Paralyzed defensive tackle Eric LeGrand has been signed by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers

[DaveR]

- http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201....ap/index.html

[DaveR]

Bucs sign paralyzed DT LeGrand

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- Paralyzed defensive tackle Eric LeGrand has been signed by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

LeGrand broke two vertebrae and suffered a serious spinal cord injury on Oct. 16, 2010 during a kickoff return against Army. His coach at Rutgers then, Greg Schiano, now is coach of the Bucs.

Schiano called LeGrand's mother in New Jersey to let her know of his intention the night before breaking the news to his former player.

"I said, `Are you serious? You want to do this? He said: `It's the least we could do,"' LeGrand said Wednesday during a conference call. "I said I don't even know what to say to you right now, coach. This is amazing.

"It's something I always dreamed about, go to the NFL and retire and become a sportscaster," LeGrand added. "Dreams do come true if you really believe. You do the right things in life, good things happen to you. He really just did this out of the kindness of his heart. It's really what he wanted to do. I had no idea this was going to happen."

LeGrand became an inspiration to teammates at Rutgers, eventually being able to stand upright with the help of a metal frame. He resumed his studies via video conferences for the 2011 spring semester, and on Oct. 29, 2011, led the Scarlet Knights onto the field before a game. He also has done some broadcast work for the school.

Schiano called the signing a "small gesture ... to recognize his character, spirit and perseverance."

"The way Eric lives his life epitomizes what we are looking for in Buccaneer Men," Schiano, who left Rutgers for Tampa Bay in January, said in a statement released by the Bucs.

The coach said he couldn't help but think about LeGrand while preparing for last week's NFL draft.

The defensive tackle would have been a senior last season and may well have been a selection if hadn't been injured during his junior year.

"It's a symbolic gesture. They can't give me any money with the salary cap and all that kind of stuff," LeGrand said. "It's symbolic, something coach wanted to do and I appreciate that. It just shows the man that he is."

LeGrand is on pace to graduate from Rutgers in the fall and hopes to pursue a career in broadcasting. He said he has not spoken with Schiano about a possible role within the Buccaneers organization in the future.

[bomb cola]

Pretty awesome.

[DaveR]

Pretty awesome.

yep ... especially w/ all the negative NFL news of late

[D J 1 3 8]

Head Games
Why Malcolm Gladwell will argue that college football should be banned at the Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate on May 8 in New York City.

Slate: What do you think is the single most compelling reason to abolish college football? Corruption? Head injury? Lost focus on academics?

Malcolm Gladwell: The factor that I think will be decisive is the head-injury issue. Colleges are going to get sued, and they will have to decide whether they can afford their legal exposure. That said, the issue ought to be how big-time college sports subverts the academic mission of university education.

Slate: Your debate opponents argue that college sports enrich university education by teaching teamwork, discipline, and other personal qualities that lead to success off the field. Do you disagree?

Gladwell: They are absolutely right. Sports teach all kinds of virtues. I wonder if there is a way, though, to teach teamwork and discipline without maiming people. I mean if we could prove that coal mining taught discipline and teamwork and built school spirit, would we build coal mines on every major college campus?

Slate: How would you define the culture of college football? Does this culture add to or detract from the sport’s dangers?

Gladwell: College football has become indistinguishable from professional football—which is the problem. The only justification for college sports is that they are structured in a way that enhances the social and academic experience of getting an education. A sports program using semiprofessional athletes, and running on a budget of $50-plus million a year does not fit that description.

Slate: What might a college football league that “is structured in a way that enhances the social and academic experience of getting an education” look like?

Gladwell: Well, a college sport that enhances the academic experience is one that encourages maximum participation and physical fitness. In other words, it doesn't involve spending tens of millions of dollars on 40 people, some of whom are permanently injured as a result. It involves spending thousands of dollars on 4,000 or 40,000 people, in an attempt to make their lives more fulfilling.
Slate: In an article for Grantland, economists Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier imagine a fairly plausible chain of events leading to the demise of the NFL. Liability suits at the collegiate and post-collegiate level prompt insurance companies to stop covering schools when it comes to football. Coaches and parents shy away from the sport, sapping the NFL feeder system. As links between CTE and concussions grow clearer, a stigma attaches to the league and advertisers withdraw support. Ultimately, football goes the way of rugby, boxing, and horseracing. Cowen and Grier write, “If recent history has shown anything, it is that observers cannot easily imagine the big changes in advance. Very few people were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, or the rise of China as an economic power. Once you start thinking through how the status quo might unravel, a sports universe without the NFL at its center no longer seems absurd.” Do you think it’s realistic to talk about the end of football? What about the end of college football?

Gladwell: Well, boxing and horseracing didn't end. They have persisted, just in vastly less popular forms than before. They have gone into slow and irreversible decline. I suspect that the same will happen with football. It's going to wither as the supply of talent slowly dries up. I heard on ESPN Michael Wilbon—who is one of the most influential sports journalists in the country—say that he will not let his kids play pro football. If Wilbon won't, who will?

Slate: Is unacceptable risk intrinsic to football, or could rule changes and equipment modifications salvage the game?

Gladwell: You can certainly mitigate the risk. But remember the issue isn't concussions. It is "repetitive subconcussive impact." It's not the one big hit. It is the cumulative effect of thousands of little hits that lineman and defensive backs (the most affected positions) endure, play after play. Can you take the "head" out of line play? You can. But then what you are left with would no longer be called tackle football. It would be called touch football.

