A Sport Worth Playing?

After over a week conducting research on my junior theme topic, (Why doesn't the NFL do more to prevent players from concussions) I have really started to truly understand the seriousness of concussions.  Back in my sophomore year of high school I sustained a concussion during a basketball practice.  All of the "stupid" protocols really started to aggravate me, mostly because I felt completely fine and wanted to start playing again.  Following research however, "stupid" was indeed the worst word I could have possibly described the standard concussion recovery process as.  

Sports broadcaster and writer George Stroumboulopoulos conducted a research with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that the average life span of an NFL player is 55 years of age, nearly 22 years less than the average U.S. population as a whole.  Along with this reduction of life span is an increased percentage of having Alzheimer's (37 percent higher rate than average) after retirement from the league.  Most Alzheimer cases are diagnosed in humans over the age of 65, however many NFL players have experienced the disease at an age as young as 35.  

Sports columnists all over the country have opinions that the NFL is an economic devil, with owners using players as tools to their success.  Gregg Doyle of "cbssports" even quoted the NFL and its owners as "cold-hearted bastards", who to them, "players aren't people. They're commodities to be bought and sold, acquired and released. They're pieces in a brutal game of chess that has seen 273 players placed on injured reserve this season."  In my opinion, the people that would disagree the most with Doyle are NFL players themselves.  

If career ending, and possibly life ending injuries have been a proven outcome for many players of playing in the NFL, why do players still take up careers as football players?  Also, does the NFL have a bad influence on younger athletes and their decision making when it comes to their health?  The concussion issue in the NFL has begged many questions, those above being the most interesting to myself.  

Is the "Good" Always Right?

As I wrap up the last quarter of my junior year, the college admissions process is now starting to become a huge topic among both students and teachers all around the country for kids my age.  Some students already know where they want to go to school, and some students haven't a clue of what interests them.  Personally, I have researched and visited many colleges myself, and have composed a list of about ten schools that seem would be good fits.  

One issue that I have encountered already at the beginning of this process is the idea of a "good college".  To me, this statement comes off as extremely arrogant, not saying that all colleges are equal, but that there is this idea that there are good schools, average schools, and bad schools.  

Currently, college rankings are generally put together based on three factors:  The resources the college has, the admissions selectivity of students, and the average grades and test scores of the students that apply to these schools.  Nicholas Confessore of "The Atlantic" wrote that college rankings, such as U.S. News and Forbes, should not rank colleges under the title "The Best Colleges", but they should be titled as "America's Most Advantaged Colleges".  So as I start up my college admissions process, this idea of a "good school" has lead to many questions for me.  

First, how do you define a "Good" college?  Do you think schools with such strong reputations such as Harvard would drop in their ranking if they lost teaching resources?  And last, do you think teenagers have fallen into the trap of going to a school based on its reputation instead of going to a school in which they will have a great experience because it's a better fit?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/what-makes-a-college-good/302814/