Is the National Football League  taking the proper actions in regards with findings of a cognitive disease (Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE) found in several of their player's brains? Be more descriptive on what exactly CTE is to help build up your question. Most people will respond more to "concussion" rather than CTE.

I am interested in the NFL and the "Concussion Crisis" because as a football fan, I attend the professional level games, watch the games as well as purchase the merchandise. I have the feeling that others like myself do not help the concussion crisis by continuing to pay money to enjoy the sport, and therefore encouraging the lack of responsibility in possible dangers of players. Who is being encouraged to lack responsibility? I think it would help to put the blame on someone, which I assume is the NFL.

This research question does affect my values because I think that others should not be treated unfairly or be seriously injured in exchange for entertainment and money. My personal experience regarding this subject is after I watched a documentary on the crisis, every time a player is seriously hit and unable to stand up, the thought of CTE and the stories of retired NFL players come to mind. I am qualified to write about this subject because of my previous knowledge as well as the research I am currently doing. If I write my research paper with reliable sources, this will also further my credibility. 

I would add more details regarding your values. I would also try to give more credibility to yourself as to why you are credible to talk about this topic. What differentiates you from the average football fan? What kind of research have you conducted in the past?

Research completed in 2015 shows that out of 91 brains of former NFL players that were studied, 87 tested positive for CTE. A lawsuit that was filed in 2013 regarding the findings of CTE, was settled in April of 2015. As a result the NFL had to pay up to $5 million dollars per player that was discovered with CTE. The major values presented in this article are money and health. The former NFL players have to deal with potentially hindering health, while the NFL has to deal with the possible loss of money due to the health problems found. The author of the article is Thomas Barrabi. Barrabi is a reporter for the International Business Times, and has written for Men's Fitness, Complex and HandleBar Magazine.

As for values, I might include the ethics of the situation as well. For example, is it ethical to allow football players to endure permanent damage to their brain just for the entertainment of sport? Also, it might help to include an estimate of just how much money the NFL might lose by taking precautions to concussions. 

The class action lawsuit between the NFL and more than 5,000 retired NFL players provides 5 million dollars for medical conditions. But more than 200 players opted out of the settlement due to suspicion of the league's actions regarding the hiding of the effects of concussions. This article has the same stakes and values as the previous article. The major values are money and health. The stakeholders that are impacted are the NFL as well as the retired players and their families. The authors of the article are Jill Martin and Steve Alamasy. Martin is the sports editor of CNN and has been with the sports the department since 2012. 

It might help to include information about Steve Alamasy. Also, it might help to go into more detail about the players suspicions that are mentioned. 

Once presented with the CTE findings from Dr. Omalu, the NFL disputed the findings. The NFL and NFL doctors held a meeting with pathologist Dr. McKee. During the meeting the league had a lawyer present that helped argue that there was no direct correlation with the brain disease and football. The values in this documentary are the player's health and the safety of the game of football. Dr. Omalu and Dr. McKee are advocating for the health of the players, while the NFL is trying to preserve the name of football and to ensure that the league does not lose profit. Therefore, the stakeholders in this documentary are the Doctors, the players, the National Football League and the League's (former) commissioner, Roger Goodell. The writers of the Frontline, documentary are Mark Fianaru-Wada, Michael Kirk, Mike Wiser and Steve Fainaru. Kirk, Wiser and Jim Gilmore were the producers of the documentary. By producing and writing this large scale documentary for PBS' Frontline shows the writer's credibility. 

This appears to be a really good source. In your argument, I would include a good amount of detail about the doctor's opinions. All in all, doctors are probably the most qualified and credible to discuss these issues. 


My research question is arguable because others might argue that with the money settlement and the changes with the concussion protocol and a possible revamping of players helmets, that the NFL is taking proper action regarding the crisis. The sources I have gathered are more informative, therefore present the facts without a side. With this being the case, I plan to find other resources that focus on the NFL's actions. I will also find articles with the players actions in order to support my argument. The different perspectives on these issues, help my perspective to be less one sided and more moderate. With the sources I am gathering, I am able to present facts. This in turn will  help to backup my argument no matter what the stance. In order to do this, I might need to make the question more specific, by discussing the actual actions, and the decisions that the league has made regarding the studies of players brains. 

I don't think at all that your argument needs to be moderate. This is a big issue and to me it seems like it is undeniable. I think the sources you have a very good sources. I think you should argue your topic as strongly as you can. I would still include counter-arguments, but it should be relatively easy to discredit them. As for your question, I think it is good as is. However, if you wanted to address the actual issue of concussions instead of the actions the NFL is taking (or not taking) to prevent these injuries, I think that would be fine too! Your sources could be used for either. But overall I think that you have a strong and supported argument. Your explanation for the feasibility of your argument is very well written and very easy to understand!

