The NFL and NCAA both claim that the safety of the players is their number one priority, but is this really true? I would argue that they do indeed have the player's safety as a main concern. The NCAA recently enforced a targeting rule in order to protect defenseless players. The targeting rule does not allow blows to the head to a defenseless player, and can result in ejection from the game; the NFL also enforces this rule. This is just one example of how both institutions are changing the game in order to protect player's lives. 

This is an issue that I am very passionate about because it has directly impacted my life. I was once a football player, but no longer am due to a football injury to the back that to this day affects my everyday life. I believe that the ending result of a football game is not more important than the well-being of a person. Players that have not experienced serious injury as a result from playing do not understand the nagging affects it can have on you as a person. I personally have not looked at life the same since I found out my playing days were over. Although I was very disappointed I would no longer experience the thrill of the game, I realized that lasting effects of the injury was not worth the thrill. I believe that I am very qualified to argue why safety should be the game's primary focus. I have experienced both sides of this argument, so I provide real life credible arguments to the situation. My goal is to bring awareness to football athletes and all athletes that there is a life after the game. I do not want any other person to experience the pain I have, so I will argue as to why the game should have its player's safety as a top priority to protect future athletes beyond the game. 

The article by Greg Bishop, "Despite Good Intentions, New Targeting Rule Creates Problems" details the positives and negatives to the targeting rule that was enforced in 2008. It describes the arguments of both sides with those in favor of the rule being most concerned with the player's safety, while those oppose argue that it is against the tradition of hard hitting football and its toughness. The people who oppose the rule value the game's original integrity, and sense of toughness it brought to its players on and off the field. However, those who are for the rule argue that these type of hits can seriously injury a player, and affect that player's life way beyond the game. The author who wrote this article has written for three different major newspapers, including the NY Times, and won 10 Associated Press Sports Editors awards. In other words, he is very knowledgeable and respected in his field of work. 

John Marshall is a writer for the Associated Press, and has written numerous articles on controversial topics in the sports world. He recently wrote an article for 'collegefootball.org' in 2015, "Targeting Penalties Remain Roughly the Same from Last Year" that argues how the targeting rule in the NCAA is having too big of an impact on the result of the game. If you are given a targeting penalty, you are automatically disqualified from competition. Some argue that this is too harsh a punishment to the player and to the team. Others would rebuttal to that argument by saying that the harsh punishment is what needs to be done to have a lasting effect on the player's actions. Both parties have valid arguments, but the side you decide to defend directly reflects the values you have. On one side there is those who are against the rule, valuing the overall outcome of the game, but for those who agree with the rule show that they are most interested in the individuals overall livelihood.  

A very recent article was written in the NY Times by one of their top writers, Ken Belson, about what the NFL is doing to make the game safer. The article has a very appropriate title, "Roger Goodell Insists Football Is Safe: 'There's Risk in Life'" because it consists of many quoted statements from the Commissioner of the NFL himself, Roger Goodell on his views of player safety. He makes claims that the NFL is continuing to improve in player safety through new rules, technology, and spending millions of dollars on further research. There are those who will argue that players are retiring earlier due to the rising number of diagnosed concussions, and other safety concerns.  Mr. Goodell and others believe that players retire on their watch, not due to fear. 

This is a very debatable topic due to the vast amount of arguments it provides. It is not a simple matter of right and wrong. It is an argument that has been discussed every NFL season with new problems, or opinions arising every year, proving that it is a debate that can be perceived differently from everybody. Through the sources I have found numerous arguments with those who agree and disagree. The primary arguments for those who agree are that the players life is more important the ending result of a game, and that the player must live a life after football, and being injured makes that life very difficult. Then, there are those who disagree claiming that these new rules are destroying the tradition of the game, and excitement. After reading through these sources I have found myself agreeing with points argued by both sides, but having an overall bias to those who agree with the rule. One thing I may need to do is revise my question because after reading through my sources and my arguments given, I wonder if my question fits what I am arguing.  
The NFL and NCAA both claim that the safety of the players is their number one priority, but is this really true? I would argue that they do indeed have the player's safety as a main concern. The NCAA recently enforced a targeting rule in order to protect defenseless players. The targeting rule does not allow blows to the head to a defenseless player, and can result in ejection from the game; the NFL also enforces this rule. This is just one example of how both institutions are changing the game in order to protect player's lives. 

