Monday, August 24, 2015

Football Not A Game For Kids

GOUVEIA: Football: It’s not for kids

Bill Gouveia

Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2015 10:25 pm

By BILL GOUVEIA / For THE SUN CHRONICLE |0 comments

I am a huge sports fan. I raised my two children to be sports fanatics. My grandchildren are still too young to officially be classified as such. But I am proud to announce that despite living several states away, my 3-year-old granddaughter Avery still knows who Bill Belichick and Rob Ninkovich are.

I love baseball, basketball, hockey, and perhaps more than anything — football. I’ve been a Patriots season ticket-holder for some 44 years, formerly held Celtic season tickets, and followed the Red Sox since I was old enough to listen to the radio. I covered high school athletics for this fine newspaper in my misguided youth.

I played all sports growing up, none of them particularly well. My kids played baseball, tennis, golf, basketball, and soccer — the latter being a game I just never came to like. But I watched them and strongly supported their efforts to play all organized sports from a young age.

Except, football.

My wife and I made the decision early on in our parenting career that we would discourage our children from playing organized football until they reached high school. It was a difficult choice for me personally, but one I am glad we made. And, I truly believe our children are better for our decision.

With all due respect to the tremendous programs out there for young children today, I have a fundamental and philosophical objection to young boys and girls playing organized tackle football. I believe kids 6 to 12 years old are just too young and too vulnerable to start playing this great game at any kind of serious level.

I don’t want to get into the injury statistics and physical safety arguments in too much depth. Numbers can always be manipulated to the advantage of those compiling them, and that is certainly the case here.

But common sense and personal experience tells me football is a violent game — much more violent than any other regularly played in this country. And while I love the idea of tossing the pigskin with my young grandchildren, I shudder at the thought of them in pads at age 7 or 8, lining up to physically take down their counterparts on the other side.

And, yes — I am the guy who goes to high school games and applauds particularly effective blocks and tackles with great enthusiasm. I love seeing those student-athletes get fired up and attack the contest with a near-maniacal attitude.

Does that make me a hypocrite when it comes to youth football? Perhaps, but I can live with that. My kids did, and so will my grandchildren (I hope their parents will share my concerns).

I know thousands of young boys and girls play in Pop Warner and other leagues every year in this area. And I am equally aware most of them enjoy it. It no doubt helps build character and teaches them valuable life lessons.

But, football is one of the ultimate team sports, and the pressure it can put on young kids in both a physical and emotional way is just too much. Despite how hard coaches work to make it fun and “for the kids,” in my opinion football is just not for this age bracket.

Sure, baseball is tough on youngsters who strike out with the bases loaded in the last inning. And missing that last-second shot in basketball can be devastating. But that is different from being physically overwhelmed at the point of attack in a football game. It is far different from having your head thumped on the ground repeatedly if you play the game the right way.

Growing up in my neighborhood, we played tackle football every fall on our own, without pads and without our parent’s knowledge and permission. That might explain a lot to those who have read this space for many years.

If not as many younger kids playing means it is harder to field good high school or college teams, so be it. Youth sports should never be looked at as a “feeder program.”

With all due respect to the wonderful parent-run youth football organizations out there, I hope more kids find something else until they are old enough to truly deal with football.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Me, My Wife, And A Treasure Chest

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on August 7, 2015.

(And the headline was wrong - only 38 years of marriage)

GOUVEIA: 42 years of marriage is a thing to be treasured

The treasure chest currently sitting the Gouveia dining room.

Posted: Thursday, August 6, 2015 10:33 pm

By BILL GOUVEIA / For THE SUN CHRONICLE |0 comments

My wife and I are the couple that proves the validity of the old saying that “opposites attract.” The fact we have now been together for over 42 years is testament to our love, her patience and my complete inability to even contemplate an existence that did not include her by my side.

But if you ask me if I understand her, the answer would be a resounding “No.” Not at all. Not even close. I don’t have a clue. And after 38 years of marriage, I’m convinced that is a key component to our survival.

Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t know what she likes and doesn’t like — somewhat. It is nearly impossible (even for a stereotypically dense husband such as myself) to spend this much time with a partner and not become vaguely familiar with their likes and dislikes.

But our brains just work on different wavelengths. That doesn’t mean either of us is smarter or better than the other — just different. Of course, I am different in a normal way. Her way of being different is on another level, entirely.

For example, she is a room-temperature eater. She waits for her hot meals to cool. She can’t eat her ice cream until it is soupy. It’s just her way.

She has an artistic mind. Very little is symmetrical in her world. Different is normal, and normal is wrong. Must be why she loves me.

But there are some things that just go beyond my limited ability to comprehend. A recent example would be my efforts to understand why there is currently a treasure chest in my dining room.

That’s right, I said a treasure chest. And I don’t mean a McDonald’s Happy Meal-size treasure chest here. I’m talking about a real, full-size, wooden, shiver-me-timbers type treasure chest. One that looks like Long John Silver could have once buried it on a deserted island.

