If Lawrence Taylor were Hamlet, he would stab the usurping uncle through the heart, slice off his head, mount it on a pike, use his blood as eye black, and throw his plotting mother from a parapet – all on the flimsy evidence of gut instinct and the orders of his father’s ghost; rendering Hamlet a one act play, much to the gratitude of 10th graders the world over, offering a strong counterpoint to the supposed advantages of intellect.

Now, what would Myron Rolle do?

He might think. And agonize. And weigh his options. And in the eyes of NFL GMs, that makes Myron Rolle suspect. Not a suspect, mind you – for beating up women, stealing car stereos, or doing HGH – the stereotypical triple threat of the committed athlete; no, Rolle is suspect for his interest in anthropology, the mysteries of the pancreatic system, and the developmental challenges posed by sub-Saharan Africa.

Myron Rolle is suspect for his intelligence.

This is an area of interest for me
Now whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th’ event—
A thought which, quarter’d, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward.
~ Hamlet, Act IV, Scene IV

Hamlet is no coward, of course. But weighing and assessing risk can be the first step on the road to paralysis. And smart – or at least a certain kind of unfocused, inquisitive intelligence – as Ricky Williams can attest – can be a crippling hindrance to an athlete, particularly as they mature, unless they can find some internal mutual accomodation between the reptilian brain and their higher faculties.

What exactly can intelligence rob you of?

Brian Billick – former head coach of the Baltimore Ravens, and an intelligent guy himself, was one of the few NFL coaches or GMs who would go on record:

It not about personal conduct, but whether Rolle is totally committed to playing pro football. Billick also said Rolle’s intellect can be a hindrance on the field: “If you want to create hesitation on a guy, make him think. This guy can’t help but think.”

In the view of many coaches and GMs, high intelligence also hinders the athlete by potentially robbing him or her of athletic desperation, creating doubt, and nurturing self-reflection, perhaps even skeptical independence. All potentially anathema to the hierarchical structures, mindless dedication, drudgery, endless practice, and obsession demanded by professional sports.

Of course, athletes who score too low on the famed Wunderlich have their own flags. Professional sports – particularly those with some complexity and cooperation involved – likes players in the lower and middle margins. For GMs and coaches, the far edges of the bell curve always hold terror and uncertainty.

Intelligence gives you life options. Myron Rolle has the ability to do any number of things with his life to create a prosperous and productive outcome. That’s dangerous. The impact that had on his athletic focus is clear: he skipped a year of college football at Florida State (GM reads: betrayed his teammates and screwed his coach) to spend a year at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship.

Let’s assume, for arguments sake, based on his work on ESPN, that no such option existed for Emmitt Smith.

Pat Tillman, famous for defining himself by things other than football, though a wildman on the field, was able to partition his intellect from on-field play, but not from his sense of the weight of history. His choice to join the military and take part in the war in Afghanistan was, in the quiet estimation of most of his peers, a puzzling, if admirable choice. He was lauded publically for his patriotism, but the unspoken lesson for NFL GMs and coaches was clear: we just lost a starter because this guy had an awareness of the bigger world. And motivations beyond money and fame.

Intelligence can rob you of dumb compliance (though let’s grant that Wall Street and Washington DC provide a powerful counter-argument). Within the small societal slice of the team construct: authority figure all-knowing coach and submissive player who doesn’t ask questions – high intelligence and locker room lawyer, rabble-rouser, and naysayer are too often interlinked in the minds of many coaches and general managers. Particularly the coaches who are no rocket scientists themselves, who can’t help but think and speak in platitudes and inanities.

Smart guys, wiseacres, and skeptics upset the natural order.

Intelligence can steal away single-minded purpose, unless you have a particular kind of obsessive, practical intelligence that can be focused on your craft. Bill Russell had it. It’s the intelligence of the craftsman: narrow, practical, precise, unyielding, utterly focused on the result. The genius of Red Auerbach was in co-opting Russell into the decision-making process, forty years before his time. Auerbach had no assistant coaches because Bill Russell was his assistant on the floor (later becoming a player-coach). Decisions were even run through Russell before they were announced to the team. A conventionally coached Bill Russell might have been regarded as a locker room problem instead of the games’ greatest and most selfless winner.

One can manage a rebellious idiot, as they can be isolated, placated with baubles or pandering, or outright deceived, eventually cut without creating resentment amongst teammates because they lack influence, but intelligent rebellion is a coach’s worst nightmare. It picks apart hypocrisy, infects teammates with skepticism, and will rally opposition to the locker room’s natural order.

When they speak of “a Bill Parcells guy” – the players that Parcells would always take with him on his vagabonding next stop – some of them not always that talented, the words thrown around to describe them were always “veteran”, “loyal”, and “reliable.” A friend who knows a player that played for Parcells in Dallas says he would have added “compliant, obedient, and dumb.”

Finally, as Brian Billick suggests, the reflective mind may be crippling to actual on-field athletic performance. I could find no firm physiological evidence for this belief and defining intelligence in its manifest forms is a slippery enterprise, but that it is believed is without dispute. Moneyball’s Billy Beane, innovative General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, was a big league failure precisely because of his intelligence, despite having raw athletic gifts unmatched in his peer group. Once you’re lost inside your head and no longer just playing the game, you’re done as a baseball player.

It is no coincidence that some sports writers – most famously the great Dan Jenkins – considered major league baseball players the dumbest, least interesting athletes on the planet. I suspect Jenkins wasn’t just referring to education or erudition. He meant any interest in the world beyond their immediate task. A lack of inquisitiveness can be an adaptive advantage for a game that challenges your psychology and amplifies self-doubt in ways unmatched by any other sport. The smart, successful baseball player generally has an engineer’s intelligence, like Ted Williams, which can be fused to single-minded focus. Or they simply have an off switch, partitioning their athletic life from their off-the-field interests. An unreflective mind is an adaptive advantage for a game that asks you to hit a white ball traveling 95 miles per hour 162 games a year. Dennis Miller probably isn’t going to be very effective playing shortstop, even imbued with Ozzie Guillen’s athleticism.

Beane’s teammate, famous simpleton Lenny Dykstra, had almost no athletic gifts in comparison to Beane, but he created some with PED use and fanatical single-minded play. Michael Lewis recounts in Moneyball that Dykstra once saw Beane reading a book on the team bus, and offered helpfully, “Why would you be reading? Dude, that will just f*** up your eyesight.”

In their own way, NFL GMs and coaches have asked Myron Rolle the same question.

Related posts:

1. FanTake HQ – It’s On Welcome to FanTake. I’m Paul Wadlington, Editor-in-Chief. This is the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Well, the NCAA now confirms their investigation into North Carolina recruiting coordinator John Blake and former associate Gary Wichard.

Three sources close to an NCAA probe into the University of North Carolina football program told Yahoo! Sports that investigators are focusing on ties between assistant coach John Blake and prominent NFL agent Gary Wichard.

