It's human nature.

Smoking, steroids and brain injuries.

Addiction, and competition/money combined with the immediate gratification and delayed consequences not directly attributable to the bad actions... leaves the person incentivized to take certain actions.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zI6vW-I8H-M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Those poor former players. They had no idea what they were getting into.

The NFL is an institution and is taking personal responsibility for the situation. You are bitching about it because it interference with your satisfaction. You apparently want to be served at any expense.

The NFL wants to take actions that mitigate the risks and enable the game to continue.

You want that too.

However, you (as an analogy) want to drink, smoke, do drugs, have uncontrolled sex, eat anything at any volume... and want nothing to change as a result.

Which is the antithesis of personal responsibility. You are championing for unrestrained self indulgence.

Kind of an odd turn about, huh?

Nothing for you. Which is why you bitch when the people who the status quo doesn't benefit try to change it.

And that you dared to throw in college football (where payers may have identical risks but receive nearly 0% of the compensation) is the height of self serving denial.

Again, where is the personal responsibility? The players can't have their cake and eat it too. No one would watch them if they didn't beat each other up. They would then be forced to get real jobs.

I wouldn't call a free education from an accredited university and the potential to receive a lucrative contract within four years "0% of the compensation." You refuse to acknowledge that individuals should be held accountable for their actions. No one is holding a gun to an 18 year-old's head on signing day.

Again, you say that as if it's a fact. But it's not. And history says you are wrong to predict that. And the reality is that the NFL is a group of sentient beings who have the capacity to adopt to new data and changing circumstances.

If the league starts to collapse from this rule change or a series of them, the owners will act again.

I promise you this.

First of all, college basketball and football players are not remotely maximizing their economic self interest. The NFL Players get what, 50% of the billions their game generates? College players get next to nothing.

And you are the one demanding that the world act as if it hasn't learned anything about this in the last 20 years. With higher risks comes higher rewards, or greater failure.

You might argue that over time, indirectly the costs of the health risks are embedded into the league salaries.

That might be your only path to a defensible argument.

But in college that is not even remotely true. They get the same singular thing in return, that they did 50+ years ago. Nothing more today despite the higher risks.

And to your point earlier... yes, the player could make a choice to not play football.

And that is where your own arguments collapse.

You want to save the game, but you ignore the long term threats that the NFL is not ignoring. You are being self indulgent drug addict who demands the gratification today, tomorrow be dammed.

If parents, kids and the highest performing athletes start skipping football and choose to play baseball and basketball instead, because the risks of brain injury are too high to justify participation starting in pop warner where the rewards are zero, then the system collapses in just one generation.

WTF! Just switch to flag football then.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-pas...8227--nfl.html

NFL passes helmet rule, boots tuck rule
By Terry McCormick | National Football Post – 1 hour 12 minutes ago

Multiple reports from the NFL owners meetings in Phoenix indicate that the new rule that will outlaw running backs leading their their helmet has passed by a vote of 31-1.

The change was done in regard to player safety and recommended by the NFL's competition committee.

Meanwhile, the abolishment of the controversial tuck rule that once helped cost the Oakland Raiders a playoff game, is complete with the vote being 30-0-2. The New England Patriots, who benefited from the rule in that game against Oakland, abstained as did the Washington Redskins, according to reports.

Also, the rule has been changed to still allow for replay to take place when a coach tosses the challenge flag on an already reviewable play like a touchdown or turnover. Last Thanksgiving, the old rule that prevented a replay from being used if a coach threw the flag gave the Houston Texans a free touchdown against the Detroit Lions when Lions coach Jim Schwartz tossed the flag out to challenge a down by contact that was not called.

Coaches will now be charged a timeout for an illegal challenge, even if it is successful.

This is a sad slippery slope.

Goodell is the worst thing that's ever happened to this league

So RB's cant defend themselves now?

What does Emmitt have to say about this?

This is simply awful news, i want to go off on some furious, wild rant, but in the end all i can come up with is genuine sadness.

I cant imagine how ****ed games are going to look this year, its going to be the mother****ing ugliest penalty fest you've ever witnessed now, as backs try to TOTALLY, COMPLETELY relearn the game.

Man, i just hate this so much, its not football anymore... much more of this and i swear on my Grandfather i'll quit supporting and watching the NFL, they are killing something i dearly love with this nonsense.

Might as well mandate passing on 3 and 1 and inside the 10 yard line.

The history channel should have made Satan look like Goodell.

Waiting on the Emmitt Smith statement on this new development.

The way they explained it on nfl 32 right now it's not that bad only in the open field. Still not a fan of it though