NFL Helmet rule: CFB impact?

[jdennis82]

With the NFL announcing new rules regarding alternate/throwback helmet use citing concerns over player safety, I'm interested to see how this spills down to the lower levels.

Article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000246440/article/tampa-bay-buccaneers-shelve-creamiscle-uniforms-for-safety

Is Nike too powerful to be stopped? Will they simply find a way to justify the weekly helmet changes we currently see across the country?

As is mentioned in the NFL's rule, there's an allowance for cosmetic adjustments to be made to the exterior of a helmet as long a the helmet's integrity remains in tact.

This may result in team alternates/throwbacks looking more like what we rolled out in week 1...a uni collaboration that retains a standard helmet color.

May be a good thing!

[NorthTexan95]

Stupidity is running rampant.

[oldguystudent]

They give no reason as to why using a different helmet would be dangerous. I would assume that a white helmet from the same manufacturer, with the same safety standards, would be just as safe as the pewter helmet.

[jdennis82]

I assume the safety concern has more to do with an improper fit commonly seen with new helmets that aren't fully broken in when worn.

[NorthTexan95]

I assume the safety concern has more to do with an improper fit commonly seen with new helmets that aren't fully broken in when worn.

You're probably right but it isn't big deal to fit a helmet. It's really over doing it.

[JesseMartin]

I'd really like to see the background on why this is a danger. Does it create a problem for testing and verifying the safety of given helmets or something? I don't see what other reason there could be. But if there is an actual basis for this, I hope UNT goes the extra mile in terms of safety. As long as our players are safe (relatively speaking), I could care less about what people think would be a cool helmet in any given week.

It really does sound like a BS response, don't get me wrong...but if it's not, then it should be given consideration.

[jdennis82]

I agree that safety of our players (and all players) caries much more importance than cosmetic bells and whistles.

Some more info on the rule (although, there's little detail or data)...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9690232/buccaneers-throwback-helmets-deemed-unsafe-wear

What's the underlying basis for this rule? Wouldn't a new helmet actually be safer than a helmet that's gotten banged up over the course of eight or nine games?

That does seem somewhat logical, or at least intuitive. But the league says those two advisory committees -- Head, Neck and Spine Committee and the Player Safety Advisory Panel -- found that it's safer, on balance, for a player to stick with one helmet for the entire season.

Have they presented any data to back this up?

No. That doesn't mean such data doesn't exist, but for now, the league hasn't provided much substantiation for this move.

Have you been able to talk to anyone on those committees?

No. The league declined a request to make them available for interviews.

You've interviewed NFL equipment managers in the past. Can't you talk to some of them about this?

Nobody is talking, at least for now.

Business Insider is similarly suggesting an impact on the college game. Even if there's no data released by the NFL, the liability of not following suit may lead to changes in lower levels...

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-rule-outlawing-some-throwback-helmets-could-have-a-bigger-impact-on-college-football-teams-2013-9

Many other schools, such as Notre Dame (below) use alternate helmets once or twice per season.

These wild varieties of helmets are used as a recruiting tool in an effort to appeal to high school football players. But when the NCAA sees the NFL rule, the fear of liability could make these helmets a thing of the past.

Could use of a single helmet all season become a recruiting tool in the living room when sitting with concerned parents?

[UNTFan23]

Have they presented any data to back this up?

No. That doesn't mean such data doesn't exist, but for now, the league hasn't provided much substantiation for this move.

Sounds like code for "We haven't manufactured the data yet to back our claim."

I don't see how using the same helmet for 12 or 16 games is any safer than using a different helmet for a couple games a season. I'll bet the players are using different helmets for practice than what they use in the games, so this claim seems bunk to me.