JSeahawks wrote:One day of pink is cool, imo.
A whole month is ridiculous.
FlyingGreg wrote:Unfortunately, breast cancer awareness has become almost a business hidden inside of a noble cause.
BlueTalon wrote:FlyingGreg wrote:Unfortunately, breast cancer awareness has become almost a business hidden inside of a noble cause.
Unfortunately, I agree.
Back to the question -- did anyone else notice that the Seahawks didn't have any (or barely any) pink on the field? Or is my memory faulty?
ParisPC07 wrote:My fiancée battled Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma for two years. The ribbon color for NHL is lime green, so I was set.
bellingerga wrote:and really guys... it's just another color. Does pink make you uncomfortable? Insecure maybe??
SharkHawk wrote:How this can be an issue of contention and complaint towards the league seems really nitpicky at best.
SharkHawk wrote:I don't think it has a bit of "trying to pander to female fans". I think it is an issue that all sports have taken to heart and supported (baseball started it with I believe the pink bat weekend).
The facts are that breast cancer has a high cure rate if caught early. That is the big point. OF all cancers, it is very survivable if caught right away. That is why they want to start the mammograms at 40. Add to that, I have yet to meet a person in my 39 years that hasn't been personally impacted by breast cancer. When the issue comes up (as we raise money for leukemia and lymphoma since my dad had it and my best friend from teaching is a survivor and had two bouts by the time she was 25). It is just a matter of talking about it. Once we start talking, the discussion quickly turns to somebody who has had it.
The biggest issue with the awareness is that the NFL's main market (age wise) is right in the wheelhouse for those who need to be educated and get their wives, girlfriends, moms, or themselves out to get mammograms (40+, or less if the family history says so).
The NFL has found a way to pool their resources and create a massive awareness campaign and on top of that a giant fundraiser by selling off game used memorabilia in pink (which brings in tons of money for research and treatment) and it creates another line of merchandise for them to sell, which is good for the league.
The NFL's support of the issue did another great thing and got people to start looking at the books of the Susan G. Komen foundation (sorry if the spelling was wrong) and people realized how little of their funding was actually going towards research. It was embarrassingly little. So just the awareness that was created by the NFL getting involved basically forced that charity to up the ante, and also got other companies involved who have promised a much higher rate of investment into research and direct help like in paying for early screenings and the like (Avon is one example that has stepped up big this year and put their money directly into research rather than sending it off to another company that pays a board in the 6 figures and has to relabel themselves as an "awareness organization" essentially due to their poor record on actual spending.
I could care less if the NFL went 100% pink including the turf on the field. Breast cancer kills people. It does it fast and it takes away way too many moms, sisters, aunts, wives, daughters, teachers, friends, etc. etc. If it is caught it can be treated and those lives can be saved! Just like prostate cancer. But it has to be caught. If the biggest TV show (in numbers of total viewership for all shows/games weekly) in the nation can remind people to get checked and promised a chunk of the money they make to find a cure for all of those moms, sisters, wives, daughters, friends, etc. that we love then I say awesome for them. I never saw the cast of Jersey Shore offering up a percentage of what they make for research for an awful disease that kills people every minute. I did hear them gripe about not making enough per episode and saying they were going on strike. Same with the case of Friends and a lot of other shows that have high visibility. In this one case the NFL is walking the walk and I applaud them for doing so. They make plenty of dumb mistakes. Why not give them a pat on the back when they go out of their way to earn one and deserve it? How this can be an issue of contention and complaint towards the league seems really nitpicky at best.
sc85sis wrote:As a woman whose grandmother died of breast cancer (when my mom was only 2), I am definitely in favor of breast cancer awareness.
On the other hand, I really detest pink.
HawkFan72 wrote:The thing that is dumb to me is that if a player tries to raise awareness for a different type of disease (see Reggie Wayne for example: http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/20 ... s/1621207/), they are fined.
I don't get why Breast cancer is is given a whole month, but every other type of cancer or disease is somehow beneath it. Instead of a whole month to one type of cancer, why not one different type a week for a month, or let the players decide which disease they want to raise awareness for during one week?
It is good that the NFL raises awareness for breast cancer, I just think it is dumb and somewhat offensive that that is the ONLY disease allowed to be promoted, and not only that, but they do it for a whole month EVERY YEAR. Maybe time to show some support for people dealing with other types of disease too?
As BI pointed out, if NFL products are sold at a 100% markup and only 5% of sale proceeds go to the American Cancer Society, then the NFL is pocketing 90% of sales of Breast Cancer Awareness products, many of which would not be purchased if they didn't come with a promise that consumers were "helping." The American Cancer Society...don't use 100% of the money they receive to "fight" breast cancer. Only 70% of donations taken in by the organization go toward cancer research. So, if you spend $10 on pink stink from the NFL, only about 35 cents is going to finding a cure for breast cancer. And $4.50 goes right back to the NFL