Take the helmets off. Players would no longer run at each other head first, and be forced to grapple a bit more. Concussions are en extreme rarity in grappling/wrestling sports. They can still happen, but it's a freak accident rather than an inevitability each down.

I second this, american football derived from rugby. Look at how rugby players tackle with no helmets and no padding. It really looks like adding the protective gear doesn't help the players as much as they were thinking.

I've heard the same argument applied to automobiles. Would people drive more safely/carefully/considerately if a metal spike were attached to the steering wheel rather than an airbag? I can't pretend to know the answer, but it's interesting in that behaviors definitely change if there are costs associated with the actions.

I don't know about a metal spike, but automakers could cheaply implement something if they put a sticker on the airbag cover that said something like "SRS manufactured by Takata"...

/s

My understanding is that the problem isn't specifically related to the incidence of concussions, but rather more related to the continuous lower-level trauma to the brain from hits during practices and games. That is why you see a lot of football teams at various levels switching to non-contact practices.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421009/analyzing-hard-hit...

With the stakes that high for the players you don't think the players will engage in dangerous behavior? It could be just as likely that we will see more skull fractures.

The rules need to be constantly adjusted to disincentivise dangerous behavior. If it hurts your team to injure others, injuries should happen less.

It would be interesting to study Rugby comparatively re: concussion.

Here's an interesting article on how Rugby is ignoring CTE:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11857548/Rugby-u...

There is a decent interview with Jamie Cudmore on the rugby dungeon where he talks pretty candidly about concussion issues:

https://www.acast.com/therugbydungeon/ep-22jamiecudmore

> Does that mean the NFL should shut down?

Probably not.

> Should they continue to operate as normal?

No.

> Can you make the game "more safe" without drastically changing the game?

Depends what you mean by drastic. Removing helmets from the game seems like one possibility, bringing it closer to rugby. I don't know if there have been CTE examinations of rugby players, but the intuition is that people won't collide heads at high acceleration on every single play if they're not wearing helmets.

> Should I feel bad as a fan for watching football?

Yes, I'd say so without changes. Malcolm Gladwell in 2009 wrote that watching football is starting to feel like watching dogfighting. It seemed ridiculous at the time and is not ridiculous now.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

> Is it any worse than buying clothing made by child labor from a third world country?

Depends on the factory, I guess? Some of those jobs probably pay well relative to other options for those workers, even accounting for danger etc. In comparison, watching humans give each other brain damage because it's fun is harder to find potentially redeeming qualities for.

> Yes, I'd say so without changes. Malcolm Gladwell in 2009 wrote that watching football is starting to feel like watching dogfighting. It seemed ridiculous at the time and is not ridiculous now.

But now the players know. It would be different if we kept the player locked underground with no contact to the outside world. The fact is that they're making the choice to play even though the risks have been outlined.

I don't watch football. I follow stats (which is like watching without watching) though. I don't feel bad, because now they're adults making an informed decision.

A couple or so year ago, Budweiser (or one of the other large beer companies) had a display at the grocery store I frequented depicting the concept of large anthropomorphic robots playing the game.

Imagine high-speed, large scale robo-soccer - for football.

I am not a sports fan in general, but I would watch the hell out of such a game if it could be created. Especially if everything was fully autonomous, and teams were made of machines created by smaller groups or individuals.

Basically, take today's "robot soccer" or "robot sumo" competitors, mix them up with the "robot combat" people, throw in a dash (a small dash) of SRL - and give them a way to organize and build the teams...

The robots wouldn't need to be anthropomorphic - specialized vehicle-style robots would work just as well. It'd have the spectacle of football wrapped up with robot combat and demolition derby. There'd likely be fire, explosions, smoke, massive noise - it could become an insane spectacle.

And - provided that the arena it is held in is constructed properly - no human injuries would occur.

