Simmons and Gladwell Exchange Some (Bad) Ideas: The Sequel Part II

On Tuesday, we began the "conversation" between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell and so I thought an appropriate Christmas present would be to put up the second part of their conversation for everyone's enjoyment. The discussion they have here is about concussions and the future of the NFL and why the NBA has it all right by being a smart league compared to the NFL...even though I am not sure this is true.

Gladwell: In last week's New Yorker, my colleague James Surowiecki made the argument that celebrities can get away with something so long as it confirms -- rather than contradicts -- our pre-existing impression of them. Charles Barkley can get a DWI and a few months later still be taken seriously when he talks about going into politics. No problem. We believe he's a carouser. Clinton can recover from Monica Lewinsky because we knew, going in, that he had a wandering eye, and we'd already adjusted our perception of him accordingly.

This an interesting and true, if not pretty obvious to those that have thought this through, point. Our perceptions of athletes determines how we treat them in tough times. This goes for normal people as well. That's why I make it a habit to be an asshole, I can pretty much say or do whatever I want.

Simmons: Let's move to a more uplifting topic: concussions...These guys damage their bodies and brains to entertain us, and we ignore the collateral damage or look the other way. Your point was that as we learn more and more about the effects of concussions, it was becoming tougher to look the other way. At least for you. Do you still feel that way?

Gladwell: But in answer to your question: Yes, football has kind of been ruined for me, I'm afraid. Understand that I live for the game. But I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is screwed up -- on a moral level -- in a way that no other professional sport is.

Yeah, this is probably true. Though I did look all weekend at the NFL games on Sunday and couldn't find a gun held to the head of any of these players to play the game of football for a living. So............it seems sort of like a personal choice to me.

Think about it. The league has a salary cap (which limits players' pay),

Limits the pay in the MILLIONS by the way. This is a small, yet incredibly important point that needs to be added. The pay is limited in the MILLIONS, which last time I checked, is a lot of money to be limited to making. Players can make more millions in endorsements or through business opportunities.

In other words, the owners reserve the right to limit the pool of money available to players, to walk away from contracts whenever they please and then hold no long-term responsibility for the health of the players whose contracts they have limited and declined to honor. Coal miners aren't treated this badly.

I can only make so much money, I live in "at-will employment" state (which means I can get fired for no reason at all or because I wore a blue shirt today), and no one pays my health insurance after I get fired. Coal miners may not be treated as badly as NFL players are treated, but there are millions of other individuals who are in their day-to-day jobs. Granted normal everyday workers aren't getting hit by people trying to tackle or block them, but many of the unemployed in America right now would lack sympathy for the contractual situation many NFL players are in.

I would also like to add that one of the other risks the players take is that they can make a good amount of money if they stick in the league for 5 years and potentially retire at an earlier age than most other Americans. This has to be factored in as well at some point. No one wants to hurt their body, but a player who sticks on an NFL roster for a couple of years has a pretty good nest egg that can be built up.

Logically, for a player to take a lot of wear and tear in the NFL he would have to play a lot and for a player to play a lot he probably gets paid a decent amount of money...either currently or could make even more money in the future. So a current player who gets beat up should be compensated fairly well for doing his job. I am not saying the NFL treats its players well, but the point that players make a lot of money now has to be made.

At some point, doesn't it become immoral to watch a sport that treats its players so badly? Most people don't go to boxing matches or dogfights on ethical grounds. So how is football different?

I agree that playing football is a dangerous sport, but I think it is different from boxing matches and dogfighting. I am pretty sure the dogs do not make the choice to fight or are at least coaxed into it in some fashion. Boxing is a sport that can be seen as fairly barbaric, but the entire point is to hit your opponent, so it's easy to boycott the sport on ethical grounds. I think football is different because the entire point of the sport isn't to injure your opponent, though of course some of that happens by accident/on purpose.

Football is a violent sport and the sport needs to take steps to ensure the safety of the athletes, but I think it's a bit much to protest the sport because it is immoral. The purpose of the game is not to fight, but to run with the ball while your opponent is either (a) trying to get the ball from you or (b) tackle you to the ground so you stop running. Football is not supposed to be a dangerous sport inherently, even though sometimes it can be seen that way.

