This topic of football and its effects on the brain sparks my interests. I am an SPTE major here at USC and taking my first sports related class. The first lecture was about football. Not anything about the brain specifically, but we learned the history of the sport. I knew in English class we had to choose a topic of research, and the idea came to my mind due to all the rule changes in the NFL this past couple seasons. Growing up in America, Football is a big part of the culture. It is known as a high contact sport with heavy hits. So the questioning of whether the sport should have to soften up a bit does affect my values a bit. Other people in my culture and I would agree it should stay a contact sport. I have personal experience with this because I grew up playing sports. When I played lacrosse, I understood the risks of the contact and if I got hurt, I wouldn't blame the sport or anyone because of the commitment I made. People enjoy playing sports, so most look right past that factor of risk they may potentially face. I am qualified to write this because of my experience with injury and interest in the topic relating to things I study in other classes in college. 

The first article I found is from USA today of New York written by Lorenzo Reyes called "NFL reports reduction in concussions, new measures to protect players". The central claim in this article is that the NFL has been taking precautions to increase safety for the players and so far it has been successful. Evidence involves lab studies done with helmets, and interviews with NFL employees in the safety field. The value of safety plays a big role in this article. It is all about making the game safer, rather than discussing the negative effects that cause the need for change. It discusses making the protective gear better quality as well. I think that this author is credible because he is writing for USA today, which is a very popular newspaper. Also because the article proves that he did plenty of research and action to help make his claim. However, it could be looked at because Reyes doesn't discuss how severe injuries in the NFL are.

The second article I decided to analyze was an informative article called "'Concussion' shines light on brain injuries and football" written by Blake McCoy, Linda Carroll and Jane Derenowski. The main claim in this article is that the repeated contact to the head that is present in football has severe effects on the brain and potentially leads to cases of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE for short. Evidence in this article involves information from doctors and pathologists that have done studies on the subject. The value of safety of athletes is again the main concern of this article. The intended audience of this article is any person who plays a sport that involves repeated blows to the head, because that is what leads to CTE. The intended audience could also be parents because it discusses choices parents must make. The authors are credible because of popularity of the organization they are working for and for using the all three rhetorical appeals effectively. On the other hand, these authors only talked about how severe these effects were, nothing about what the players or NFL think. It is biased in this sense.

The last source I examined was a 60 minutes script with Steve Kroft and Ed Reed, a former NFL player who has been effected by the contact of the sport. The source claims that the NFL has acknowledged the fact that injuries are a serious problem, and if changing rules and doing scientific research must happen then so be it. The value of safety, money and freedom are at stake. Safety because of the danger of the sport. Money plays a role in this because the NFL is a multibillion dollar franchise. So they don't want to lose a lot of fans. Also Freedom because there is an interview with Ed Reed and he says that it should be up to the player whether they want to play because they know the risks. 60 minutes is a well-respected show that is known to have good information. This article isn't biased however because it is two sided. 

This research question is refutable in a couple of ways. It is proven that many football players and contact sport athletes in general have had life changing injuries or brain disorders due to their play. The other side could argue that football is part of American culture and what we are known for, so we should keep it that way. Also how it should be up to the players. I have found quotes from players saying they don't regret their choice, and also lots of information about CTE and serious effects on the brain. I agree with some of the information in my sources, and other information I may disagree with, but can be used for the other side of the argument. I may have to change my question a little however I like the way it is now.