Slate: Say banning college football isn’t an option. What reforms would you propose to the system?

Gladwell: If you want college athletes to assume an as yet unknown risk of permanent physical and neurological damage, you should pay them. Properly. It's a bit much both to maim AND exploit college football players.

Slate: Were you a student athlete?

Gladwell: I was. I ran track. A very different kettle of fish.

Slate: How was it different?

Gladwell: In the course of training, no one bashed me repeated on the head, and called the resulting damage "sport."

Slate: Do you feel that football is too exalted on college campuses, or is it a worthwhile priority that breeds school spirit (and lots of funding)? How would you defend your contention against the other side?

Gladwell: Football breeds school spirit and fundraising. But, I suspect, it breeds school spirit and fundraising largely for the football program. In any case, I find the notion that you can justify exploiting and maiming athletes because that raises money for the school they are attending to be a slightly appalling notion.

Slate: Should the NFL be banned too?

Gladwell: As long as the risks are explicit, the players warned, and those injured properly compensated, then I'm not sure we can stop people from playing. A better question is whether it is ethical to WATCH football. That's a harder question.

2009 New Yorker article http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_gladwell

[mhd]

Head Games
Why Malcolm Gladwell will argue that college football should be banned at the Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate on May 8 in New York City.

Slate: What do you think is the single most compelling reason to abolish college football? Corruption? Head injury? Lost focus on academics?

Malcolm Gladwell: The factor that I think will be decisive is the head-injury issue. Colleges are going to get sued, and they will have to decide whether they can afford their legal exposure. That said, the issue ought to be how big-time college sports subverts the academic mission of university education.

Slate: Your debate opponents argue that college sports enrich university education by teaching teamwork, discipline, and other personal qualities that lead to success off the field. Do you disagree?

Gladwell: They are absolutely right. Sports teach all kinds of virtues. I wonder if there is a way, though, to teach teamwork and discipline without maiming people. I mean if we could prove that coal mining taught discipline and teamwork and built school spirit, would we build coal mines on every major college campus?

Slate: How would you define the culture of college football? Does this culture add to or detract from the sport’s dangers?

Gladwell: College football has become indistinguishable from professional football—which is the problem. The only justification for college sports is that they are structured in a way that enhances the social and academic experience of getting an education. A sports program using semiprofessional athletes, and running on a budget of $50-plus million a year does not fit that description.

Slate: What might a college football league that “is structured in a way that enhances the social and academic experience of getting an education” look like?

Gladwell: Well, a college sport that enhances the academic experience is one that encourages maximum participation and physical fitness. In other words, it doesn't involve spending tens of millions of dollars on 40 people, some of whom are permanently injured as a result. It involves spending thousands of dollars on 4,000 or 40,000 people, in an attempt to make their lives more fulfilling.
Slate: In an article for Grantland, economists Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier imagine a fairly plausible chain of events leading to the demise of the NFL. Liability suits at the collegiate and post-collegiate level prompt insurance companies to stop covering schools when it comes to football. Coaches and parents shy away from the sport, sapping the NFL feeder system. As links between CTE and concussions grow clearer, a stigma attaches to the league and advertisers withdraw support. Ultimately, football goes the way of rugby, boxing, and horseracing. Cowen and Grier write, “If recent history has shown anything, it is that observers cannot easily imagine the big changes in advance. Very few people were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, or the rise of China as an economic power. Once you start thinking through how the status quo might unravel, a sports universe without the NFL at its center no longer seems absurd.” Do you think it’s realistic to talk about the end of football? What about the end of college football?

Gladwell: Well, boxing and horseracing didn't end. They have persisted, just in vastly less popular forms than before. They have gone into slow and irreversible decline. I suspect that the same will happen with football. It's going to wither as the supply of talent slowly dries up. I heard on ESPN Michael Wilbon—who is one of the most influential sports journalists in the country—say that he will not let his kids play pro football. If Wilbon won't, who will?

Slate: Is unacceptable risk intrinsic to football, or could rule changes and equipment modifications salvage the game?

Gladwell: You can certainly mitigate the risk. But remember the issue isn't concussions. It is "repetitive subconcussive impact." It's not the one big hit. It is the cumulative effect of thousands of little hits that lineman and defensive backs (the most affected positions) endure, play after play. Can you take the "head" out of line play? You can. But then what you are left with would no longer be called tackle football. It would be called touch football.

Slate: Say banning college football isn’t an option. What reforms would you propose to the system?

Gladwell: If you want college athletes to assume an as yet unknown risk of permanent physical and neurological damage, you should pay them. Properly. It's a bit much both to maim AND exploit college football players.

Slate: Were you a student athlete?

Gladwell: I was. I ran track. A very different kettle of fish.

Slate: How was it different?

Gladwell: In the course of training, no one bashed me repeated on the head, and called the resulting damage "sport."

Slate: Do you feel that football is too exalted on college campuses, or is it a worthwhile priority that breeds school spirit (and lots of funding)? How would you defend your contention against the other side?

Gladwell: Football breeds school spirit and fundraising. But, I suspect, it breeds school spirit and fundraising largely for the football program. In any case, I find the notion that you can justify exploiting and maiming athletes because that raises money for the school they are attending to be a slightly appalling notion.

Slate: Should the NFL be banned too?

Gladwell: As long as the risks are explicit, the players warned, and those injured properly compensated, then I'm not sure we can stop people from playing. A better question is whether it is ethical to WATCH football. That's a harder question.

2009 New Yorker article http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_gladwell

brilliant