Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I came across a Congressional hearing on football brain injuries. The panel was completely together on fundamental conclusions. There was no apologist for big-time football there. Former NFL player Harry Carson was there. So was Kim Adamle, wife of former NFL player Mike Adamle. The panelists supported themes that I have long been familiar with.
A "time bomb," possibly?
A new concern was aired: We at present have a generation of men in their late 50s and early 60s who played football at a time when the risks were getting greater. The onset of the "big helmet" spelled the increased danger, we learned. I wonder about Jerry Witt, an age peer of mine who was "Mr. Football" for a long time in Morris. He played runningback for the UMM Cougars and presumably played that punishing position for a long string of years. I pray Mr. Witt is going to be OK. But I'm thinking about it, which is a bad sign.
The football apologists talk about "concussions" as if the dangerous plays are isolated. They'll recommend something like a "concussion protocol." The assumption is that the risk can be contained. The C-Span program affirmed something that has been embraced by objective observers of the problem: It is the repeated contact in football that does the damage, not just the isolated "concussions." You can take the hitting out of practice but you can't take it out of games. Can we really expect kids to always follow correct tackling "technique?"
The panel suggested why young men continue playing football in spite of the burgeoning revelations about risk. It's because of the "brotherhood" aspect of the game, the bond among teammates or "the guys." It is of course foolhardy for this dangerous sport to proceed if this is the only incentive. I have suggested that the cheers from the bleachers are a big reason boys continue playing. Their self-esteem may be challenged in other phases of their life. Football can make them feel like heroes. How shallow a society we are, when we feel we need to make heroes out of boys who are simply capable of knocking opponents on their keisters. It's barbaric.
And yet we have allowed a monument to this sport, our Big Cat Stadium, to be built at our U of M-Morris, for our Cougars and Tigers. If a whole lot of men across the U.S. fall into cognitive issues that render them no longer self-sufficient, think of the enormous cost to our society. Think of the literal cost in dollars/cents. Think of the heartbreak.
Forget the perfect solution
A consensus is setting in, that football cannot be made "safe" in a way that does not fundamentally change the game, presumably to be less entertaining. Well so what? I have broken my old habit of watching football. I have a wee bit of curiosity about how things are going for the Gophers and Vikings. I'll be curious if the U of M can "sell" the new football coach or if he can sell himself. It's an issue of importance to the U because of the sheer dollars involved, or the (considerable) largesse involved. I confess I might watch for a few minutes if the game is in the fourth quarter and there's suspense. But no longer do I watch any game for an extended time, not like I used to.
We can break this habit of anticipating college football on Saturday and pro football on Sunday. We really can restructure our lives, I assure you. There is life after football.
Football used to be connected to a testosterone-fueled male culture that included lots of alcohol consumption. Televised games were full of beer commercials. I sense that has changed. That's a wonderful development (if you can stand insurance company commercials). I will someday go to my grave wondering why my generation thought it so essential to consume booze when we were young adults, right after the drinking age got lowered. We had the "privilege" of hanging around bars. My, how we availed ourselves. My male friends talked about brands of beer as if they could actually tell the difference. Someone would make a run to get a 12-pack of "Old Mil" (for Old Milwaukee). What a waste of money. What a detriment to our personal development. If you were to reject booze, marijuana and perhaps other vices, you'd be rejected as a "prude."
We associated those vices with being an adult or with rebellions. Rebellion was quite the fashion in the early and mid 1970s, in a way that today's young people couldn't begin to understand. Today's young people are taught to respect authority. It seems logical today but it wasn't logical in the days when our government was telling us we had to prosecute the Vietnam War. I entered my adult life thinking it was in fact important to question authority. This became a handicap for me.
Two sides to the UMM coin
UMM Cougar football was an incredible institution in Morris in the 1970s. This is an important nugget of Morris history to tuck away in your mind. UMM football also had a certain "swagger" back then that would be rejected today. We'd play in the Division III national playoffs and feel oh so proud, like this team was really putting us on the map.
Let's just say the Cougars were not averse to misogyny.
Stan Zweifel was the last UMM coach who could still hang onto some of that swagger. Then the program fell. I really wouldn't care except the extent of the fall was so marked, I had to wonder why it was allowed to happen. We fell into that incredible loss streak. A far cry from when we could beat Northern Iowa.
Today I can't even tell you how UMM football did this past season. I used to pop out there on my bike just to see how big a crowd was there. I don't even bother doing that anymore. Same with Tiger football. It would be nice to see the fan turnout go down. I fear that is not happening. I plead guilty to writing some blog posts about Tiger football using information from the West Central Tribune. That was a problem this past season as MACA football disappeared from the Willmar paper for roughly the last half of the season.
Why do I continue having any desire to write about Tiger football? I want to keep some sort of connection with the community's young people and their activities just like when I was with the Morris paper. If football is going to be an anointed activity by our board and administration, well I guess I have to "respect" that and "follow authority" according to current societal norms, right? We no longer favor rebellion, do we. Maybe the challenges coming forward vs. football are reminding us that rebellion and the basic questioning of authority still have their place, n'est-ce pas?
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment