K-9 Posted June 4, 2021 Author Posted June 4, 2021 9 minutes ago, dwight in philly said: You mean like Covid does/did, which I offered opinions about and got suspended for? No, I don’t mean that at all. Covid was a broad subject whereas this is an NFL specific matter as it relates to the classification of plaintiffs seeking compensation based solely on their race. Covid does not discriminate based on race. In this case, the NFL clearly did. 5 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Let me state it this way, the owners do not care about the race of the player they are screwing. Except when it comes to paying damages to certain players, apparently. 2 1
dwight in philly Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 13 minutes ago, K-9 said: No, I don’t mean that at all. Covid was a broad subject whereas this is an NFL specific matter as it relates to the classification of plaintiffs seeking compensation based solely on their race. Covid does not discriminate based on race. In this case, the NFL clearly did. Except when it comes to paying damages to certain players, apparently. OK.. After all, this is an opinion site ...
K-9 Posted June 4, 2021 Author Posted June 4, 2021 16 minutes ago, dwight in philly said: OK.. After all, this is an opinion site ... I’m sure the thread will get shut down and perhaps some people suspended if it goes off the rails, just like any other subject around here. So far, it’s been an honest discussion about an NFL related matter. 1
HardyBoy Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 6 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Because to get by on the letter of the law you must have a law to justify your actions. If the NFL could somehow "norm" down all the players to an IQ of 80 after their playing days they would. This is a money situation not a race situation, but it is still wrong. If it came out that people were charging more for health insurance for people who owned guns, because they could point to increased accidental death risk...Would that be an attack on gun rights or a company saving money?
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 25 minutes ago, HardyBoy said: If it came out that people were charging more for health insurance for people who owned guns, because they could point to increased accidental death risk...Would that be an attack on gun rights or a company saving money? I said in my first comment that is was wrong what the NFL is doing but if a insurance company was using a behavior that a cost increase was warranted I am fine with it. The NFL is using something that is not able to be controlled so not a good comparison.
Arm of Harm Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 While the article to which the OP linked was not as clear on some details as one might have liked, the implication was that the NFL was assuming that if a white former player had an average IQ score for a white person (100), there was no evidence of brain damage. Likewise if a black former player had an average IQ score for a black person (85), the assumption was also no brain damage. If my interpretation of the article is correct, the NFL's assumptions are extremely simplistic. Just because a former player's IQ is average for his race, does not mean he suffered no brain damage. Maybe if he hadn't played football his IQ would have been 20 or 30 points higher than his race's average. By the same token, just because a former player's IQ is significantly lower than the average for his race, is not evidence of brain trauma. Many people have IQs below the average for their race without having suffered brain trauma. On another matter, I'm a little curious as to why, thus far, only the NFL appears to be legally liable for the brain trauma caused by football. On any given fall weekend, there are lots more high school football games than there are college games. (At least during the high school football season.) Lots more college games than there are NFL games. You'd think that the vast majority of football-related brain trauma was being experienced at the high school or college level. So . . . why is the NFL the only football-related entity getting sued? Why are high schools and colleges getting let off the hook?
machine gun kelly Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 If this was accurate, it speaks to oversimplifying an issue and a derelict understanding of neurology and head trauma. It’s offensive to me and hope they eliminate if was happening. I’m only using if as this is the only article I’ve read to date on the subject. How a multi billion dollar revenue generating company can generalize is awful.
HardyBoy Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 10 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I said in my first comment that is was wrong what the NFL is doing but if a insurance company was using a behavior that a cost increase was warranted I am fine with it. The NFL is using something that is not able to be controlled so not a good comparison. Agree the analogy I used was flawed, but it highlights the larger point that my guess is a lot of people saying this is a companies right to do, would quickly change their tunes if it was something like a 2A issue...not saying you would at all, but it sort of reminds me of free speech should be protected at all costs...unless it's NWA putting out a rap album, then pearl clutching. The whole point of systemic racism is that institutions are taking advantage of once explicitly racist laws and policies in the past to save money. It's the fruit of the poisonous tree argument basically. If I buy stolen property from someone and have a reasonable expectation it is stolen ($100 PS5s aren't a thing), I don't get a pass because I was trying to save some money.