Simmons: If you think football is bad, check out pro wrestling. It might not be a real "sport," but it combines every bad thing about every other sport. Steroids, painkillers and PEDs? Hell, yeah. Repeated concussions from chair shots? Absolutely. A union that doesn't look out for its members? There is no wrestling union, so I'm going to say yes. Fixed outcomes and shady referees? You betcha. Athletes getting paralyzed or dropping dead? And then some. (Google "dead wrestlers" sometime. Your eyes will pop out of their sockets.)

Great point by Bill. I hate "professional" wrestling personally. I know a lot of people like it, but I find it to be cheesy, fake and really, really pointless. That sport is full of pain-killing addicted guys who can barely move because the beating their body took. If there was ever a sport that needs its participants looked out for, this is it.

So I don't think this is unique to football. It's not like Americans care less about the long-term health of football players than other sports.

I may never say this again...I am glad Bill Simmons is here to speak some common sense.

But Muhammad Ali is punch-drunk. He should have retired in 1975 after the Frazier fight and ended up fighting another 150 rounds. Think about that. Boxing ruined this guy for life, and we enabled it.

If anyone saw the Ali v. Frasier "30 For 30" episode, I would ask you this question: After watching that documentary, who could have stopped Ali from fighting, outside of Ali himself? The answer is nobody. It was his choice and he wanted to do it. Maybe those who were alive at the time enabled it because they watched the fight, but Muhammad Ali is/was a big boy and he chose to get back in the ring. I really doubt he would have listened to anyone tell him he shouldn't get back in the ring.

Gladwell: I mean, if your son wants to play Pop Warner in a few years, can you really tell me you'd let him do it?

Simmons: Funny you should ask. My son is a wrecking ball and has one of those ripped little-kid bodies that makes him look like a 1780s blacksmith. (Important note: These genes came from my wife's side. I am built like Play-doh with bones.) He also has a hard head. And he's tough as nails.

Bill's son is the most ripped and toughest 2 year old child there has ever been. NO ONE DENIES THIS!!!! He is the smartest and toughest kid in the world, ask Bill's dad he will tell you.

Gladwell: I recently chatted with an ex-NFL player who argued that the league ought to consider weight limits, like saying no one can play above 275 pounds.That's a good start.

Because a hit on a receiver from a safety or linebacker isn't going to hurt as bad if the offensive linemen weight 275 pounds or less? Because it won't hurt a quarterback as bad when he gets blindsided by a 260 pound defensive end? The weight limit makes certain sense in some aspect of football, but for many of the concussion cases it wouldn't make a huge difference. Hollis Thomas isn't the one causing concussions, it's quick, strong guys like Rodney Harrison (220 pounds) who are knocking players out.

What if we made all tackles eligible receivers? What if we allowed all offensive players to move prior to the snap? What if we banned punt and kickoff returns, where a disproportionate number of head impacts happen?

What if we just changed the sport of football to where it was no longer recognizable as the sport it has become popular as? I would think a guy like Bill Simmons, who loves to compare players in different eras apparently, wouldn't like the idea of changing the rules and making it harder to compare players from different eras in football.

Simmons: Sports are always afraid to overreact and change their rules; they seem to think it's a sign of weakness or panic.

I guess I just don't see how tackles being eligible receivers is going to solve the concussion problem in the NFL. I am all for rules changes that make sense but if all offensive players can move prior to the snap, I think I miss how that is going to reduce concussions.

We need better concussion rules in place, stuff like "You're out for eight quarters if you get one concussion"

If a player gets a concussion in the 1st quarter of Game #5, he has to sit out until the 2nd quarter of Game #7? That extra quarter is crucial in his recovery time?

and "You're out for the year if you get two."

The first person to bitch when Wes Welker gets his 2nd concussion and has to sit out a year? Bill Simmons.

In fact, I could see Bill complaining that players are intentionally trying to cause concussions using late hits to knock players out of the game and for the year. Bill would be the absolute first to complain about the rule he advocates here.

But I don't think we need to overhaul the sport itself. Allowing all linemen to catch passes? Allowing everyone to move before the snap? Please. Go back to Canada.

