this and decide for yourself.  Some of their studies evaluate pros, while some of their studies compare college FB players versus college non-FB athletes, and others compared college football players with the general population.  So they pass the criteria you give for a truly comprehensive study.  As for HS & such, did you look at their results (regarding the number of years of playing vs incidence) or at the conclusion about the age of first exposure?

[lex24]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

As best I can tell, BU is investigating all aspects, in a seemingly unbiased fashion.  You're welcome to look into this and decide for yourself.  Some of their studies evaluate pros, while some of their studies compare college FB players versus college non-FB athletes, and others compared college football players with the general population.  So they pass the criteria you give for a truly comprehensive study.  As for HS & such, did you look at their results (regarding the number of years of playing vs incidence) or at the conclusion about the age of first exposure?

I did.  But they appear to me at least to be studies as to those who have Parkinson’s or dementia (when done on live subjects). I’m not suggesting CTE isn’t real.  I am suggesting, that these studies don’t provide a real picture as to how prevalent it is among those that played. About a million kids play high school football every year. What is their risk, statistically of CTE? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is any data.

[lex24]

Simple question - do you think BU is unbiased on this issue?  How many kids play tackle football in HS? How many college?  A relative few play pro. 

A truly comprehensive study involves not only looking at those that played football and have dementia , Parkinson’s etc.  It also involves those that played and do not.

As best I can tell, BU is investigating all aspects, in a seemingly unbiased fashion.  You're welcome to look into this and decide for yourself.  Some of their studies evaluate pros, while some of their studies compare college FB players versus college non-FB athletes, and others compared college football players with the general population.  So they pass the criteria you give for a truly comprehensive study.  As for HS & such, did you look at their results (regarding the number of years of playing vs incidence) or at the conclusion about the age of first exposure?

I did.  But they appear to me at least to be studies as to those who have Parkinson’s or dementia (when done on live subjects). I’m not suggesting CTE isn’t real.  I am suggesting, that these studies don’t provide a real picture as to how prevalent it is among those that played. About a million kids play high school football every year. What is their risk, statistically of CTE? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is any data.

[fullmetal]

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

I'm so, so sorry.  That's terrible :(

[fullmetal]

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

I'm so, so sorry.  That's terrible :(

[msqueri]

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

[msqueri]

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

[Goose]

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

Absolutely right on. One can argue it shouldn't be so, but it has always been the case and it seems unlikely to change significantly.

In the early days college football was in danger of going away because of the number of deaths. Changes were made to cut down the carnage, but football remained. I think players will soon be allowed to wear the more protective helmets in games as well as practice. I am not sure how much that will help, but you can see that coming. It may help, but even more importantly it will be viewed as trying.

[Goose]

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

Absolutely right on. One can argue it shouldn't be so, but it has always been the case and it seems unlikely to change significantly.

In the early days college football was in danger of going away because of the number of deaths. Changes were made to cut down the carnage, but football remained. I think players will soon be allowed to wear the more protective helmets in games as well as practice. I am not sure how much that will help, but you can see that coming. It may help, but even more importantly it will be viewed as trying.

[2006alum]

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

I'm so, so sorry.  That's terrible :(

Thanks, fullmetal. It's a terrible situation and I really don't see what a viable path forward will be, although he's at least now being medicated, with uneven initial results.

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

Matt, I generally really appreciate your analysis, but I think you're missing the point, or at least my point. The reason colleges and the NCAA don't sanction collegiate boxing, no matter how popular it may be, is because the side effects are so fully at odds with the mission of a university. And my point is that the same is increasingly true for college football. My distant relative (mentioned above) played football very competitively in high school to qualify for an athletic scholarship (and admissions glide path) to U$C, and U$C exists (and receives beaucoup state and federal subsidies) to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society.

Yet in large part due to his participation in college football, he's unlikely to be any of those things. So in exchange for his extremely diminished life outcomes, U$C, its fans, and TV viewers got to watch the "incredible drama, beauty, inspiration." Sorry, but seeing the effects up close I'm not seeing beauty or inspiration. I'm seeing abuse, exploitation, and turning a blind eye to hypocrisy. U$C is not going to foot the bill for his lifetime of medical issues and inability to be a fully functioning citizen; the rest of us are. But U$C will still greedily take its share of B1G media money while it produces another generation of broken toys who will one day become someone else's problem.

