Goodell is put on the hot seat

These hearings were a nightmare for Goodell. He was also grilled on his Limbaugh comments, and came across as at best ill-informed and at worst as a blithering idiot. The first thing he should do is get rid of whoever was responsible for prepping him for this testimony. Then he needs to do something big and proactive on this head injury thing. Head in the sand will not cut it anymore. DeMaurice Smith is not Gene Upshaw. He is a former partner at DC's foremost lobbying law firm, and I'm reasonably sure he knows a winning issue when he sees one. The last thing the league should want is for congress to use this head injury issue to get its nose under the NFL's tent. That will be the inevitable result of Goodell's weak leadership and his crazy decision to ask congress to override state law in the Starcaps case.

@ meateater - well stated

Could you take it one step further and infer that Goodell's priority towards pushing the league into an 18 game schedule and expansion into Europe over issues like long-term player safety could portray him as only interested in making the league money at the expense of players' well-being?

This is a serious problem, especially at youth, high school, and collegiate levels of football. However, there is no easily identifiable solution. More and more companies are trying to find ways to make helmets protect their contents better. But, as helmets have evolved, more and more players are using their heads as a tackling weapon, simply because it does not hurt as much to ram into something with your head. So better, high-level concussion protection technology in helmets may in fact lead to more head injuries. At the other end, which seems counter-intuitive, would be to remove helmets from the players. Yes, some players will receive concussions from hitting their heads on the turf or getting a body part, such as a knee, to the head. But, and I can assure you of this, less people will try to tackle with their head by simply diving haphazardly at someone's legs. Better technique will be used to bring down a ball carrier. And players' heads will probably be more protected. Since removing helmets is likely to never happen, what can be done to prevent these injuries? Penalize for certain types of tackles to prevent such behavior? Hardly the best solution, especially with non-quarterbacks. And you can't blame just management for this problem, I refer you to an article Matt Bowen wrote earlier in the year about how he failed baseline concussion tests in order to play in case he did get a concussion (cannot find the link, but I'm sure he has it in his archives on this site). Concussions need to be treated as an injury, and not as if you are hurt, by all parties.

Why does Goodell have to deny that there's a causal link? Playing in the NFL is still voluntary. Denying the link between massive blows to the head and head injury makes Goodell and the NFL look not only really stupid, but heartless too.

What legal, tactical, or PR hit would the NFL take from saying "yeah, obviously playing professional football is potentially really dangerous. Every player needs to make a personal determination of whether the risk outweighs the reward for him. They should do so before they begin their careers and again before the start of every year - and, indeed, every game - that they play. If anyone should be pressuring the NFL to make sure that all available precautions are being offered, it should be the players. It should always be their informed choice that matters, just like it's their health, which belongs to them alone... today just as it will be theirs alone for the rest of their lives."

I mean, this isn't like big tobacco, since the issue there was addiction, which "trapped" people into using their product. The draw for players is money, fame, and everything that goes along with fame. Is it worth a reduced quality of life later on? I don't know. But, whether one says yes or no, the fact remains that that person is free to choose one way or the other, and their choice is not the fault of the NFL or anybody else.

Isn't this obvious? Sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane person left on the planet.

I was going to make a comment similar to Pat's... What is the concussion rate in professional rugby or Australian rules football where no helmet is used? Helmets make sense in hockey and baseball where a hard flying object could hit you in the head at any time, with little chance to avoid it. But, in football, perhaps the best answer is to remove the helmet to keep players from using their head as a weapon. Most concussions are of the helmet-to-helmet variety which I think would occur less if players had nothing protecting their heads.

Great post and great comments. A few points to add:
1. Unlike the owners, Goodell has no useful constituency that Congressmen have to worry about offending. That made this week's hearing a freebie: an opportunity to look great defending current and ex-players and kids just starting to play while incurring absolutely no downside risk. And taking this kind of hit is part of his job: to tout the company line, to absorb the pain without complaint or criticism.
2. If the committee had been interested in a fair hearing, it would have invited Ray Lewis or Hines Ward to testify -- players who've been fined for illegal hits to the head and who have responded by saying they'll sign the check but they won't change in the future. Or they would have invited their coaches to explain why that kind of indifference to other players' health is tolerated, and why they haven't been suspended. I suspect this didn't happen because these players and their teams have constituencies that the committee didn't want to antagonize and because it would have complicated a nice, clean mugging of a defenseless witness.
3. DeMaurice Smith runs some real risks with this issue. His single hardest job over the next two years is keeping his union members together, and the ones who are causing the concussions are among those members. If I were Goodell, I'd completely take the offensive on this, get very public with my concern and offer publicly to work with Smith on a system for preventing these kinds of injuries - and I'd float ideas like suspending people for at least 4 games for leading with their head when going after a ball carrier, and suspending coaches for entire seasons for encouraging players to use their heads. Smith is then essentially forced into saying that concussions are part of the game and his players need to be compensated more for incurring the risk of getting them. And that's a loser.
4. How much of the problem is the actual helmet and how much is the hard shell? I kinda wonder what would happen if players just wore a soft helmet -- something like liquid-filled cells, like a nike running shoe.