Ultimately, easier said than done, and I am certain the first few games wouldn't be that much fun to watch until the building teams or whatnot got the hang of how to build such machines. But if that could be gotten past - it might be something grand to see.

We have battlebots.

Besides watching robots playing soccer being boring, you're ignoring the fact that people PLAY sports for fun. The millions of people in intramural sports aren't doing it so they can entertain family.

You should check out Rocket League.

Or the "so bad it's good" movie Robot Jox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox

Yes, the NFL should shut down.

Yes, it is worse than the 3rd world child labor scenario. The kid in the 3rd world probably has no other choices, and along with his peers, may actually be improving things for his society. Nicholas Kristof (of all people) pointed this out when it was found that someone documenting the horrible conditions at Foxconn fabricated melodramatic stories. (This was a big kerfuffle on This American Life a couple of years ago.) The football player, living in a 1st world country, has other options. It is criminal that the responsible adults (coaches, recruiters) don't point out that they are signing up for virtually guaranteed severe brain damage.

The only reason you don't hear of NFL slump is that contracts between broadcast networks and the league are negotiated well into the future.

TV cord cutting is on the rise, TV usage is down, having to compete with online and mobile time, ESPN figures drag down the entire Disney empire, ESPN is going through layoffs almost each month, seems like. When the time finally comes for cable networks to re-negotiate the deals, NFL numbers won't look as pretty.

Which means lower expenses, higher consolidation, lower player salaries, etc. It won't disappear entirely, but will be just another sport like NASCAR or horse racing, reaching a rather narrow group of avid followers.

How is it fair to the people who want to sign up for it that you're making the decision for them? There's no social ill conferred on the greater public by their decision, what's the reason for meddling in their lives?

The general public shouldn't be interested in watching people give themselves brain damage for millions of dollars. Without the monetary incentive, people wouldn't be playing football at this level (or the high school and NCAA feeders), which sure looks like exploitation to me.

If the NFL has known about the risks for years and continued with its business model, it should absolutely face lawsuits and financial ruin.

The kids at the high school down the street from me have no monetary incentive either, yet they love playing, and have played since they were kids.

I agree with everything you said except "The general public shouldn't ..." That is a very dangerous method of thought.

I agree that it shouldn't be banned, but the risks is the thing everyone needs to hear first, they should be plastered everywhere.

I have no problem bringing bloodsport back if it's entirely voluntary and the public has an interest in it. What if two guys want to voluntarily duel it out to death? Why not build a stadium and let them?

so we should just ban boxing as well? skiing is super bad for your knees I hear, should we ban that as well? motor racing? bricolage?

There is a difference between banning something, which is imposed; and shutting down, which involves no 3rd party.

Boxing: Not banned, but a lot less popular in the USA than it used to be. Maybe this is due to better understanding of the physical toll (brain damage, the occasional death resulting from pummeling in the ring), although there were other factors too. People going in know, or should know, the risks.

Skiing: If you want to risk your knees, go ahead. You know about the risks.

Football: The risks are finally becoming known, but the NFL seems to have known the risks for years, and sought to suppress this information from spreading. The other physical risks are known, and participants make their choices, as in skiing. But the NFL has tried to fool participants about the extremely serious consequences, much like the tobacco companies did with the health risks of cigarettes. Coaches and recruiters -- even in high school -- know the risks and turn a blind eye. How an informed parent can let a child participate in football now is beyond me.

> skiing is super bad for your knees I hear

Only really for girls, even then almost everyone makes a complete recovery.

> bricolage

DIY as a contact sport is a new one for me.

> Can you make the game "more safe" without drastically changing the game? Any game played at this high of a speed, with this strong of players is going to have some inherent danger to it.

I'm only a casual watcher of football, but I think it would be possible to change the game. My non-expert impression is that the game has evolved over the years (and I could certainly be wrong) and incentivizing players to avoid causing head trauma by penalties seems like the way forward (above and beyond current helmet-helmet collision rules). Maybe adding shock sensors to the helmets to objectively measure impacts is another thing they can do.

