Long Haired Freaky people, need not apply...

[infrared41]

If these guys are willing to play NFL football, get the kicked out of them every week, and possibly end up carrying the scars of their careers for the rest of their lives then they should be allowed to wear their hair however they want.

If they want to cash an NFL paycheck they have to follow NFL rules.

That doesn't change the fact that some of those rules are just stupid.

[Telemundo219]

I didn't know NFL players were slaves.

[goalieboy82]

[BlueSky]

They may be wanting to stop the trend before it goes any farther. What's next, hair down to somebody's waist? Knees? Some will say, "Oh, that's extreme, nobody would ever do that." Which is what a lot of people would have said about Al Harris and Polamalu and Mike McKenzie not so many years ago.

The rule should simply say you can't obscure any lettering, numbering, or logos on the jersey. That would take care of it without specifically targeting hair.

[ElwoodCuse]

If these guys are willing to play NFL football, get the kicked out of them every week, and possibly end up carrying the scars of their careers for the rest of their lives then they should be allowed to wear their hair however they want.

If they want to cash an NFL paycheck they have to follow NFL rules.

That doesn't change the fact that some of those rules are just stupid.

They've got a union, if they don't like a rule there are avenues for them to dispute it.

That said I would like Polamalu or someone to do "I'm sorry that's not a hair question" at an interview.

[Gothamite]

I didn't know NFL players were slaves.

Well, nice to see that people can keep their hyperbole under control....

[Gothamite]

No one noticed the safety issues with long hair under Tagliabue. For that matter, long hair has been around since the 70's. Now all of a sudden Roger Goodell, who has shown a very no nonsense approach up to this point, rides in on his white horse to save players from themselves.

You don't think that there were horse-collar tackles before 2005?

[TFoA]

They may be wanting to stop the trend before it goes any farther. What's next, hair down to somebody's waist? Knees? Some will say, "Oh, that's extreme, nobody would ever do that."

And I'm gonna be the first to say that. Even though I'm for the rule...I doubt anybody with an drop of common sense in their blood would play football with hair down to their waist or below. Hell, that'd probably be when the team officials step in and make sure that they don't trot to the field looking like Rapunzel.

[gueman]

This was something the NFL wanted to avoid in the past. The league thought that it would be self regulating because after the first 2 or 3 that were yanked down because of their hair and perhaps ending up on IR, the others would see the sense in not having a extra handle for some one to grab on to and cut their hair. The league is just like any other employer that has dress and grooming codes

[infrared41]

No one noticed the safety issues with long hair under Tagliabue. For that matter, long hair has been around since the 70's. Now all of a sudden Roger Goodell, who has shown a very no nonsense approach up to this point, rides in on his white horse to save players from themselves.

You don't think that there were horse-collar tackles before 2005?

That isn't the point. You're comparing apples and oranges. This hair thing looks like it could be just as much, if not more, about image as it is about safety. The same thing can't be said for horse collar tackles. I happen to believe that Roger Goodell is using safety as an excuse to reel in a certain "image." It's not like "cleaning up an image" in professional sports via some lame excuse is unprecedented. You and I have differing opinions on the matter. So now what?

[Gothamite]

So we agree to disagree. Makes for boring message boards, but what do you do?

I'm just saying that one can't seriously make the claim that all safety measures must have already been implemented. But even if the whole point is in fact image, the League has every right to do this.

Not willing to concede that, though - I think the most compelling case in the NFL's favor is not allowing players to obscure the nameplate.

[infrared41]

So we agree to disagree. Makes for boring message boards, but what do you do?

I'm just saying that one can't seriously make the claim that all safety measures must have already been implemented. But even if the whole point is in fact image, the League has every right to do this.

Not willing to concede that, though - I think the most compelling case in the NFL's favor is not allowing players to obscure the nameplate.

I guess we could argue back and forth for a few days only to end up in the same place we started from.

The league has every right to do this...as long as the players union signs off on it right?

Apparently I'm not the only person who sees this as a veiled attempt at image control.

[Gothamite]

Oh, I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that.

I don't know that the union has to sign off on all uniform issues, frankly. I haven't read the CBA.

[ElwoodCuse]

Oh, I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that.

I don't know that the union has to sign off on all uniform issues, frankly. I haven't read the CBA.

It really varies as to what leagues can do what unilaterally.

The NHL, for example, cannot unilaterally implement a mandatory visor rule under its CBA. The AHL can and did.

[STL FANATIC]

I think it's an honest combination of safety and image control.

But what is wrong with controlling image??

The Yankees do it, and for every person like me who thinks they're stuck-up scum, there's plenty of diehard and other fans who are quite proud of their clean and high reputation.

The NBA had and still has an image problem. They're perceived as a league of thugs. There's a whole discussion of race that seems to come up when that word is brought about, but I'd argue this is not merely a race issue. (Good article by Jason Whitlock that would take this in another tangent but is slightly relevant.) The league had players showing up to press conferences tattooed arms exposed, du rags, sloppy t-shirts, and big gold chains.

Black, white, or other, that's going to give off a thugish image. Certainly not a professional one.

And the NBA is supposed to be the best of the best. The professional of the professional. Business wise they were slumping and they had a not so professional reputation. So Stern took steps to fix it.

