(12-23-2015, 09:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yeah, I bet you're right Cutz.

If the film does a good job of proving Omalu's point and a lot of women see the film, I can see some moms backing away from encouraging their sons to play the game and/or pursue football glory.

I also think the mainstream exposure to the risks might give players even more leverage to negotiate higher salaries and perks.

It's reportedly a very good film (from early critics' reviews). I'm curious to see if Goodell and others have a strategy to denounce the film or attempt to counter its claims, or if they'll instead just avoid comment as much as possible.

I used to think that if I were lucky enough to have boys I would want them to play football, to be involved in sports in general and I was aware of the injury risk too because of my brothers. I guess I would be foolish now to encourage that to anyone.

(12-24-2015, 11:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The way the NFL completely changed course/position in response to some its high-profile players' off-field conduct once the public saw evidence (and cried foul) makes me think that the NFL leadership is quite vulnerable and willing to do a complete about-face in order to preserve fan loyalty.

But, you know much more about the game and business of football than I do, Cutz -- I'm just pondering out loud. Thanks for the background info.

My thinking was that popularizing the risks, if it leads to some vocal outrage from the public, could give the players and the union leverage in negotiations. My only real interest in that regard is adequate health-related coverage during and after their careers (even if brain or other field-sustained injuries/effects don't materialize until long after they retire). The superstars make enough money that they probably don't have to worry much about it. But, the lesser-known work horses may not. Maybe the players' union already has that covered though?

Anyway, like with boxing and hockey, I expect most football participants and fans are aware that risk of long-term health issues is inherent to the sport. But, I really didn't know just how common and serious brain-related issues were to NFL players until we started discussing it here a year or more ago.

(12-24-2015, 01:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: My first paragraph was a general observation about the league in response to handling public outcry, not a specific expectation that the NFL will change its protocols in regards to concussion protocols, Gunnar.

I don't know what, if anything, the NFL will do if the Concussion movie stirs up a lot of controversy and there are calls on the NFL to respond. You and Cutz and others here know a lot more about how the league operates than I do. I only know about their handling of public outcry in regards to players' bad, violent, and/or criminal conduct off the field.

Anyway, I won't be surprised if Cutz is right about some parents pulling away from encouraging their kids to play football after seeing the film. And, I won't be surprised if you're right and the NFL says nothing until pushed and then toots its horn about the actions its already taken to help prevent and address concussions.

But, Goodell has kinda surprised me over the last couple of years with some of this statements and actions and policy changes, so I'm interested as to whether he and the leagues' owners and attorneys have a strategy to address the potential backlash from the film.

It may be that people watch it and mostly go, "meh, what's new?" IDK. I read some reviews last night and several of the reviewers didn't think the movie went far enough to have a profound effect on anyone.

We'll see.

(12-25-2015, 02:20 AM)BigMark Wrote: If it wasn't for the eighties i'd still be a genius, I do pretty damn good for being a fat retard though.

(12-25-2015, 04:57 AM)Cutz Wrote: As long as they have shell helmets, players will use them as battering rams.

Rugby tackling and no helmets would probably be safer.