The comments section of my first piece, featuring Tar Heel fans who doth protest too much, combined with Wichard’s bizarre inability to tell the truth in the Yahoo article (which is fine piece of reporting, by the way) makes for an entertaining tapestry of ongoing denial and deceit best expressed by Blake/Wichard attorney Nathan Sturm:

Watch this video on VideoSurf or see more Saturday Night Live Videos or Martin Short Videos

Wichard’s inability to tell the truth about the nature of his relationship with John Blake borders on the surreal.

The sources said the NCAA’s inquiry into Blake has focused on his one-time position as vice president of football operations for Pro Tect Management – an agency founded and run by Wichard since 1979. Blake is now a defensive line coach for the Tar Heels, and oversees All-ACC tackle Marvin Austin, who is also facing NCAA scrutiny.

And now it gets fun…

Email and telephone messages for Blake were not returned. An interview request for Austin was not returned. Messages left at Proactive Sports seeking comment were not returned. Messages seeking an interview with Balmer were not returned.

Black Santa doesn’t always answer the messages of all good boys and girls.

Wichard did talk though. And I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest to you that he now regrets it.

So, Gary – what’s up with you and John Blake? Did he ever work for you?

“No, no, no, no,” Wichard said. “John lived [in California] after he was the head coach at Oklahoma. He lived out in [Los Angeles]. We’ve socialized. We’ve been friends. His son is my godson. It has nothing to do with that. He hasn’t worked for me at all. I don’t get where that is coming from.”

Oh. Well, we’ll move on then. Nothing to see here. Sorry for the inconvenience…wait, what’s on this brochure?

Prepared for prospective clients, the brochure contains multiple pictures of players, including a handful who were selected as recently as the 2001 draft. The inner cover features large photos of both Wichard and Blake. Under Blake’s picture, his title is listed as “Vice President/Football Operations.”

Next time you roll home at 3:30am with lipstick on your collar, scratch marks on your back, panties in your glove box, and your wife greets you, hand on hip with her fists clenched, quietly mouth this self-affirmation:

STEADY GAZE OF PANTHER.

RESOLVE OF BADGER.

TONGUE OF GARY WICHARD.

Then quietly unload all of the firearms in the home.

Still, this doesn’t prove that Blake was actively representing players in cooperation with Wichard. Maybe he was just doing community work for future millionaires…

• “Blake made the move into athletic representation because he feels he can have a greater on-going positive impact on the careers of athletes than merely coaching them in college for four years.”

Oh. Well. OK then.

However, did you know that factual information becomes less truthful if the parchment is old? Facts can actually decompose.

When informed that Yahoo! Sports had a copy of the brochure, Wichard said that although Blake had worked with some of his players, the brochure was “meaningless.” “The brochure is [from] like 1997 or whatever,” Wichard said. “He was on the brochure for whatever, dealing with football-related situations. But it has nothing to do with anything. He was not working as a coach at that time. The relevance to me is ridiculous.”

Wichard then delivers the rhetorical coup de grace:

“I don’t care what the brochure says. That brochure is so old.”

I don’t care what historians claim the Declaration of Independence says. That document is, like, old. For all I know, we might have been revolting against Bavaria.

Wichard continues to weave factual magic:

An accomplished agent with many big-name clients, Wichard said he signed only one player – Oklahoma tight end Stephen Alexander – while Blake was a head coach with the Sooners.

Sigh. Yahoo sports editors have now renamed fact-checking: “Wichard-checking.”

But a review of NFLPA records show Wichard signed multiple players whose college careers overlapped with Blake’s coaching journey.

In addition to Alexander, they include:

Brian Bosworth (OU)
Cedric Jones (OU)
Aubrey Beavers (OU)
William Bartee (OU)
Tommy Kelly (Miss State)
Brandon Jackson (Neb)
Kentwan Balmer (UNC)

When confronted with these facts, Wichard replies:

“If somebody wants to accuse me of something, bring it on,” Wichard said. “But don’t sit here and ask me about John Blake. He’s my best friend and that’s all I can say about it. Whether he worked out my players or didn’t, it doesn’t matter

His response reeks of innocence. How have Gary Wichard and John Blake managed to find themselves beneath society’s cruel fact-based grindstone?

To paraphrase Wichard’s response: Yes, you caught me in yet another tedious lie. But John Blake is my best friend. And Checkers was a gift and I won’t give him back! Also, I’m an ironist and I’m engaging you in an exploration over the very nature of truth itself. And hey, what’s that over your shoulder? //hides under desk with hands over eyes//

In summary:

1. Every statement Wichard has made to date on the record with respect to his professional relationship with John Blake has been proven to be demonstrably false. When confronted with the fact that John Blake was his VP of Operations for years and was working as a player representative for him, he points out that old brochures can’t be trusted as brochure’s memories are notoriously cloudy.

2. Every statement Wichard has made to date on record with respect to players routed to him by John Blake has proven to be false, including existence of said players, him representing them, and the seemingly linear nature of time-space.

3. Wichard denies the existence of a game called football.

4. Wichard believes that the real killers are still at large.

What?

There was no killing?

Thank God. Well, they’re still out there, nonetheless.

5. Wichard denies that he is subject to US law as he possesses diplomatic immunity in his role as special envoy from Bizarro world.

So I end this article the way my first began:

A man is known by the company he keeps, but also by the company from which he is kept out. – Grover Cleveland

But that quote is at least as old as a 1997 brochure. Who could possibly believe it?

Related posts:

1. The North Carolina Agent Fiasco & The John Blake Stain A man is known by the company he keeps, but...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is the mother ship of our burgeoning blog network and central to all we will be doing in the future.

Bookmark, follow us on Twitter or Facebook or RSS or Email and visit daily, please.

FanTake will produce original content focused on sports, media, and culture. And we value good writing, irrespective of genre. Though I refuse to run any pieces by ballooning enthusiasts. FanTake will also serve as a useful meta-feed to allow you to scan the entire network and view the latest stories from all of our contributors. To that end, the top half of the blog is dedicated to editorializing, features, and the best content gleaned from all of our writers. The bottom half of the blog is a real time feed of every blog contribution in the network.

The name FanTake has many possible interpretations.

For example, it could mean an opinion – a “take” – offered by a fan. In this instance, a network of informed and interesting bloggers and readers engaging in mutually satisfactory discussion.

FanTake could also mean that we want to take things from our fans, specifically their valued possessions, after tracing their ISP addresses to their homes and then entering through a poorly secured window.

The last option is more monetizable. But there are “legal issues.” Our lawyers words, not ours.

So we’re going with the first option.

If you want to offer feedback, have something to contribute, have a unique voice (in the writing rather than the high-pitched falsetto sense), want to berate us, or if we can help you out, drop me a line.

I will write back.

We’ve seeded the new site with some of what think of as our best writing so far. Many of you have already read these, read them again.

We hope you enjoy our new direction…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

My personal opinion is that if MMA were a stock, you should be backing up the truck to buy.

The results are in. UFC 100 led all PPV view buys and the organization accounted for 6 of the top 10 buys in 2009. Add in the “minor league” organizations like the WEC, EliteXC, and Strikeforce and MMA’s financial and cultural penetration is deep.

Only boxing’s Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr – charismatic, singular, once-in-a-lifetime pugilistic talents – can compete with the MMA’s dozen deep roster of pay-proven superstars in terms of fan interest. Near terms trends aren’t as encouraging for MMA because of a series of freakish injuries to some of the sports biggest draws and a weak domestic economy, but the long term trends are still undeniable.

Aside from PPV buys, which yielded MMA’s biggest organization, the UFC, over 300 million dollars in 2009, the sport continues to penetrate network television, features a popular reality show, dominates the “live event you must see” cultural landscape, influences fashion – witness the obligatory Affliction t-shirt sported by every guy with too much gel in his hair – and now has heavy billing on ESPN.

MMA is also making inroads in key emerging markets. The UFC – MMA’s “big league” – is making a concerted effort to market the sport and hold events in Europe, where Germany and the UK comprise huge potential fan bases, and it’s already wildly popular in key emerging markets like Brazil and Russia and in stable markets like Japan. The sport is one Chinaman and a Sikh away from completing the markets that matter sweep.

The arbitrary cutoff for MMA fanship seems to be right around age 40. Friends of mine over the age are only tangentially aware of it and are shocked when I tell them that the UFC is now a billion dollar organization (after being purchased twelve years ago for two million dollars by the Fertitta brothers), while those under 40 increasingly consider MMA a major sport, firmly on the second tier, just below basketball and football. Needless to say, the 18-40 demo is an advertiser’s dream.

The other trend that looks good for MMA is athletic. The sport continues to renew itself with young, charismatic stars who promise to elevate the sports possibilities. Just as the NFL and the NBA began to rob boxing of its heavyweight division in the 1980s when NFL and NBA salaries dramatically skyrocketed, the MMA’s ability to quickly propel young charismatic athletes into superstardom and quick paydays is appealing to elite level athletes.

For a preview of what an elite 22 year old athlete who decides to take up Greco-Roman wrestling and Thai boxing instead of college football looks like (forgive the regrettable rap)…

Buy: MMA, soccer, basketball, football.

Sell: golf, tennis, boxing, and baseball.

Your thoughts?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Probert might not have been the best fighter in NHL history, but he honed his craft during the league’s TV golden years of the 1990’s thus making him a visible, polarizing beast as the league expanded and exponentially increased its viewership. Probert spent the majority of his career with Red Wings and was tasked with protecting the franchise’s most valuable asset – Steve Yzerman – at all costs.

Despite amassing a seemingly fictitious 3300 penalty minutes in 935 regular season games, Probert eventually diversified his portfolio from solely a knuckle-dragging goon to a nasty power forward that added some admirable offense to his repertoire. Probert tallied 384 regular season points when he wasn’t having some nice “me time” in the penalty box (he spent nearly three full days of his life in the box.)

The tales from Probert’s competitors is stuff of legend. When the NHL would release the upcoming season’s schedule, bruisers around the league would immediately find the Wings on the calendar. Guys wouldn’t get sleep the night before games against Detroit. They knew Probert was waiting. As fellow Red Wing Bruise Brother Joey Kocur said, “My favorite memory of Bob would be sitting down before a game, going over the opposing lineup and picking and choosing who would go first and if the goalie would be safe or not. It was great to be able to go out on the ice knowing that he had my back and I had his.”

Probert battled his own demons of drugs and alcohol off the ice, but he was also known for something else when he wasn’t speed-bagging skulls – being a remarkably humble, gracious, and likeable man.

Rest in peace, Bob. I’ll never forget this superb bout with Marty McSorley:

Fighting’s role in hockey

The most incendiary issue in hockey amongst fans, the media, and the NHL’s front office is the role of fighting in the game. In the modern age of the public’s immediacy and reducing complex topics to hasty black vs. white hyperbole, the internet is loaded with oversimplified takes on fighting. Stuffy media types will cast hockey into the same light as violent video games resulting in the bane of America’s youth. Hockey purists will quickly dismiss anti-fighting arguments with a rigid “you just don’t understand.”

I am a hockey purist. I have played the game my whole life and I will always be drawn to its fundamental traits of respect, accountability, honor, and courage. I support fighting in hockey. However, I freely acknowledge the murky, contentious debates.

Violence has always been a part of hockey. When you get big men with sticks skating at 30 miles per hour in a confined space, blood will boil to a volatile simmer.

The 1970’s represented a raucous period in the NHL. Bench clearing brawls (at times involving fans) were the norm. I find it hard to imagine such a brand of hockey existing in today’s environment of YouTube, TV, and pussies hyper sensitivity. Earlier this year, HBO did a fantastic job detailing the Philadelphia Flyer’s era of the “Broad Street Bullies” and their violent warpath to two Stanley Cups in the late 1970’s:

The NHL had never seen a team (let alone one that won Cups) that so unapologetically kicked the hell out of everything in its way. This wave of hockey culture was portrayed deftly in this cinematic gem:

RIP Paul Newman, too.

The 1980’s ushered in an influx of European talent into the NHL’s ranks built on finesse and speed. It was also the career advent of the most skilled, intelligent player in hockey history – Wayne Gretzky. The Edmonton Oiler dynasty of the 80’s was constructed on a European or Russian style of play emphasizing creativity and speed. This, combined with the NHL’s efforts to thwart bench clearing brawls after the Broad Street Bullies era signaled a shift in the culture of the game. The well-paid superstar was the main focus, and protecting him would be paramount. The Oilers were the model franchise, and they had immensely skilled players such as Gretzky, Mark Messier, Jari Kurri, Glenn Anderson, and others. Messier was tough as hell, but the others needed protection. This marked the birth of the modern day enforcer. Dave Semenko was the Oiler’s bodyguard and he was exceptional.

As salaries rapidly escalated in the 80’s and 90’s for top stars, teams placed heavy emphasis on equipping rosters with an intimidating force. As I alluded to earlier, hockey is a game of respect and honor. Team is forever placed before the interests of the individual. Hockey players govern themselves by what it is simply known as “The Code”. The Code is not easily defined. Many NHL players are reluctant to even discuss it.

Essentially, The Code represents an unwritten set of rules enforced not by the league or referees, but the players. Take a cheap shot at a skill player? Be prepared to defend yourself against the behemoth sitting at the end of the bench. Purists will argue that the mere presence of an enforcer greatly reduces the dangerous cheap aspects of hockey resulting in a more skilled game where stars aren’t being carved to shreds by wild sticks. Breaking The Code is an egregious offense in hockey. If you are going to run guys from behind, take liberties with your stick, and run your mouth – you will be confronted. If you choose not to defend yourself, the enforcer will find someone else to take your punishment.

It is the ultimate accountability.

This is why NHLers don’t wear facemasks. It is the strict adherence to The Code that keeps players policing one another and navigating the obscure physicality of an immensely violent game.

Will cheap shots ever be eliminated from hockey? Absolutely not. Do I believe that The Code can keep the vast number of cheap shots at bay? No question. Do I like asking myself questions in lieu of writing coherent paragraphs? Yes, it is fun and easy.

European hockey places very stringent penalties and consequences on fighting. European hockey is also renowned for cowardly cheap shots and dangerous stick work. There are countless examples of Euros making the jump over to the NHL only to find that their brand of cheap hockey didn’t just result in time spent in the penalty box. It resulted in a confrontation from a man whose only reason for NHL employment is protecting teammates.

The most compelling argument against gratuitous fighting in hockey is the Olympics. TV ratings for Olympic hockey are always strong and fighting is nonexistent. Fighting results in costly suspensions and penalties in line with the overall “purity” mantra and brand of the Olympic Games. I certainly recognize the merits of this perspective. That typed, an Olympic roster and NHL roster are not created equal. The elite Olympic teams are built like All Star teams. A roster spot is too valuable to give to a guy whose only role is fighting. Talent in the NHL is more dispersed and the style of play is much different.

The fighting debate is not going anywhere. I think the NHL is regaining some of its relevancy (albeit at a snail’s pace) and I predict they will eventually find themselves back on ESPN (looming NBA and NFL lockouts being the lynchpin in that deal.) This will give the argument even more visibility. Fighting draws fans into hockey, but I am not sure it creates a loyal customer. There are too many other avenues for peoples’ palettes that enjoy violence. You could go to five random NHL games and not see one fight or you can tune into the gobs of UFC programming littering our cable feeds.

The question the NHL consistently asks themselves is if fighting deters potential fans (read: families). I want to know your thoughts in the comments.

ColoradoAg’s Favorite Fighters

Joey Kocur

As I mentioned earlier, Kocur was half of the Bruise Brothers with Probert in Detroit. With a devastating right hand, one fellow fighter once noted that a fight with Kocur would keep you from eating solids for a week. Here is a bout between good pals Probert and Kocur after Kocur was sent to the New York Rangers.

Stu “Grim Reaper” Grimson

Standing a bulbous 6’6” and 250 lbs, Grimson was a load to handle. His big frame caused him to struggle with balance early in his career (balance is one of the key strengths for a good hockey fighter), yet he found his footing and became a big rival of Probert’s in the 90’s.

Dave “The Hammer” Schultz

If you saw the HBO program on the Broad Street Bullies of the Philadelphia Flyers, you are familiar with The Hammer. He still holds the record for most penalty minutes in a season at 472.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofgE7DXvvWo

Schultz’s competitor, Terry O’Reilly, was also one hell of a fighter. Oddly enough, O’Reilly was also a huge literary buff.

Tie Domi

This little shit was a remarkable nemesis and crafty fighter. He is third all time in NHL penalty minutes and once beat the hell out of a Philly fan (shocking, I know) that somehow made his way into a penalty box inhabited by Domi.

Dave “Cement Head” Semenko

As mentioned earlier, he was Gretzky’s body guard in Edmonton.

George Parros

Parros is currently in the NHL. I particularly like him because of his elite mustache and the fact that he holds a degree from Princeton.

Gordie Howe

He is a top three player all time in the NHL, yet he had no problem defending himself. A guy once described Howe’s punches as sounding like an axe splitting wood. The term “Gordie Howe Hat Trick” still is common today referencing a game where a player gets a goal, assist, and a fight.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Like the Academy’s honors, I don’t really care about the collective opinion of a body politic comprising sociopathic cokeheads, preening Scientologists, and serial anal bleachers – and now I’m referring to sportswriters – but I still watch the results with some interest so I’ll know how many times I’ll have to bite my lip in work/social situations when someone feels sufficiently validated by the Academy or the Downtown Athletic Club to tell you that Crash is a profound piece of art or that Chris Weinke was a badass.

The history of the Heisman is rich in unmitigated bullshit, media manipulation, and grand larceny. The kinds of favors that one can only score Downtown (Athletic Club). Below I list some of my favorite case studies. Some will be familiar to you, some unknown, but know that I evaluate each within the context of their college career – what they go on to do in the pros isn’t validation. Nor do I look back with 20/20 hindsight – I try to place myself in the time and context of the era. Just because you recognize a big name with a NFL career finishing as runner-up, doesn’t mean the winner was undeserving.

I’m also looking for straight-up robberies, not differences of opinion. People now know that Vince Young was a better player than Reggie Bush, but it would be difficult to contend that Bush was a weak Heisman winner. Did the wrong guy win the 2005 Heisman? Of course. Does it make the All-Time Worst Winners list? Probably not.

Here are my Great 8 Heisman hijinks.

We begin with our nation at war and West Point is the dominant force in all of college football…

1944

No one can stop West Point sophomores Doc Blanchard and Glenn Davis – Mr Inside and Mr Outside – and West Point rolls easily to the national championship. Aside from being the best fullback in college football, Blanchard was an absolutely dominant linebacker – the best in the country – and served as Army’s punter and placekicker. Glenn Davis was an outstanding HB with sprinter’s speed (he still holds the NCAA Record for yards per carry in a single season at 11.5 per carry in 1944), scored 20 TDs in 9 games, and was regarded as the most exciting player in college football.

Despite their dominance, Ohio State’s Les Horvath won in a close vote. Horvath played for Ohio State in the early 40′s, later re-enrolled in dental school, and then played as a 24 year old senior – the Chris Weinke of his day. He was also the 3rd best player in the country. Regionalism and the unwritten rule against sophomore winners conspired for this result.

Horvath won only one region of the country – the Midwest; Davis – a native Californian – won the West and East, Blanchard – a Southern boy – won the South; both West Pointers effectively split their votes and each region’s base – totally discounting Horvath – underrated the other Cadet in hopes of elevating their own boy. A few media members even refused to include sophomores on their ballot, regarding it as unseemly. Horvath won, in fact, on the strength of an inordinate number of 2nd place votes.

The United States was unapologetically more regional back then and voting for “your people” was important. This is one of the earliest clear examples of regionalism, sandbagging, and vote splitting that occurs between teammates and it cost The Black Knights of the Hudson the hardware. Blanchard and Davis each went on to win Heismans in ’45 and ’46, so no feeling too bad for the two super sophomores.

1953

Notre Dame offers up their first of many dubious winners when HB Johnny Lattner wins a lifetime achievement award as one of the better players on a very good Notre Dame team (many believe his backfield mate Bob Kelly was the better player) and despite leading the Irish in not a single category – passing, rushing, receiving, scoring – Lattner walks off with the hardware. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none does not usually constitute the best Heisman resume and his inability to dominate his own team’s stat sheet is telling. You can blame a weak field and Notre Dame’s impressive PR machine but his trophy is nowhere nearly as egregious as…

1956

Paul Hornung – captain of a 2-8 Notre Dame football team – wins a close victory over a group of notables including Johnny Majors of Tennessee, OU’s sensational Tommy McDonald (he never lost a game at OU), and Syracuse’s Jim Brown. Yeah, THAT Jim Brown. Brown placed 5th overall despite finishing 1st in the country in rushing yards per game, setting the NCAA record for points in game with 43, acting as the team’s placekicker, and setting the school record for yards per carry. He also led the basketball team in scoring and was an All-American in lacrosse. He placed first in the Eastern Region voting, but wasn’t in the Top 5 in any other region in America. Apparently, his last name was a helpful warning for voters – we wouldn’t get our first black Heisman trophy winner until 1961 (another Syracuse RB who wore #44 – Ernie Davis).

Aside from highlighting clear racial injustice, there were at least a dozen players more deserving than Hornung. Probably the greatest Heisman fraud of all time. During the year Hornung ran for 420 yards, averaging 4.5 yards per carry and threw for 917. On a team that won 20% of its games. There are no words.

1967

UCLA’s Gary Beban wins over LeRoy Keyes, Larry Csonka, and OJ Simpson, despite UCLA losses to both Csonka’s Syracuse and Simpson’s USC squad; games in which both backs dominated. Beban threw for just under 1400 yards, 8 TDs and 8 INTs on the year, wasn’t a particularly gifted runner, and was primarily a caretaker for the Bruin offense. Simpson dominated throughout the year and led USC to a thrilling win over UCLA with a 64 yard 4th quarter TD scamper, but Beban played through a rib injury on national television (and a Pick 6 TD to USC) and his pluck became the sort of scene-stealing mythos that can project a solid college player surrounded by a great supporting cast into legendary status. He then sat out the next week’s game against Syracuse in which UCLA was completely whipped.

You could also make a very strong argument for Purdue’s Leroy Keyes for the Heisman – he was college football’s last 60 minute man. He was an All-American halfback and cornerback who also returned punts and kickoffs for a Top 10 Purdue squad. Poor LeRoy finished second the next year to OJ Simpson.

Certainly one of the most bizarre awards ever as Beban was likely not even among the Top 10 players in college football.

1975

Ah, the Archie Griffin legacy award. The second of Griffin’s two Heisman trophies. The first was richly deserved. The second was a travesty. Truly one of the worst awards of all time. Griffin scored four touchdowns the entire year while being outshined by Cal’s Chuck Muncie, USC’s Ricky Bell, Pitt’s Tony Dorsett, and OU’s spectacular Joe Washington (to name just a few). He managed just 46 yards against arch-rival Michigan and was outshined all year by backfield mate Pete Johnson (who scored 26 TDs to Griffin’s 4).

The Buckeyes had a great team that year and the media all but handed Griffin the award for coming back in his senior season. Lazy sportswriters don’t like doing rewrites. Despite his lack of performance, Griffin won in a landslide. The most prolific Heisman winner ever then went on to the NFL where he was a distinguished fumbler and franchise killer.

1987

Tim Brown, AKA Paul Hornung Part II. Brown was a ridiculously talented and poorly utilized player on a middling 8-4 football team. People generally give him the benefit of the doubt because Brown went on to a NFL Hall of Fame career, but that sort of reasoning doesn’t hold water. There were several games where Brown never made an impact and the Irish were certainly nothing special that year. This was a theoretical Heisman awarded on the premise that had Notre Dame given Brown the ball more in an offense belonging to the 20th century, he would have made more plays.

One area in which he did make plays was as a punt returner – he brought back 3 that year – but a grand total of FOUR TDs rushing and receiving make this Heisman an eye roller. The only argument in his favor – and it’s a weak one – is that he was competing with a soft field. Still, Emmitt Smith was tearing it up at Florida and Thurman Thomas was good enough at OSU to keep Barry Sanders as a kick returner. LB Chris Spielman was also playing like a mutant at Ohio St.

There was also a forgotten player from that voting: Syracuse’s Don McPherson, the runner-up to Brown. He had big production and wins back when Syracuse wasn’t just a basketball school. The freeze option was the zone read of its day and McPherson was a master. He led the Orangemen to an undefeated season, a top 5 ranking, and led the nation in passing efficiency. He was the deserving winner.

1992

Marshall gets Faulked. By Sopranos hopeful Gino Toretta. Toretta’s QBing strategy was most notable for throwing the ball into the air end over end like a kid playing Smear the Queer and counting on one of Miami’s three NFL receivers to grab it. He was Weinke when Weinke wasn’t cool. Faulk was notable for running behind a horrendous OL with a minimal supporting cast and juking nine different defenders to take it to the house every ten times he touched the ball. The Aztecs hadn’t been screwed this thoroughly since Cortes. It’s one of the more amusing Heisman results and a clear indication of the voter’s desire to give the award to a QB on a good team, even if he’s not even among that team’s best five players.

2000

A forty three year old Chris Weinke wins over Drew Brees, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Josh Heupel. Josh Heupel won OU a MNC, used to have Bobby Stoops convinced that big game wins were his birthright, and resurrected Sooner football as we know it (and despise it). As for Drew Brees, please recall that Brees passed for 3500+ and ran for 500+ playing for a talentless Purdue team that he led to the Rose Bowl. Drew Brees was as dominant a college QB as I’ve ever seen and his receiving corps comprised an array of Caucasians and parking meters. He was my choice from that year. LaDanian Tomlinson…was LaDanian Freaking Tomlinson. He convinced college football that Dennis Franchione was a great coach. That alone should garner the hardware. I’ve always wondered if Aggies hate LT for that. Weinke was probably the 4th best choice that year.

Of Interest

These are just a few of my own thoughts on some notable winners.

1935

Chicago’s Jay Berwanger, a quality winner and a good player in his day, won the first Heisman trophy. But that award was for the “Most Outstanding Player East Of The Mississippi.” Some will argue that this is still the case. That precluded the great Slingin’ Sammy Baugh from the voting (he was the best player in the country) and TCU would win their first Heisman three years later with Davey O’Brien when the scope of the prize expanded to a national award.

1964

John Huarte’s win for Notre Dame is long held up as one of the great examples of a tarnished Heisman, but I disagree. Huarte was a lightly regarded player who never played much until his senior year and Ara Parseghian became the new head coach. He had a tremendous senior year averaging more than 10 yards per attempt, 2,000+ passing yards, came up big in big games, and led the Irish to a 9-1 record after they went 2-7 in 1963. Irish football was back and John Huarte got a lot of the credit. A Heisman makes some sense. So what’s the problem?

He beat out some amazing and extremely recognizable names like Dick Butkus, Joe Namath, and Gale Sayers. So after a cursory glance, we gnash our teeth and engage in simple revisionism. The truth is that Butkus was disadvantaged as a defensive player and Illinois was completely mediocre, Joe Namath never threw the ball at Bama, and Gale Sayers ran for 633 yards for a 6-4 team. Perhaps Sayers was named the Kansas Comet because that’s how often you got to see him run? John Huarte became the ultimate Lazy Man’s Heisman Critique because he fits the Heisman hate profile: a Notre Dame QB, he flopped in the NFL, he’s unrecognizable, and below him are a roster of NFL legends. It must have been a con! But it really wasn’t.

1995

Eddie George wins over Tommie Frazier. Objectionable in retrospect, but not indefensible. Similar to the Vince Young/Reggie Bush dynamic. The average football writer couldn’t understand how Frazier catalyzed Nebraska’s option attack and George got the Eastern and Midwestern press with great statistics (1927 yards, 24 TDs) and a good regular season (and an all-important win over ND on national television) while Frazier’s domination didn’t translate as well statistically despite leading one of the most dominating football teams in the modern era. After Frazier destroyed Florida in the MNC game and George was shut down in his bowl game, I’m thinking a few votes were regretted. That written, George was a very good player, so let’s not confuse him with Gary Beban.

1999

Ron Dayne beats Joe Hamilton. This isn’t a particularly controversial Heisman and I can understand why. But it bothered me then and it still does today. Joe Hamilton is already one the great forgotten football players in college football history despite being one of the early great spread dual threats. If Todd Reesing had run a 4.4 40 and had a better arm, you’d have Joe Hamilton. He was 2nd in the nation in passing efficiency, Georgia Tech led the country in offense, and he threw for 3,000+ and ran for 700+. Tech had a miserable defense and a fairly weak supporting cast on offense, but Hamilton brought it every Saturday.

He also played biggest in the big games, victimizing the very best teams in the country. He had 4 game winning 4th quarter TD drives as a senior and engineered an epic upset of arch-rival UGA 51-48 with 435 yards of total offense. He also almost took down the #1 Seminoles (back when they were still the Seminoles) going 22 of 25 for 387 yards, but losing 41-35.

Ron Dayne was a good college back in a great running system who won a Heisman lifetime achievement award when he broke the NCAA rushing record as a senior. His ability to drop a big game on Murray State was unparalleled. OK, I’m being bitter and unfair, but I never thought Dayne was all that special.

2003

Many complain about Jason White’s victory over Larry Fitzgerald and it’s fairly absurd in retrospect given Fitzgerald’s total destruction of the college game and his subsequent NFL career, but OU was considered absolutely dominant before their KSU upset and many voters had already mailed off their ballots. White also bludgeoned voters with incredible numbers: 3846 yards and 40 TDs, and a national television destruction of Texas. It’s also a regular season award – the post-season egg laid against LSU wasn’t a factor for consideration.

Anyway, this was a fun project. Perhaps you can win a couple of bar bets off of some of the arcana I unearthed. I’m also interested in your opinion, so have at it.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A friend and a true warrior hung up his gloves last weekend and Austin boxing will never be the same. Redemption and grace aren’t often found in this world, much less boxing, much less in one boxer’s life several times, and when it is realized, it deserves celebration. Jesus is one of those people in life you pull for and if you knew him and his story you’d likely understand why.

When he was 16, Gabriel Sandoval was involved in an armed robbery in Chicago, spent four years doing hard time, and was deported back to Mexico. He walked back across the border, assumed a nom-de-guerre (Jesus Chavez), and strolled into Lord’s Boxing Gym in Austin weighing 170 pounds with a two-pack-a-day smoking habit while declaring his intention to win a world title as a lightweight. That’s when the Jesus Chavez story gets interesting. Real interesting.

I knew Jesus at the very beginning of his career and we’d intersected at different times since then – the last time in Las Vegas, where we chatted for an hour between flights, Jesus sporting sunglasses to hide the two massive shiners and facial swelling that are the tax on his trade. We caught up on old friends, inquired about each other’s lives, and he told me to stop back by the gym. But he was quiet and a little distant. I found out months later that Levander Williams had died.

I first met Chavez when he was a club fighter looking to make his mark, fighting for $500 purses against the hometown favorite before hostile crowds, always going for the knockout to keep the decision out of the hands of corrupt local judges, and without a pot to piss in. He was shy at first, but as you drew him out, he was incredibly funny and wise. The kind of wisdom you acquire through seeing humanity at their best and very worst and having worked through to reconcile that the same species produced both. I was blown away by his work ethic and determination to win.

At the time, he was living in Richard’s gym, sleeping on a mattress on the floor in a tiny room off of the main boxing workout area and doing odd jobs in exchange for his room and board: teaching classes to alterno-chicks, yuppies and frat boys, scrubbing blood, mopping spit. There was no air conditioning in Lord’s gym – and with all of the heat resistant properties of a Quonset hut – used to break 110 degrees with great regularity. Throwing up in the parking lot, reeling from the heat, chills running up and down your body, was a rite of passage for everyone who trained there.

The gym itself was a strange mix of characters, a lot of that owing to Richard’s laid back personality and tolerant nature; and it was a snapshot of Austin at a certain time and place; an Austin that I liked very much and hope can be preserved. There were local frat boys training for Fight Night, pro fighters, both male and female, ranging in ability from amateur to club fighter all the way to the ranked elite, local Austin radio, writing, and television personalities, inked up slackers, Gibby Haynes, lead singer of The Butthole Surfers, Richard Garriott, multimillionaire computer game magnate and space traveller, Amy Miller, of Amy’s Ice Cream fame, and an assortment of well-heeled yuppies, freaks, ROTC Marines.

Everyone got along. I’ve always been of the opinion that shared suffering and the prospect of being asked to spar are great ways for people to both bond and mind their manners; the egalitarian nature of Lord’s gym amplified that. As Chavez’s legend grew and he developed into a Top 5 Lightweight, he also singlehandedly put Austin, TX on the boxing map. Austin was now a place that you could go to see high quality boxing and that was a good thing – the electricity of a big fight is like nothing you’ll experience and it was nice to see Austin become a fighter town. It was also rewarding to have personal stakes; watching him fight on HBO in front of millions and then teasing him while he was stretching days later, pushing him over with my knee when he did bicycle stretches, swapping off-color Mexican jokes; listening to James Brown’s I Feel Good with jump ropes synchronized to the beat.

This was your fighter.

I’m sad to see Austin lose an institution in the ring, but Jesus is making the right choice. It was time to throw in the towel. And if he approaches the next chapter of his life with the passion of his last – chin down, gloves up – I know he’ll make it through whatever life can throw at him and will, in fact, prosper. Although Jesus would never be undisputed champion or number one in the world – he was both cursed and blessed to come of age in a time when some of the greatest lightweights who ever lived are walking the planet – Jesus has heard the count and his knees have never stayed on the canvas. And that’s the hallmark of a true champion.

Buena suerte, Gabriel.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Particularly the 17 year olds that are healthy, tall, and bad at sports.

I stumbled across this Rick Reilly article on Inside Texas and I think it calls for discussion on a number of issues centered around fair play, basic consideration of others, competition, and our society’s increasingly bizarre fixation with preventing youth from experiencing adversity and ensuring outcomes in a world that guarantees none.

First, I have to confess that I’m not a big fan of Rick Reilly and that may be coloring my view on this matter. He can be funny, but his decade-long shtick as self-appointed Defender Of The Downtrodden is annoying. This is the lowest form of writing and formulae. Reilly conjures a villain, presents a pitiful victim, rails about injustice, and then wraps it up in less than 1,000 words with several bad plays on words. Neat, tidy, apply bow.

He also loves to talk tough. Which is amusing if you’ve ever seen Rick Reilly. Mike Lupica and Mitch Albom are slightly less intimidating.

