The Future of Tackle Football: Another Couple of Bricks in the Wall

An old friend called recently. We were catching up on news of kids, recent travel and various body aches and pains when he announced he had something to tell to me. 

“I’m quitting football.”

I found this a bit confusing because at age 60, his playing days are long over. Besides, he played basketball in college and professionally overseas. 

We’d always bonded over sports, discussing and pontificating regarding matters both on the fields of play and off.  For a period of time, we both worked in college athletics. We consider ourselves pretty knowledgeable, having played at an elite level, studied sports as scholars and worked in the field. 

He also loves watching sports. In particular his, beloved Boston Celtics and New England Patriots. He hadn’t missed a televised Patriots game in years . 

“I’m quitting football,” he repeated. “I can no longer watch with a clear conscience.” 

He went on to cite several reasons, from the brutality of the game and the brain trauma it inflicts on players, to the NFL’s treatment of its cheerleaders, to the leagues handling of their players’ acts of “taking a knee” as a form of civil disobedience to highlight their concerns about police brutality.  

“I can’t justify it anymore.”

I’ve long been where he is now arriving. I do, however, periodically check in to watch a few plays to gauge whether the game is changing as it relates to player safety. As has been well-documented, the “football industrial complex”, lead by the NFL and its “Heads Up Football” campaign, has engaged in a widespread public relations campaign aimed to convince the public, and in particular, mothers, that the various changes in rules and teaching techniques have made the game suitably safe for children. It is important to note, however, that they have waged this campaign with little empirical data to back their claims. Yes, there are many well-meaning people who are attempting to make the game safer.  But I am sorry. From what I see, the game is not being played in a significantly different manner. It simply doesn’t pass the eye test. It remains a gladiatorial sport – brutal and barbaric. Players continue to lead with their heads, using their helmets as spears. Meanwhile, research regarding tackle football’s devastating impact on brain health and function continues to mount. 

The following day, I read an article about the growing movement to bring 'esports' into the high school sports arena to meet what is a significant and growing demand. Esport leagues are being created to meet that demand. One league, the High School esports League (HSEL) has partnered with 850 schools and has more than 16,000 users. Another company (Play VS) has partnered with the National Federation of High School Associations (NFHS) to begin varsity level esports leagues in at least 18 states. And this year, Indiana’s Munster High became the country’s first high school to allow students to letter in varsity eSports.

And there’s money in it.

Colleges are beginning to offer esports scholarships. Once substantive scholarship money is dangled in front of participants, high school eSports are going to explode. While the demographics of those attracted to esports versus football may not overlap completely, it will have an impact around the fringes.  Kids who may not be the best athletes but who participated in football to feel a part of a team or to participate in an activity with their friends or simply to please a parent, will have another, far less violent alternative. 

Esports, offers many of the same benefits and attractions as football. It is a team sport and in many schools will soon be a varsity sport. It is a fun activity that can be played with friends as teammates and even provides the possibility of earning a scholarship. That will be an attractive package for a growing number of kids. 

Further, an increasing number of parents will likely ask, “Why sacrifice my child’s brain and body on the football field for the non-existent chance at a college scholarship?” Inasmuch as football is a game of numbers, losing a handful of players here and there, will make a difference.

And for colleges, recruiting kids who are strengthening their minds through eSports as opposed to scrambling them with football will be increasingly attractive.

And if you think esports is simply a passing phase for geeks and freaks, live eSports events are beginning to sell out professional arenas. 

The most striking story told in a June 14, 2018 article in Bleacherreport titled “Forget Friday Night Lights, Esports is Becoming the Next Varsity Obsession”, was about Chris Chapman and his two sons. Chris grew up attending football games with his father. Apparently when Chris offered to take his two sons to a New York Jets game, they asked whether they could go to the CS:GO tournament instead. GS:CO stands for Counter-Strike:Global Offensive, which is the esport world championship that was held in the Barclays Center in Brooklyn.  

Clearly, the loss of my friend as a devoted television viewer or the fact that a father who offered to take his kids to an NFL game wanted to be taken to an esport event instead will not bring the NFL to its knees. Football remains a powerful cultural force. But small stories and actions such as these, coupled with the larger trends of declining television viewership, declining numbers of participants at the youth league level, increased public and media scrutiny, begin to add up. 

Make no mistake, slowly but surely, drip-by-drip and brick-by-brick, our society’s relationship with the sport of tackle football is changing. Football is a numbers game. And the fact is, those numbers are steadily decreasing. 

America’s Game Slipping Out of Touch with American Values?

America’s Game Slipping Out of Touch with American Values?
 
One of the most defining influences on my athletic career was when the New York Jets defeated the Baltimore Colts in the 1969 Super Bowl. The Jets, from the upstart American Football League, were lead by the brash, shaggy-haired, nightlife-loving Broadway Joe Namath. The Colts represented the “old line” National Football League and were lead by the crew cut straight-laced quarterbacks Johnny Unitas and Earl Morrill. I was a Jets fan and loved Namath. What he represented to me was that you could still be a great athlete without having to force yourself to fit the conservative mold of the old-line sports establishment. Namath taught me that you can be an athlete and still be yourself and do it your way.

Like me, many people, young and old, take their cues and mirror behaviors from what athletes or team owners say or do. For well over 60 years, the National Football League’s impact on American society and cultural norms has been significant. The NFL has aligned its’ brand with American institutions such as the military, law enforcement with a full embrace of the flag and patriotism. At the core of the league’s narrative and brand is positioning football as uniquely “American”. As a result, the NFL has served as a leading indicator and shaper of American cultural norms. But a closer look reveals a league that is handling a wide array of issues in a way that suggests that it is falling out of line with various, rapidly changing American values.

To date, linking its’ brand to all things American has served the NFL well. The problem, however, is that the cultural values and norms the NFL continues to embrace, remain locked in an American society of the 1950’s or 1960’s rather than American society and culture of today.  While our society has been changing dramatically over the past several decades, largely for the good, the NFL has been mired in the quicksand of the past.

It is not surprising that the NFL has become breathtakingly out of line with several fundamental societal changes in norms and beliefs. The league is run by old, white, billionaire men who seem to be out of touch with today’s shifting cultural trends. Clearly, more than a handful of them think that America remains as it was is in the days of Henry Winkler’s Fonzie character in the TV sitcom “Happy Days”.

Clearly, there is something going on as it relates to football’s place in our culture. Television ratings are dropping. Participation numbers at the youth level for tackle football are declining. And media coverage, once unfailingly fawning, has become more critical and introspective. How much of these trends are a result of the NFL being behind the cultural times is hard to determine, but make no mistake, our society is changing rapidly and if the NFL does not acknowledge and address those changes accordingly, its’ cultural sway will likely diminish significantly.

In short, the world is passing the NFL “old boy’s club” by. Without significant change, the league and its values will become cultural dinosaurs. This is not to say that the league won’t remain popular and won’t attract a significant number of fans who will continue to watch football. Rather, it is to suggest that the values and policies it represents and embraces are becoming out of line with the beliefs of an increasing number of Americans. A case can be made that in the age of rapidly changing America values and demographics, as evidenced in the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements, the corresponding evolution of cultural norms and beliefs no longer line up with those of the league.

Gladiator Games: A Healthy American Value?

The ongoing revelations regarding the violent nature of the game and its impact on the players, particularly as it relates to brain trauma, is a good place to start. These revelations have resulted in increased scrutiny and skepticism regarding the gladiatorial nature of the game.  While this might sound hyperbolic, but short of feeding the participants to lions, at a core level, there’s not much difference between Roman gladiator games and the modern day NFL. Both sacrifice the bodies and brains of participants in violent “combat” for the entertainment of the masses. And the league has only exacerbated that skepticism in its’ long-standing efforts to hide or downplay research on head trauma and it’s continued practice of stonewalling attempts of former players who are suffering from the effects of brain trauma from receiving compensation and health benefits. It all makes you wonder whether our obsession with brutal “Gladiator Games” is a healthy American value.

A Culture of Misogyny?

Another example is the way the league has handled the issue of domestic violence by its players. Typically, the NFL’s stance has been to brush over such incidents or to bend over backward to make excuses for them and by imposing a suspension of a few games on a player without really addressing the issue in a meaningful way.

Further evidence of the NFL’s misogynistic culture relates to how the teams treat their cheerleaders. The New York Times recently reported on a Washington Redskins 2013 cheerleader calendar photo shoot in Costa Rica.  The women were required to pose topless or in body paint for the shoot, all while team sponsors and luxury suite holders were allowed to observe. And after the photo shoot, several of the cheerleaders were expected to accompany sponsors as escorts. But that is simply one example from one team. Throughout the league, cheerleaders are required to adhere to standards of behavior more suited to the stern morality of the Victorian Age than the 21st century, with restrictive rules on dating or even being seen in public with players, strict dress codes and excessively restrictive codes of conduct.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not only the NBA’s all-time leading scorer but is also one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful observers of the intersection of sport, race, civil rights and American culture.  In an April 6, 2018 column in The Guardian titled, “The NFL’s plan to protect America from witches”, he writes, “a cheerleader in modest lingerie is fired; a player knocks out his wife on video and is suspended for two games. Boys will be boys, but girls must be what the NFL tells them to be.”  

Talk about a slam dunk in summing up a troubling culture!

Remnants of a Plantation Culture?

And then there is the way in which the league has handled player protests relating to police brutality against black Americans lead by Colin Kaepernick. As a way to draw attention to the issue, players “took a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem.  These actions have generated attention in a way that suggests that there may be a shift or an awakening taking place among athletes relating to how to leverage their visibility and standing in our society. There have been a sizable number of athletes throughout the country from the NFL, NBA and WNBA to colleges, high schools and even youth leagues who have knelt, sat, raised a fist or locked arms as a sign of unity with Kaepernick. That’s noteworthy.

What’s also noteworthy is that while several owners supported the players at first, their stance quickly changed when they began to get negative feedback from fans and television executives. Since then, the NFL has clearly blackballed Kaepernick and, as of this writing, they are apparently doing the same to his former teammate Eric Reid, who has been vocal in his support of this activist action.

Another example is the case of Chad Thomas, a recent third round pick of the Cleveland Browns who played college ball at the University of Miami. Thomas has already made a name for himself in the music business as a talented producer who has produced tracks for artists like Rick Ross, Kodak Black and City Girls and has been sampled by DJ Khaled and Drake. He can read and write music and plays nine different instruments. It’s an interesting reflection of the values of the NFL and football culture that he was repeatedly asked by teams during the draft evaluation process about his music career. As Master Tesfatsion wrote in BleacherReport.com  (April 23, 2018), “NFL teams are uncomfortable when a football player pursues off-the-field interests, none more so than rap…It causes decision makers to question whether a player wants to be a rapper or a football player.”

As if you can’t do both?

The NFL seems to be saying that athletes are not worthy, smart, educated or well informed enough to speak out on societal matters that deeply impact them and their families or to have interests outside of football. It is ironic that often the same people who hold up those very same athletes as  “role models” when they are scoring touchdowns and selling tickets, are the first to attempt to silence them for speaking out. Apparently, when athletes use their brains and intelligence to make a public stand or pursue other interests, they suddenly become radicals and ungrateful for the “privilege” of playing football.

Anti-Intellectualism in the Global, Creative Economy of the 21st Century?

There is another angle to the Chad Thomas example that is worth mentioning. While this applies to many sport cultures, it seems particularly prevalent in the football culture. Specifically, it is the thread of anti-intellectualism and the “dumb jock” stereotype that permeates the football culture. This attitude flows from the absolute obedience, discipline, and conformity that is demanded by coaches. In other words, as was made clear to Thomas, all that matters is football.

Without question, over the past century, football has played an important role in the development of our country. Football helped to strengthen our bodies and mold our character in a way that met the needs of a country emerging into a world military and industrial power. But we are now in a new age, an age where intellect, education and the ability to creatively manage and communicate large amounts of highly technical information will power our growth and continued development as a nation. Intellectual creativity, not single-minded conformity and gladiatorial feats, will be the currency of the future. Against this backdrop, we must consider whether the values and attitudes that permeate throughout not only the NFL but the entire football community, remain in line with the educational values and personal skills and characteristics that are necessary to succeed in the global, creative economy and the world community of the future.

NFL Profits vs Public Health?

In a March 28, 2018 piece that appeared in Vox, Julia Belluz writes about how major advertising sponsors of sports leagues and in particular, the NFL, are often food and beverage companies that peddle junk food to children. The association of these unhealthy foods (sodas, snack foods, etc) with sports, she writes, is “especially problematic – it fuses this healthy activity with this really unhealthy message.” Clearly, the NFL has a tremendous influence over and impact upon children. Given the childhood obesity problem in our country, could it be that, in its’ quest for profits in partnering with these industries, the NFL is actually having a negative impact on public health and the childhood obesity epidemic? While the league has made an attempt to promote physical activity in youth through its Play 60 campaign, the question is whether that is enough.  

Granted, a few articles and some increased attention and critical analysis of its’ handling of these issues will not bring the NFL to its knees.  But make no mistake, slowly and surely, things are changing as it relates to the role, influence and impact of football in our society. Football is facing growing public scrutiny that will continue to increase. And it should as a case can be made that certain values and societal norms, long promoted by the NFL, are not necessarily a reflection of today’s culture.

In short, American culture has changed significantly from when I watched Joe Namath and the Jets defeat the Baltimore Colts in the 1969 Super Bowl. While the NFL’s cultural influence remains powerful, the fact is, if those old, white, male, billionaire owners don’t get their heads out of the sand and recognize that we are long past the “Happy Days” of Fonzie, Ritchie, Joanie, and Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, the NFL’s cultural relevance and influence will, like the skills of an aging superstar quarterback, slowly but surely wither away. 

High School Tackle Football: Its Origins Foretell its Future

USA Football, the NFL funded national governing body for the sport recently held its annual meeting in Orlando. According to a January 30, 2018 account in the New York Times, they would have been better off holding it at a beach resort as it would have made it much easier for participants to dig holes to bury their heads in the sand.

According to Ken Belson, the conference amounted to a series of coaches, former players and various administrators coming to the lectern to deliver the same stern warning: “Football is under attack and your job is to change the narrative.” Apparently, many of the speakers insisted that the sport is “vital to the American experience, essential for its survival, and it doesn’t have a health and safety problem as much as it has a messaging problem.” David Baker, the president of the Pro Football Hall of Fame said that if we lose football, “I don’t know if America can survive.”

Seriously?

I must have missed the American history lesson that explained how George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton felt a need to carve into the U.S. Constitution a clause specific to football being essential to the survival of our nation. Trust me, America will survive and thrive with or without football. Yes, it is extremely entertaining. Yes, we love being fans and being a part of a “tribe”. And granted, playing youth tackle football can have a positive impact on participants. But the fact is, so can involvement with any number of other sports. At the end of the day, it is simply game. To think it is essential for very survival of America is delusional. That said, the focus of this essay is not football in general, but rather youth tackle football specifically.

If Baker and his colleagues would lift their collective heads out of the sand and take an honest look at the current state of the game, they’d see that virtually all of the research emerging regarding football and brain trauma is making the connection between the two irrefutable. As a result, more parents, including many former NFL stars, are expressing concerns about letting their children play or prohibiting it outright. Meanwhile, for the second straight year, television ratings for the NFL fell both for the regular season and playoffs. And in the last two months, legislation to ban tackle football before the age of 14 was introduced in four states (Illinois, California, Maryland and New York).

Clearly, something is happening here. And it’s not simply a product of poor messaging.

If these developments on their own are not enough to paint a very cloudy picture of football’s future, something even more fundamental is at work, particularly as it applies to the future of tackle football sponsored by our junior high and high schools. Specifically, it relates to the fundamental justification for football being incorporated into our educational system in the first place.

Until the mid 1800s, America was primarily an agrarian economy and society. And, true to its purpose, our educational system reflected and served the needs of that society. Schools existed to provide the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. There wasn’t much time for anything else. Sports, games, music and the arts were considered frivolous and, for the most part, didn’t have much of a formal role in schools.

It was not until the Industrial Age that sports and football in particular, began to gain a foothold within our school curriculums. America’s emerging middle class began to experience a rising standard of living, with shorter workdays and more disposable income. As a result, it became more accepted to engage in a little “frivolity.”

But in the case of football, there was another influence at work. The primary reason football was incorporated into high schools had little to do with education in the traditional sense. The driving force behind the implementation of such programs were the great industrialists of the late 1800’s and early 1900s. Rather than having an interest in educating through sport, these business leaders looked upon organized athletics and in particular football, as a means to train, socialize and control a workforce. In short, Industrial America required workers to be dependable, in good physical shape, able to work as part of a team and, above all, obedient. It was widely believed that football instilled these characteristics. In the minds of factory owners, there was little room for lofty thinking on the assembly line. Industrialists of that time did not want their line workers to be great thinkers, preferring that they passively conform. “The leaders of American industry felt that their workers needed to be loyal and punctual, but not necessarily good academically.” (Miracle and Rees, Lessons of the Locker Room: The Myth of School Sports, 1994, p. 178.) 

At its origin, football was considered an extracurricular activity that was an entertaining addition to a school’s broad offerings, but certainly not central to the educational mission of the institution.  But as our society’s love affair with football, grew, so too did football’s place of importance in our schools. As a result, football has, if not structurally, then culturally and philosophically, moved closer to being considered a “basic”, or at least a more important part of the curriculum, than other extracurricular activities such as music, theatre or visual arts.

Because this notion has become so engrained in our public psyche over the past century, we continue to accept it without question. If this were not the case, why has it been far more likely that arts programs, rather than football programs, are reduced or eliminated in times of budget shortfalls?

It is precisely this long held belief of the educational utility of football as it applies to instilling in youth the necessary skills to successfully compete in the workforce and economy of the day that foretells its future in America’s educational system.

In short, the fundamental educational rationalization for incorporating football into the fabric of our educational system has gone the way of the leather football helmet. It simply does not apply in today’s world.

The fact is, our economy and our society have changed dramatically since these programs were initially incorporated into the educational system.  We no longer live in an industrial economy that requires workers to be physically fit, unquestionably obedient and able to methodically perform the manual tasks required for an assembly line. While football may have been a wise educational and economic investment in the early 1900s, continuing to invest in an activity best suited to prepare workers for a world and economy that no longer exists, is misguided. Music, for example, is a far better educational investment than football in providing the creative skills necessary to succeed in the interrelated, global, information-based, creative economy and world community of the future.

Change is difficult. It is often much easier to cling to the comfortable models from the past. But how silly would it be for a politician, school administrator or community leader to propose reforming our schools to place the primary emphasis on preparing students to become farmers and steel workers? That may have been quite reasonable in 1850 or 1900, but to propose that today would be considered crazy. While we still need a certain number of farmers and steel workers, to systematically structure our educational system to concentrate on preparing future generations for an agricultural or industrial economy is ludicrous.
 
This is why it is important to have a serious discussion about extracurricular activities in our educational system. This discussion must take place against a background that recognizes the fact that America’s economy has changed from one based on industrial might to one based on creativity and innovation.  Clearly, the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace of the future have far more to do with brains than brawn, requiring intellectual and creative skills nurtured in the classrooms and concert halls rather than muscles built in the weight room and on the playing field.
 
It comes down to whether we, as educational and community leaders, continue to fund an activity that scrambles brains and is better suited to prepare our children for an industrial economy that is long gone or invest in an activity that strengthens and builds brain capacity and brain function that is perfectly suited to prepare our children to more effectively meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. We should welcome this discussion and analysis, because if we approach it honestly, the end result will be better schools serving our children and communities more effectively.
 
In the end, isn’t that what we all want?

Nick Bouniconti’s Most Impactful Play

Nick Bouniconti’s Most Impactful Play

Nick Bouniconti

Nick Bouniconti always had a big impact on the football field.

As middle linebacker, Bouniconti anchored the defense of the greatest football team in history, the undefeated 1972 Super Bowl Champion Miami Dolphins. Whether sacking a quarterback or tackling a running back short of a first down, Bouniconti always made his presence felt. And for so many fans in our football crazed society, what Bouniconti achieved is considered the highest of all sports pinnacles – Hall of Fame inductee and Super Bowl Champion on the only undefeated team in NFL history.  

But for a much of an impact he had on the field, that impact on the game pales in comparison to the impact and importance of his recent comment in an article, which appeared in a January 18 article in CNN.com, regarding youth tackle football.  The article quoted several former NFL players who are calling for an end to tackle football for kids ages 13 and under.

“I beg of you, all parents to please don’t let your children play football until high school," said Bouniconti, 77, who has been diagnosed with dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease. “I made the mistake of starting tackle football at 9 years old. CTE has taken my life away. Youth tackle football is all risk with no reward.”

So while many of his plays on the field could bring a crowd to its feet, his comment is truly deserving of full-throated standing ovation.

Here are some links to the CNN article, as well as several essays I’ve written on the subject of youth tackle football.

