Are Football Fans Immoral If They Watch the Superbowl? NO!

Mr. Almond asks: "Am I absolutely moral if I watch the Superbowl?"  The Cube doth reply, 'No!'  


According to Steve Almond, in last Sunday's New York Times magazine ('A Fan's Farewell Note', p. 44), those of us who tune in to watch the Superbowl today  will be de facto moral reprobates. Or at least accomplices to an immoral industry and sport. Almond reminds us that the evidence is now incontestable that "catastrophic brain injury" occurs "routinely" as part of the game, and this puts fans in a "morally queasy position". According to Almond:

"We not only tolerate this brutality, we sponsor it just by watching at home."

Huh? How do I "sponsor" it if I am merely a passive spectator, especially if my team isn't even in it - so I haven't purchased any gear - like sweatshirts or team caps from Nfl.com?  All we ordinary fans are doing is enjoying what promises to be a memorable sports event with the Number one ranked defense in Seattle vs. the No. 1 ranked offense in Denver?

Mr. Almond does agree to the game's popularity and he admits that he's aware "more than 100 million will watch the game" and "most of my friends will be parked in front of their TVs" - but he adds that he won't be among them. Oh no! He is making his statement to stand against NFL- promoted brutality and will not be among them. This is his swan song to the game ...a "fan's farewell."

Well, more power to you, dude, but don't expect many of us to join you! What is Almond's problem? In his own words, it's that he "can no longer indulge "(the pleasures of viewing great plays) because he "feels complicit" when he does.  I can't explain that kind of thinking, because it makes no sense - it's almost like "sympathetic magic" . How can you feel "complicit" if you don't really control any of the game's directions or fortunes? That's attributing way more power to the fans than they're capable of.

To his credit, Almond does concede there are two "rationalizations" that NFL fans invoke to defend their sport: 1)The NFL is working to make the game safer, and 2) All players CHOOSE to incur the game's risks and are lavishly compensated for doing so.

Almond asserts that excuse (1) is "flimsy at best" - since for years the league denied any neurological damage as a result of hard hits. (Well, we know this! That was part of the popularity of the sport, hence the success of videos like "NFL's Hardest Hits').  The problem is, as the NFL has kowtowed to the nervous Nellies, and helmet to helmet hits have been disallowed, as well as other hits that ordinarily were ok in the olden days - players are now going for the legs. So, in striving for  a putative safety in one area, players end up often losing their careers on account of leg injuries from which they're unable to return.

This brings up (2) which Almond acknowledges is "technically true".  Indeed, even the lowest rung "utility"  or "practice squad" players on an NFL team earn vastly more than high school algebra teachers- which is the REAL immorality - if Almond truly wishes to find such. It shows how inverted the nation's priorities are. So, given this inversion something has to 'give'  in terms of offset. There has to be some element in this highly remunerated  NFL game that warrants the mega-salaries or even vastly larger salaries than benefit the hoi polloi.  That is the risk of specific kinds of injuries- which ALL players have to know about before they sign on.

This game isn't croquet after all! The very nature of the game , i.e. in asking two sets of 11 large sized men to confront and stop each other,  calls for violence!  You're not going to stop the other guy across from you by calling him names!  Also, contrary to myth, football can be violent even in its tag or flag variation. When I attended Monsignor Pace High (1962-64) there was no varsity or other tackle football team yet - but we did have intramural tag teams. I played inside LB for one such intramural team - and my job was to sack the quarterback. I loved it. And be aware that on every down that meant crashing through blocks of the O-line using arms, elbows. That meant you sported bruises after each game, though maybe not concussions.

Given this, it's ludicrous for Almond to also take issue with the sport as played "by kids with limited options" - who then look on the NFL as their path to "riches and glory".  But see, it is the parents' job to temper their kids' expectations and let them know that only 1 of every 5,000 HS players will make it to the NFL. And only 1 of every 150 of those will reach true celeb status, including the million dollar endorsement deals and other perks. The parents are the ones that have to impart the reality, not the NFL.

In the end, I plan to enjoy the game today with my brats, beer, burgers, chips and dips. Almond can go to his computer and/or read a book if he wants to.

As to how the game will play out - I detect a seething Seahawks team, especially angry after Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman were snubbed for top defense honors - and eager to prove something after Peyton Manning has held center stage all week.  My prediction:

Seattle 34 Denver 17

About Obama's Pro Football Comments...