In response to point #4 and the question posted by GC in DC:
The hard shell serves a very real purpose: it deflects impact when the helmet collides with another object, whether that be another helmet or not. Having a soft-shelled helmet makes the helmets "sticky", so that - at impact - the helmets stay connected for a longer time - which allows more force from the impact to be transferred to the other object/player. It's akin to hitting another car in a sideswipe vs head-on: still bad but not nearly AS bad.

Dan, the problem with Goodell admitting a causal link is that he would also be admitting that these head injuries - which evidence suggests lead to later in life dementia - are an intrinsic, unavoidable part of the game. That moves football further from an enjoyable pastime like baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer, and closer to more "fringe" sports like MMA, which many more people consider barbaric (UFC has been compared to 'a human cockfight'). It's a classic catch-22 for him - deny a causal link and he sounds like a heartless, clueless only-in-it-for-the-money blowhard; admit a causal link and he's basically admitting his sport ruins the people who play it, sounding like a heartless, complicit, only-in-it-for-the-money sadist.

I remember Willie Wood playing for the Packers. Not taken in a 17 round draft, he tried out for the Packers, and was a spectacular player during the "Golden Years". I also remember that when the topic of his physical problems came up on a posting site I regularly haunt, many posters asked what he had done with the "millions of dollars he made during his career."

I could only assume these were youngsters- because when the Packers won the first Super Bowl, I believe the players extra pay from the game was $15,000. No. That is not a mistake. Many of the players during that era (the '60's) had to have jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. Remember, the signing bonus for Joe Namath was, I believe, somewhere in the range of $400,000. Again, not a mistake. And, this amount of money spent on a rookie QB was considered extravagent and preposterous.

I think it is an absolute disgrace that the NFL is not doing all they can to help the players who helped make the league the "cash cow" it has become. I find the behavior of the NFL in this instance to be disgusting, reprehensible and disrespectful.

As far as concussions go- what can be done to prevent this obvious problem, and still maintain a game that celebrates the "big hit"?

I would really like to read possible answers to that question. Perhaps the NFP could devote a week so each of your main contributors weighing in on this topic. Not on the same day, but, say, Monday through Thursday, one each day.

There is no reason a person should be facing an early death because they are playing a game they really love. After all, not matter how much you make, when we die- we are finally equal- because we're all just as dead.

I paid a lot of attention to these hearings since I am involved with the Brain Injury Association of Pennsylvania in their education efforts in the community. I have helped organize Brain Safety Fairs throughout the state of PA & I can tell you that the general public knows almost nothing about concussions. Education of parents, coaches, and their players will be key.

Another major issue is how to determine when a player is ready to go back to the field. Baseline neuropsychological testing is largely unavailable in high scoools due to the expense associated with the testing. This testing is one objective way to determine if a player's cognitive status is back to normal since you can't deceive a reaction time & memory test. Hopefully, The NFL can deploy some of their resources to address these issues on the grassroots level as they figure out how to manage the risks of their players.

The fact is that playing football is foolish and boys will continue to play for highschool glory and benefits it brings,"cheerleaders". Hey this is like big tobacco people know its no good for you but hollywood has proven you look cool doing it so people continue to smoke. In 30 years they'll get an attorney and claim they were tricked into smoking or playing football. What fathers need to ask themselves is will I push my son into football or talk him into another sport that won't result in bad knees and brain damage. The stats back up the players so the NFL might want to lay low on this one but sooner or later players suits aganist schools will cause many schools reavaluate even carrying the sport.

Liability should be the number one concern there.
The failure to enforce the rule consistently opens up pandora's box.

Noel

Football is a great sport but it has risks that need to be decreased with the latest technology.
People play it because they love it or a t least like it. It teaches personal discipline and working together. I doubt that people play it very long just to be popular.

Oh good. Let congress get involved and give us a USPS league. I am sure they can pass many laws to "improve" the league's performance. Unfortunately the NFL will not be allowed to ignore these laws as Congress did with Clemen's providing memoribilia to Congress and its staffers in violation of their rules.

I completed a survey from N.F.P. where I asked for better reporting on the Commissioner, and the workings of the league office. I got some of what I asked for here, thanks. I am on a page with, "Jerry in Texas", about the leagues responsibility to invest meaningful dollars from the 80 Billion back into the lives of the old-timers who played the game with heart and missed the opportunity to become millionaires. It is a question of service. Does Mr. Goodell only serve the Billionaire club of owners? Retired race horses seem to get a better deal. Please continue to ask some tough questions.

Andrew,
Love your web site and all you have done for the Green Bay Packers. Maybe I am not seeing this article as you are portraing it, but, when you state that players have been playing since they were 8 years old is not the issue. In my opinion, when these men get to the NFL level, they are so big and strong and wound up that any time there could be a "concussive hit ". These men are by far the most in shape,

Kramer / Pat

There are scores of concussion injuries throughout rugby, mainly due to collisions with stray elbows and knees. The odd head to head contact occurs, but is almost always accidental due to the reasons identified in this thread.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the game, players will always enter the contact area with feet flying around their ears, and blows to the head are probably as commonplace as football.

This article has been out there for a while now, but is an incredible insight into the effects of brain injuries over the course of an average career:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell

Probably best to ignore the comparisons with dog-fighting as it detracts from the main point slightly!