NFL Changes 2014+

[HailGoldPants]

Hi, I know this is off topic but I created an account after lurking for the last year and a half just to ask this question:

Hypothetically, let's assume Super Bowl XLIX is between Denver and Dallas. With the NFC being the home team this season, I assume Dallas would elect to wear white. Could Denver, assuming all they play are home games in the post season, elect to wear their mono blues instead of orange, as they are the away team and have not declared an away uniform for the post season? I've tried googling the answer but nothing came up and I figured if anyone would know it would be this forum's collective knowledge. Thanks!

I don't know if current rules prohibit this, but an alt has been worn in the past in the playoffs. For the 2008 (January '09) wild card between the Chargers and Colts, the Bolts wore the powder blue alts...

[tBBP]

Completely off topic: I know the Spanii won't do it, but...they need to quit bulls****ing and gon' make those the Chargers' primary home uniforms..and change the colors of the road uni to match.

[hbgoo1975]

Completely off topic: I know the Spanii won't do it, but...they need to quit bulls****ing and gon' make those the Chargers' primary home uniforms..and change the colors of the road uni to match.

If they ever do, they might make a new white jersey with powder blue numbers and stripes, but they keep the pants and socks from that alternate set. They should change the facemask color to either powder blue or white.

[guest23]

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

The NFL has already provided one. They believe there is heightened risk if equipment managers are responsible for fitting and maintaining two complete sets of helmets.

You personally don't think it's a legitimate basis, but have failed to show why they would establish the rule otherwise. It is costing them exposure for their merchandise, is barely a blip on the PR front and won't give them any substantive cover against a future lawsuit. Occam's razor applies.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

Congratulations. You found about the only entity that cares less about the health of its employees than the NFL and NCAA does; the individual athletic departments, locked in mortal combat with other schools to do it all cheaper. So long as the effects are delayed beyond the player's collegiate career (and especially can be blamed on post-collegiate activity), they won't do a damned thing they aren't required to do.

How many schools have offered to extend student medial insurance to players down the road, when they will finally become symptomatic? That's how many actually give a damn about their employees' health.

I'll take that you have no idea of your own but are willing to trust an organization that has a consistent history of protecting its image at all costs and has frequently been caught in cover ups and manipulating the media.

[Gothamite]

I'll take that you have no idea of your own but are willing to trust an organization that has a consistent history of protecting its image at all costs and has frequently been caught in cover ups and manipulating the media.

Your posts do tend to swerve towards the personal once your conclusions are challenged. It does you no credit at all.

[hugevolsfan]

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

The NFL has already provided one. They believe there is heightened risk if equipment managers are responsible for fitting and maintaining two complete sets of helmets.

You personally don't think it's a legitimate basis, but have failed to show why they would establish the rule otherwise. It is costing them exposure for their merchandise, is barely a blip on the PR front and won't give them any substantive cover against a future lawsuit. Occam's razor applies.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

Congratulations. You found about the only entity that cares less about the health of its employees than the NFL and NCAA does; the individual athletic departments, locked in mortal combat with other schools to do it all cheaper. So long as the effects are delayed beyond the player's collegiate career (and especially can be blamed on post-collegiate activity), they won't do a damned thing they aren't required to do.

How many schools have offered to extend student medial insurance to players down the road, when they will finally become symptomatic? That's how many actually give a damn about their employees' health.

I'll take that you have no idea of your own but are willing to trust an organization that has a consistent history of protecting its image at all costs and has frequently been caught in cover ups and manipulating the media.

I do not know one organization that does not do that. There are very few if any large corporations that have not done everything you mentioned trust me I know I work for one.

I do not see how the NFL is gaining anything from this but there must be a study they saw or else why would they do this?

[Ben5]

As an equipment manager, I think the one helmet rule is crap. I know for a fact that some (if not all) teams in the NFL remove the all bladders and pads from helmets, clean them, then pull them back in each week. I've had college freshmen do this, so there is no reason why a professional NFL equipment manager couldn't do the exact same thing. Remove all the pads, put them in a different shell. It's also ridiculous to suggest that there aren't enough old shells out there for helmets that aren't made. Riddell knows Tom Brady is wearing a VSR-4, and as long as he is in the league, they are going to have as many shells for him as he needs. There aren't a lot of guys who wear these anymore. If the NFL was so concerned about the players and these helmets, they wouldn't let them wear them in the first place.

[WSU151]

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

The NFL has already provided one. They believe there is heightened risk if equipment managers are responsible for fitting and maintaining two complete sets of helmets.

You personally don't think it's a legitimate basis, but have failed to show why they would establish the rule otherwise. It is costing them exposure for their merchandise, is barely a blip on the PR front and won't give them any substantive cover against a future lawsuit. Occam's razor applies.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

Congratulations. You found about the only entity that cares less about the health of its employees than the NFL and NCAA does; the individual athletic departments, locked in mortal combat with other schools to do it all cheaper. So long as the effects are delayed beyond the player's collegiate career (and especially can be blamed on post-collegiate activity), they won't do a damned thing they aren't required to do.

