DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum ESPN What would the end of Football look like?

Quote:

---

The NFL is done for the year, but it is not pure fantasy to suggest that it may be done for good in the not-too-distant future. How might such a doomsday scenario play out and what would be the economic and social consequences?

By now we're all familiar with the growing phenomenon of head injuries and cognitive problems among football players, even at the high school level. In 2009, Malcolm Gladwell asked whether football might someday come to an end, a concern seconded recently by Jonah Lehrer.

Before you say that football is far too big to ever disappear, consider the history: If you look at the stocks in the Fortune 500 from 1983, for example, 40 percent of those companies no longer exist. The original version of Napster no longer exists, largely because of lawsuits. No matter how well a business matches economic conditions at one point in time, it's not a lock to be a leader in the future, and that is true for the NFL too. Sports are not immune to these pressures. In the first half of the 20th century, the three big sports were baseball, boxing, and horse racing, and today only one of those is still a marquee attraction.

---

Read the rest of the story here.

Caught this story on the ESPN Scorecenter app on my smartphone. It had a picture of Colt McCoy on the ground after the James Harrison hit. I think there is no chance in "H" "E" "Double Hockey Stick" that football goes away. I thought the whole story was laughable.

Last time I checked no one is forcing anyone to play the sport, don't know how you sue and win large amounts of money when you voluntarily played.

Just thought I would share and see what others think.

the NFL isn't some piddly Fortune500 company. it is McDonald's.

McD's isn't going away because of a few lawsuits. guess what, neither is the NFL.

I agree with what your saying however they continue to change the game and eventually that game may change so much that we as the consumer will no longer enjoy it and it will drop off the map. We will be watching arena football instead of NFL perhaps they will go to flag football so no one gets hit. Would you find that as big an attraction?

Also to note are not former players sueing over past injury's? I think its not as far fetched as some would think. Also dont forget to add in the politicians who will investigate more and more because well its their job to make us safe from ourselves.

Go away,, no, I don't believe it will.

Change over time to a less violent hitting league? Probably.

So, one of those major news networks had scroll across the bottom of their screen a few days ago that the lawsuits against the NFL by former players grows into the 100's.

Yeah, here at BU there's the Center for the Study of Traumatic Brain Injury, which is one of the main groups that is leading the charge into blowing the whistle on sports that lead to brain damage. They don't just look at football though, there's quite a bit of evidence for similar injuries in soccer players and wrestlers too.

One of their main targets is little league stuff. Someone brought up the argument that these are adults, they get paid to do this, they shouldn't complain. But, you can't say the same about pop warner where there are little kids that don't know the first thing about what they're doing to their brains when they hit (or take a hit) with their head. And they don't get paid. They just see the attention that football players get and want similar treatment.

What Would the End of Football Look Like?
An economic perspective on CTE and the concussion crisis
By Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier on February 9, 2012


The NFL is done for the year, but it is not pure fantasy to suggest that it may be done for good in the not-too-distant future. How might such a doomsday scenario play out and what would be the economic and social consequences?

By now we're all familiar with the growing phenomenon of head injuries and cognitive problems among football players, even at the high school level. In 2009, Malcolm Gladwell asked whether football might someday come to an end, a concern seconded recently by Jonah Lehrer.

Before you say that football is far too big to ever disappear, consider the history: If you look at the stocks in the Fortune 500 from 1983, for example, 40 percent of those companies no longer exist. The original version of Napster no longer exists, largely because of lawsuits. No matter how well a business matches economic conditions at one point in time, it's not a lock to be a leader in the future, and that is true for the NFL too. Sports are not immune to these pressures. In the first half of the 20th century, the three big sports were baseball, boxing, and horse racing, and today only one of those is still a marquee attraction.

The most plausible route to the death of football starts with liability suits.1 Precollegiate football is already sustaining 90,000 or more concussions each year. If ex-players start winning judgments, insurance companies might cease to insure colleges and high schools against football-related lawsuits. Coaches, team physicians, and referees would become increasingly nervous about their financial exposure in our litigious society. If you are coaching a high school football team, or refereeing a game as a volunteer, it is sobering to think that you could be hit with a $2 million lawsuit at any point in time. A lot of people will see it as easier to just stay away. More and more modern parents will keep their kids out of playing football, and there tends to be a "contagion effect" with such decisions; once some parents have second thoughts, many others follow suit. We have seen such domino effects with the risks of smoking or driving without seatbelts, two unsafe practices that were common in the 1960s but are much rarer today. The end result is that the NFL's feeder system would dry up and advertisers and networks would shy away from associating with the league, owing to adverse publicity and some chance of being named as co-defendants in future lawsuits.