[2006alum]

And yes, their existence suggests every contact sport is risky to some degree. But the extent of the damage is so significant with football that it's just too hard to ignore. I have a distant family member who played football at U$C, suffered numerous concussions, and while he held down a job at a tech firm for a few years, started to have issues with memory, concentration, focus, and impulse control. Now, at the ripe old age of 30, he cannot concentrate for extended periods of time, manage his anger, or hold down a job, and he recently literally walked into a police station and started threatening officers because he knew it was the only way he would get helped and be detained from doing something dangerous to himself or someone else. And he's 30. Sorry, but I just can't look past this stuff anymore and willfully enjoy a sport that is generating such catastrophic byproducts.

I'm so, so sorry.  That's terrible :(

Thanks, fullmetal. It's a terrible situation and I really don't see what a viable path forward will be, although he's at least now being medicated, with uneven initial results.

Some posts have referred to boxing's demise. Perhaps it's gotten smaller but it's far from disappeared. Amateur boxing has changed tremendously, of course. But as a sport we are talking about a sport that generates about half a billion dollars a year in the United States alone (it was $438.6 million last year and I wonder if a massive year this year could be bigger with Crawford-Spence, Davis-Garcia, Haney-Lomachenko, Benavidez-Plant, not to mention every time Canelo steps in a ring). Globally it's a bigger sport than tennis.

I mention this less to defend the sweet science and more to inject a dose of realism into discussions about what happens even to barbaric sports. Is there a time since the gladiators when human society hasn't showcased (some would say exploited) superior physical specimens for the entertainment of others? Is there a time when violence of one man against another man isn't part of the appeal?

Americans enjoy football. It's an Ivory Tower, coastal elite discussion to talk about the physical risks. I think it's unlikely physical risks will ever stop modern day gladiators from leveraging their physical gifts to make money or stop the masses from enjoying the incredible drama, beauty, inspiration, and human spirit that gets showcased in physically grueling sports in a way nothing else can match, at least for some subset of the population that will continue to pay for it (in terms of both the physical costs to the competitors and the monetary costs to the audience).

Matt, I generally really appreciate your analysis, but I think you're missing the point, or at least my point. The reason colleges and the NCAA don't sanction collegiate boxing, no matter how popular it may be, is because the side effects are so fully at odds with the mission of a university. And my point is that the same is increasingly true for college football. My distant relative (mentioned above) played football very competitively in high school to qualify for an athletic scholarship (and admissions glide path) to U$C, and U$C exists (and receives beaucoup state and federal subsidies) to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society.

Yet in large part due to his participation in college football, he's unlikely to be any of those things. So in exchange for his extremely diminished life outcomes, U$C, its fans, and TV viewers got to watch the "incredible drama, beauty, inspiration." Sorry, but seeing the effects up close I'm not seeing beauty or inspiration. I'm seeing abuse, exploitation, and turning a blind eye to hypocrisy. U$C is not going to foot the bill for his lifetime of medical issues and inability to be a fully functioning citizen; the rest of us are. But U$C will still greedily take its share of B1G media money while it produces another generation of broken toys who will one day become someone else's problem.

[msqueri]

2006alum (shout out to the class of 2006 by the way), that situation and untold others are absolutely heartbreaking. But just as it is your call to not view it as beautiful or inspirational and vote with your wallet accordingly, the same is true for everybody else in society. Realistically, I doubt as a society we make the call you have. Perhaps your point is that it shouldn't come down to market economics and the barbarism should be regulated away, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ultimately I suspect the end result will be some form of gladiators willingly sacrificing their health for glory and money and society embracing that.

I think many on this site have the view that universities exist "to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society." But again this is your opinion. Many view universities (or more to the point their or their region's university) as serving communal purposes too (or even foremost). Moreover, even if we grant that universities exist for education and leadership development, opinions differ on the means to fulfill that mission. Some may (and I think do) calculate that having a flagship program for their athletics department brings in revenue, prestige, and alumni goodwill that makes it easier to fulfill the rest of the mission. And even if universities are about education and leadership there's nothing to say that every single part of the university needs to be about that. As a thought experiment, if Notre Dame de Namur had a world-leading furniture making shop that employed non-student artisans to make the wares and then used the profits to fund the school and enhance its brand, who's to say that's against the mission of the school?