Tim Tebow dumped on his ass by a Lions' defender in October, 2011. Football is a rough game and too many weakening changes (on defense) will transform it into something else - and not what most fans came to watch.

Much of the football world last week was hyper-cautious about President Obama's opinions of the sport when he opined that: "I would have to seriously consider letting any sons play football."

Well, now that is HIS opinion, and he is entitled to it! I am not going to portray him as a "communist" or "sissy" or "Pansie" (sic, sp.) as some nutwhack bloggers have done who never played a down of football in their lives....but know how to flap their gums if it's anything about Obama. (And, btw, this is the thanks he gets for ensuring they can collect their VA or S.S. disability benefits!)

Picking up on the Prez' theme, Baltimore safety Bernard Pollard noted in New Orleans (Media Day) that he could "foresee the end of the game within thirty years".. By that he didn't mean the absolute end but - if things keep going as they are now - the end of a violent game which features hard defensive hits, such as the one Pollard made on Pats RB Steven Ridley (and got fined for in the AFC Playoff game).  Already, the defenses of assorted teams have been neutered with assorted new rules since the 90s that have sought to emphasize high octane passing offenses at the expense of defense. Thus, we've seen rules such as you can't whack a guy off his route beyond 5 yards (Deacon Jones and Ray Nitschke would have laughed at that one) nor can you hit a QB in a certain way ("roughing the QB") or make too much contact down the field fighting for the football ("pass interference"). The effect has been to turn the game into an almost entirely passing exercise for guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees.

Add to that now the new impetus to control "head hits" - i.e. leading with the helmet- and you can make the case that Pollard may not be very far off in his forecasts. (I kidded to wifey, a rabid Ravens' fan two days ago, he probably meant we will have tag football instead of tackle in 30 years.)  Now, according to a CBS News spot last night, the Commissioner (Roger Goodell) plans to have the zebras look for any sign of head hits in tomorrow's game. NO using the helmet to stop a guy no matter how high powered or large, or long legged. So wait? No helmet to Colin Kaepernick's solar plexus? That's the best way to stop a guy!

But no, the Commish, according to a CBS TV host, insists all the tackles be made "using the shoulders". I suppose that Ray Lewis heard the warning, as well as Terrell Suggs, and of course, the Niners' Patrick Willis and Justin Smith! In any case it will be quite interesting to watch and see what transpires and how many flags get tossed. Oh, also how many fines are assessed on Monday!

Look, I sympathize with Obama but football is a rough sport, probably best compared to the game of rugby or 'ruggers' from which much of its structure, plays were copied. (Though in rugby there are no forward passes). Also, contrary to myth, football can be violent even in its tag or flag variation. When I attended Monsignor Pace High (1962-64) there was no varsity or other tackle football team yet - but we did have intramural tag teams. I played inside LB for "the USC Trojans" - the name of one such intramural team - and my job was to sack the quarterback. I loved it. And be aware that on every down that meant crashing through blocks of the O-line using arms, elbows. That meant you sported bruises after each game, though maybe not concussions.

Yes, people like Obama are now fretting, especially after the news of five Pop Warner players suffering concussions in one pee wee game, and missing so many players that the opposing team romped 55-0. In that case, I can certainly see grounds for some caution, because we can't have a whole slew of 10-13 years olds turned into brain -damaged zombies before they reach the age of 18. But in the case of the NFL, it's a different kettle of fish, because these guys know what they're being paid millions each year for.  Yes, it's sad Dave Duerson and Junior Seau committed suicide, but they knew what the game was all about and what was expected of them.

Alas, those deaths, as well as others - and numerous lawsuits- now threaten to see the league wussify and dilute the game so much that it may well become boring within five years or less, paving the way for Pollard's prediction. This is sad, because it means the only way many of us will enjoy those tough hits anymore will be via the old NFL video releases such as "NFL's Greatest Hits".

It may then be the best thing Ray Lewis is retiring this year. There seems to be no more room in the league for dedicated, heavy hitters whose only objective is to prevent the opponent's QB, RB or WR from gaining a yard.

As for Obama, he's lucky he has no sons, so he isn't faced with the decision to allow them to play or not. For the rest of us, we hope the game will at least continue with some semblance of allowing rough tackles, and at least some use of helmets. After all, would YOU want to try to take down Frank Gore using your shoulders?