The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

I will be refuting his opening statements. The ProblemMy opponent cites a study, which reports to find that 40% of former NFL players have some type of brain abnormality an 45% have difficulty learning and retaining information. However, this study has several flaws: it only sampled 40 players, the person who conducted it noted it doesn't prove anything. He doesn't even propose any major changes - just maybelimiting contact drills in practices. [1] My opponent also argues that TBIs increased 58% last year; that's technically true, but not really. There were twiceas many player evaluations that year for concussions (meaning more reported inuries), as well as a sharp increase in self-reporting for concussions. [2] In other words: concussions aren't increasing, awareness and reporting is. Lack of responseMy opponent argues here that we need to enforce rules already on the books; I agree, although I don't consider this as "doing more" to reduce concussions. He notes the example of Cam Newton (a personal issue for me as a Panthers fan) being hit in the head numerous times in the season opener. While we can certainly argue flags should have been called (answer: they should have), there was not actually any concussions. When Cam actually did get a concussion against Atlanta, he was promptly pulled from the game and had to sit out a week. [3] These are not really failures of lack of action, then, but a lack of proper use of the rules. Path of actionMy opponent provides several ideas as to how the league could reduce concussions. He proposes offering free healthcare to any player who played more than three years - this is not a great idea. Unlike in the NBA, which has small rosters, the NFL has 53-man rosters, most of whom never see the field. The price for this would be very, very high, and many people being paid would not have ever seen a single snap. My opponent also proposes modification of helmets. One major issue I would note is that the league doesn't choose helmets - players do. [4] The Army helmet noted, in particular, requires a full-body suit connected to the spinal cord and pelvis. In a league that prides itself on mobility, who on earth would want to wear such bulky equipment? I suppose the league could mandate it, but the NFLPA would likely strike rather than be forced to do anything. [4] The mat that my opponent proposes sounds cool, but again, that wouldn't be a league-wide measure - less than half of NFL stadiums use artificial turf, and the underlay simply doesn't work on natural grass. [4] The league could mandate turf, but this would be a problem - not all stadiums are designed for it, and turf fields ares widely considered to be more dangerous than grass fields. In fact, players across all sports almost universally despise the hard playing surface of turf,[5] and a certain type of turf using "crumb rubber" has been suspected as a cause for a rash of cancer cases among soccer goalies. [5] Aditionally, turf has a higher risk of leg injuries - which, in the rash to scapegoat concussions, it should be noted that physical injuries can cause lifelong problems as well. [6]Why the NFL? My opponent argues change will most effectively made at the NFL level because it will "trickle down". He argues other leagues seek to follow the NFL. I disagree - each level of football has its own rulebook, and works independently. Leagues value their independence and tradition. The NFL changed the length of the extra point last year, but this hasn't gone to the college or high school level. Rather than top-down change, I see the most effective method in reducing injuries as a whole as being bottom-up - develop good playing techniques early rather than try and compenstate for them later. The most effective way to reduce concussions is to teach proper techniques early. References1. . http://time.com...2.http://www.nydailynews.com...3.http://www.nfl.com...4.http://fortune.com...5.https://www.washingtonpost.com...6.http://www.reuters.com...