"Former NFLers call for end to tackle football for kids" : Published on CNN.com | Jan. 18, 2018

"Why not flag football?" : Published in Philadelphia Inquirer | June 15, 2015

Published on JohnGerdy.com:

• “Creating A Football 'Safe Space' for Kids and Parents” 
• “Bo Knows Head Trauma” 
• “Brain on Football vs. Brain on Music” 

Why Not Flag Football?

Originally published in the June 15, 2015 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Why Not Flag Football?

It’s time for parents, school officials, the sports media, fans and anyone else who continues to resist the need to reconsider and re-imagine tackle football at the youth, junior high and high school levels to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves a question:

Why not flag football?

Consider how we have long justified tackle football at these levels. That justification starts with the emphatic assertion that the game is “about the kids”.  The narrative continues. Tackle football teaches things that cannot be taught in the classroom. The field and weight room are classrooms where coaches teach valuable life lessons such as discipline, teamwork and personal responsibility.  Tackle football also increases student “engagement”, making kids more likely to stay in school while keeping them out of trouble by giving them something constructive to do. There’s the notion that participation in tackle football contributes to personal fitness. And in an increasingly competitive world economy and global community, the competitive aspect of tackle football can serve as a teaching tool. It’s also widely accepted that tackle football serves as a valuable community building function as few things can unite a community more than a successful tackle football team. And finally, tackle football is very entertaining.

But consider this.

It can be argued that football is so popular and entertaining because it satisfies a deep human attraction to, for lack of a better term, “bloodlust”. Like a moth to a flame or the rubbernecker to the auto accident, we are attracted to the crunches, crushes, mayhem and carnage. Let’s be honest. The violence and sheer brutality is a big part of tackle football’s entertainment appeal.

As evidence regarding the link between football, concussions and lasting brain damage mounts, there has been increasing attention to and dialogue surrounding how the game can be made “safer”. As if a game that, at its’ core, is predicated on inflicting bone crunching, brain rattling physical punishment on opponents can be made suitably safe. Let’s say that football’s damage quotient is at 9 on a scale of 10. Even with great effort, the most that could be expected would be to nudge that needle back from nine a bit.  Would that be safe enough? The fact is, the game is inherently, fundamentally violent. It is what it is, a brutal game. Instituting a few rules that will only marginally improve player safety and launching glitzy public relations efforts to sell those rule changes as having a meaningful impact won’t change that reality.

So, how about Flag Football?

Other than the bone crunching hits, blocks and tackles and the gladiatorial (and expensive) equipment required to “survive” those brain scrambling hits, blocks and tackles”, 95% of the two forms of the game yield essentially the same benefits for participants. But rather than having to literally sacrifice your body to tackle a ball carrier, in flag football, a defender must grab a ribbon from a belt attached to the ball carrier.  The essential elements of the game remain, including the grace, beauty and athleticism, albeit without the bone crunching, brain scrambling hits, blocks and tackles. And if you don’t believe it, go back to paragraph two and substitute “flag” for “tackle”.

You will find that all of the justifications that apply to tackle football can apply equally to flag football.

So why the resistance from the supposed “adults” in the room: parents, school officials, the sports media and fans?

We say that the game is “about the kids” and that it’s about teaching valuable life lessons, developing healthy bodies and competitive instincts, building community and providing entertainment. But if that were the case, rather refusing to consider a switch from tackle to flag football, we’d embrace the change. To do otherwise is to enable the continuation of an activity in which our children have a reasonable chance of sustaining life long brain damage. Why would we not embrace such an activity when a significantly safer and less expensive, alternative exists?

Some will cite a lost “benefit” of such a re-imagining of the game to be the loss of the extremely physical nature of it. Without that raw brutality, the lessons learned from getting up after being knocked down may be lost. This is nonsense. I played basketball professionally. I got knocked down hundreds of times and had to pick myself up and get back in the game. Basketball, and plenty of other sports, including flag football, can teach that lesson.  In short, tackle football does not have the market on teaching that life lesson.

The fact is, virtually every benefit that can be derived from tackle football can still be taught and absorbed through participation in flag football. Players will still be on teams to learn sacrifice, personal responsibility and teamwork. They’d still be actively engaged in a physical activity. They’d still compete for starting positions and against other teams. And the game would continue to be wonderfully entertaining, but in a different, less brutal (and expensive) way.

