The chorus swells a bit:
"I don't want my son to play football," Scott said. "I play football so he won't have to. With what is going on, I don't know if it's really worth it. . . . I don't want to have to deal with him getting a concussion and what it would be like later in life."Keeping kids inside a protective bubble has plenty of risks, too -- there are a lot more kids struggling with health problems related to obesity than there are kids struggling with health problems related to football -- but Scott said his 7-year-old son will get his exercise through non-contact sports."He can play baseball," Scott said. "I really don't want him boxing, either, even though he wants to box. I won't let him box. It's not worth it. The most important thing for me is him being around and me being able to spend a long time with him and I'm sure, at the end of the day, all the things I'm able to buy him from playing football, he'd much rather have me."
I keep seeing people say that if you keep your kids from playing football you're keeping them "inside a protective bubble." I don't really understand that. Parenting is, by its very nature, a protective bubble. The question is what the exact nature of that bubble will be. Within reason, I think that's a decision that parents, themselves, must make. I also don't get this idea that obesity is somehow the opposite of playing football. The "football or nothing" attitude has really only steeled me in the idea that it's right to leave.
On that note. I did a podcast with the PostBourgie crew (now over at HuffPo) in which we tackled this very question. The great Gene Demby hosted, fellow Cowboys fan Dion Nicole joined in, as did ex-TCU running back Joel Bell. For me the best part of the conversation wasn't even the "To watch or not" portion, but when Joel talks about being in the TCU backfield when on LaDainian Tomlinson arrived. Fascinating stuff.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.