Grasping at straws IMO, but who knows- it might help. You're right. They're going to give up the fans now by changing the game (bloodthirsty as it sonds, I don't think the fans will adapt to a safer game with fewer "wow" hits- I think they'll just vote with the remote), or when someone dies on the field from a hit. More people have seen Darrell Stingley get paralyzed on videotape than saw it the day it happened --I did not see it myself until I was in my twenties-- and so they're kinda removed from it. I can't recall names other than Stingley, Dennis Byrd and Mike Utley who've suffered paralysis from a hit during an NFL game. But if someone dies on the field next season with all the mechanisms we now have to get the story out in seconds, it will be front-page/mainscreen news for months. The danger isn't so much that the stands won't be full, it'll be that the sport won't be on televisions as often where people have children because fewer people will want their kids to watch and want to imitate. Football is going to get looked at a bit like smoking does today- even people who do it won't want their kids to do it.
People are ashamed of football even though they love it. People love and do a lot of things they are ashamed of.
They will not continue to watch in numbers that suit the League if someone gets killed, and the League knows that. That's why some rule changing is going to happen, which will hurt them short run.
Almost no one saw Stingley. It was a preseason game, and very few were broadcasted. I think MNF had a preseason game the next day and showed the video tape. The biggest one besides Stingley was probably when Marc Buoniconti, son of Nick Buoniconti of the '72 Dolphins. Created the Miami Project, but that was more about spinal cord injury recovery. I was at Giants Stadium the day Dennis Byrd was injured. Chilling. Glad to see he was walking at a Jets game earlier this season. After the 15-20 minutes to get him off the field, Dave Krieg threw a 90 yd touchdown on the first play after the stop. Jets won a very emotional game in Buffalo a week later. No one within the NFL really wants to discuss this as it will cost $$$$$$. (Hardcore-mainly your 20's and early 30's guys) don't want to see 'their' game changed either.
I've been going over some Steelers, Cowboys and Raiders footage on Youtube. I'm surprised there wasn't more of this during that time. People were dumping WRs and QBs on their heads after the whistle. The between the whistles game we're watching now is more violent but only because the players are so much bigger and faster. The rules have already been changed to favor the offense and keep QBs safer than before. Maybe if players continue to get bigger and faster, more rule changes won't hurt the popularity. Who knows? I remembered him but thought his injury happened in college. You got that right. And theyre competing for that hardcore fan with a bunch of other sports now.
The proposal to widen the field would be something that might impact the depth of the sidelines in some stadiums. 35 feet is significant. I still don't see how that improves safety other than the quarterback will make the defender run a greater distance and hopefully he can get out of bounds untouched. However, not all injuries happen on sideline hits.
More playing space opens up the game and (potentially) lessens bang-bang hard hits due to player size and tight space. It would be like the NHL going to the Euro/Olympic sized ice surfaces. The bigger surface lessens the number of hard hits. I am horrified to watch the NHL today as compared to even 1994 when the Rangers won the cup or even games from the 1970's & 80's. The then same ice surfaces looked much larger. These days, they all look like the game is being played in the old Boston Garden.
...aaaaand comments like this are an example of why the league is ultimately going to have a real problem no matter what they do. You may as well rein in your notion that there isn't a problem, because the NFL sees one, and it's their money. Widening the field is probably the least drastic move they could try. At least in that case they're not asking the player or the official to change anything. Judging by your post, you were born well after the no-nonsense, meat-and-potatoes football of my youth and before. If those of us who grew up watching Mean Joe Greene or Jack Tatum or Night Train Lane and Deacon Jones and Ernie Ladd can understand the League's new focus on the appearance of safety, you can do the same. You'll survive whatever changes come down the pike.
NFL sees a problem? Why didn't they see the problem before all the lawsuits? I think they see the lawsuit, they could care two shits about the actual problem. Least drastic? Most people agree that it would be a radical change. Offenses are already out of control and with more space, you are going to see crazy stats. I can see bigger hits occurring because with the addition of more space, defenders will be able to build up more momentum to the ball carrier. Also, as mentioned above, many stadiums will have a difficult time adapting to the changes. I'd like to know how he came to the conclusion that I was born well after the no-nonsense era. As I said, their new focus was forced on them. I've seen plenty of big, physical hitting from players like Ronnie Lott, Steve Attwater and LT, the physical presence of a big bruiser like John Riggins and the Hogs, one of the most disgusting injuries in NFL history when Joe Thiesmann's leg almost came off.
<sigh> The suits ARE the problem. So will be the drop in popularity --and worse, the drop in sponsorship-- that'll come once the concussion prevention version of MADD gets their shrill shit going. It's coming. It's just the way some of your posts come off. Not really a second-language thing (I see that you may be a Portuguese speaker) but a writing style that professes knowledge where none exists, like a self-assured thirtysomething or teenager. Lawson's post following yours is another example.
And how does your post not fit that example? You chose to disagree with my opinion, therefore you claim that I don't have any knowledge. That makes it sound like you think you profess knowledge. My initial post was sarcastic in tone, in case you didn't notice because the proposed change is RADICAL, which many NFL experts such as Bill Polian has mentioned.
1. LT wasn't a ferocious hitter. 2. John Riggins really wasn't no different than most fullbacks. He just ran the ball more 3. The Thiesmann injury was not a devastating hit. It was an unfortunate accident. Steve Atwater would be a good person to study brain function with the hits he delivered (and impacted himself).
I disagree. Fullbacks? Riggo was a runningback and had over 10,000 rushing yards in his career. The point is I saw smash mouth offenses to know what players did to their bodies. He indeed is. And I never disputed that there wasn't an issue at hand. In my opinion, I think there are other measures the league could take to reduce the likelihood of injuries without making too big of an impact on the game.