The NFL’s problems in one accidentally revealing ad

I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for people to die on the field <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h...</a><p><i>the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level. Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905.</i>

I hate when people complain about football injuries. It's the risk and conscious choice that athletes take in order to make an enormous amount of money. If I were able to make millions of dollars for 8-10 years and risk having concussions and other physical problems later on in life, I would probably take it, especially if I came from an underprivileged background.<p>The real tragedy is that 80% of pro athletes go bankrupt because they don't know how to handle their own money. They made a life-changing amount of money, and they waste it all because they don't have proper guidance in terms of how to retain most of it. THIS is something the NFL needs to concentrate on, that these young kids don't blow all their money away because of immaturity and arrogance.

I agree that losing the hard equipment would make the game safer (take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: much safer similar sports), but I don't agree with the implication that the owners of the NFL ever had a nefarious plan to add equipment so that the game would become watchable (again, take a look at rugby or Aussie rules: very watchable similar sports).

I'm no Sports-Ball expert, but two things you can do to make Football more enjoyable is lose the padding and lessen the constant pauses of the game (which frustrate me to no end, as a casual observer). These two reasons are why I find Rugby infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

It's basically a combat sport. These days, the players know or ought to know that is the case. I feel bad for the guys who get hurt, but the ones playing at the college and professional level are being rewarded substantially for the risks they take.

If you plot concussions over helmet size you'll see the problem. Bigger/stronger helmets means more concussions. Its fairly obvious, go back to leather helmets or some softer material and players will lead with their head less. Which will mean lesser concussions. I am not saying they should play with leatherhelmets but the bigger harder plastic helmets make no sense. players just become projectiles using their heads as weapons. The helmet should be a silicon jelly ish type of material.

The NFL has made rule changes to reduce the incidence of head injuries, and IMO it's worth going a season or two to see if they improve things.<p>The nature of the rules in U.S. football creates situations that are inherently more dangerous than its overseas counterparts like rugby or Aussie rules. In those sports it is very rare for players on opposing teams to and run directly at each other from 10s of yards/meters away. Most tackles are chase-downs where the runner is pulled to the ground at low speed.<p>I disagree with Klein's assertion that the violence is at the heart of the NFL's appeal. There are numerous more violent or dangerous sports, like boxing, MMA, or even NHL hockey (which as straight-up fist fights) that are not nearly as popular.<p>The sport is far less dangerous or violent today than it was 20 years ago, but it's far <i>more</i> popular. The NFL has reigned in the violence with rules like illegal contact on receivers, hits on defenseless receivers, roughing the passer, spearing, chop-blocking, face mask, blow to the head, horsecollar tackle, etc.--and as they have done so the game has only gained in popularity. This disproves that the violence is the heart of the appeal.<p>Personally I think the appeal is that football is a) extremely athletic, b) extremely complex tactically and strategically, and c) perfect for TV because every single play has time for instant replay and analysis. In addition it involves a lot of ballistic trajectories, which are always popular:<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074222543274268.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870377970457607...</a>

I would venture to guess that most NFLers that have made a career out of taking head trauma would be much more in favor of furthering post NFL support (jobs, financial guidance, mental health support), and better helmet technology then watching their game go the way of Boxing.

What's more revealing are the players in the ad who are apart of the 4000 suing the NFL.<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolution-concussion-mel-gray-rick-upchurch-ollie-matson/1890231/" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/04/nfl-evolutio...</a><p>Whatever the risk/reward calculus younger players might make, the NFL will still be held responsible. They know this. Their army of lawyers know this.The rules they are a-changin'.

Obviously NFL player safety is important, but I am much more worried about youth players and people who will never get to the NFL.<p>This is why companies like <a href="http://brainsentry.com/" rel="nofollow">http://brainsentry.com/</a> need to get more exposure.<p>[added] Brain Sentry makes sensors for youth programs to detect big hits. Obviously this isn't exactly what the author was referring to, but is a great first step.

Obligatory SMBC comic: <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778" rel="nofollow">http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778</a>

The fact that you have to wear armor to play a contact sport games shows the quality of the game. I watch only the superbowl every year and it tells me why I don't watch the rest of the year. Soccer is just such a nicer sport. The worst that can happen is a leg injury, not cumulative dementia.

Thats a strawman to the real question, and of course the top comment has already picked up on it, now claiming that "but back then it was just as unsafe".<p>So now unsafe, back then unsafe. Seems like we should not be promoting a game that works only on brunt violence.

The real issue is as a society what do we do when adults knowingly engage in an activity that is self destructive.<p>Nobody is forcing them to be football players. Nobody is forcing us to watch.