Anyone else tired of the endless streak of commentators demanding that the NFL change its policies regarding hits? Between the NFL's new rules and the poor kid at Rutgers, this is the perfect storm for talking heads to trip over each other with "solutions."
Spare me the hyperbole though. For example, I just read an article comparing the NFL to events at the Roman Coliseum. Unless my history is inaccurate, the participants in those events were NOT volunteers. Instead, they were forced to be there.
Nobody forces an NFL player to play in the NFL. Earl Campbell and other guys who are physically beaten by the game are a sad story no doubt. But it is a sad story that is the product of a choice to play. And that choice was based on the fame and fortune that accompany playing. Unless you are Ricky Williams, you can retire.
That same article noted the hypothetical 45-year-old wide receiver who cannot remember where he parked. Heck, I didn't play football in college or the NFL (and barely in high school) and I cannot remember where I park half the time. It's called getting old. And I have a ways to go before 45 yet.
Does it suck when there is a violent hit that causes someone to be dangerously concussed? Yes. To the extent that shots to the head can be eliminated, that is a good idea.
Along the same lines, the goal of boxing is to essentially concuss the opponent. The NFL game presents a risk of concussion--not a goal.
Anyone else getting annoyed as the week goes on???