I get that what you're saying is brain injury directly runs counter to the mission you lay out. But people make tradeoffs all the time in life. Realistically, I don't see Americans deciding college football is beyond the pale.

[msqueri]

2006alum (shout out to the class of 2006 by the way), that situation and untold others are absolutely heartbreaking. But just as it is your call to not view it as beautiful or inspirational and vote with your wallet accordingly, the same is true for everybody else in society. Realistically, I doubt as a society we make the call you have. Perhaps your point is that it shouldn't come down to market economics and the barbarism should be regulated away, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ultimately I suspect the end result will be some form of gladiators willingly sacrificing their health for glory and money and society embracing that.

I think many on this site have the view that universities exist "to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society." But again this is your opinion. Many view universities (or more to the point their or their region's university) as serving communal purposes too (or even foremost). Moreover, even if we grant that universities exist for education and leadership development, opinions differ on the means to fulfill that mission. Some may (and I think do) calculate that having a flagship program for their athletics department brings in revenue, prestige, and alumni goodwill that makes it easier to fulfill the rest of the mission. And even if universities are about education and leadership there's nothing to say that every single part of the university needs to be about that. As a thought experiment, if Notre Dame de Namur had a world-leading furniture making shop that employed non-student artisans to make the wares and then used the profits to fund the school and enhance its brand, who's to say that's against the mission of the school?

I get that what you're saying is brain injury directly runs counter to the mission you lay out. But people make tradeoffs all the time in life. Realistically, I don't see Americans deciding college football is beyond the pale.

[81alum]

2006alum (shout out to the class of 2006 by the way), that situation and untold others are absolutely heartbreaking. But just as it is your call to not view it as beautiful or inspirational and vote with your wallet accordingly, the same is true for everybody else in society. Realistically, I doubt as a society we make the call you have. Perhaps your point is that it shouldn't come down to market economics and the barbarism should be regulated away, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ultimately I suspect the end result will be some form of gladiators willingly sacrificing their health for glory and money and society embracing that.



I think many on this site have the view that universities exist "to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society." But again this is your opinion. Many view universities (or more to the point their or their region's university) as serving communal purposes too (or even foremost). Moreover, even if we grant that universities exist for education and leadership development, opinions differ on the means to fulfill that mission. Some may (and I think do) calculate that having a flagship program for their athletics department brings in revenue, prestige, and alumni goodwill that makes it easier to fulfill the rest of the mission. And even if universities are about education and leadership there's nothing to say that every single part of the university needs to be about that. As a thought experiment, if Notre Dame de Namur had a world-leading furniture making shop that employed non-student artisans to make the wares and then used the profits to fund the school and enhance its brand, who's to say that's against the mission of the school?



I get that what you're saying is brain injury directly runs counter to the mission you lay out. But people make tradeoffs all the time in life. Realistically, I don't see Americans deciding college football is beyond the pale.

The debate over serious and permanent impairments in football hinges on two differing philosophies:

1) A more libertarian view that students can make their own risk assessments, and since there is enormous demand for modern day gladiators, some will inevitable choose to take the risks.  This view posits that it would be paternalistic to make that decision for them.

2) A university-mission view, that individuals may be perfectly free to risk brain-damage on their own, but that a non-profit educational institution should not subsidize or support behavior that is known to do the exact opposite of the institution's mission. 

I have struggled between these two options for years.  More recently, however, we have not only learned more about CTE but also a lot more about brain development in general.  Young men do not fully develop the danger centers of their brains until their mid 20s--and are a couple of years slower to do so than young women.  An 18 year old version of a football player will likely be far more reckless and willing to take risks than a 25 year old version of the same young man.  Should the "informed consent" of an 18 year old endanger the well being of a 30 year old version of the same man? Is it paternalistic to protect a 30 year old from the reckless decisions of his 18 year old self?  CTE seems to be giving new meaning to "the 40 year decision." 

I'm still not sure I am ready to pull the plug on football.  My motivated reasoning keeps making me look for excuses to continue being a fan.  But so many things have gone wrong with college football that this is yet one more factor in my increasing despair over (my) loss of joy in the sport.  College football may still be around, but I am already grieving for it.

What I would give to be sitting in the old stadium in 1977, watching Nelson juking out defenders and Benjamin zipping passes to Loften, sitting in the afternoon sun and listening and watching as tens of thousands of fans erupt in excitement.  Well 46 years was a good run for me, brought me lots of enjoyment and a whole lot of splendid memories.  I just doubt I will be making new football memories.  Not of the good kind, anyway.

