[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.