America forever! Go back where you came from Canadian! Here's some beer, eh.

(Bengoodfella high fives himself for being jingoistic)

Gladwell: Don't get me started on Canadian football, which, for the record, is way more entertaining than its American counterpart.

"Holy shit is that Quincy Carter handing off to Rashaan Salaam? I am so entertained! I always wondered what happened to Henry Burris and Drew Tate. This is absolutely football at it's finest for sure."

Um, count me out of that discussion. I really, really want to respect the CFL but I am not sure I can do it with a straight face. I am sure it is exciting to watch, but I think I would prefer to stick to the NFL.

But here's the problem. Basketball feels to me like a smart sport. I would be quite happy if David Stern were the next president of the United States, and there are a number of owners -- like Cuban -- whom I feel have open and curious and intelligent minds.

I don't know how Bill Simmons can ever agree that basketball is a smart sport. He has openly lobbied for two General Manager positions on NBA teams because the owners are so stupid they don't know what to look for in someone to run the team. Bill has no experience running an NBA team but he thinks he can do just as well as some of the current NBA general managers. This is the league that gave us Isiah Thomas, James Dolan, and Donald Sterling. This is a league that, as Bill admits repeatedly in his book, completely ignored a drug problem in the NBA for almost a decade and lost many of it's great players to drugs, too much money too soon, and the NBA is a league that has teams which are in poor financial shape. I think Malcolm Gladwell is a little bit wrong here in thinking basketball is a smart sport.

I hate to say it, but while the NFL is behind the times on the concussion issue, they are ahead of the curve on competitive issues and how to create a league where from year-to-year there can be interest on the part of fans (except for franchises that are poorly run, but that's not the fault of the NFL model, but the individual owners and the GM's of those teams). I like the NBA, but I don't see how Malcolm Gladwell can consider it to be a "smart" league. Doesn't the NBA have a major integrity problem when it comes to officiating? This is the SMART sport that Gladwell uses as an example?

Or, to use a absurd example, this is a league that decides overtime possessions with a coin flip, in contravention of every rational principle of fairness.

As opposed to the NBA, which uses an arrow and a "held ball" to determine which team gets possession. That just seems so much more fair than a coin toss doesn't it? I hate the coin toss in the NFL also, but I just don't feel like the NBA is the forerunner in intelligence when it comes to sports in the United States. This is the same league that still lets Donald Sterling own a team and has let multiple owners rip a franchise right from under a city's nose for reasons that didn't quite seem fair in my mind.

Simmons: For me, the sport stuck most in the past is baseball. It took them 15 solid years and a forearm growing out of Barry Bonds' head to start handling the PED epidemic. They still don't have a salary cap or revenue sharing; nobody is going to give a crap until Joe Mauer signs with the Yankees for $270 million next winter and the entire state of Minnesota tries to light itself on fire.

This is a fairly good choice as well for a sport that isn't always smart. I do have to say I don't think anyone is going to give a shit when the Yankees sign Joe Mauer next winter, except for Red Sox fans of course, hence we get this concern from Bill. Though, if you recall, he is not as into baseball as he used to be because of (wink, wink) the PED situation and how he can't compare player's numbers from different eras...so he may not care where the hell Mauer goes.

The African-American talent pool is dwindling to 1960s-level numbers, and only Torii Hunter seems to be bothered by this.

In reality, what can be done about this? Are Major League Baseball executives supposed to round up African-Americans and force them to play basebal? Football and basketball are much easier sports to play with friends while growing up, you don't need a group of 12 people to play and you only need a ball and a court (or small field). It's not like MLB hasn't taken steps to ensure African-American kids get interested in baseball, it's just not the sport many kids grow up dreaming playing. I don't know how much can honestly be done about this.

We have the technology to create computer-generated strike zones and remove human error from pitch to pitch, only they would never dream of changing the game like that.

If done correctly, I would be in favor of this. The key words are "done correctly" and I don't know if this can be done by MLB. Though the way instant replay was integrated does give me hope for the technological future of MLB.