It is made of some type of wood, has some broken leather straps on the side, and I could probably fit inside it with a few alterations (a chilling fact that did not escape my attention when I first saw it).

It showed up on my steps a week or two ago with no explanation. I asked my Beloved why it was there, and in response she asked me to please help her carry it into the dining room. The fact I did so with little questioning probably says more about me than it does her.

When I finally inquired why it was here, she looked at me strangely, and said she bought it for our church fair (she is the fair chairwoman this year, a fact I first learned when it was mentioned by someone else at a meeting).

I naively asked what she was going to do with it at the fair, and she again looked at me like I was child and said, “It’s a decoration.” I told her I had not been aware the annual holiday fair this year had a pirate theme, and she gave me a glare that suggested I quit while I was ahead.

Then I asked why, if this prize was headed for the church, was it in my dining room? Patiently, as though English were not my first language, she told me the floors in the church were being redone, and it would go there later. She wanted it in the dining room because the basement would be too far for her to carry to the car, should the need arise.

I asked if she had dug this up somewhere, and she told me she got it at a yard sale. I immediately pictured a gleeful family wearing eye patches celebrating that someone had actually paid them money and hauled away this old trunk they had not wanted to spend the effort breaking up for the trash.

And it is still there, being guarded by the dining room furniture and some of my grandchildren’s stuffed animals. I can’t wait until Santa Claus swoops down on his pirate ship and picks it up at church fair time.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go warm up some ice cream ...

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist, husband, father and grandfather. He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.comand followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Mansfield Downtown Decision Was Bad Choice

GOUVEIA: Clear vision needed for downtown Mansfield

Bill Gouveia

Posted: Sunday, August 2, 2015 11:07 pm | Updated: 11:23 pm, Sun Aug 2, 2015.

BY BILL GOUVEIA FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE |0 comments

The Mansfield Planning Board made a major decision on the future of the downtown area recently. Only time will tell if their actions will protect the integrity of the cherished area, or if they have ruined the best chance it had for revitalization.

Developer Marco Crugnale saw his plans for some proposed buildings near the Mansfield train station derailed when three planning board members voted against his long-discussed project. Ralph Penney, Richard LeBlanc and Michael Feck surprised most observers by voting in opposition. The other four members supported the proposal, but because it involved allowing some residential use in a business zone it needed a "super majority" of five to pass.

North Common Estates, as it was to be named, would have been comprised of one 42-unit apartment building as well as one 39-unit apartment building with 7000 square feet of retail space. The value of the entire project was pegged at approximately $15 million.

Supporters praised the plan and called it a key to bringing prosperity back to downtown. Town Planner Shaun Burke pointed out it would improve traffic flow. Others said it would be a major factor in the town's efforts to land a MassWorks grant to secure further improvements.

Planning Board Member Don Cleary called it "the right project in the right place" and said the benefits far outweighed the negatives.

But in the end the project was too much residential and not enough retail for the three in opposition. They cited the need to preserve as much retail use as possible in the area. Penney noted the plan would be taking parcels with up to five businesses currently there and converting them to residential use.

What he failed to do was prove that in this case, that is a bad thing.

For the last quarter-century or more, the leadership in Mansfield has debated how to "revitalize" the downtown. When I was growing up and spending considerable time in Mansfield in the '60s and '70s, there was no better place. The businesses were thriving, run by local people who knew the names of most of their customers. It was the centerpiece of the community, and people regularly patronized the shops.

But this is a completely different era. Mansfield is a completely different town.

Over time the shopping habits of consumers have changed. They tend to go to bigger box stores where the goods they buy are less expensive, and where they can fill many varied needs with one visit.

Mansfield has welcomed many of those types of establishments into the community. Right off Route 140 are two major shopping venues including supermarkets, department stores, restaurants, specialty shops, a bakery, liquor stores and more. And those plazas feature ample parking, unlike the limited spaces available in the crowded but quaint downtown area.

Given all that, it is highly unlikely Mansfield's downtown will ever again be a thriving retail center. But you don't need speculation to arrive at that conclusion. All you need to do is learn from recent history.

There are very few successful retail businesses in the failing downtown. There are a lot of vacant buildings suffering from considerable neglect. Despite the presence of a commuter rail station, the vision town officials have long had for this area is just unreasonable and overly optimistic.

Which raises what should be an obvious question for the three planning board members who shot down the North Common Estates project because it did not provide enough retail space:

Why in the world would you want to create more of what has not worked for the last few decades?

Residential units are not as desirable for a community from a tax standpoint. They bring people who require a higher level of public services than retail businesses. That's indisputable.

But in this case, a plan similar to North Common Estates makes a lot of sense. People living in the area would create a better business climate. It would be a win-win situation for the town.

But it doesn't fit the "vision" to which so many still cling.

Planners in Mansfield should stop trying to force the downtown area to be something it no longer is, and start allowing it to become what it needs to be.