For those that didn't see it, Uni Watch's Paul Lukas had an interesting piece on this subject:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9694560/no-break-process-new-nfl-helmets
He was harping on the fact that the Riddell helmet is not being made anymore but it looks like the company discontinued it because it performed poorly in a test conducted by VT. The new helmets you see out there were rated as 5 star but the SVR-4 rated as 1 star. Not sure why he's so fixated on it. You can't counter their safety argument by advocating for an inherently less safe model of helmet.
I'm sort of shocked that they even allow that helmet out there after Riddell urged players to use something else quit making it.
This quote cracked me up.
EG: Yes -- if the player doesn't buy it. We give them the option to buy the helmet at the end of the year. If they don't, it goes back to the reconditioner. They sand-blast it, repaint it, clean it out, and then at that point the reconditioner does a very thorough test to make sure it's safe and meets all the standards. Occasionally a helmet will be rejected at that point, but that's rare.
When I read it I was just thinking that this guy just gave himself away. He's clearly a Jacksonville employee because they're probably the only team desperate enough to charge players for the helmet if they want to keep it.
I can understand that they want the helmet to be broken in and fit correctly but it just seems a bit odd that they would emphasize the fit while continuing to allow huge bundles of dreadlocks.
The conspiracist in me is curious if they are doing it because they don't want to have a bunch of 1-time use helmets sitting around just waiting for someone to come and ask to test them to see how much integrity may be lost after a single game.