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. (Reyes) 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, which is what the opposing side would jump all over. 

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. (McCoy, Carroll, Derenowski) 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. Especially NFL players, because they are the highest level of play with the hardest hits and most risk. 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 but still provides good information that will be useful in my paper.

The last source I examined was a 60 minutes script with Steve Kroft and Ed Reed, a former NFL player who has been affected 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 that people will give their time and ears to. This article isn't biased however because it is two sided, information on how football is dangerous for the brain is prevalent, while the side of a retired player is also put into the show to see what they actual participants have to say about it.

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, and I will need to conduct more research to find evidence to support that claim because as of now I don't have any. It could also be argued how it should be up to the players themselves. I have found quotes from players so far such as Ed Reed saying they don't regret their choice, but I will need to find examples of other players that side with him in order to make my argument more effective. So far I have found lots of information about CTE and serious effects on the brain that come from it. 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 if I can't find good information on specific topics, however I like the way it is now.

