Football has grown to be a major part of my life and my family. I personally played the sport for 13 years. My dad and my two brothers played in college and coach high school now. I possess an unlimited passion for the sport and I plan to coach when I graduate college. I follow all levels of the sport so I am very aware of the NFL's history with issues/controversies. I have experienced the dangers of the sports including concussions and I understand the risk, even at a lower level of play than the NFL. This research question affects me greatly because it changes the thing in my life that I know so well; if the sport changes I would have to understand it so I will be able to coach it well to my players. I lack many qualifications myself but I have paid attention to the sport for over 15 years, I know it well, I've had a concussion and know the steps one must follow in order to treat them correctly. My dad worked for a company that, with the support of the NFL, created awareness for concussions and taught high school coaches the importance of treating them correctly. 

The central claim of Albergotti and Wang's article is football should be played without helmets. They often argue for this but their major evidence shows helmets encourage players to recklessly collide, 25% less likely to sustain a concussion if you don't wear a helmet, and it would decrease the cost of equipment. 

The major values of the article include the protection of the players, the value of a helmet, the comparison to rugby, and the changes the NFL is molding. Some of the interests at stake for the writers involve the interest of football fans, readers of The Wall Street Journal, and helmet companies.

Reed Albergotti co-wrote the bestselling book "Wheelmen: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France and the Greatest Sports Conspiracy Ever." Albergotti joined The Wall Street Journal in 2003. Shirley Wang writes about health and science for The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the U.S. by circulation.

The central claim of Cook's article is on-field head-banging is taking a toll. This article wants to inform the reader so it has a lot of facts that explain football players are four times more likely to die from brain diseases, players use computerized tests to assess a concussion, and science does not know how to prevent concussions.

This article values the experiences of players who have suffered a concussion before, what science actually knows about concussions, and what we do to assess them. With these values, this article will catch the interest of football fans and New York Times readers.

A former senior editor at Sports Illustrated, Kevin Cook is the author of Titanic Thompson, Tommy's Honor, Kitty Genovese and The Dad Report. He won an award for writing The Dad Report. This creates credibility because he obviously writes important articles if he wins awards for his writings. Also Sports Illustrated is the most popular sports magazine and he owned the title of senior editor, a high praise.

In this article Taylor claims the NFL does not protect its players well enough. Some evidence he uses to solidify this claim is players recover from concussions but do not recover from CTE, a lack of knowledge of concussions, and the NFL tried to hide the truth about concussions and then tried to cover their tracks when someone revealed this information 

This article values the experiences of players who suffered major concussions or CTE, the NFL's efforts to change their ways, and what the world knows about concussions. With these major values, this article will peak the interest of football fans, readers of Sports Illustrated, and medical professionals. 

Tom Taylor received his PhD in Aeronautics and Astronautics from Stanford University and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University. As an entitled sports/science journalist, Taylor currently works as a reporter/researcher for Sports Illustrated. This could create a bias for the protection of the brain, because a sports/science journalist defending the brain would make a better article for job purposes. 

This research question is arguable because any person can carry an opinion of what they think the direction the NFL should go in and if they carry an opinion, they need evidence to solidify it. Some agreements I have with the arguments made by these articles is the NFL should own its faults for what they did involving concussions and concussions need to be monitored greatly because they can eventually cause something fatal. I disagree with the NFL banning helmets, that is just idiotic and would cause more harm than good. The different perspectives make me rethink my topic and the position I have on my topic. They add in counter arguments that I too could use in my paper as counter arguments. 