It may not matter that the losses from these lawsuits are much smaller than the total revenue from the sport as a whole. As our broader health care sector indicates (try buying private insurance when you have a history of cancer treatment), insurers don't like to go where they know they will take a beating. That means just about everyone could be exposed to fear of legal action.

This slow death march could easily take 10 to 15 years. Imagine the timeline. A couple more college players — or worse, high schoolers — commit suicide with autopsies showing CTE. A jury makes a huge award of $20 million to a family. A class-action suit shapes up with real legs, the NFL keeps changing its rules, but it turns out that less than concussion levels of constant head contact still produce CTE. Technological solutions (new helmets, pads) are tried and they fail to solve the problem. Soon high schools decide it isn't worth it. The Ivy League quits football, then California shuts down its participation, busting up the Pac-12. Then the Big Ten calls it quits, followed by the East Coast schools. Now it's mainly a regional sport in the southeast and Texas/Oklahoma. The socioeconomic picture of a football player becomes more homogeneous: poor, weak home life, poorly educated. Ford and Chevy pull their advertising, as does IBM and eventually the beer companies.

There's a lot less money in the sport, and at first it's "the next hockey" and then it's "the next rugby," and finally the franchises start to shutter.

Along the way, you would have an NFL with much lower talent levels, less training, and probably greater player representation from poorer countries, where the demand for money is higher and the demand for safety is lower. Finally, the NFL is marginalized as less-dangerous sports gobble up its market share. People — American people — might actually start calling "soccer" by the moniker of "football."

Despite its undeniable popularity — and the sense that the game is everywhere — the aggregate economic effect of losing the NFL would not actually be that large. League revenues are around $10 billion per year while U.S. GDP is around $15,300 billion. But that doesn't mean everyone would be fine.

Big stadiums will lose a lot of their value and that will drag down neighboring bars and restaurants, causing a lot of them to shut their doors. Cable TV will be less profitable, and this will hasten the movement of TV-watching, if we can still call it that, to the web. Super Bowl Sunday will no longer be the best time to go shopping for a new car at the dealership.

Take Green Bay as a case study: A 2009 study of the economic impact of the Packers' stadium estimated "$282 million in output, 2,560 jobs and $124.3 million in earnings, and $15.2 million in tax revenues." That's small potatoes for the national economy as a whole, but for a small and somewhat remote city of 104,000, it is a big deal indeed.2

Any location where football is the only game in town will suffer. If the Jets and Giants go, New York still has numerous other pro sports teams, Broadway, high-end shopping, skyscrapers, fine dining, and many other cultural activities. If college football dies, Norman, Oklahoma (current home to one of us), has … noodling? And what about Clemson, in South Carolina, which relies on the periodic weekend football surge into town for its restaurant and retail sales? Imagine a small place of 12,000 people that periodically receives a sudden influx of 100,000 visitors or more, most of them eager to spend money on what is one of their major leisure outings. It's like a port in the Caribbean losing its cruise ship traffic. (Overall, the loss of football could actually increase migration from rural to urban areas over time. Football-dependent areas are especially prominent in rural America, and some of them will lose a lot of money and jobs.)

Outside of sports, American human capital and productivity probably rise. No football Saturdays on college campuses means less binge drinking, more studying, better grades, smarter future adults. Losing thousands of college players and hundreds of pro players might produce a few more doctors or engineers. Plus, talented coaches and general managers would gravitate toward management positions in American industry. Heck, just getting rid of fantasy football probably saves American companies hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Other losers include anything that depends heavily on football to be financially viable, including the highly subsidized non-revenue collegiate sports. No more air travel for the field hockey teams or golf squads. Furthermore, many prominent universities would lose their main claim to fame. Alabama and LSU produce a large amount of revenue and notoriety from football without much in the way of first-rate academics to back it up. Schools would have to compete more on academics to be nationally prominent, which would again boost American education.

