The solution is deceptively simple , those who have brains to lose won't play, ergo problem solved. Darwin wins , victims are self selected what could be more fair?
I hate to use the word "nuance", but that's the side story in this entire debate. Look at the past few years and what Roger Goodell has been able to "accomplish" in so far as curtailing certain critical aspects of what makes football "football". The NFL, and perhaps the NCAA, could go about re-writing the rules of the game in such a manner than 5-10-15 years from now, the sport would be unrecognizable to what it once was. That is FAR more likely and would dramatically change the sport.
Gambling will do that to ya. You can't enjoy the game if you put money on it. Every angle to reach your point spread is all that matters.
I'm not sure of the general consensus here. Is it necessarily a bad thing if there is a ban on football? The US really should end it's "bread and circus" era. What I'm referring to is the abundance of people using government assistance, and the wide variety of fairly pointless sporting events (NFL, NASCAR, etc). I think a ban on football would be a bit extreme, but if a general disinterest in football arose, that would be a good thing.