How many schools have offered to extend student medial insurance to players down the road, when they will finally become symptomatic? That's how many actually give a damn about their employees' health.

I'll take that you have no idea of your own but are willing to trust an organization that has a consistent history of protecting its image at all costs and has frequently been caught in cover ups and manipulating the media.

I do not know one organization that does not do that. There are very few if any large corporations that have not done everything you mentioned trust me I know I work for one.

I do not see how the NFL is gaining anything from this but there must be a study they saw or else why would they do this?

The one-helmet rule is in place in order to avoid charges of negligence in the courtroom. CYA.

[hugevolsfan]

Do you think there is a logical or rational basis for the league to limit its franchises to using one helmet per season? If so, please explain specifically what the player safety benefit is.

The NFL has already provided one. They believe there is heightened risk if equipment managers are responsible for fitting and maintaining two complete sets of helmets.

You personally don't think it's a legitimate basis, but have failed to show why they would establish the rule otherwise. It is costing them exposure for their merchandise, is barely a blip on the PR front and won't give them any substantive cover against a future lawsuit. Occam's razor applies.

Also to clarify please note that I was referring to "major ncaa programs" not the ncaa as a governing body. Regardless as to how they treat their athletes you can bet that major programs are doing a significant amount of work looking into their financial liabilities as that's where the settlements are going to be paid out of not ncaa coffers.

Congratulations. You found about the only entity that cares less about the health of its employees than the NFL and NCAA does; the individual athletic departments, locked in mortal combat with other schools to do it all cheaper. So long as the effects are delayed beyond the player's collegiate career (and especially can be blamed on post-collegiate activity), they won't do a damned thing they aren't required to do.

How many schools have offered to extend student medial insurance to players down the road, when they will finally become symptomatic? That's how many actually give a damn about their employees' health.

I'll take that you have no idea of your own but are willing to trust an organization that has a consistent history of protecting its image at all costs and has frequently been caught in cover ups and manipulating the media.

I do not know one organization that does not do that. There are very few if any large corporations that have not done everything you mentioned trust me I know I work for one.

I do not see how the NFL is gaining anything from this but there must be a study they saw or else why would they do this?

The one-helmet rule is in place in order to avoid charges of negligence in the courtroom. CYA.

I just don't think it will help they have already lost in the courtroom. I think it is a silly rule myself but like others they are not gaining anything by doing this.

Its always funny to me how everyone is saying how much the NFL does not care about the players when just about every rule change they have made on the field in the last 15 years is to help avoid those injuries.

Some of the same ex-players that have really blasted the NFL in the media for not taking care of former players were also some of the meanest players on the field & had no regard for safety. But yeah the NFL is the only one to blame & is an evil empire that must be destroyed.

[JayMac]

If the NFL truly cared about safety, there would be no Thursday games. The one helmet rule looks petty in comparison.

[Gothamite]

The one-helmet rule is in place in order to avoid charges of negligence in the courtroom. CYA.

Except it can't.

In court, the NFL will have to provide internal studies and data to support their response. It is the one place where empty rhetoric would be instantly exposed as such. The NFL knows this. They have lots of lawyers. Expensive ones. Good ones.

Of all the possible reasons floated for the NFL to take this course of action, "legal coverage" is the most patently absurd of all. Unless they can actually demonstrate that it works, and is therefore not an empty gesture.

[mmajeski06]

Completely off topic: I know the Spanii won't do it, but...they need to quit bulls****ing and gon' make those the Chargers' primary home uniforms..and change the colors of the road uni to match.

If they ever do, they might make a new white jersey with powder blue numbers and stripes, but they keep the pants and socks from that alternate set. They should change the facemask color to either powder blue or white.

Have to say that does look really nice:

Even if the Chargers don't go full time with the powder blue, I think a white face mask works perfect with their helmet.

[Lights Out]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

[oldschoolvikings]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

Yeah, that's what people on this board keep saying... but it doesn't make any sense. PR pandering to who? The small handful of people who actually know the rule exists? And how would the rule help them duck a lawsuit? We'd love to sue, but oh, wait... they made that one helmet rule... case dismissed!

To believe that the one helmet rule is just a PR smokescreen, you'd have to believe the NFL cares deeply and passionately about what members of the Chris Creamer Sportslogo board think. Because we are the only one talking about it.

[guest23]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

Yeah, that's what people on this board keep saying... but it doesn't make any sense. PR pandering to who? The small handful of people who actually know the rule exists? And how would the rule help them duck a lawsuit? We'd love to sue, but oh, wait... they made that one helmet rule... case dismissed!