GOOD FOR HIM.

He's not a racist or a control freak for it. He's a businessman trying to put forth a product that (1) sells, and (2) he can take pride in.

I'm by no means a fan of Goodell. I think he's terrible. But this isn't a bad move. He's trying to keep the professional image of the NFL and there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoy personal expression too, but I don't see the problem with this.

[infrared41]

I think it's an honest combination of safety and image control.

But what is wrong with controlling image??

The Yankees do it, and for every person like me who thinks they're stuck-up scum, there's plenty of diehard and other fans who are quite proud of their clean and high reputation.

The NBA had and still has an image problem. They're perceived as a league of thugs. There's a whole discussion of race that seems to come up when that word is brought about, but I'd argue this is not merely a race issue. (Good article by Jason Whitlock that would take this in another tangent but is slightly relevant.) The league had players showing up to press conferences tattooed arms exposed, du rags, sloppy t-shirts, and big gold chains.

Black, white, or other, that's going to give off a thugish image. Certainly not a professional one.

And the NBA is supposed to be the best of the best. The professional of the professional. Business wise they were slumping and they had a not so professional reputation. So Stern took steps to fix it.

GOOD FOR HIM.

He's not a racist or a control freak for it. He's a businessman trying to put forth a product that (1) sells, and (2) he can take pride in.

I'm by no means a fan of Goodell. I think he's terrible. But this isn't a bad move. He's trying to keep the professional image of the NFL and there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoy personal expression too, but I don't see the problem with this.

Fair enough but...

Harley-Davidson has no trouble with it's image despite the "less than desirable elements" that are associated with the brand. There are waiting lists to buy some Harley's and it's not just "biker types" buying them. If your product is good enough a few "hippies, bikers, or thugs" won't be enough to hurt it. In Stern's case his league sucks and he has no idea what to do about it. I don't watch the NBA because of the "image" of certain players, I don't watch the NBA because the quality of play is terrible. In the 80's there were drug problems and other issues surrounding the NBA but I loved watching it because the play was great. They can try to polish the piece of that is today's NBA all they want but it won't change the fact that the on court product still sucks.

The problem with the NFL's image isn't Troy Polamalu's hair. The image problem is that the league, media in general, and ESPN in particular are such sycophants of anyone who can play the game that they will allow all manner of criminals to do whatever they want as long as they play well on Sunday. Does anyone think for a minute that ESPN won't be sucking Pacman Jone's ass the minute he comes back? Goodell can implement all the "hair" rules he wants to but it won't make a difference. Until he can get teams to stop signing criminals and ESPN's football groupies to stop blowing those criminals every chance they get nothing will change.

[njmeadowlanders]

The problem with the NFL's image isn't Troy Polamalu's hair. The image problem is that the league, media in general, and ESPN in particular are such sycophants of anyone who can play the game that they will allow all manner of criminals to do whatever they want as long as they play well on Sunday. Does anyone think for a minute that ESPN won't be sucking Pacman Jone's ass the minute he comes back? Goodell can implement all the "hair" rules he wants to but it won't make a difference. Until he can get teams to stop signing criminals and ESPN's football groupies to stop blowing those criminals every chance they get nothing will change.

Exactly.

And speaking of Pacman...if any of you have never seen this b/c you don't live anywhere near New York, enjoy:

[Gothamite]

Oh, I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that.

I don't know that the union has to sign off on all uniform issues, frankly. I haven't read the CBA.

It really varies as to what leagues can do what unilaterally.

The NHL, for example, cannot unilaterally implement a mandatory visor rule under its CBA. The AHL can and did.

Minor leagues tend to have more control over their players, because the players have little to no leverage.

For example, minor league baseball has had tougher steroid testing for years. Still much more stringent than anything in the majors.

But it's my understanding that the NFL players' union is a relatively weak one, as these things go. They might not have any say whatsoever on uniform issues under the CBA.

[fkaKrock5cent]

It's a two-parter... yes, it could be an image thing, but there's a legitimate safety concern - a player with hair long enough to be tackled by it (as I've seen with Polamalu more than once) is a player that could be injured by such action. Imagine Mathis having his hair pulled to an extent that it causes scalp damage that prevents him from wearing a helmet for a month - are your locks really worth risking being placed on IR, or released should you get injured because someone tugged your hair?

The players know that they can be pulled by their locks when they put the helmet on though. This is a bad move for the NFL. I'm ok with long hair, it gives the players some originality but they know it can come at a price. That?s why it?s mostly DB's with dreads and not running backs.

I didn't know NFL players were slaves.

The NFL is a club. Clubs have sign up sheets and rules. When you ink your contact, you agree to the rules.

Oh by the way, slaves dont drop 20 large like its cump change.

[Shmee]

I didn't know NFL players were slaves.

You lose the thread. Idiot.

NFL players cash NFL checks for NFL millions. If you want to be in the club, follow the rules.

Read the thread, everyone. Nobody is saying the NFL wants to ban all long hair. The only issue here is that the hair needs to be short enough to be able to read a player's nameplate. The nameplate is a mandatory feature of every NFL uniform, and should not be obscured.