NFL considering a CFL size field (Width)

I don't think anyone means to say that there are no concussions in the CFL, just fewer. How many fewer is likely known by somebody somewhere, and is likely measured in terms of X number of concussions per games played.

I never said there were none, but what I want to know is the amount in the CFL vs. the amount in the NFL. If, for example, there are 100 concussions every year in the NFL and 33 every year in the CFL, then a wider field means nothing for player safety or limiting concussions (the CFL, with 1/4 of the teams would have 1/3 the amount of concussions). I just don't thin making he field wider will increase player safety. Like I said, if someone shows me data to prove me wrong, I'll accept it. Until then, I remain unconvinced that it will make a difference.

:thup: blogskee. That being said, I think a wider CFL field at least makes for a better game in the NFL albeit this past year with the NFL looking more CFLish with passing and running qb's, maybe it's a mute point. The NFL is learning from the CFL anyways. And has done so for the past at least 15 years.

At some point I think you'll see in the NFL a qb who has basically has to be able to run or else he won't get a job unless all he can do is fire bullets for td's all the time, and Tom Brady's don't come around all that often and even then, show limitations as we see.
That's what I like about how the CFL is influencing the NFL, we are now finally seeing more all round athletes at the qb position in the NFL being respected and looked at, rather than just being 6 feet 5 inches tall with the ability to throw darts. The NFL game has progressed to the point they don't just have to limit themselves to these guys because those guys aren't always available and yet all teams want to win.

A recent article said there were 11% fewer reported concussions in the CFL (per 100 players) than the NFL. Another article said that NFL linemen suffer twice as many concussions as CFL linemen.

The reasoning behind widening the field in the NFL is that teams would need smaller players to cover the larger field. Smaller players means smaller impacts and there's more room to evade the hard hits.

The CFL's shorter time between each play (which favours smaller more fit players) and the 1-yd restraining zone at the LOS also contribute to less head injuries. In the CFL the first contact is often made by the linemen's arms and hands while in the NFL it's often with their head.

I buy the argument that the one-yard off reduces trauma to linemen. It's actually rather obvious. I think fewer running plays also contributes to that as well. But that has nothing to do with the width of the field. You could keep the NFL-sized field and implement the one-yard rule. In fact, I think that would be a much more effective rule change than widening the field.

And do you have the link to the article that says there are 11% fewer reported concussions?

Here is a link to the story which references the concussion data:

Zelkovich writes that there were 50 reported concussions in the CFL last season. That's an average of 0.59 reported concussions a game, lower than the 0.67 in the NFL in 2010, which does seem to back the theory that smaller players, wider fields and different rules tend to reduce CFL concussions compared to NFL ones.
[url=http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/cfl/blog/cfl_experts/post/Data-debate-doesn-t-mean-concussions-can-be-igno?urn=cfl-342105]http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/cfl/blog/cfl ... cfl-342105[/url]

Seriously? .6 vs .7 and you draw a conclusion from that !