To believe that the one helmet rule is just a PR smokescreen, you'd have to believe the NFL cares deeply and passionately about what members of the Chris Creamer Sportslogo board think. Because we are the only one talking about it.

The fact that people actually have to waste time to debunk the league's nonsense is proof that even floating out BS policies it proves to be an effective PR tactic. Is this a major PR offensive? Absolutely not but the one helmet rule is part of their overall PR/image repair program. It's called an empty gesture folks.

[BrandMooreArt]

As an equipment manager, I think the one helmet rule is crap. I know for a fact that some (if not all) teams in the NFL remove the all bladders and pads from helmets, clean them, then pull them back in each week. I've had college freshmen do this, so there is no reason why a professional NFL equipment manager couldn't do the exact same thing. Remove all the pads, put them in a different shell. It's also ridiculous to suggest that there aren't enough old shells out there for helmets that aren't made. Riddell knows Tom Brady is wearing a VSR-4, and as long as he is in the league, they are going to have as many shells for him as he needs. There aren't a lot of guys who wear these anymore. If the NFL was so concerned about the players and these helmets, they wouldn't let them wear them in the first place.

i dont have a lot of info on the NCAA vs NFL reasonings for multiple vs 1 helmet rules, and i dont know exactly where they're getting it from. but it seems to me that when wearing a helmet designed to prevent skull fractures (as all plastic helmets are) it would be beneficial to carry multiple helmets. when i was racing karts it was suggested by both Bell and Simpson companies to discard your helmet if you were ever to take a violent blow. from all that i know, i really dont see why multiple helmets would be a detriment or a safety risk at all. how does having 2 different helmets increase risk of concussion? i feel like it is a PR move (even a weak one) from the NFL and their best excuse is "it would take more time to fit the helmets properly".

[shaydre1019]

The one-helmet rule is in place in order to avoid charges of negligence in the courtroom. CYA.

Except it can't.

In court, the NFL will have to provide internal studies and data to support their response. It is the one place where empty rhetoric would be instantly exposed as such. The NFL knows this. They have lots of lawyers. Expensive ones. Good ones.

Of all the possible reasons floated for the NFL to take this course of action, "legal coverage" is the most patently absurd of all. Unless they can actually demonstrate that it works, and is therefore not an empty gesture.

I'm sure they have studies and doctors that "suggest" that it would be beneficial to not switch out helmets. I'm sure multiple studies would have multiple results and if even one is in the leagues one helmet policy favor, it would benefit them to have in their back pocket.

But yeah as noted above, Thursday night games basically tell us that the league only cares about safety when it's convenient.

[kw11333]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

Dumb rule. Players still use multiple helmets a year, some in the same game. QB's even have a backup if their headset in their helmet malfunctions due to a hit

[Gothamite]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

Yeah, that's what people on this board keep saying... but it doesn't make any sense. PR pandering to who? The small handful of people who actually know the rule exists? And how would the rule help them duck a lawsuit? We'd love to sue, but oh, wait... they made that one helmet rule... case dismissed!

To believe that the one helmet rule is just a PR smokescreen, you'd have to believe the NFL cares deeply and passionately about what members of the Chris Creamer Sportslogo board think. Because we are the only one talking about it.

The fact that people actually have to waste time to debunk the league's nonsense is proof that even floating out BS policies it proves to be an effective PR tactic. Is this a major PR offensive? Absolutely not but the one helmet rule is part of their overall PR/image repair program. It's called an empty gesture folks.

That's amazingly circular reasoning there. We know it's PR because of how many times you say it's PR?

[guest23]

The one-helmet rule is just PR pandering. It gives the illusion that the NFL actually cares about CTE when in reality they'll just do anything to duck a lawsuit.

Yeah, that's what people on this board keep saying... but it doesn't make any sense. PR pandering to who? The small handful of people who actually know the rule exists? And how would the rule help them duck a lawsuit? We'd love to sue, but oh, wait... they made that one helmet rule... case dismissed!

To believe that the one helmet rule is just a PR smokescreen, you'd have to believe the NFL cares deeply and passionately about what members of the Chris Creamer Sportslogo board think. Because we are the only one talking about it.

The fact that people actually have to waste time to debunk the league's nonsense is proof that even floating out BS policies it proves to be an effective PR tactic. Is this a major PR offensive? Absolutely not but the one helmet rule is part of their overall PR/image repair program. It's called an empty gesture folks.

That's amazingly circular reasoning there. We know it's PR because of how many times you say it's PR?

Yup that's it. Has nothing to do with any of the factors or logical reasoning that I've (or others have) mentioned that there's no other likely explanation other than PR. I've laid out a clear direction for my reasoning but If you choose to accept the shield's corporate messaging at face value you're free to go all in. Circular logic FTW.