NFL 2017 changes?

[panthers_2012]

I know they are two different bodies, but you see Oregon play with at least 5 different helmets a year and no one in the NFL can have 2. It makes no sense to me. I love seeing the throwback helmets and I'm still upset the NFL has the rule. They need to change it. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Interesting (to me, maybe others) is that this is an NFL Policy per the rule change posting:

 

 By Philadelphia: Amends the NFL’s On-Field Policy to allow clubs to have an alternate helmet in a color to match their third uniform.

 

But Color Rush is a bylaw:

 

By Washington: Amends Article XIX, Sections 19.8(B) and 19.9(B) to permit clubs to opt out of the “color rush” jerseys created for Thursday Night Football.

 

Well, Color Rush is only a bylaw in that the bylaws require color v. white.

 

Here are those two sections in the 2006 Revision of the Constitution and Bylaws, which is the most recent version posted on the NFL's public site:

 

 

And from Section 19.9:

 

 

So I guess we can presume that these have since been modified to account for the fact that certain games may be designated as exempt from the "color v. white", regulations, and Washington is proposing an additional modification giving teams the right to opt out of those games so designated.  

[Gothamite]

16 minutes ago, panthers_2012 said:

I know they are two different bodies, but you see Oregon play with at least 5 different helmets a year and no one in the NFL can have 2. It makes no sense to me.

 

Well, your second sentence is kind of invalidated by beginning of the first.

 

It does make sense that different organizations would have different rules.  Especially when you consider that the NFL has to deal with long-term consequences of head injury, while college teams do not.  So far.  But hopefully that will change soon.

[VDizzle12]

The NFL should set a limit of 2 helmets per team. The primary that's worn for at least 14 regular season and the playoffs. A secondary helmet option that matches the design of the primary, but is an alternate color. Seahawks could have gray, Falcons with red, Panthers with black, etc). The only way teams should be able to change the design is if they pair the helmet with throwback uniforms. This way team branding stays strong and we don't see a ton of different helmets with different logos and stripes, like in the NCAA. 

[ScubaSteve]

Although I'm all for this change (as it would probably mean the Eagles drop their ugly black jerseys and look good for two games out of the year), I'm not optimistic that the NFL will go through with it. The rule was put there for a reason. No, not because they deem it safer. It's there to cover their asses from lawsuits. Stupid? Yes. But I can't see them doing similar things like going back to older kickoff rules, for example.

 

As for the Color Rush proposal, just make everyone happy by allowing different pants. That's why Color Rush is so garish. I don't understand why the league wants everyone to look like giant markers.

 

[hawk36]

I seriously doubt there is actual proof that using different helmets increases head injuries. If there was proof, Universities would be completely foolish to not have the same rules as the NFL. 

[Gothamite]

28 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I seriously doubt there is actual proof that using different helmets increases head injuries. If there was proof, Universities would be completely foolish to not have the same rules as the NFL. 

 

That's not really what anybody has said, though.  It's about not forcing equipment staff to break in and maintain two sets of helmets.

 

And universities get away with this because nobody's holding them accountable for the brain damage suffered while playing college football.  Yet.

[panthers_2012]

43 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Well, your second sentence is kind of invalidated by beginning of the first.

 

It does make sense that different organizations would have different rules.  Especially when you consider that the NFL has to deal with long-term consequences of head injury, while college teams do not.  So far.  But hopefully that will change soon.

I just find it ironic. I think it'll change soon too. 

[hawk36]

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's not really what anybody has said, though.  It's about not forcing equipment staff to break in and maintain two sets of helmets.

 

And universities get away with this because nobody's holding them accountable for the brain damage suffered while playing college football.  Yet.

In a billion dollar industry, maintaining an extra helmet seems like a minute detail in the total scheme of things. Really shouldn't matter at all.

 

And, in reality, if there is any concern regarding being held accountable, I could see studies just as easily showing that reusing the same helmet actually contributes to head injuries since the helmet is being worn down.  

