|
|
Post by bigfan on Sept 30, 2009 11:05:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Sept 30, 2009 15:41:42 GMT -5
Why does this not surprise me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Sept 30, 2009 16:27:35 GMT -5
I love how the NFL is dancing around the obvious conclusion. I think Greg Aiello doth protest too much.There may not be a direct relationship, but boy, that indirect relationship is pretty damned strong. 10 times the national average. Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 1, 2009 9:51:12 GMT -5
It's a bloodsport. The rest follows from that.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 1, 2009 11:06:28 GMT -5
I love how the NFL is dancing around the obvious conclusion. I think Greg Aiello doth protest too much.There may not be a direct relationship, but boy, that indirect relationship is pretty damned strong. 10 times the national average. Hmmm. LOL! That is why I started this thread. Hypocrisy at its finest! |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 2, 2009 13:10:57 GMT -5
Scientifically speaking, we must allow for the possibility that the sociobiological factors which contribute to success in the NFL also select positively for men with relatively limited or poorly developed brain function. Additionally, there is the social comorbidity of abuse of alcohol, PEs, and other drugs among college athletes and the nouveau riche millionaire pro athletes. Throw that many chemicals in your body over a twenty-year period and you'll greatly increase your chances of neurological impairment even if you never played a down in your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 2, 2009 13:39:27 GMT -5
Some of those factors you mention are part of the NFL package, and some are not.
I suppose what really should be done, if it were reasonably possible, would be to select a group of guys who *might* be NFL players, then follow them for 50+ years and see whether those who did play in the league were different from those who did not.
I don't see it likely that anybody is going to sign up for this as their doctoral thesis.
|
|
