Could the guys at MIT be developing a built-in cam to eaach players' helmet 
. You could then see the vision of all 22 players on your TV screen 
. AH, but we can only dream...some may call that a nightmare 
It don't take no MITter to figger out how to stick a pitcher-taker in a hemet.
Whomever actually designs and produces cell phones (for Apple, Samsung, etc.) already have itty-bitty cameras that can be easily fitted into a helmet. The battery and transmitter take up a bit of space, but even those can be small enough fit in a helmet. They might need a pocket at the rear of the helmet in which the battery/transmitter can reside. But, yeah, it can be done.
A lot of issues, though, not the least of which is ownership. Cameras truly built-in to the helmets would have to be carefully stored, protected, and maintained, not only due to cost, but for security purposes. So, who is responsible for that? The teams? Does Jerry Jones want to accept that liability? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. If the teams do accept that responsibility, that means they will each need a staff of full-time AV techs to manage their helmets. A big question: Do they use these helmets during practice? Or are the players expected to use these helmets only on game days? Is there a physical comfort issue there?
If the teams don't accept that responsibility, then how do the TV networks manage their cameras in somebody else's helmets? Or, do they own the helmets, but allow the teams to use them. Uh oh. Who takes the liability for injury, should a player get hurt using a network owned/maintained helmet?
On the broadcast production side, this would probably mean that the broadcasters will need about a dozen (maybe 22?) more technicians for each TV broadcast, to track which players are in the game at any one time, and make sure those 22 helmets are 'hot' at the given moment. OK, maybe they can produce a 'helmet board' with 96 switches (one for every squad member on both teams), and some madman has to be constantly switching helmets from hot to dark. Another issue is broadcast bandwidth. That's 22 more channels that would be active at any one moment. I couldn't even begin to guess what technical issues that might be related to this.
And then there is this: Who bears the cost? Guess who? One way or another, the spectators in the stands and at home will bear this increased cost of the game. TV will either raise their commercial rates, or insist that they get even more commercial time in each broadcast. Probably both. But maintain that magic 3-hour maximum window. Here comes another rule change to reduce game real time. Ultimately, it may come down to a soccer-like timing. TV will get their way and there will be a count-up clock, and it runs continuously and nothing - NOTHING - stops it. When it hits 3:00:00 - game over. Do what you want on the field for 3 hours, but, when the clock hits 3:00:00, they are switching to Heidi (raise your hand if you remember that).
OK. This was fun. Back to work.
