Their ability to be violent was a vital aspect of what made them who they are as a person and they are celebrated for being that kind of man. It is how they are taught to relate to one another. It is what we, as Americans, want them to be… What really makes us feel sick is the moral contradiction: the men who perform the acts we celebrate under the bright lights of a football stadium are the same men who perform other acts that we would denigrate and punish away from the spotlight. The thought that we are all complicit fuels our revulsion and consequently our denial.
The denial exists on multiple levels. You don’t want to admit that your demand for violence has produced amazing rates of chronic traumatic encephalopathy either, do you?
July 16th, 2015 at 9:47AM
Was there as much off-field violence among college football players in, say, 1960 as there is today? Someone should really research this.
If the answer is “no,” then the cause of today’s violence would seem to lie somewhere other than in the inherent character of the game.
Similarly, it would be interesting to compare rates of off-field violence among players in other high-profile sports, especially basketball, which are less inherently violent.
July 16th, 2015 at 10:12AM
david: I think football AS a game has gotten more violent – significantly more violent – during that time. I think one can trace the same evolution in, say, hockey.
July 16th, 2015 at 10:32AM
not sure what the point would be of waxing philosophical about essences given that the appeal (and of course the money) is in the more/extreme quality of the games and players.
as for professional bball ask someone like Kevin Love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ31539Cg04
July 17th, 2015 at 1:43AM
@David, great question. I don’t know how else to compare off field violence between eras without looking at arrest records, and that would be a monumental research project. But, if we were to assume that increased priority of football for universities has led to recruiting more violent players, then maybe we can look at how many more games are played now than in 1960.
1960: 603 games played, by 113 teams and 9 bowl games.
2013: 849 games played by 124 teams and 35 bowl games.
Sources; Wikipedia and College Football at Sports-Reference.com
Can far greater money for broadcasting rights be the incentive for teams to overlook character issues while recruiting? Quite likely. Has the game become more violent? That may not be so apparent, it’s still about blocking and tackling, and whoever is more adept at both is going to win more often than not, whether it’s 1960 or 2013. And you have to be pretty savage to be adept at both. But, what can be said, is that a inherently violent game is being played far more often, for a hell of a lot more money, than ever before. Because there are 26 more bowl games than in 1960, 52 more teams have far longer seasons than 55 years ago. I would have to say, given what’s at stake, coaches want the players who can inflict a lot of pain for an extended period of time.