Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A rememberance.
The only thing for this week is to remember those families that were affected by the shootings at Chardon High School. Please keep them in your prayers.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Super Bowl NFL Safety Commerical
Last night in the Super Bowl, the NFL played a 60 second commercial that was billed as their message on the safety of the players. Upon hearing the initial hype about the spot, I was intrigued since I had read that it was intended to promote safety in the game at all levels. I was anticipating a message aimed at young athletes and their parents about using appropriate tackling technique or to report all symptoms of injuries, especially TBI, to appropriate medical professionals. There was even a small hope that the NFL would also have promoted the use of athletic trainers on the sidelines of every high school game and practice. The possibilities of their message were endless as far as I was concerned and hoped for. What better way to promote the safety in the game than to do so in the biggest arena on the biggest stage?
After watching the spot, which aired as the first commercial at the end of the third quarter, I found it was seriously lacking in its message. I was sincerely disappointed to see a history of safety advancements in the game with no explanation as to why the improvements were made. A simple explanation of why helmets were first introduced would have been wonderful, but it was left up to the viewer to interpret the reason. Only those familiar with the history of the game, and in particular with the history of the football helmet, would have understood the significance of each stage presented in the commercial. Casual fans of the game would have no chance of understanding without researching it.
Instead of promoting the safety of players in the game, the commercial gave the message "Please stop the lawsuits against the league, we are trying to make things better, really we are." Unfortunately, the history of the NFL argues against this statement. The rules changes were usually very slow in coming in the NFL. In some cases they were much later than the NCAA and NFHS rules, and were implemented in smaller increments. This slow responses continues to indicate a bigger interest in the league's finances over player safety. It certainly is not the best way to win over the NFL's critics.
In the end, the commercial was a nice collection of video clips that promoted the game and only offered a passing thought to the safety of the players. It should be recorded as a badly missed opportunity to make a real difference in youth football.
After watching the spot, which aired as the first commercial at the end of the third quarter, I found it was seriously lacking in its message. I was sincerely disappointed to see a history of safety advancements in the game with no explanation as to why the improvements were made. A simple explanation of why helmets were first introduced would have been wonderful, but it was left up to the viewer to interpret the reason. Only those familiar with the history of the game, and in particular with the history of the football helmet, would have understood the significance of each stage presented in the commercial. Casual fans of the game would have no chance of understanding without researching it.
Instead of promoting the safety of players in the game, the commercial gave the message "Please stop the lawsuits against the league, we are trying to make things better, really we are." Unfortunately, the history of the NFL argues against this statement. The rules changes were usually very slow in coming in the NFL. In some cases they were much later than the NCAA and NFHS rules, and were implemented in smaller increments. This slow responses continues to indicate a bigger interest in the league's finances over player safety. It certainly is not the best way to win over the NFL's critics.
In the end, the commercial was a nice collection of video clips that promoted the game and only offered a passing thought to the safety of the players. It should be recorded as a badly missed opportunity to make a real difference in youth football.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Recent media review
Since I missed the airing of the CNN presentation last weekend, I will be setting by recorder to make sure it gets the re-airing this weekend. (There is, of course, a basketball game to work at the same time.)
In the meantime, the ESPN Outside the Lines piece that took on Riddell and described their marketing campaign on their revolution helmets as being questionable was very informative for the public. The article exposed the issue of Riddell trying to quote a 2006 study that found a 31% reduction rate in TBIs with their helmets. The problem with this claim is that the critics of this study find it to be seriously flawed with a big conflict of interest since Riddell financed the study. The ESPN piece also describes the Virginia Tech helmet comparison study in some detail and how the independently funded study's findings. It is worth the time to watch the video that is posted by following the above link.
ESPN also turned the spotlight on to the helmet reconditioning industry and exposed some serious flaws in that process as well. They describe a particularly scary situation where a 1 year old helmet is likely to be returned to a school with parts that are much older or mismatched that compromise the safety of the helmet. While this is certainly beyond the reach of any individual to change these practices, I think that a sufficient outcry across the football world will get more done. This industry has too much at stake to cut corners and needs to increase the standards to which they perform. None of these inconsistencies are excusable especially when you are dealing with young athletes.
In the meantime, the ESPN Outside the Lines piece that took on Riddell and described their marketing campaign on their revolution helmets as being questionable was very informative for the public. The article exposed the issue of Riddell trying to quote a 2006 study that found a 31% reduction rate in TBIs with their helmets. The problem with this claim is that the critics of this study find it to be seriously flawed with a big conflict of interest since Riddell financed the study. The ESPN piece also describes the Virginia Tech helmet comparison study in some detail and how the independently funded study's findings. It is worth the time to watch the video that is posted by following the above link.
ESPN also turned the spotlight on to the helmet reconditioning industry and exposed some serious flaws in that process as well. They describe a particularly scary situation where a 1 year old helmet is likely to be returned to a school with parts that are much older or mismatched that compromise the safety of the helmet. While this is certainly beyond the reach of any individual to change these practices, I think that a sufficient outcry across the football world will get more done. This industry has too much at stake to cut corners and needs to increase the standards to which they perform. None of these inconsistencies are excusable especially when you are dealing with young athletes.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)