One of the biggest winners would be basketball. To the extent that fans replace football with another sport (instead of meth or oxy), high-octane basketball is the natural substitute. On the pro level, the season can stretch out leisurely, ticket prices rise, ratings rise, maybe the league expands (more great athletes in the pool now), and some of the centers and power forwards will have more bulk. At the college level, March Madness becomes the only game in town.

Another winner would be track and field. Future Rob Gronkowskis in the decathlon? Future Jerome Simpsons in the high jump? World records would fall at a rapid pace.

This outcome may sound ridiculous, but the collapse of football is more likely than you might think. If recent history has shown anything, it is that observers cannot easily imagine the big changes in advance. Very few people were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, or the rise of China as an economic power. Once you start thinking through how the status quo might unravel, a sports universe without the NFL at its center no longer seems absurd.

So … Tennis, anyone?

web page

this was posted somewhere else too. i'll say again what I said there.

the NFL is not Napster. the NFL is McDonald's. McDonald's isn't going away because of a few lawsuits. Neither is the NFL.

I don't think it will ever "go-away" ... even with the poor stock example, there were companies that went bankrupt, but then other companies arose to fill the void they left ... so it's not like they dissappeared completely.

But I can definatly see football dropping out of the #1 spot at some point in the very distant future. Just like the article said ... Just 80 years ago, Horse Racing, Boxing and Baseball were the top sports, and now only baseball cracks the top 3. People interests change over time ... otherwise, Mayan Stone Hoopball would still be all the rage.

yeah, i can see it falling from the top sports spot.

The mer thought of no more football is Heresy of the highest nature.

May the football Gods strike ESPN down for the mention of this unthinkable act .

No more ESPN would be a much more likely, and far more desirable outcome.

But Disney is a Fortune 500 company.

Quote:

---

Seriously though, the League is trying to make the game as safe as technology currently allows for, but I think it's far more likely, that they come up with better solutions and equipment, that will allow the game to endure for future generations of fans ... Then to suggest the unthinkable.

---

fldawg...I wish it were true, that the NFL is making the game as safe as technology currently allows.

The NFL is light years behind the curve when it comes to the safety capability of their helmets. For example, the NFL is currently using the same basic helmet that I used when I played 40 yrs ago.

...a rock hard plastic outer shell lined with a combination of foam padding and inflatable air cushions on the inside, to protect the brain from concussions.

The NFL is fully aware of cases where team trainers altered an NFL approved helmet in an effort to better protect a player from suffering additional, career threatening concussions.

That happened in 1967 and it was a success, as Willie Lanier went on to a hall of fame career, retiring in 1977.

Armed with this information, did the NFL mandate a helmet change with a layer of padding added to the outside of all NFL players helmets?...

...NO, the NFL did not mandate any such changes, preferring to use helmets with padding and air bags located only on the inside of the helmets.

A few years after Lanier retired, Mark Kelso was faced with a similar situation as Lanier. He had suffered several concussions in his first 4 yrs playing safety for the Bills and the Bills medical staff was concerned about his long term health and asked Kelso to consider retirement or another option that might better protect Kelso from further concussions.

Kelso began wearing a ProCap foam padding shell that fit over the outside of his regular NFL issue helmet. It was not fashionable, seeing this oversized helmet, but it worked and Kelso credits the ProCap with saving his career..he played 5 more seasons, wearing the ProCap.

Kelso retired after the 1993 season and again the NFL had information that padding worn on the outside of their football helmets virtually eliminated the incidents of concussions. Kelso said you could hit his ProCaped helmet with a baseball bat and he would not feel it.

Did the NFL utilize this information to improve the safety capability of their NFL issue helmets?...NO, the NFL refused to mandate the use of the ProCap, preferring to continue using their helmets with padding and air bags on the inside only.

Steve Wallace, OT for the 49ers/Chiefs from 1986 to 1997 was another player who wore a ProCap after suffering several concussions and see Kelso wear ProCap. He too extended his career by wearing the ProCap.

Again, the NFL had evidence that adding a foam layer to the outside of their helmets would greatly reduce the incidents of concussions for their players...and again, the NFL ignored the results, preferring to use helmets with padding and air bags located only on the inside of their helmets.

I see this story, the End of the NFL is upon us...as nothing more than "propaganda"...an effort scare people...if the players sue the NFL, the American people might not have football to watch.

The NFL will likely do all they can to escape their legal liability hoping to limit the dollar awards.

