The game score would have been a bit more lopsided, if they'd manned up. That's all. I'm generally against the changes which further wussify the sport, but, yesterday, I began thinking that perhaps "Targeting" needed to be expanded to cover helmet to knee contact...
I'm with you on the wussification of the sport. I also think the targeting rules are running into the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you can't lead with your head or target an opponent from the shoulders up, then a lesser opponent has little choice but to go low.
The targeting rules could actually cause more injuries rather than fewer, although those injuries are much less life-threatening than head/neck injuries.
That's another thing that these politically correct talking heads completely miss. Your argument for avoiding scheduling vastly inferior opponents is much more convincing than the one of optics made by the talking heads. That argument also plays right into their politically correct narrative that football is too violent and that it needs to be more thoroughly regulated.
"Well," they could say, "if you want fewer injuries, then don't allow little boys to play on the same field with big boys because the little boys have to find some way to compensate for the lack of speed, size and talent. The only way to avoid that is to keep big boys playing big boys and little boys playing little boys."
They don't make that argument because it makes too much sense. There's still the economics issue, but at least there's a defensible case to be made that has nothing to do with how it looks on Game Day.