 

I'm just trying to figure out where the money is in this deal (always follow the money when rules are nonsensical) but can't quite see who's benefitting.

[VDizzle12]

Even taking safety out of it. NCAA teams are also fighting for recruits. The more helmets/uniforms, the better. That's something the NFL doesn't have to worry about. They just want to sell jerseys. The league probably doesn't see a financial benefit of multiple helmets so they could easily make the rule. NCAA teams would probably put up a fight.

[BBTV]

The Eagles pulled a Trump/Ryan and withdrew their proposal.

 

They have said publicly that they're not considering changing from midnight green, but that they did want to introduce a "permanent" kelly alt to wear for 2 games but the league blocked it because of the helmet.

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, hawk36 said:

In a billion dollar industry, maintaining an extra helmet seems like a minute detail in the total scheme of things. Really shouldn't matter at all.

 

And, in reality, if there is any concern regarding being held accountable, I could see studies just as easily showing that reusing the same helmet actually contributes to head injuries since the helmet is being worn down.  

 

If those studies existed, then that would be one thing.  But I've heard nothing to indicate that they do, so it's pretty irrelevant to this conversation.  If someone wants to prove the NFL wrong, they're welcome to try. 

 

And yes, I've spoken with NFL equipment staffers who say it is a huge job to maintain a whole second set of helmets.  Not that the teams couldn't hire more people if they thought the helmets were worth it.  They obviously don't.

 

The NFL could be cashing in on more jersey sales if they allowed full-blown throwbacks.  That they don't, and are therefore leaving money on the table, indicates to me that this decision wasn't made on a mere whim.  

[hawk36]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

If those studies existed, then that would be one thing.  But I've heard nothing to indicate that they do, so it's pretty irrelevant to this conversation.  If someone wants to prove the NFL wrong, they're welcome to try. 

Do you mean studies showing using the same helmet is safer than using multiple helmets or vice versa? I just remember when they first made the rule that was the reason that was floating around (one helmet is safer than multiple helmets) but that could have just been internet speak. 

 

But my point is IF either way helps to prevent concussions, then one major entity (NFL or NCAA) is in very dangerous territory allowing the opposite to happen. My best guess is there is nothing definitive saying either is safer. 

[Gothamite]

8 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Do you mean studies showing using the same helmet is safer than using multiple helmets or vice versa? I just remember when they first made the rule that was the reason that was floating around (one helmet is safer than multiple helmets) but that could have just been internet speak. 

 

But my point is IF either way helps to prevent concussions, then one major entity (NFL or NCAA) is in very dangerous territory allowing the opposite to happen. My best guess is there is nothing definitive saying either is safer. 

 

Well, I personally think the NCAA is in very dangerous territory. They've been allowed to largely coast above the fray, even though they appear to be doing the same amount of damage to their players as the pros are.  I'm not entirely sure why they've been let off the hook so far, but I expect that they'll be hit with lawsuits soon enough, especially if one of the suits against the NFL results in a clear loss for the league.  (FWIW, I think that might be the death knell for college football, since unlike the NFL most schools are losing money on it anyway.)

 

As for theoretical competing studies, I'm not sure that there's any evidence either way. So both organizations seem free to respond in any way they think best.  I just can't think of a reason for the NFL to take this approach, an approach that is quite literally costing them money, except out of some sort of conviction. 

[BrandMooreArt]

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Well, I personally think the NCAA is in very dangerous territory. They've been allowed to largely coast above the fray, even though they appear to be doing the same amount of damage to their players as the pros are.  I'm not entirely sure why they've been let off the hook so far, but I expect that they'll be hit with lawsuits soon enough, especially if one of the suits against the NFL results in a clear loss for the league.  (FWIW, I think that might be the death knell for college football, since unlike the NFL most schools are losing money on it anyway.)

 

As for theoretical competing studies, I'm not sure that there's any evidence either way. So both organizations seem free to respond in any way they think best.  I just can't think of a reason for the NFL to take this approach, an approach that is quite literally costing them money, except out of some sort of conviction. 