It does not make any sense that the NFL never mandated safer football helmets. The truth is, the NFL didn't begin to talk about concussions until the information about the NFL being aware of the dangers of concussion dating back to the 1920s.

It was only after that information was made available to the players that Goodell and the owners began showing interest in concussion safety, preferring to fine the players for the way they played the game, rather than mandate safer equipment...yet another attempt to shift the responsibility for concussion safety away from the NFL and onto the players, IMO.

Once the NFL's legal liability is determined, then maybe the NFL will mandate the use of safer helmets.

jmho...mac

Mac, I'm fully aware that the League has been slow in coming around to safety.

Why have they not adapted the pro cap? I don't know (I'm sure they will offer a reason), but I think they finally realize that safety is in everyone's best interest.

I actually split my helmet in half playing pop warner ball back in the day (60's).

The equipment is only half of the solution. The rules being another and weather you agree, like or dislike the changes that have been made.
They where made with player safety in mind.

Still room for improvement.

Quote:

---

The equipment is only half of the solution. The rules being another and weather you agree, like or dislike the changes that have been made.
They where made with player safety in mind.

Still room for improvement.

---

fl...we might hate to think the NFL could be so obscene, but the truth is they showed no interest in protecting their players from the harmful effects of concussions UNTIL the players learned about the concussion information gathered by the NFL, dating back to the 1920s...

...the players learned of the NFL's 1920s medical studies in June 2010.

It became obvious that the NFL had withheld information about concussions for a very long time and did not share that information with their players and did very little to improve the safety within their sport. The lawsuits were not filed until after the 1920s info became known.

Check the record and you will find that Goodell/NFL didn't begin to show interest in changing the game..the way players tackle and levying fines if players didn't tackle according Goodell's rule, until Sept 2010.

It is my opinion that Goodell and the owners came up with the plan to fine the players for helmet to helmet hits, in an effort to shift the blame and liability for concussions from the NFL and onto the players.

Problem is, for over 90 years, the NFL showed no interest in fining players for helmet to helmet contact, even though the NFL had done studies, learning about the harmful effects of concussions, dating back to the 1920s.

The concussion issue will be ironed out in court and hopefully once it is settled, the NFL will mandate helmets they know can prevent a high percentage of concussions.

The NFL just decided to pay Roger Goodell a yearly salary of $20 million per year...they can't convince me they don't have the money to handle the lawsuits, should a court find in favor of the players.

Jk as I said they can just play Flag football no injuries, no head trama nothing the sport will be totally safe.
I feel bad for the guys in the 60's who only made 50K and had to somehow live on that when normal people made 5K as now where guys make 10mil and normal people make 50K.

If the players were concerned about their well bieng they'd quit removing padding from the uniform.
How many guys are not wearing thigh, knee or hip pads? I cant imagine the beating those three areas can take in the pro game!

In a few years the players will sit on the bench and use remote controls to control robots player son the field. So no need for new helmets. Nerds will rule football.

Quote:

---

This is however a broader problem the just the NFL.

---

fl...no doubt, the helmet issues have a trickle down effect that includes every level of football.

I'm not sure if potential legal liability goes beyond the NFL level, though.

I have read about possible collusion between the NFL and Riddell though. Some of the lawsuits named Riddell and the NFL as defendants. If found guilty, Riddell might face potential legal liability to every player that wore a Riddell helmet, college, hs and peewee.

It will all depend on the evidence...

they are too concussed to make more smarter decisions....

It's long, but an interesting read.

NFL, manufacturers: No helmet can fully eliminate concussions

Associated Press
Published: Nov. 12, 2010 at 02:31 p.m.
Updated: Nov. 12, 2010 at 03:07 p.m.

As Philadelphia Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson prepared to return last weekend from his second concussion in less than a year, he was given a special, new helmet. While he hoped to be better protected, the helmet's maker certainly wouldn't -- and couldn't -- guarantee Jackson will be completely safe from brain injuries.

The truth is, no helmet can provide that sort of absolute protection in the NFL, where there's an average of 1.5 to two concussions in each game.

In a series of interviews with The Associated Press, representatives of the NFL, its players' union and the four equipment companies that make every helmet worn in the league all agreed there's no football helmet -- in production or on drawing boards -- that can eliminate concussions. And there might never be one.

