BBTV Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 We don't know that it won't spread to the NCAA. Also, nfl players are bigger and faster for the most part so the risk probably isn't exactly the same, though the linemen probably experience similar bashings. Another thing is in the NFL, you're talking about a player's 4th through Nth year of post HS ball. There's a lot more risk of long term problems from that many years of repeated poundings than from the couple of years the average NCAA player plays. If studies show that there are NCAA players with the same problems that didn't play pro after college then maybe you'll see action. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Another thing is in the NFL, you're talking about a player's 4th through Nth year of post HS ball. There's a lot more risk of long term problems from that many years of repeated poundings than from the couple of years the average NCAA player plays.I think this is a really important point. The biggest issue, as I see it, is not concussions but the accumulation of small impacts over the course of a game, a season, a career, a lifetime. Makes sense that players with more years under their belt would be at greater risk. Plus the whole bigger/stronger/faster thing. We know more about head trauma now but do you have specific knowledge that helmet fitting and maintenance is demonstrably different now than 10 years ago? If so what has specifically changed to the point where past techniques would have zerio relevance? I'm honestly curious at this point.No, I don't. But I also don't know that the techniques of the past were actually sufficient to the task, either. We didn't understand CTE on any significant level then. You're the one making claims, you'll need to start backing them up. What evidence do you have that the Redskins' alternate helmets did not contribute to CTE problems? In the absence of such certainty, then you can't say "it worked before, it can work again" because we don't know for a fact that it did work before. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Hopefully teams can't wear pink because of safety issues.That would be stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buster Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Here's the issue I have with this. I would think it would be reasonable if there truly was a safety issue (and I'm not arguing whether there is or isn't a safety issue) with not wearing the same helmet every game that the NCAA would also have adopted a similar policy. The thought being that at least in theory the NCAA would be susceptible to the same type of lawsuits relating to head injuries that the NFL is especially considering that the average NFL career is similar to the number of years of college eligibility. Yet the NCAA sees fit to allow its members to roll out a different helmet for each week. Considering all of the research the NFL has on the subject if the use of multiple helmets was such a liability issue you would think the NCAA would have a similar policy especially when considering the amount of money at issue for them too.The answer is simple...Roger Goodell does not care about the kids. Great point though, if this were REALLY a safety issue, Oregon would not be allowed to wear 8 helmets a year. The potential legal liability should be considered greater for students as young as 18 playing to get a free education vs. professionals being paid to knowingly put themselves at harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buster Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Hopefully teams can't wear pink because of safety issues.That would be stellar.It does hurt my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't see how the NCAA's negligence somehow invalidates the NFL's stance. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't see how the NCAA's negligence somehow invalidates the NFL's stance.I think spending two decades and untold $ covering the issue up invalidates the nfl's stance. They have zero credibility on this issue.http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9745797/new-book-league-denial-says-nfl-used-resources-power-two-decades-deny-football-link-brain-damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't see how the NCAA's negligence somehow invalidates the NFL's stance.I think spending two decades and untold $ covering the issue up invalidates the nfl's stance. They have zero credibility on this issue.http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9745797/new-book-league-denial-says-nfl-used-resources-power-two-decades-deny-football-link-brain-damageI don't see how anything that happened in the past invalidates what they're trying to do now. So if they do nothing, and this comes out, everyone fries them for not caring about brain injuries and covering it up. But they do things, and people criticize them for it (mostly because one measure takes away throwback helmets for some teams - as if that's as important as people's brains.)An action was recommended, and they went with it. Whether or not any of us actually think that action will help is pretty much irrelevant. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't see how the NCAA's negligence somehow invalidates the NFL's stance.I think spending two decades and untold $ covering the issue up invalidates the nfl's stance. They have zero credibility on this issue.http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9745797/new-book-league-denial-says-nfl-used-resources-power-two-decades-deny-football-link-brain-damageI don't see how anything that happened in the past invalidates what they're trying to do now. So if they do nothing, and this comes out, everyone fries them for not caring about brain injuries and covering it up. But they do things, and people criticize them for it (mostly because one measure takes away throwback helmets for some teams - as if that's as important as people's brains.)An action was recommended, and they went with it. Whether or not any of us actually think that action will help is pretty much irrelevant. Yes I suppose my opinion that we are witnessing a PR stunt by an organization that systemically witheld information and produced junk science about the true severity of head injuries and your opinion that the same orgainization has somehow turned a corner because they made an out of court settlement and have made a token rule regarding maintaining two sets of helmets are both pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.I think we can both agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd77 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 . Considering all of the research the NFL has on the subject if the use of multiple helmets was such a liability issue you would think the NCAA would have a similar policy especially when considering the amount of money at issue for them too.This is the part I'm really wondering about. At least for now, I still think this new NFL policy is mostly a knee jerk reaction because of the concussion settlement. If data were to come out backing up the claims of a real safety issue, then I'd expect the NCAA to follow with some policy of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 No, because the NCAA is a feckless organization with a loose structure, under which its more powerful members can break the rules with impunity. The NFL is a franchise system where the league, either in its own or in the form of executive committees, can dictate policy in absolute terms to its franchisees.The differing structures make it almost impossible for the NCAA to follow the NFL's lead. At least not until the schools start getting sued. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbgoo1975 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 What if the Falcons did this? I have Madden 25 on PS3.They are wearing black socks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 How about Atlanta stick with their clearly-superior current look?(Yeah, I'm that guy. I really like Atlanta's modern look.) Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio  POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggs56 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 OK, first off, long time lurker, first time poster.I was at the MNF Giants/Vikings game and lucky enough to get tickets with field access, and there was a Manning helmet on the equipment boxes where they were testing the radio in the helmet. I didn't think anything of it until they ran out onto the field and Manning had on a different helmet, and reminded me immediately of this forum/post. I'm sure there are backup helmets for all quarterbacks, and probably even defensive players with radios in case the in-helmet radio goes out, but doesn't this invalidate the NFL's stance on the single helmet stance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 OK, first off, long time lurker, first time poster.I was at the MNF Giants/Vikings game and lucky enough to get tickets with field access, and there was a Manning helmet on the equipment boxes where they were testing the radio in the helmet. I didn't think anything of it until they ran out onto the field and Manning had on a different helmet, and reminded me immediately of this forum/post. I'm sure there are backup helmets for all quarterbacks, and probably even defensive players with radios in case the in-helmet radio goes out, but doesn't this invalidate the NFL's stance on the single helmet stance? As some of us have stated this new nfl rule is not rooted in science or logic. This rule is merely a superficial and token gesture to give the appearance that the league is doing something with regard to head injuries which is driven by legal concerns as opposed to safety.How can we come to this conclusion. Here's a great example. Paul Lukas surveyed a handful of major D1 equipment managers and one of them happened to be UNC. As it so happens, UNC is on the forefront of researching the neurological impacts of blows to the head in football. They have many (possibly all) of their players wearing helmets loaded with sensors that are measuring each and every hit to the head sustained in games and practice in which they are building a very robust body of research. It also happens that UNC is a team that wears multiple helmets. The manager responded that when the nfl istituted their rule, the relevant subject matter experts reviewed their multiple helmet program and the medical experts determined that wearing multiple helmets in a season did not pose additional risks. Other universities performed the same evaluation and could not find a correlation with increased health risk.Until the nfl can publish actual data or sound reasoning for their rule I'm inclined to side with UNC and other major universities on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Here's the issue I have with this. I would think it would be reasonable if there truly was a safety issue (and I'm not arguing whether there is or isn't a safety issue) with not wearing the same helmet every game that the NCAA would also have adopted a similar policy. The thought being that at least in theory the NCAA would be susceptible to the same type of lawsuits relating to head injuries that the NFL is especially considering that the average NFL career is similar to the number of years of college eligibility. Yet the NCAA sees fit to allow its members to roll out a different helmet for each week. Considering all of the research the NFL has on the subject if the use of multiple helmets was such a liability issue you would think the NCAA would have a similar policy especially when considering the amount of money at issue for them too.NFL has powerful unions to contend with comprised of current and former players. The NCAA has a group disorganized, 18-22 year old indentured servants. Pretty clear to see why the NFL has a policy that the NCAA doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kutztown Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 What about players who are constantly getting cut and picked up by other teams week to week? They switch helmets all the time. Does that not matter? LOL. These rules sometimes...i'll tell ya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 What about players who are constantly getting cut and picked up by other teams week to week? They switch helmets all the time. Does that not matter? LOL. These rules sometimes...i'll tell ya...Actually, that's not a good example. The NFL sources cited the problem with switching and maintaining a whole team's worth of helmets. A few players here and there do not present the same issues. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 But what level of "maintaining" is there if alternate helmets were to be worn once? I'm not talking about wearing half a dozen different helmets like some colleges, but it doesn't seem like there would be any health impact if teams were allowed to wear these throwback helmets once a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Well, that we don't know. I suspect they mean the initial fittings and maintenance (throwback helmets are worn in several practices as well as the games) but I don't think it's ever been specified. I was just pointing out that what he claimed was an inconsistency wasn't actually. There are legitimate complaints to be made against this rule; we don't need to make any up. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.