Schutt is joining Xenith in questioning the helmet testing/rating that VT did. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/13/helmet-maker-schutt-joins-xenith-in-questioning-virginia-tech-study/

 

More sour grapes, or do they have a point?

 

Personally, after looking into the Xenith, it seems to make the most sense to me, as far as protecting against concussions. I'm not a doctor or a bio-engineer. Is there anyone on here that is qualified and could offer some insight?

I think a big cause for NFL players getting concussions is their choosing to not wear a mouthpiece.

Schutt is joining Xenith in questioning the helmet testing/rating that VT did. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/13/helmet-maker-schutt-joins-xenith-in-questioning-virginia-tech-study/

 

More sour grapes, or do they have a point?

 

Personally, after looking into the Xenith, it seems to make the most sense to me, as far as protecting against concussions. I'm not a doctor or a bio-engineer. Is there anyone on here that is qualified and could offer some insight?

 

This may not exactly be sour grapes, no, but still, neither Xenith or Schutt seem to offer any alternative testing methods. They only want to complain about the testing, yet they don't offer other options for a more accurate test. I see the points of some of their questions, but I don't see how they can argue results if they don't have a method for offering better and more accurate results.

 

I was interested where they said, "Of the 297 players who wore a Riddell helmet that got a five-star rating from Virginia Tech, 30 suffered concussions. But of the 303 players who wore a Schutt model that got a three-star rating, 27 suffered concussions. And of the 489 players who wore a Schutt model that got a two-star rating, 31 suffered concussions." An interesting point. I would think playing time is also something they need to evaluate when comparing statistical numbers like this.

 

Thanks for the link, Harry.