The NFL acknowledges that the lack of a perfect helmet contributed to its decision in recent weeks to use hefty fines and the threat of suspensions to cut down on dangerous hits. It's also why the league's head, neck and spine medical committee is holding a two-day meeting next month to look into new ways to test and design helmets.

"A concussion-proof helmet? So far, there's nothing to that effect," said Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations. "I don't know if (manufacturers) could ever convince us or assure us that a helmet that would absolutely prevent concussions is doable. I haven't heard such a thing."

Right now, the helmet makers know they can't make such claims.

"I don't think there'll ever be anything that's a concussion-proof football helmet. I've heard that term thrown around, but in the helmet world, with today's technology, that's not achievable," said Thad Ide, vice president of research and development at Riddell.

"It's important to understand that there's a limit to how much helmets can do," Ide continued. "And player behavior, player education, rules changes -- all of those things can have as much, or more, of a benefit in reducing the risk of concussion."

Helmets used in the NFL - and NCAA or high school football, for that matter -- are supposed to pass a test developed by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), a nonprofit corporation. The group's website notes that it establishes "voluntary test standards," that "manufacturers test their own helmets" and that "NOCSAE does not possess a surveillance force to ensure compliance with the standards."

The testing method established in the 1970s remains essentially the same today. The goal then was to prevent sudden death, skull fractures and brain bleeding in football -- not stop concussions -- and there's universal agreement that goal has been achieved. But NOCSAE says it would like to find a way to update the standard and testing to account for concussions, once more is known about the forces that cause them.

"We can't make a change to our standard until, No. 1, we know it's going to be beneficial, and No. 2, that the change that we would incorporate wouldn't make the rest of the standard less protective or that the change wouldn't increase the risk of injury in another area," executive director Mike Oliver said. "Science doesn't know the answer."

Concussions occur when the brain moves inside the skull from an impact or a whiplash effect. Some compare it to the movement of a yolk within a shell if an egg were tossed out of a window -- yes, wrapping the egg in bubble-wrap might keep the shell from cracking, but it wouldn't stop the yolk from jostling.

"I don't think this is a different set of problems than car manufacturers face when developing air bags or car seats for children," Schutt Sports president and CEO Robert Erb said.

"I can't have the helmet weigh too much, because then I'm putting stress loads on the neck and I'm creating a whole set of different problems. I can't put in too much padding, because then I'm creating a heat-related issue. I can't make it too thin. I can't make it too thick," said Erb, whose company made Jackson's old and new helmets.

Mark Lovell, founding director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program, said a concussion-proof helmet is not "a realistic goal, because you can't put a helmet on the brain."

"The helmet sits on the skull, and the brain moves inside the skull, and that's actually what causes the concussion," said Lovell, who has served as a consultant to the NFL and other major sports leagues.

Factors that play into whether concussions happen include whether a player took previous hits to the head that day; how hydrated he is; where on the helmet he gets hit; whether the player saw the hit coming and was able to tense neck muscles so his head spins less violently.

And the list goes on.

"I don't personally think, in my own mind, the helmet is ever going to be the solution to concussions. But I think they can be made better in the future, just like the current ones are made better than they were in the past," said Dr. Robert Cantu, a clinical professor of neurosurgery at the Boston University School of Medicine, senior adviser to the NFL's concussion committee and NOCSAE vice president.

The NFL's Anderson said it's "exactly right" to make a connection between the current state of helmet technology and the efforts by the league to increase enforcement of rules governing illegal hits to the head, including fines of up to $75,000.

"It's very clear that wearing a helmet, in and of itself, is not protecting our guys from concussions and other trauma," said Anderson, who makes initial decisions on punishment for NFL safety-rule violations, "so to the extent that we can do more by aggressively enforcing our rules and getting illegal techniques and hits to the head out of the game, we have an obligation to do that."

The NFL and NFLPA concussion committees, helmet makers, the Department of Defense and leading scientists will participate in discussions Dec. 8-9 to: examine whether there are new materials that could improve helmets; determine if sensors should be used in helmets, mouthguards or earpieces worn by NFL players to measure impacts of various kinds of hits to the head; review the NFL's return-to-play guidelines established in December 2009, including considering whether sideline tests used to determine if a player has a concussion should be standardized so each team uses the same, mandated neurological exam.

"We're turning over every stone you could imagine," said Richard Ellenbogen, chairman of the University of Washington medical school's department of neurological surgery and co-chair of the NFL's head, neck and spine medical committee.

