[lex24]

Just so it’s clear - I don’t hold myself above the fray.  I love football. Part of the reason is the hard hitting.  In other words the violent aspect.  Not proud that I do.  But such is the case.

You would have been a great Roman. . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujchK0kAntg

Great movie.  Great actor. “I Claudius” is one of Masterpiece Theatre's best series.

---

I used to enjoy football, began going to college games when I was in middle school, and when we moved to the Bay Area in 1970, we began going to every Stanford home game, taking our then quite young children. But now I don't go at all, although my Stanford grad husband remains loyal and attends every game. As I've become more aware of CTE, my reaction is something needs to be done. And the injurty situation is just unacceptable. Yes, football has always been "violent," but I honestly believe it is more so today than in the past. And one thing that so many comments before this miss is that the players of today are much bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than in years past. That's not insignificant re the injury issue. 

One thing that does make me think more positively about Stanford football than that of other schools is that my sense is that Shaw actually cares both about his players as people and also as students. Yes, I know that Shaw has been strongly criticized on the Cardboard, but frankly, I think he's a really good fit for Stanford in that he appreciates academics and wants players who feel the same way. I never felt that way about Harbaugh. He might have been a good football coach, but I never had the feeling that he "got" Stanford, that he had any understanding that his players were there to get an education as well as play football. Further, I believe that if a coach values education, he's less likely to put a player with a questionable concussion situation into a game, and if he cares about that player as a person, he's not going to let an already injured play demand to be put in.  Sorry all you football fans, just my rant on this.

I respect that you’ve stopped watching.

As for today vs the past, i think it’s actually less violent.  Watch old games. I remember a Raider-Jets game where  Ben Davidson picked up Namath and dumped him on his head. Think back to Deacon Jones. What was his signature move - the head slap. A shot to the o-lineman’s head.  Done repeatedly.  When a receiver went over the middle, if the pass was high and the DB had him lined up, the receiver would get blasted. Legally. Tatum (nicknamed “The Assassin”) on Stingley. Considered a legal hit at the time. Players didn’t get concussions back then.  They “had their bell rung”.  And trotted back out for more. (Think Lynch ‘92 vs ND.) 

As you note, the collisions now involve much bigger and faster men. That makes things seem more violent.  But it’s just physics.  The old days were, imo, much worse in terms of what players could legally do to each other.

[lex24]

Just so it’s clear - I don’t hold myself above the fray.  I love football. Part of the reason is the hard hitting.  In other words the violent aspect.  Not proud that I do.  But such is the case.

You would have been a great Roman. . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujchK0kAntg

Great movie.  Great actor. “I Claudius” is one of Masterpiece Theatre's best series.

---

I used to enjoy football, began going to college games when I was in middle school, and when we moved to the Bay Area in 1970, we began going to every Stanford home game, taking our then quite young children. But now I don't go at all, although my Stanford grad husband remains loyal and attends every game. As I've become more aware of CTE, my reaction is something needs to be done. And the injurty situation is just unacceptable. Yes, football has always been "violent," but I honestly believe it is more so today than in the past. And one thing that so many comments before this miss is that the players of today are much bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than in years past. That's not insignificant re the injury issue. 

One thing that does make me think more positively about Stanford football than that of other schools is that my sense is that Shaw actually cares both about his players as people and also as students. Yes, I know that Shaw has been strongly criticized on the Cardboard, but frankly, I think he's a really good fit for Stanford in that he appreciates academics and wants players who feel the same way. I never felt that way about Harbaugh. He might have been a good football coach, but I never had the feeling that he "got" Stanford, that he had any understanding that his players were there to get an education as well as play football. Further, I believe that if a coach values education, he's less likely to put a player with a questionable concussion situation into a game, and if he cares about that player as a person, he's not going to let an already injured play demand to be put in.  Sorry all you football fans, just my rant on this.

I respect that you’ve stopped watching.

As for today vs the past, i think it’s actually less violent.  Watch old games. I remember a Raider-Jets game where  Ben Davidson picked up Namath and dumped him on his head. Think back to Deacon Jones. What was his signature move - the head slap. A shot to the o-lineman’s head.  Done repeatedly.  When a receiver went over the middle, if the pass was high and the DB had him lined up, the receiver would get blasted. Legally. Tatum (nicknamed “The Assassin”) on Stingley. Considered a legal hit at the time. Players didn’t get concussions back then.  They “had their bell rung”.  And trotted back out for more. (Think Lynch ‘92 vs ND.) 

As you note, the collisions now involve much bigger and faster men. That makes things seem more violent.  But it’s just physics.  The old days were, imo, much worse in terms of what players could legally do to each other.