In the May 3, 2012 "Football A Game at Risk" at http://www.bighouseblog.com/ the posting began, "We all love football, you wouldn't be on this site right now if you didn't. We love the athleticism of the players, game strategy and to be fair the contact. It's a great watch. I'm sure you feel similar to myself when I say there isn't too many better things in life then walking to the big house on a 72 degree day to watch the Wolverines play a rival. The air is electric and there is a smell of grills working overtime at each tailgate. Your walk is a little faster and your heart is beating a bit quicker. The faster you get to your seat, the faster you get to be apart of 110,000 strong cheering for the same team. It's like walking into Disney World for the first time as a child. It's a magical feeling.
If you have been reading this site for years, you know one of the things that concerns me in this sport is concussion and overall brain trauma players can receive from playing this game. It scares me for many reasons, including the future of football at all levels. We got another slap in the face on what this game can do to you long term when "allegedly" Junior Seau took a gun and put it to his chest yesterday. It's another chilling reminder of something all football fans try to forget, the effects this game has on it's players long term health."
In the Wall Street Journal of May 5, 2012, Buzz Bissinger, author of "Friday Night Lights," in his article "Why College Football Should Be Banned" reports that college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.
Bissinger writes, "I actually like football a great deal. I am not some anti-sports prude. It has a place in our society, but not on college campuses. If you want to establish a minor league system that the National Football League pays for—which they should, given that they are the greatest beneficiaries of college football—that is fine."
So, who truly benefits from college football?
Alumni who absurdly judge the quality of their alma mater based on the quality of the football team. The coaches and their athletic departments that make obscene millions.
Who doesn't benefit?
The players themselves who don't receive a dime of compensation. The 43% of the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision that lost money on their programs according to the NCAA. The players who are at risk to the medical dangers of football in general caused by head trauma over repetitive hits. Academically, the student athletes' year-round commitment and the demands of the game makes the "student" half of the equation secondary and superfluous. And, of course, the scandals that have downgraded the reputations of those universities whose football programs were desperately engaged in the pursuit of winning at all costs.
Is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Effectively Governing?
The NCAA's core purpose is to: govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. Yet, the commercial success of college football and basketball is more than the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can effectively govern.
This is not news to the university football and basketball programs that fund most of the other university-sponsored sports programs while favorably encouraging alumni to generously contribute to the general fund of each university.
Critical Discussions on the Future of College Football
Mr. Bissinger and best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell will argue that college football should be banned in a debate on Tuesday evening, May 8, 2012, at New York University, sponsored by Intelligence Squared.