It would be interesting to learn what they already do today wrt measuring the forces on the head's of players.

Personally I wouldn't mind at all if the game changes. I would be satisfied watching them play the equivalent of flag football - high level strategy and athletic clutch plays can still occur with a safer game.

I've read it may be the case that the head collisions at the snap at the start of every single play is causing CTE via microconcussions, not just the dramatic concussions you can see overtly.

Also, teams practice more than they play. Practice causes concussions too, and penalties won't help.

By this definition football is basically modern Gladiatorial combat.

>> By this definition football is basically modern Gladiatorial combat.

Why would you have ever thought otherwise? Didn't you notice the coliseum looks like an ancient stadium? Football is very much a man-v-man battle and that's exactly why a lot of people like it.

>> Should I feel bad as a fan for watching football? Is it any worse than buying clothing made by child labor from a third world country?

Those are personal decisions and I don't think anybody should tell you how you should feel. It's your choice how to feel about it. You get to define your own morality and live with your choices in the context of your own beliefs.

Well, it's kind of like boxing or MMA in that the athletes are trading quality of life in the future for money now. Whether that is of value we currently leave to the athletes. But there's nothing that can be done according to Omalu, the guy who fought the NFL to make his findings public. If you are not familiar with the story: (2009) http://www.gq.com/story/nfl-players-brain-dementia-study-mem... (2015) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/28/concussion-p...

> Does that mean the NFL should shut down? Should they continue to operate as normal?

Saying the NFL should shut down is debatable: at least there we have adults making decisions (which can, after more research is published, be informed decisions) about their health and life.

However, if the incidence really is that high, at the very least high school football should be banned, or modified in such a way that the risk of head injury is diminished, if that's possible.

> Should I feel bad as a fan for watching football? Is it any worse than buying clothing made by child labor from a third world country?

I wouldn't say you should feel bad. NFL players are consenting adults who are being compensated (to some degree, at least) for the risk. We can't say the same of third-world child labor.

The evolution of boxing presents a template of how football will go. Boxing today is a rather fringe sport in school. Few parents put their kids in boxing enthusiastically. Similarly, boxing matches, although viewed by millions, are rather fringe in being grand and occasional pay-per-views. Football will go the same way, but perhaps much more slowly, given the cultural inertia. I firmly believe that these things evolve, rather than abruptly change. Whether it evolves into a safer form of the game or to become marginalized is hard to say. Already many parents are hesitant in putting their kids in football in school.

>Already many parents are hesitant in putting their kids in football in school.

That is what will change football. In 10 years or so, high schools will have a hard time fielding a football team. Then a few years after that colleges won't have them, and so on.

The thing with concussions is that it is definitely an injury football players used to simply play through, so any numbers on concussions that are more than >5 years old can't really be trusted.

They should definitely remove kick off completely, since they almost have already. Any run back is almost a guaranteed full speed head to head collision. At least with most plays the tackle is made from a considerable angle (for running backs there is rarely time for each player to approach full speed, or to come off unblocked).

Otherwise, I think it is what it is, just like people don't get up in arms about Boxing.

> Otherwise, I think it is what it is, just like people don't get up in arms about Boxing.

Doctors have warned about the long term health implications of boxing since the 50s, but nobody seems bothered by it. Boxing also isn't as popular as it used to be, so out of sight, out of mind I guess.

I think weight limits would be a good start. Do we really need 400 pound linemen?

I also think game play would improve with lighter, faster players.

The average starting NFL lineman was around 325 in 2016[1]. The game does like lighter and faster players, but often that's a tradeoff against durability.

1. http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-nfls-starting-offensi...

What's the big picture? In a few hundred years maybe this sport will look as unthinkable as gladiatorial games in Rome. That's certainly one possibility.

We could start by doing similar studies in other sports. Do rugby players get CTE as often? Can American football players retrain?