 

from what i've read from the motorsports industry (either Simpson or Bell helmets, can't remember which) they recommend retiring a helmet after a driver has been involved in a major crash. this is because those helmets, and traditional football helmets, are not designed to prevent concussions but designed to prevent skull fractures. when it comes to preventing concussions (or reducing the risk) im not sure if repeated impact to the shell plays a role in this or not– i do know that helmet design (especially total weight) does play a large part in this. all helmet manufacturers have been addressing these issues for the last decade too, hence the crazy designs we have today. but whether or not 2 helmets would be safer than 1 im not certain, but im not completely convinced that would be the case.

 

so why the NFL rule? my own speculation is the Player Assoc. just wanted to get a rule passed as quickly as possible for insurance purposes and they ended up with the 1 helmet rule. again, i don't know if its the best rule or not, but it seems like it was what they could get done at the time they needed it to get done 

[Gothamite]

7 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

from what i've read from the motorsports industry (either Simpson or Bell helmets, can't remember which) they recommend retiring a helmet after a driver has been involved in a major crash. this is because those helmets, and traditional football helmets, are not designed to prevent concussions but designed to prevent skull fractures. when it comes to preventing concussions (or reducing the risk) im not sure if repeated impact to the shell plays a role in this or not– i do know that helmet design (especially total weight) does play a large part in this. all helmet manufacturers have been addressing these issues for the last decade too, hence the crazy designs we have today.

 

I don't think there's any evidence to support that.  The designs are crazy because distinctive designs are both trademark-friendly and marketable.

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

I don't think there's any evidence to support that.  The designs are crazy because distinctive designs are both trademark-friendly and marketable.

 

oh no, the designs has changed because of the engineering / R&D that has gone into it. there may be some brand cues built in too, but its very much a problem solving approach to concussions. or at least an attempt to reduce them. i think the SpeedFlex is the most obvious example

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I seriously doubt there is actual proof that using different helmets increases head injuries. If there was proof, Universities would be completely foolish to not have the same rules as the NFL. 

 

1.  College players don't have a union.

2.  COllege players are young and mostly dumb and aren't thinking about their future, just the next piece of ass they're going to nail.

3.  Your average college player has "only" been bashing heads against other players for 6 or 7 years (HS and college), while your average NFL player has probably been at it for 12 or more.

4.  Collisions at the high school and college level, while certainly capable of causing damage, aren't in the same ballpark as NFL collisions.  The player size and speed isn't even comparable.  Again, not marginalizing any concussion or blow to the head that a high school player suffers - I'm not sure if there's different "grades" of concussion or not, but I'd wager that an NFL hit causes far and away more damage.

5.  Colleges don't have insurance policies anywhere close to the NFL's to worry about, since college players aren't employees or assets and there's more limits to responsibility.

6.  If there's even a shred of legitimate evidence that keeping one helmet helps, then they should adopt the same policy.  I'm not sure if there is, but I am sure that there's none that says that multiple helmets are safer.

[Gothamite]

29 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

oh no, the designs has changed because of the engineering / R&D that has gone into it. there may be some brand cues built in too, but its very much a problem solving approach to concussions. or at least an attempt to reduce them. i think the SpeedFlex is the most obvious example

 

I'm not so convinced that the brand cues aren't driving the bus. 

 

Of course, I don't think there's going to be a technological solution at all until somebody finds a way to put a helmet under the players' skulls, so I'm pretty skeptical of all the claims they make. 

[BrandMooreArt]

10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I'm not so convinced that the brand cues aren't driving the bus. 

 

Of course, I don't think there's going to be a technological solution at all until somebody finds a way to put a helmet under the players' skulls, so I'm pretty skeptical of all the claims they make. 

 

i did a quick look for references, but all i could find right now was references to the interior of helmets and shell materials. i think Schutt might have some more info, there's some PDFs on their site i dont have a chance to read right now. will look again for shell design later though