Rochesterfan Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 1 hour ago, machine gun kelly said: If this was accurate, it speaks to oversimplifying an issue and a derelict understanding of neurology and head trauma. It’s offensive to me and hope they eliminate if was happening. I’m only using if as this is the only article I’ve read to date on the subject. How a multi billion dollar revenue generating company can generalize is awful. I don’t want to get to involved because this is such a touchy subject, but I believe the first sentence is the biggest part of this. The NFL was trying to use a simple, inexpensive agreed upon way to diagnose loss of cognitive function for people without a baseline level and without baseline tests. The race norming was based upon older medical studies done that set baselines to be used in medical settings - it was not from my understanding created or developed by the NFL. The NFL needed some type of baseline to judge these older players, quickly to determine loss of cognitive function to group them into settlement groups. That was what was agreed to through the settlement and now it is going to be changed as it should. The problem is many players with minimal or no loss of cognitive function are also trying to get a piece of the settlement and once the money is gone it is gone - so both sides need to do everything they can to properly group players without spending a ton of money on things like MRIs and brain scans and the such that will quickly eat through the settlement money. The entire race norming debate is very racist in its make-up, but I do not really blame the NFL for using it as they needed to have a functional baseline for players and that was what science had developed and was being used. As we get to the current generation of players with all of the concussions testing and baselines created for each player - they have a better system in place, but that is not available for players from the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s. The NFL should be able to take their concussion testing data and create a new more balanced cognitive test, but it is still going to be generalized and it is still going to favor certain people over others - I just hope it is not race based. 1
Putin Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 21 hours ago, Jerome007 said: Yes but if systemic racism was that bad, the subject wouldn't even come up, and there certainly would not be a revision. It sounds more like accounting cheapskates and saving money than true racism. It does look bad though, for sure. But again, it was studied, made public, taken care of. Injustices and unfairness happen all the time. Money and power are usually the root issues. Not "systemic racism". You bring up some fair points , we can all agree that money and power are the root of all evil but you can’t ignore the main issue that it only happened to black players.... Im still disgusted after reading the article
billsfan89 Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 This policy was instituted in the 1990’s and continued until 2021. Just insane. 12 hours ago, Arm of Harm said: While the article to which the OP linked was not as clear on some details as one might have liked, the implication was that the NFL was assuming that if a white former player had an average IQ score for a white person (100), there was no evidence of brain damage. Likewise if a black former player had an average IQ score for a black person (85), the assumption was also no brain damage. If my interpretation of the article is correct, the NFL's assumptions are extremely simplistic. Just because a former player's IQ is average for his race, does not mean he suffered no brain damage. Maybe if he hadn't played football his IQ would have been 20 or 30 points higher than his race's average. By the same token, just because a former player's IQ is significantly lower than the average for his race, is not evidence of brain trauma. Many people have IQs below the average for their race without having suffered brain trauma. On another matter, I'm a little curious as to why, thus far, only the NFL appears to be legally liable for the brain trauma caused by football. On any given fall weekend, there are lots more high school football games than there are college games. (At least during the high school football season.) Lots more college games than there are NFL games. You'd think that the vast majority of football-related brain trauma was being experienced at the high school or college level. So . . . why is the NFL the only football-related entity getting sued? Why are high schools and colleges getting let off the hook? I think the reason the NFL gets in trouble over high school and college is the length of the exposure and the marketing the NFL used to do of big hits. I played low level high school football and while I am sure there was some concussions I honestly can’t say any trauma is long lasting to anyone I know that played. The NCAA should get in more hot water as it is 4 years and at a higher impact but for whatever reason they skirt that. 1
StHustle Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 The whole concept of "race norming" is clearly racist. The NFL applying it here is clearly money motivated...but at the same time if you're using racist tactics to save money...how are you not being racist???
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 On 6/4/2021 at 11:50 PM, Arm of Harm said: While the article to which the OP linked was not as clear on some details as one might have liked, the implication was that the NFL was assuming that if a white former player had an average IQ score for a white person (100), there was no evidence of brain damage. Likewise if a black former player had an average IQ score for a black person (85), the assumption was also no brain damage. If my interpretation of the article is correct, the NFL's assumptions are extremely simplistic. Just because a former player's IQ is average for his race, does not mean he suffered no brain damage. Maybe if he hadn't played football his IQ would have been 20 or 30 points higher than his race's average. By the same token, just because a former player's IQ is significantly lower than the average for his race, is not evidence of brain trauma. Many people have IQs below the average for their race without having suffered brain trauma. Yep. That's the whole reason for baseline concussion testing, to establish the baseline against which a particular player is compared. So if you have an IQ test the player took in college or upon being admitted to the league (I don't know if they do still, but the Levy-era Bills used to give all the players IQ tests) and it's lower, you can say something. An average? Pffphhhtttt. Quote On another matter, I'm a little curious as to why, thus far, only the NFL appears to be legally liable for the brain trauma caused by football. On any given fall weekend, there are lots more high school football games than there are college games. (At least during the high school football season.) Lots more college games than there are NFL games. You'd think that the vast majority of football-related brain trauma was being experienced at the high school or college level. So . . . why is the NFL the only football-related entity getting sued? Why are high schools and colleges getting let off the hook? Are you really curious? I think the quote attributed to Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks would have some insight for ya. Though I guess some college programs with lucrative TV deals would fall into that category
Demongyz Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 I have an idea NFL, how about you base it against the wonderlic test that every play takes before joining the NFL. Some players didn't take it you say? Then if they have dementia, just pay them the damn money. You want to protect the shield quit being racist.
Arm of Harm Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Yep. That's the whole reason for baseline concussion testing, to establish the baseline against which a particular player is compared. So if you have an IQ test the player took in college or upon being admitted to the league (I don't know if they do still, but the Levy-era Bills used to give all the players IQ tests) and it's lower, you can say something. An average? Pffphhhtttt. In that case, this settlement is not about giving money to players who'd suffered brain trauma or concussions. It's about giving money to players on the basis of intelligence, with the least intelligent players getting the biggest checks. I don't really see why it's necessary to say to a player, "Hello, we see your IQ is low, so we'll write you a big check." Or, "Hello, we see your IQ is high, you don't get a check." Elimination of race norming does not fix the above problem, and if anything makes it worse. Quote Are you really curious? I think the quote attributed to Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks would have some insight for ya. Though I guess some college programs with lucrative TV deals would fall into that category I'd thought some more about this subject since my earlier post. If you want to sue on behalf of the vast majority of players who've played professional football, you only need to sue one entity: the NFL. If you wanted to sue on behalf of high school players, you might get bogged down into needing to sue each school individually. (I'm not a lawyer and I'm just guessing here.) If you could somehow get all high schools, or all colleges, lumped together for the purpose of a single lawsuit, that would indeed be a very enticing target.
Recommended Posts