The Future of the NFL has been a topic surfacing, especially now that it is the end of the football season. The issue was recently brought up by Baltimore Ravens’ safety, Bernard Pollard, who made many comments about the safety of the NFL. During a Ravens vs. Patriots game, quarterback Tom Brady slid with his leg up, barely missing Ravens defensive player, Ed Reed. Very often, players are being taken off the field for concussions, blown-out knees, and other very serious injuries. Pollard, a hard-hitting player, who he himself has been fined for unnecessary roughness, was quoted saying, “Thirty years from now, I don't think it will be in existence. I could be wrong. It's just my opinion, but I think with the direction things are going -- where [NFL rules makers] want to lighten up, and they're throwing flags and everything else -- there's going to come a point where fans are going to get fed up with it.” Like Pollard, President Barack Obama also has strong opinions about the safety of football; President Obama has discussed with a magazine that if he had a son he would think long and hard before letting him play football. Ex-professional player Junior Seau committed suicide after suffering many concussions, leading to depression and then death. Junior’s family is suing the NFL so they could possibly be more aware of the risks of the game. Lastly, we touched on the financial aspect, that even though it is mostly about safety of the players, without the NFL, we would be out millions of jobs and billions of dollars.
Personally I feel that Pollard and Obama are correct, the game is becoming a danger to many and there needs to be something done about it. However, I don’t think the NFL will go under; I think there will need to be changes and stronger enforced rules if injuries keep getting worse and more frequent. The NFL brings in a wide range of interest and have many people deeply invested; it is an American past-time and a top favorite event to attend or to watch and to take that away would be a severe loss financially, as well as the millions of fans out there.
This topic is something that can be portrayed in a positive or negative light by the media. If the media supports those who think it is dangerous, and can interview people on their injuries post playing professional football, then they can show the public who are unaware of injuries. Instead of ESPN and other sports broadcasters and radio shows talking about and showing the hard hits and violent plays, they could focus on the positive offensive plays and good things that are going on. Even though the public often looks for the negative, it is up to the media to put a positive spin on it. Social media could be an even bigger factor if people suggested how to make football safe but still interesting and fun; as well as showing support of those injured. Something needs to be done in the NFL before there are more serious injuries.
---
Review by Katherine Lampa in SRM 334 (section 1)
The future of the National Football League is bleak according to some current football players, such as Bernard Pollard and some ESPN commentators. After the second week of NFL playoffs Pollard announced his thoughts on the future of the League and stated he did not think it would exist in thirty short years. Many have been questioning this because of the safety of the game as more and more serious injuries and consequences are occurring. Rules are constantly changing to try to keep the game safe, but the players continue to get more aggressive and powerful leading to injuries that previously had not been considered. Players are getting fined for moves that may have not injured someone at the time, but could in the future if they continue to play that way. All of these steps are moves to make the game safer, but some people believe it is becoming too safe and less interesting to watch or participate in.
This topic is relevant to this course because it has been all over the internet since it was brought up back in week two of the playoffs. There have been many interviews with players such as Pollard and other players that have actually been fined. Twitter has been blowing up with peoples reactions to his statement about the future and many people have been commenting on articles on ESPN and other news articles. People are easily able to make their opinions known about the topic because of the increase in media coverage and the opportunities to locate it online and converse with others who also have strong opinions. It is not often that players or people within the League get involved in these conversations, but it does give people an outlet for frustrations and changes that they think would make the NFL a continuing success.
Review by A.J. Scott in SRM 334 (section 1) My current event is discussing the reason why none of the Major League Baseball players were voted in the Hall of Fame this year. Some of these players who we discussed have been on steroids and have cheated the system for the majority of their careers. One of the most highly debated elections for the Baseball hall of fame ended in January without a single player being inducted. Barry Bonds, Rodger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa are players that are guilty of these actions.
I personally think it was wrong for them to have used illegal drugs for so long. All these players are icons in baseball, for older fans and the younger ones whom may look up to these players. It looks bad on their part because it seems like their whole career, they have just been cheaters and have been lying to their fan base and to their teammates. Do I think it’s fair that not even a single one of these great players got voted in? No I do not; regardless of them using steroids this so call performance enhancer, I look at the big picture. These players have changed baseball in a tremendous way. Personally, I am not a baseball fan in no way shape or form, but when I do hear about the major leagues, the names that I am familiar with are the players that were supposed to but didn’t get voted in the Hall of Fame. Sammy Sosa is a great baseball player with or without the drug enhancer. Even if he was to not have taken them I still think he would’ve became all the above.