The NFL says it has invested $10 million on the issue since 2006, including $6 million on concussion- and helmet-related research and education.

"We certainly won't get a helmet that reduces concussions," said Thom Mayer, medical director for the players' union, "unless we try."

The helmet makers say they are trying.

Boston University's Cantu quickly rattled off advances such as Riddell's increased width, Schutt's new cushioning materials, and what he called Xenith's "rather dramatic" change from traditional foams to air-cell padding inside helmets.

No matter what advancements have come about, some NFL players sound skeptical about just how much protection helmets can provide.

"They're making tons of different styles of helmets, and I wear the old, traditional style. I kind of feel, like, if you're going to get knocked out, you're going to get knocked out," Indianapolis Colts cornerback Jerraud Powers said. "I don't really think the helmet matters when it comes to you having a concussion or not."

Said Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu: "I've heard players try out the new helmets, get concussions and say, 'I'm going back to the old one.'"

Each player is allowed to choose which brand he wears. The NFL estimates that 75 percent of helmets used this season are made by Riddell, which has had a licensing/sponsorship agreement with the league since 1990; 23 percent are made by Schutt, 1 to 2 percent by Xenith, and a handful by Adams USA. Rawlings, which stopped making football helmets more than two decades ago, is returning to the business in 2011 and has partnered with the Cleveland Clinic for concussion research.

According to Schutt, the Eagles' Jackson had been wearing one of its helmet models that went out of production about two years ago. Then came Oct. 17, a Sunday filled with some particularly vicious hits across the NFL, including the shot Jackson took from Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson that left both men on the ground, motionless. Jackson and Robinson both ended up with concussions; each missed his team's next game; Robinson appealed the $50,000 fine levied by the league for the hit.

D.J. MacLean, Schutt's director of sports marketing, traveled to Philadelphia last week to check on Jackson and his new helmet -- outfitted, unlike his old Schutt, with a material the company says does a much better job of withstanding impacts.

Still, MacLean will be the first to tell you, that material can't ensure those impacts don't cause concussions.

"For somebody to say that there is such a thing as a concussion-proof helmet is incorrect. It's a misinterpretation. Football is a collision sport. When it's played well, it's a violent collision sport. Concussions will happen," MacLean said. "The only way to not get one is to sit in the stands."


web page

I've always thought the NFL should go to a helmet with a soft-exterior -- i.e. take the normal helmet, and wrap it inside a second, relatively thick, coat of a foam-like substance.

The reason is two fold -- first, extra padding is always good, for head injuries --- but more importantly, it discourages the use of the helmet as a weapon on the field. Right now a helmet to the gut is the best way to stop a receiver from going over the middle -- similarly, a helmet on the ball is the best way to force a fumble.

Soft shelled helmets help to eliminate that -- you can still have players play free, but place a mechanical (rather than just penalty) discincentive for them to use their heads.

there were reasons against the soft-shell too though.

the friction between 2 soft shells could actually cause more of the hit to be "absorbed" into the head rather than slip off of each other.

the buffering effect could cause more whiplash to happen on normal plays(obviously if you are using the helmet as a weapon, you get this anyway)

there were other reasons too, but they escape me at the moment.

The first one is certainly true -- good point.

I don't know why they could take a normal type helmet, and add a 2nd hard shell with a memory foam type material between the 2 hard surfaces. It would seem to me that if it went foam around the head, with air pockets for further protection, than a hard shell, a layer of memory type foam, then a 2nd hard shell, with room for that middle layer to move/absorb collision force, that might be a way to go. It might add maybe 3/4 of an inch to an inch to the overall size of the helmet, but I think that players could adjust. Players had to adjust to helmets to start with.

It seems like they make cars these days to give as much as they can to absorb impact. They use breakaway parts in cars, but with lesser collision forces on the football field, I would think that they could use foams and such in multiple layers to do the same task.

You want players to take their craniums into consideration?

Remove the helmets completely. (Obviously not going to happen)

But the more you "perfect" a "safer" helmet, the less a person is going to worry about their own safety to a point...

Concussions are GOING TO HAPPEN regardless of what helmet someone is wearing, I thin more time and effort should be put into the study of safety AFTER someone gets a concussion than trying to prevent the un-preventable... Especially in Pro Football...

When the government gets involved in the NFL, for safety, lawsuits, or any other instance, football is dead.