Ex-college player: Removing helmets from NFL won't stop concussions
Filed under: Columns, Healthcare
This may come to no surprise to many of you that have read my work as a financial writer, but I am what my wife calls a "walking head injury." I played football from the age of six until 19, when I was told my college football career had to end -- more on that in a minute. Having gotten my bell rung many times in my youth, I was taken aback by a recent article in The Wall Street Journal suggesting it may be time to retire the football helmet as we know it. Leagues overseas have been trying this as a way to -- this may sound counterintuitive -- reduce concussions and other injuries. But I don't see playing helmet-less as a solution for the National Football League (NFL).
As far as my story goes, I was a scrappy player in high school, playing hard and eventually working my way onto a small college team (Division III). Perhaps that is why I received my first concussion back when I was a sophomore in high school.
Did you know that once you have a concussion it is easier to sustain other concussions? I did not. But I was lucky that I was knocked out cold on the field and sent to the hospital. If I hadn't been knocked out, I would have gotten up and shaken the cobwebs out -- I couldn't afford to miss a play, right?
Let's fast forward to my freshman year of college, three concussions into the season. That is when I received my worst concussion -- after absolutely destroying some poor soul who got in my way and "leading with my head" in the process. The resulting fourth concussion was the end of my college football career according to NCAA rules.
I still tried to play another year at an NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) school, but probably did more harm than good. Now, let's fast forward to today -- when I suffer from headaches, neck pain and hearing loss thanks to the concussions. For this reason, I have followed the NFL in its quest to lessen the chances of head injuries.
On Oct. 28, 2009, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke in front of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Greg Aiello from the NFL was kind enough to send me a transcript of the testimony. Part of the testimony was on retired players and what the NFL is doing to help those whose pension plans were nowhere near what they are today.
The other part of the presentation was on head injuries in the NFL, noting that concussions and their effects are "a serious matter and that they require special attention and treatment." Goodell stated that "medical considerations must always come first," and I don't think you will see many people disagreeing with the notion.
I know that taking the football helmet out of the game as The Journal article mentions will not happen. The thinking behind the idea is that helmets create a sense of invulnerability, The Journal says. As a result, players collide harder and more frequently, the piece states. Removing them from play could reduce the number of collisions that cause increasing damage over a player's career, the rationale goes.
But the piece takes a look at what impact no helmets has had on the Australian Football League (AFL). Yes, AFL is rough. But it isn't the war in the trenches like every down in the NFL. You can't have the big uglies up front taking each other on with no protection on their heads. The NFL is taking the right steps, through better research and better education.
The equipment available today is amazing, starting with Riddell. This company makes 82% of the helmets worn in the NFL and 62% of the helmets in Division I football (according to this Business Wire article). This same article notes that a three-year study of high school football players wearing the Riddell Revolution helmet (as seen here) were 31% less likely to suffer a concussion than those wearing a traditional football helmet. This study was conducted in 2006.
The Journal notes that the NFL is conducting independent testing of helmets that focus on "more accurate and comparative information about concussive forces." These are all great steps. When teamed with education for coaches and trainers on how to handle concussions (led by none other than John Madden), they should help lessen the amount of concussions and players losing their career to concussions.
Yes, taking the helmets out of football may lessen the amount of headhunters out there, throwing their bodies around without care for their own health. But it won't eliminate them altogether. In fact, taking helmets off the gridiron will lead to more injuries and a lot less viewers.
New rules, new equipment and new education will help lessen concussions -- far more than eliminating helmets will. In defense of The Journal article, the authors are not suggesting that eliminating helmets will stop concussions. They are presenting a "what if" scenario. A "what if" that will never happen. A "what if" that Riddell can not let happen, as most of their business comes from selling helmets to the NFL.
Mark Fightmaster is a financial blogger for DailyFinance.com and BloggingStocks.com. This father of three really did play college football (almost had to because of the last name) and turned to a life of financial writing after spending five years teaching.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-15-2009 @ 1:27PM
Stevieboy said...
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/42133/mouthguards_key_to_avoiding_becoming_a_drooling_wreck
It's not just the helmet. New research shows a corrective medical device used by the Patriots, plays a role in concussion risk assesment and managment. www.mahercor.com
Reply
11-17-2009 @ 12:19PM
amey said...
reading this, really makes me hope that my 2-yr-old son (who loves watching football), doesn't actually become a football player. Is basketball any better?
Reply
11-17-2009 @ 12:21PM
Mike said...
Nice piece but not sure I agree with your premise. Seems to me the helmet has developed as weapon in modern football. So not only would you be lessening the sense of invincibility, you would also be eliminating a prime weapon. You hint at this yourself by saying that football would lose TV audiences with no helmets.
Reply
11-17-2009 @ 12:29PM
mike said...
You mean the kid who was a football player for Halloween? No, he's not interested in football at all.
Reply