This was an interesting topic for me to talk about because Baseball is not really something I follow but it is always good to learn about different sports and the problems that all athletes face which is the use of steroids. This event affected not only the Hall of Fame, but also marketing, fans, and the entire sport. It shows the impact that one event can have on everything. Athletes need to stop lying about taking drug enhancers; this has become a major issue in society today and has had a major impact on the world of sports. --- Review by Anthony Rose in SRM 334 (section 1) My current event is discussing the problem with the MLB Hall of Fame ballot. The problem is the fact that no one was voted into the hall of fame this year, and one of the main reasons is because of performance enhancing drugs. A lot of the candidates were accused of using performance enhancing drugs such as Barry Bonds who is the all time leader in home runs, Roger Clemens a pitcher who has 354 wins, Sammy Sosa who is the only baseball player to hit over 60 homers with three different teams. I think that the voters are trying to make a statement for the future saying basically if you are going to cheat your way into the record books then you are going to have to wait longer to get inducted into the hall of fame. Which in them doing that is fair but what isn’t fair is the fact that there are some other great players that didn’t get in this year that played the game the right way and are very deserving of the Hall of Fame. Me personally I have to agree with the steps that they are taking to put a stop to performing enhancing drugs because its just destroying the game of baseball. The fact that there will be no National Baseball hall of fame there will not be the same attendance for the Cooperstown season because that the biggest event during that weekend. In that case there will not be the same amount of funding that they are usually seeing because the big time baseball fans will not be attending.
From ESPN.com Review by Eric Brent in SRM 334 (section 3)
In ESPN’s article “Ray Lewis denies using antler spray,” the author discusses accusations made against Ray Lewis regarding his use of deer antler spray to help repair his tricep injury. The deer antler spray contains the substance IGF-1 which is banned by the NFL. Mitch Ross, the co-owner of Sports With Alternatives to Steroids (SWATS), has openly said that Lewis has used every product the company produces. Lewis denied the reports immediately when they were brought to surface, but the Ravens organization wanted Lewis to issue a stronger denial on Super Bowl media day. Dr. Salvatori, from John Hopkins University, told Baltimore Sun SWAT’s claims can simply not be true. He goes on to explain there is simply no scientific way that the substance IGF-1 can be taken orally, so it is not possible to come from a spray.
In the mist of Super Bowl week, I feel that Mitch Ross made these statements only to gain attention to not only him but the SWAT company as a whole. Ross knew this would be the most opportune time because not only was it Super Bowl week, but the spotlight was also on Ray Lewis due to his retirement announcement earlier in the season. Ray Lewis reacted to the allegations like a true professional, which allowed for him to focus on the real reason he was in New Orleans. The story could have easily become a distraction to the organization, but because Lewis was not selfish and instead thought about the betterment of the team.
The article relates to this course due to the fact of how the media took these accusations knowing it would gain a lot of attention. The timing of the accusations caused the media to go into a frenzy because the story would get extra media attention because of the Super Bowl. The announcement of Lewis’s retirement also played a role on how quickly reporters wanted to get the story out given the circumstances. --- Review by Jack Dennehy in SRM (section 3)
The article that we chose to use was “Ray Lewis Denies Using Antler Spray.” We chose this because it is very relevant for our class. Not only is it a current event, it is a very important current event due to the timing of the release and also Ray is one of the best football players in history. The article discusses how a magazine article accused him of using a banned substance for him to have a faster recovery from his torn triceps injury that happened in week seven of the season. Ray ended up missing the last ten games of the regular season. The spray was to enter the body via the mouth. The organization that is credited for making the spray product is SWATS(Sports with Alternatives to Steroids) His response to the articles release was not as serious as people would have thought. He said he was not angry but he was “agitated.” So when he addressed the press he was almost laughing over the matter saying it was ridiculous and uncalled for. He even went to say that “this guy has no credibility.” Coach Harbaugh was very confident in Ray and him telling the truth. Coach Harbaugh is one of the most highly respected coaches in the league. The article did mention that the Owner of the Ravens was not thrilled with the way Ray addressed the issue. He wanted him to be more assertive and aggressive towards the subject. The article talks about something very interesting, A professor at Johns Hopkins University claims that it is impossible for the spray to be affective orally. So once this is thrown out in the public it makes the claims irrelevant. This article is relevant to the course because it is a controversial subject that was entered into the press without much thought. We talk about subjects exactly like this one in class. The time at which it was released, a week before the biggest game of the year, the super bowl, and also it being the last game of Ray Lewis’s career draws a lot of attention. When you accuse someone of cheating or using performance enhancing substances, it can potentially ruin their entire career. It is a very sensitive subject to throw out there when you are not one hundred percent whether it is certain.