[81alum]

2006alum (shout out to the class of 2006 by the way), that situation and untold others are absolutely heartbreaking. But just as it is your call to not view it as beautiful or inspirational and vote with your wallet accordingly, the same is true for everybody else in society. Realistically, I doubt as a society we make the call you have. Perhaps your point is that it shouldn't come down to market economics and the barbarism should be regulated away, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Ultimately I suspect the end result will be some form of gladiators willingly sacrificing their health for glory and money and society embracing that.



I think many on this site have the view that universities exist "to produce well educated citizens; optimally, future leaders; and, at a minimum, self-sufficient members of society." But again this is your opinion. Many view universities (or more to the point their or their region's university) as serving communal purposes too (or even foremost). Moreover, even if we grant that universities exist for education and leadership development, opinions differ on the means to fulfill that mission. Some may (and I think do) calculate that having a flagship program for their athletics department brings in revenue, prestige, and alumni goodwill that makes it easier to fulfill the rest of the mission. And even if universities are about education and leadership there's nothing to say that every single part of the university needs to be about that. As a thought experiment, if Notre Dame de Namur had a world-leading furniture making shop that employed non-student artisans to make the wares and then used the profits to fund the school and enhance its brand, who's to say that's against the mission of the school?



I get that what you're saying is brain injury directly runs counter to the mission you lay out. But people make tradeoffs all the time in life. Realistically, I don't see Americans deciding college football is beyond the pale.

The debate over serious and permanent impairments in football hinges on two differing philosophies:

1) A more libertarian view that students can make their own risk assessments, and since there is enormous demand for modern day gladiators, some will inevitable choose to take the risks.  This view posits that it would be paternalistic to make that decision for them.

2) A university-mission view, that individuals may be perfectly free to risk brain-damage on their own, but that a non-profit educational institution should not subsidize or support behavior that is known to do the exact opposite of the institution's mission. 

I have struggled between these two options for years.  More recently, however, we have not only learned more about CTE but also a lot more about brain development in general.  Young men do not fully develop the danger centers of their brains until their mid 20s--and are a couple of years slower to do so than young women.  An 18 year old version of a football player will likely be far more reckless and willing to take risks than a 25 year old version of the same young man.  Should the "informed consent" of an 18 year old endanger the well being of a 30 year old version of the same man? Is it paternalistic to protect a 30 year old from the reckless decisions of his 18 year old self?  CTE seems to be giving new meaning to "the 40 year decision." 

I'm still not sure I am ready to pull the plug on football.  My motivated reasoning keeps making me look for excuses to continue being a fan.  But so many things have gone wrong with college football that this is yet one more factor in my increasing despair over (my) loss of joy in the sport.  College football may still be around, but I am already grieving for it.

What I would give to be sitting in the old stadium in 1977, watching Nelson juking out defenders and Benjamin zipping passes to Loften, sitting in the afternoon sun and listening and watching as tens of thousands of fans erupt in excitement.  Well 46 years was a good run for me, brought me lots of enjoyment and a whole lot of splendid memories.  I just doubt I will be making new football memories.  Not of the good kind, anyway.

[fullmetal]

"Largest study of brains of athletes younger than 30 finds early signs of CTE even in amateur players"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/health/ct...index.html

Most of the donors analyzed in this recent study played football (60%), followed by soccer (15%) and ice hockey (10%). Other sports included in the study that resulted in CTE diagnosis are amateur wrestling, rugby and professional wrestling.

The donors’ ages at the time of death ranged from 13 to 29 years old. The youngest person diagnosed with CTE in the study was a 17-year-old high school football player, McKee told CNN.


...

Of the 48 donors diagnosed with CTE who played football, 37 were amateur football players and 11 played for the NFL. Position played made no difference in developing CTE, but those who played longer were more likely to be diagnosed with the disease. On average, those that had CTE played football for 2.8 years longer than those that didn’t develop the disease.

...

In the new study, clinical symptoms appeared in all of the athletes regardless of whether they had CTE, including depression, difficulty controlling behaviors and problems with decision-making.

Substance abuse was also frequent, with alcohol abuse present in 43% of donors and drug abuse in 38%.