Reilly’s scolding lectures are the writing equivalent of a lay-up. Though apparently Reilly is opposed to that lay-up if the opponent is weak. Better to bounce it off of the front iron as a sign of respect.

At first blush, the article makes plenty of sense. Yates is beating people badly. That in and of itself must be an absolute wrong. The delicate psyches of seventeen year old males are being irreparably harmed…

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

Here’s the rub: Houston Yates is the #1 rated team in the country largely because of their frenetic, fast-break system and the incredible conditioning and mental toughness it engenders. They’re not the most talented team in the country. Let’s be clear about that. They just play the hardest and with total selflessness. They have great depth, a fantastic commitment to an exhausting system, and the total belief of their players. They press all game, without fail, and fast break on every possession. That’s their system, that’s what Wise preaches, and that’s what every player on their roster – from scrub to superstar – is expected to execute. The traits I just described above are character-building. Or character-revealing, depending on your slant. But Reilly only ponders the mental constitution of the loser.

Is Wise deserving of Reilly’s bile?

Gerry Hamilton chimed in with something interesting on the IT thread. These are the season records and some scores of two of HY’s more famous opponent blow-outs:

Lee 3-22

FB Bush 119-46
Kempner 79-34
Westbury Christian 79-32
Sharpstown 110-43
Reagan 100-40
Sharpstown 96-46

Houston Davis 0-24

Sterling 110-40
Worthing 100-34
Dulles 112-46
Langham Creek 104-31
Second Baptist 84-23
Sharpstown 104-36
Reagan 120-39
Sharpstown 93-25
Reagan 107-51
Westbury 93-39

Are of all the coaches at the high schools above deserving of suspensions, as Reilly recommends for Wise? Houston Reagan beat Davis by 81. Langham Creek won by 73. And so on. Clearly, you have some basketball teams in Houston that are horrendously bad and that inequity is spitting out some wide margins. If they’re getting blown out by 50+ in every game by average high school teams, what result are you looking for when they play the nation’s best?

What the above represents is inequality. That little thing that plagues life in which some people are better at some things than others. None of us like it very much when inequality is imposed from a outside agent, however we’ve devolved into the politically correct idiot’s notion that any inequality, in and of itself, is wrong. Possibly evil. This is a bad idea and the root of much societal buffoonery.

My guess is that Houston Davis has some kids that would probably pants Yates in a spelling bee, amateur boxing, or an AP History exam. Yates is actually rather famous for losing baseball games in Houston to the tune of 42-1 and 31-0.

The question remains: does Yates have to run it up?

No, they don’t.

In fact, gratuitously running up the score at the high school level is bad sportsmanship and sends a negative message all around, though if it reduces your son or daughter to a blubbering heap that tells me a bit more about you than it does the principle involved. It’s not clear that Yates is running it up on everyone. Though the time-outs and intentional fouling accusations to get to 100, if true, are troubling.

In several blowouts, Yates played the last five men on their bench for most of the game. In several games, their starters had on sweats before halftime. Yates did, however, continue to run their system. A system which, by its nature, amplifies unequal talent distribution with ball pressure and easy scores. With 3rd teamers. Are they to blame for having players buried deep on their bench that would have started at a crosstown rival?

Conversely, is it useful to tell a 3rd teamer not to play hard when he gets his ten minutes in front of his parents and friends? Do only the starters get to run the system that the team relentlessly drills and practices every day?

This gets into territory that isn’t so neatly defined by Reilly’s indignant outrage. Just as there is a message to be sent about class, fair play, and consideration when one opponent clearly outmatches another, every player should also give it their best, play hard, and never quit. In my view, when the dominant team puts in their reserves at an appropriate time, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to fair play. But what if that still yields an ugly result?

If your scrubs are really laying it to someone, what’s the recommended basketball protocol? Tell them to run the full clock and then turn it over on purpose? Allow opponent lay-ups? Play with three men? If you get a breakaway, do you lay the ball down on the opposing free throw line and walk off? At a certain point, artificial kindness morphs into contempt and disrespect. I would much rather be blown out than be condescended to and pitied. Your opponent owes you his best effort. When you’ve cried uncle, the reserves owe you their best effort. When you cry uncle again, the 3rd teamers and ballboys owe you their best effort.

And if you still can’t compete, you need to look at yourself rather than whine about the cruel, unfair world. Why is it your inner-city public school is so deficient when another is so strong? Maybe you shouldn’t be playing basketball at all. Maybe you need a new coach. Maybe you shouldn’t have four starters benched because of No-Pass, No-Play.

Disagree?

How about this?

Yates could throw the game to build Davis esteem. Just have all of their players stand there.

Yates would still go to the playoffs and achieve their ambition of a state title.

Houston Davis should have a huge celebration after the forfeit. Confetti could pour from the rafters, chants of We’re #1 should reverberate through the gym, the players should take a whooping, celebratory sweatless shower as they plan the evening after-party. Now they’re 1-23. They can walk with their heads held high.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And the culprit will be chronic traumatic encephalopathy (or CTE).

I first learned about CTE after reading a Malcolm Gladwell piece in the New Yorker where he argued that football and a dog fighting are fundamentally the same.

Gladwell’s comparison is, of course, specious. And unfortunate, because it obscured, for me, the most interesting aspects of the story: CTE, and its implications for the game we love.

Football players, unlike pit bulls, have free will, we don’t engage in massive genetic engineering to create them (culling those who don’t come out to specifications), and we don’t execute players outside the stadium with a shotgun if they don’t play well. Marv Marinovich excepted. We pay the best handsomely and don’t house them in kennels, half-starving. There are extant societal and social pressures, to be sure, but football players, unlike pit bulls, are possessed of free will.

We can dismiss Gladwell’s comparison, but we dismiss the facts underpinning some of his arguments at our peril.

And the facts are pretty troubling.

CTE is caused by repeated blows to the head and researchers are finding some preliminary results that are troubling. Neurosurgeons have found CTE in the brains of dozens of deceased athletes – many who died in troubling, destructive ways – NFL players, pro wrestlers, and NHL players, and some researchers and many in the media are beginning to link it to early death, psychological issues, substance abuse, and dementia, during and after a playing career.

There are three major rites of passage for a football player: a concussion, a stinger (compression of the brachial plexis), a blown knee. I experienced all three playing only through high school (my first stinger in junior high I proclaimed myself “paralyzed” and thrashed about in confusion while my coaches chuckled at me, taking delight in describing to my mother after practice exactly what it looked like). A concussion wasn’t treated with much more seriousness, particularly if it was “mild.” We would rewind the inflicting play during film sessions over and over, high-fiving. Stingers were a lesser injury, concussions were of moderate concern, and a knee injury was, of course, tragic, as it meant a blown season and a painful rehab.

Now we know that calculus may be very wrong.

Researchers recently examined former Bengals receiver Chris Henry after his death and noted extensive brain trauma. Trauma caused long before his accident (falling out of the back of a speeding truck, some contend was a suicide).