If all of the potential benefits for the participants remain, why not seriously consider it? If the game is truly about the kids as we claim, why not flag football? It offers the same benefits without the potential life long damage to the brain.

Are we so selfish as to refuse to reconsider and re-imagine football’s format to make it significantly safer for our children simply because it will be less entertaining for us?

It’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask:

Why not flag football?

College Coaching Salaries: A New Level of Absurdity

I’ve participated in, worked in, studied, researched and written about college athletics for over 40 years. It’s not often that I see something that makes me sit up, take notice and say “Are you kidding me?” Last week I had such a moment when LSU announced that it signed its’ defensive coordinator, Dave Aranda, to a four year, $10 million contract. All of it guaranteed. An assistant coach? Seriously?

For an educational institution? That’s absolutely absurd!

Of course, paying head football coaches exorbitantly is not new news. According to USA Today, in 2017, 78 college head football coaches and 41 head men’s basketball coaches earned at least $1.0 Million per year. Alabama’s Nick Saban heads the list at just over $11 Million and recently fired head basketball coach of Louisville, Rick Pitino, earned just over $7.7 Million. And in 2016, in 39 of the 50 states, the highest paid state employee was either a football or basketball head coach. (Business Insider, 9/26/16). 

Why does this matter? Why should we care whether LSU, Alabama or Penn State pays its football coach crazy money?

“I love my state and my state university and want them to be good in football,” is a common response. “It’s a point of state pride. And it’s far more fun and entertaining when they win. You need good coaches to win. Besides, the football program generates enough money to be able to afford it.” Others argue that this is simply an example of what the market will bear and that being able to have a quality coach is a sound investment.

But those who make these claims miss the larger point. American higher education is playing in a much bigger and infinitely more important “marketplace”. And spending that much money on a football coach undermines higher education’s ability to succeed in that larger marketplace.

That larger marketplace relates to higher education’s role in our society. From teaching to research from spurring economic development to being an agent for social change, the mission of higher education is many things to many people. But when you boil it down, it’s mission is to serve the public by helping to meet the many problems, needs and challenges that face society, including the role that sports plays in relation to education. And the effectiveness with which higher education responds to those needs will define it in the future.

It is no stretch to say that our country has lost perspective regarding the role of organized sport in our culture. We have come to glorify athletic accomplishment far more than academic achievement. Our colleges and universities, have, in large part, been responsible for allowing this culture to evolve. This is so, because in the case of the cultural subject matter of athletics, American higher education has failed in its public mission. Our colleges and universities have not provided the necessary leadership in establishing a healthy societal attitude regarding athletics. The result has been the grotesque distortion of educational priorities through the disproportionate resources and attention devoted to athletics. Aranda’s salary is simply the latest example of those skewed priorities.

While some may consider it a stretch, the fact is, the way colleges and universities conduct their athletic programs greatly influences higher education’s ability to fulfill its mission. Whether right or wrong, the fact is, major college athletics are the largest and clearest window through which the public views and interfaces with higher education. With such high visibility comes tremendous influence.

That being the case, as the public comes to view the hypocrisies and excesses of major college athletics with a more critical eye, higher education pays a price, specifically in the form of declining credibility, moral authority, and public trust. If universities cannot conduct their athletic programs in a way that makes it clear that while athletics are important, educational and academic excellence are paramount, how can it be expected that the public believe in its ability to effectively address issues such as poverty and illiteracy and to provide an education worthy of the twenty-first century?

Our colleges and universities can no longer afford to engage in practices that display for all to see, such skewed priorities. If there is any American institution that absolutely must stand up and demonstrate that academic and educational excellence are far more important than football or men’s basketball, it has to be our colleges and universities.

The values that are projected by college athletic programs are critical for another reason. What we do in our college athletic programs; the behaviors we condone, the messages we send and the “investments” we make, filter down to all levels of education. If our institutions of higher education tacitly endorse activities that undermine educational priorities and achievement in the name of athletic glory, it provides an example for all to emulate. In short, the public looks to higher education to provide educational leadership, including leadership regarding the role, importance, and purpose of sport in relation to education. Given its traditional role in our culture, it is clear that if we are ever going to begin the process of restoring our cultural consensus regarding the proper role of sport as it relates to education, it is up to the higher education community to initiate it.

It’s hard to see how paying $2.5 Million per year to an assistant football coach helps in that regard.