This is an issue that I am very passionate about because it has directly impacted my life. I was once a football player, but no longer am due to a football injury to the back that to this day affects my everyday life. I believe that the ending result of a football game is not more important than the well-being of a person. Players that have not experienced serious injury as a result from playing do not understand the nagging affects it can have on you as a person. I personally have not looked at life the same since I found out my playing days were over. Although I was very disappointed I would no longer experience the thrill of the game, I realized that lasting effects of the injury was not worth the thrill. I believe that I am very qualified to argue why safety should be the game's primary focus. I have experienced both sides of this argument, so I provide real life credible arguments to the situation. My goal is to bring awareness to football athletes and all athletes that there is a life after the game. I do not want any other person to experience the pain I have, so I will argue as to why the game should have its player's safety as a top priority to protect future athletes beyond the game. 

The article by Greg Bishop, "Despite Good Intentions, New Targeting Rule Creates Problems" details the positives and negatives to the targeting rule that was enforced in 2008. It describes the arguments of both sides with those in favor of the rule being most concerned with the player's safety, while those oppose argue that it is against the tradition of hard hitting football and its toughness. The people who oppose the rule value the game's original integrity, and sense of toughness it brought to its players on and off the field. However, those who are for the rule argue that these type of hits can seriously injury a player, and affect that player's life way beyond the game. The author who wrote this article has written for three different major newspapers, including the NY Times, and won 10 Associated Press Sports Editors awards. In other words, he is very knowledgeable and respected in his field of work. 

John Marshall is a writer for the Associated Press, and has written numerous articles on controversial topics in the sports world. He recently wrote an article for 'collegefootball.org' in 2015, "Targeting Penalties Remain Roughly the Same from Last Year" that argues how the targeting rule in the NCAA is having too big of an impact on the result of the game. If you are given a targeting penalty, you are automatically disqualified from competition. Some argue that this is too harsh a punishment to the player and to the team. Others would rebuttal to that argument by saying that the harsh punishment is what needs to be done to have a lasting effect on the player's actions. Both parties have valid arguments, but the side you decide to defend directly reflects the values you have. On one side there is those who are against the rule, valuing the overall outcome of the game, but for those who agree with the rule show that they are most interested in the individual's overall livelihood.  

A very recent article was written in the NY Times by one of their top writers, Ken Belson, about what the NFL is doing to make the game safer. The article has a very appropriate title, "Roger Goodell Insists Football Is Safe: 'There's Risk in Life'" because it consists of many quoted statements from the Commissioner of the NFL himself, Roger Goodell on his views of player safety. He makes claims that the NFL is continuing to improve in player safety through new rules, technology, and spending millions of dollars on further research. There are those who will argue that players are retiring earlier due to the rising number of diagnosed concussions, and other safety concerns.  Mr. Goodell and others believe that players retire on their watch, not due to fear. 

This is a very debatable topic due to the vast amount of arguments it provides. It is not a simple matter of right and wrong. It is an argument that has been discussed every NFL season with new problems, or opinions arising every year, proving that it is a debate that can be perceived differently from everybody. Through the sources I have found numerous arguments with those who agree and disagree. The primary arguments for those who agree are that the player's life is more important the ending result of a game, and that the player must live a life after football, and being injured makes that life very difficult. Then, there are those who disagree claiming that these new rules are destroying the tradition of the game, and excitement. After reading through these sources I have found myself agreeing with points argued by both sides, but having an overall bias to those who agree with the rule. One thing I may need to do is revise my question because after reading through my sources and my arguments given, I wonder if my question fits what I am arguing.  
