The Economist weighs in on the economics of hockey helmets. I am dumbfounded.
I think, however, that something is missing. I am not sure that arguing the majority of NHL players, compromised by the low-skilled, have effected the helmet ban in hopes that it will help close the gap between their more talented peers. Rather, wouldn't the high-skill players be the first to want helmets, on the basis of it extending their careers? Good players are able to consistently make millions each seasons. Less-good players may bounce around between the minors and make much less - wouldn't their incentive be to eliminate helmets and play your guts out at a higher salary and lose a couple years off the career?
Perhaps more importantly, the players were simply told by the managers that television revenues required helmets. I can't see American channels - not that any show hockey much regardless - showing blood and teeth flying on a regular basis.