Same for outlawing pickoff throws (and making a rule that you can only lead 4-5 feet off every base) to speed up games,

Eliminating pickoff throws? Maybe there should be a limit of pickoff throws that can be made to each batter, (or politely asking Andy Pettitte to hurry the hell up) but eliminating them completely seems like a sort of bad idea to me. I am not against progress but what are the ramifications going to be if a runner leads 6 feet off the base? Is he out? If not, where is the incentive for a player to not lead off first more than the rules allow?

If a runner is called out for leading off too much, I can just see managers of MLB teams taking out measuring tapes and showing umpires his guy wasn't too far off first base. This just seems like a cluster of problems to me. The amount of time a pitcher takes between pitches is the problem, not necessarily pickoff throws to 1st base in general.

or preventing batters from stepping out of the box after every pitch, or giving pitchers a time limit to deliver every pitch.

These are two good ways to speed up a game in Major League Baseball. As I said previously, I would also be open to the idea of limiting the amount of pickoff throws to 1st base, but not outlawing them completely.

What about my idea that the NHL should cut back to 24 teams, then go a 12-team American conference and a 12-team Canadian conference?

Gladwell: I'm with you on the 24-team, Canadian-American conference idea, particularly since it turns the Stanley Cup finals into a border war every year. I was once in Brazil when Brazil was playing Argentina in soccer, and the entire country was in a state of advanced hysteria. I was at a conference and they stopped the proceedings, in the middle of the day, so everyone could go watch the game. Unbelievable. That's what happens when you combine sports and national loyalties. Can you imagine this happening every spring?

I have a feeling a championship between an American and Canadian hockey team in the Stanley Cup Finals would not have the same hysteria effect soccer in Brazil and Argentina has. It could be because 75% of the people in the United States are completely apathetic towards hockey in general. I think that might affect the hysteria rate during an international Stanley Cup Playoffs in America and Canada.

The league had 24 teams when Bettman took over, including eight in Canada. Now they have a whopping 30 teams, including more warm-weather American teams (L.A., Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta, Anaheim) than Canadian teams (only six).

I haven't ever really gotten the idea that teams in "warm weather" climates shouldn't have hockey because it isn't cold in those cities. I am not saying these teams can support a team, though L.A., Carolina, Tampa, Florida, and Anaheim seem to do fairly well in being competitive (if I am not wrong, I know the Hurricanes are huge here in North Carolina...or at least near where I live), but what is inherently wrong with having "warm weather cities" have hockey teams? Other than the fact it's not traditional?

Hasn't Bill Simmons been railing on the NFL and MLB for hanging on to old fashioned traditions and not moving ahead with the times? Warm weather teams are progress and getting rid of old fashioned traditions, so Bill should like it. There needs to be more Canadian teams in hockey, I won't argue that point, but the NHL can pry the Carolina Hurricanes away from Raleigh out of Bill Cowher's cold, dead fingers.

Gladwell: It's incredible, isn't it? What I don't understand is how a country that is obsessed with hockey and supplies the lion's share of players and diehard fans to the NHL allows its national sport to be run by an American working out of New York City.

Those Americans are always ruining everything aren't they?

I think the Canadian teams should simply secede from the league and start over. And we'd take any northern American teams that wanted to come as well, particularly those in the upper Midwest and greater Ohio Valley which, if you'll remember your War of 1812 history correctly, is an area that really ought to belong to Canada anyway.

Malcolm Gladwell: Nerd until the very end.

I don't think too much of America would really care if the Canadian teams seceded from the NHL. I am sure Canada could run the NHL perfectly fine on their own, since the Toronto Raptors, Vancouver Grizzlies, and the Montreal Expos are/were such well-run organizations. I wouldn't mind seeing more teams play in Canada, the NHL is trying to become a more mainstream and popular league. I can't help but think if they moved more teams to Canada it might hurt any potential United States television contracts they may want to increase the popularity of the league. I don't know much about hockey in a financial sense, so I am sort of talking out of my ass.

Simmons: "Live Free or Die Hard," "Lethal Weapon 4," "Rocky IV" … Gladwell-Simmons IV! You talked me into it. Until next time.

Please, no more of these. I never knew I disliked Malcolm Gladwell and I have always wanted to read one of his books, but I am re-considering my position on this right now.

Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays, whichever works better for you) to everyone! Thanks for reading what we write here.