I’ve long lamented the increasing pussification of children, the prevalence of helicopter parents (hovering over kids at all times), and the resultant soccer trophy mentality that creates emotionally fragile little monsters, but proper concern over this matter isn’t a societal form of hyper-parenting. Nor does proper concern mean mindless What Are We Doing To Our Children, We Are No Different From Ancient Rome babble either.

It’s new ground that we don’t know much about and it needs study.

Most athletes accept that physical injury is a part of the game, and, indeed risk is why football is appealing. Safety is not an absolute good, whether in dealing with terrorism, deciding to leave your house in the morning, or violent sports. However, we don’t respect brain trauma enough and we understand it even less.

We intuitively understand things that bleed – and treat them promptly, but we don’t understand degraded neural fibers from poisonous tau proteins unleashed by hits. It’s a subtle way to degrade.

The most troubling fact, according to the ESPN article, is that a concussion – diagnosed or otherwise -isn’t necessary to cause that trauma:

But it doesn’t take a collision with another player for brain trauma to occur. “The brain floats freely in your skull,” said Bennet Omalu, a neuropathologist who is co-director of BIRI. “If you’re moving very quickly and suddenly stop, the brain bounces.”

Bounce your brain enough times and you have the potential for CTE. Even during collisions that are routine. As in OL play, where dramatic hits are infrequent, but constant pounding is guaranteed.

A few observations:

Science

Several dozen athletes dying under troubling circumstances who then have brain-autopsy revealing CTE may be a classic case of self-selection by publicized death. It ignores the millions of athletes without CTE, or, if they possess gradations of it, have manifestations that are benign. This is a crucial point and a context the media all too rarely provides. Aspirin and NSAIDS kill 7,500 a year.

Additionally, CTE also has genetic predispositions, can manifest itself without repeated head trauma, and football may not even be the cause of it. Head trauma as a small child from physical abuse is one possible culprit and also offers explanative value for associated behavioral disorders. This is precisely the sort of abuse that would often not be revealed to researchers in family history interviews. Some people aren’t right in the head – with or without the triggers of a blindside hit. And sometimes those hits came from Mom or Dad.

Helmets

I suspect that helmets and “safety equipment” are the majority of the problem. Artificial turf or low cut grass don’t help either. A helmet is a hard weapon, offers total freedom from the discouraging effects of impact like a broken nose or lost teeth, and a sense of abandon. You feel invincible. It does not shield the brain. Your brain is floating freely in your skull. A helmet increases concussive force, in much the same way that a boxing glove does for the fist.

Helmets prevent facial injuries just as boxing gloves prevent broken knuckles. Neither was invented for the safety of the person you’re hitting. It’s instructive that bare knuckle matches would often go on for hours. Put 10 ounce gloves on those men, and you’ll find a speedier resolution. When a fighter is spoken of being “heavy-handed”, that’s not accidental terminology.

Rugby vs. Football

Related to the helmet issue. The most obvious study that needs to be done? Rugby CTE prevalence vs. American Football CTE prevalence. We’d gain some understanding of the impact of the helmet vs. bare head and scrum vs. traditional line play. I suspect CTE could be less prevalent, but there are suggestions that CTE may even impact sports like soccer where clashes of heads are routine contesting headers.

Rules

In its earliest forms, football was almost banned due to on-field deaths because the rules disallowed freedom of space, allowed dangerous offensive formations like the flying wedge, and it even drew the reformist ire of Teddy Roosevelt. Rule changes saved the game.

If CTE proves to be as damaging as believed, or even if it’s not and we succumb to media hysteria – what changes could we see?

Outlawing the three point stance (line play would now look more like high school prospect summer camp one-on-ones), and a mandatory three month sit-out for any player with a concussion (some researchers contend that this is sufficient time to cleanse damaging tau proteins), for starters.

Geometry

There is no game on earth, save perhaps hockey, where you’re more likely to be hit while defenseless and without expectation.

Some of the violence of football is hard-wired into very rules and geometry of the game…

…linemen driving into each other on every down, a QB earholed by blindside hit, a receiver slaughtered over the middle while looking back at the quarterback, the crackback block. Unless you change the fundamental geometry, you still have a fundamentally concussive sport.

Media Treatment

This issue, as it grows, and becomes increasingly popular, will be treated hysterically as the anecdotal and scientific are intermingled and passion is mistaken for knowledge. See any debate on autism. That’s bad for science. That’s bad for truth. It’s currently not being covered too egregiously (Gladwell’s bad comparisons excepted) as it’s a technical issue, it “attacks” America’s favorite sport – not too popular in sports newsrooms, but as it gains legs, garners the attention of non-sport news rooms and the attention of groups who find it a useful means of attacking Big Sports or Big Society, you’ll see that shift. Similarly, reactionary forces will respond in kind (you Yankees tryin’ to take my football, goddamnit), obfuscating the entire debate.

Also, expect bad-behaving athletes and their agents to advance CTE arguments as explanations for murder, assault, rape, assholery, and various other social ills. I’ve already seen it in places as a Roethlisberger defense.

Final Thoughts

I think the science here is very preliminary, the debate itself will be obfuscated with agendas as it hits the mainstream press, there haven’t been any number of useful comparative studies, the n’s aren’t very big, and so on.

But I don’t need to see a hundred men walk into an elevator shaft and plummet to their death without calling maintenance. At the risk of making a Gladwellian false comparison with that last image, I don’t think the threat is as dire or imminent as that, but this is an issue we need to study, debate what it means to us, and assess what we can do to minimize acceptable risk.

The cynical part of me will offer this though: we’ve known instinctively, and now the science has widely confirmed, the phenomenon of punch-drunk boxers – slurred speech, erratic behavior, amnesiac episodes. Boxing damages the brain. Our society has made the judgment that men enter freely into the sport and accept the consequences.

We’ll do the same with football.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I propose a game that’s a very small subset to that discussion, primarily dealing with the measurement and allocation piece, using something near and dear to our hearts – football defense.

The premise is simple:

I want you to field a college defense. You’re playing in the Big 12. Your goal is to win the league and a national championship.

You need only do three things to play:

1). Pick your base defense

2). Allocate 70 player personnel points over 11 positions

- All allocations must add up to 70
- minimum allocation of 1, maximum of 10
- You cannot decimalize (I’m looking at you, engineers)
- Assume that a player value describes the player’s efficacy against run and pass equally
- A player value represents their baseline of natural ability vis a vis peers at their position, not necessarily production

Here’s your scale, so we’re all using the same value vocabulary. Remember, we’re discussing ability:

10 All-American
8-9 All-Conference
6-7 Quality
5 Average
3-4 Below average/Weak
1-2 Awful

3). Now, justify all of your decisions

—————————————————————————-

Here’s a Dummy Example by Skippy-O-Tex (I’ll post my real one later):

I’m running a 3-4. Wrecking Crew, boi!

I have three All-Americans: at NT and both OLB spots! We will sack the QB before he even thinks of getting rid of the ball. Very solid ILBs backing up my stud NT as well. Yeah, we may give up some plays in the secondary, but they won’t need to cover very long with my pass rush up front and my ability to shut down the run.

Have at it. This will be fun.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.