i feel like the exact details of the implementation, while interesting to ponder and maybe i guess argue about, of any player-safety provisions, are nothing i terribly need to concern myself with, unless they ultimately prove ineffective at preventing any spread among players that would end the season. but really, none of that has any impact on my life, so i tend to ignore it. i mean, its interesting, and if they screw it up, sure, it might have an impact. but really, it's like wondering what any one random office or industry is planning to do. mostly, i'm going to trust them to do their best to figure it out. because it is in their interest to do so. i don't really know that the owners have it in them to be truly creative. they ted to be incredibly risk-averse in that regard. well, i say that, and then there's all those stupid monkeying around with various rules that the commissioner's office floats. which, i guess if i really think about it, are really just fiddling around the margins of the sport, compared to some of the changes i think that i see in other sports. so i think expecting something truly out-of-the-box out of them is asking a leopard to change its spots. the first part, though. i agree, that would have been good. but then, that falls into the trap of any ideas about the benefits of privatization - any private entity must be concerned first and foremost with it's own financial needs. generally those thoughts tend to run short-term, occasionally they run long-term. but never (i guess rarely) do they act for the public, or greater good. unless they can draw a direct line to their own bottom line. which, well, is the whole point of a (properly functioning and well-run) government, isn't it?