I think the libertarian view is undermined by the recognition that the risks are more far-reaching than we realize.  Can't make a proper risk/reward analysis if you don't truly understand what you're giving up -- or what you've already given up and how close you are to losing more.

The youngest diagnosed CTE case was from a 17-year old.  Posthumous diagnoses, all of these.

I value Stanford football for the camaraderie it brings to alumni of diverse graduating classes, life experiences, and personalities.  I like seeing Stanford well-represented on every meaningful platform, academically and athletically.  I'm not much of a fan of the game itself anymore.  Maybe that's because Stanford isn't doing well (would I feel this way during the Luck/CMac years?).  But what would I feel if I knew that all our Voldemort runners-up would be victim to CTE two decades from now?  Hoping that doesn't happen...but I know there are younger, former Stanford players with these symptoms.

[fullmetal]

"Largest study of brains of athletes younger than 30 finds early signs of CTE even in amateur players"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/health/ct...index.html

Most of the donors analyzed in this recent study played football (60%), followed by soccer (15%) and ice hockey (10%). Other sports included in the study that resulted in CTE diagnosis are amateur wrestling, rugby and professional wrestling.

The donors’ ages at the time of death ranged from 13 to 29 years old. The youngest person diagnosed with CTE in the study was a 17-year-old high school football player, McKee told CNN.


...

Of the 48 donors diagnosed with CTE who played football, 37 were amateur football players and 11 played for the NFL. Position played made no difference in developing CTE, but those who played longer were more likely to be diagnosed with the disease. On average, those that had CTE played football for 2.8 years longer than those that didn’t develop the disease.

...

In the new study, clinical symptoms appeared in all of the athletes regardless of whether they had CTE, including depression, difficulty controlling behaviors and problems with decision-making.

Substance abuse was also frequent, with alcohol abuse present in 43% of donors and drug abuse in 38%.

I think the libertarian view is undermined by the recognition that the risks are more far-reaching than we realize.  Can't make a proper risk/reward analysis if you don't truly understand what you're giving up -- or what you've already given up and how close you are to losing more.

The youngest diagnosed CTE case was from a 17-year old.  Posthumous diagnoses, all of these.

I value Stanford football for the camaraderie it brings to alumni of diverse graduating classes, life experiences, and personalities.  I like seeing Stanford well-represented on every meaningful platform, academically and athletically.  I'm not much of a fan of the game itself anymore.  Maybe that's because Stanford isn't doing well (would I feel this way during the Luck/CMac years?).  But what would I feel if I knew that all our Voldemort runners-up would be victim to CTE two decades from now?  Hoping that doesn't happen...but I know there are younger, former Stanford players with these symptoms.

[BostonCard]

Zach Hoffpauir had significant CTE upon autopsy.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/24/f...te-levels/

It didn't directly kill Hoffpauir, who died of a fentanyl overdose, but he was clearly affected by it, and may have been self-medicating to manage symptoms (he took the fentanyl-laced Percocet that killed him to help him sleep).

Stanley Wilson Jr. thought he had CTE

https://theshadowleague.com/former-lions...ad-wounds/

"Wilson Jr. dealt with a lot of traumatic head injuries as a result of his football career, according to the lawsuit, and his family says that he showed a lot of symptoms of the traumatic brain degeneration CTE, which many say could account for the erratic behavior and the trouble he’d repeatedly get into."

Of course, mental illness is common, so his erratic behavior and mental illness may or may not have been due to CTE.  His cause of death on autopsy was listed as a venous thromboembolism, but there was no comment about his brain that I could find.

BC

[BostonCard]

Zach Hoffpauir had significant CTE upon autopsy.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/24/f...te-levels/

It didn't directly kill Hoffpauir, who died of a fentanyl overdose, but he was clearly affected by it, and may have been self-medicating to manage symptoms (he took the fentanyl-laced Percocet that killed him to help him sleep).

Stanley Wilson Jr. thought he had CTE

https://theshadowleague.com/former-lions...ad-wounds/

"Wilson Jr. dealt with a lot of traumatic head injuries as a result of his football career, according to the lawsuit, and his family says that he showed a lot of symptoms of the traumatic brain degeneration CTE, which many say could account for the erratic behavior and the trouble he’d repeatedly get into."

Of course, mental illness is common, so his erratic behavior and mental illness may or may not have been due to CTE.  His cause of death on autopsy was listed as a venous thromboembolism, but there was no comment about his brain that I could find.

BC