Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:27 pm
My guess...players will sign a release for certain injuries releasing insurance, universities, or other organizations of any liability for that particular type of injury.
Players can decide if the risk is worth it to them. Personally, I think the risk is clearly there but perhaps a bit overblown as to the rate, severity, and long-term consequences. To date, I haven't seen a lot of "brain data" on players who had long careers and normal lives. I admit that I haven't looked extensively, so maybe it is out there.
So players are going to assume the risks for certain injuries sustained while playing college football and cover any costs thereof out of their individual pockets? And universities are going to knowingly induce recruits into signing such an agreement? And courts are going to enforce such an agreement? No way. The whole premise is unconscionable and every university is going to understand that such a release will likely be ineffective exposing the university to substantial potential liabilities.
This was my thought. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I feel like a school saying:
"You can either: A) Get a free education, but you have to sign this release saying if your brain gets turned to mush, you won't sue us, or B) you don't have to sign, but then no football, no scholarship, and you can't afford to go to school now", would be pretty easy grounds to get any such release get thrown out in court.
There are also inherent risk regs. I think the NFL workman's comp issue is actually bigger than college. Pinning long-term head injuries on 4 years of college football for a justifiable insurance claim will be a challenge for lawyers.
Regarding waiver, how do you think high school works? It is even more difficult. You have a parent or guardian signing a medical release for the player. High Schools aren't liable for any injury unless negligence is proven. Inherent risk of football makes it difficult to prove negligence.
The issue is overblown.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
Mark my words. Football at the High School level and below will not exist in 20 years. There may still remain a type of flag football or some style of the game that doesn't resemble what we see now.
At the major college level the only way to avoid liability long term is to PAY the players. You have to make it a Job that someone is getting compensated for the inherent risks involved in that job. Just the same as being a Roofer, Logger, Police officer; all examples of jobs that the risks are accepted by the person working that job.
Football can only change so much until it doesn't resemble football any longer. The AAF is a good example of that, i believe they made a huge mistake trying to be a "Safe Play" league when now is the time to capitalize and revitalize an XFL style football. Don't pretend to be safe! Let the players know and understand the risks and they can decide if the compensation is worth the risk.
Cornpoke wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:18 pm
Mark my words. Football at the High School level and below will not exist in 20 years. There may still remain a type of flag football or some style of the game that doesn't resemble what we see now.
At the major college level the only way to avoid liability long term is to PAY the players. You have to make it a Job that someone is getting compensated for the inherent risks involved in that job. Just the same as being a Roofer, Logger, Police officer; all examples of jobs that the risks are accepted by the person working that job.
Football can only change so much until it doesn't resemble football any longer. The AAF is a good example of that, i believe they made a huge mistake trying to be a "Safe Play" league when now is the time to capitalize and revitalize an XFL style football. Don't pretend to be safe! Let the players know and understand the risks and they can decide if the compensation is worth the risk.
I do agree that this is accurate that to limit liabilities NCAA athletes would have to be paid and treated as regular employees. This opens the door to a workman’s compensation model for injuries incurred on the job versus a lawsuit model which opens the door to limitless liability. The irony is that the NCAA recently has fought tooth and nail with the national labor relations board to keep NCAA athletes from being classified as university employees.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:28 am
There are also inherent risk regs. I think the NFL workman's comp issue is actually bigger than college. Pinning long-term head injuries on 4 years of college football for a justifiable insurance claim will be a challenge for lawyers.
Regarding waiver, how do you think high school works? It is even more difficult. You have a parent or guardian signing a medical release for the player. High Schools aren't liable for any injury unless negligence is proven. Inherent risk of football makes it difficult to prove negligence.
The issue is overblown.
The reason that schools carry insurance largely is to have an ‘indemnifying party’ (a party that will pay the costs of litigating the claim, settlement, judgment, etc..) so the schools don’t have an unknown liability.
While negligence could be a difficult claim to prove given the difficulty in proving causation...the mere fact of subjecting a party to a litigation without and indemnifying is extremely costly in itself win or lose. The average civil jury trial costs in excess of $500,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees alone. All it takes is a cognizable claim claim that becomes a question of fact that is decided by a jury...juries have been known to render large awards even when the facts don’t seem to support the claim. This is the unknown liability that universities can’t and won’t merely take on. The issue is not overblown.
I have no doubt that a lawsuit will be tried at some point. However, there is a multi-billion dollar industry that has a vested interest in defending the sport. I doubt a University would be on the hook for defense all by themselves. If the lose, it sets precedence.
That, and to date, we have no idea of the rate of CTE in the general public. It is impossible to show increase in rate when there is no baseline. What if the CTE is a marker for something totally unrelated to head injuries but related to another physiological event that makes the player the athlete he/she is?
The press has jumped far ahead of the science. There is also an inconvenient fact that NFL players live longer lives than the general male population. In addition, rate of suicides, an alleged symptom of CTE, is lower for NFL men than the general population.
It is being overblown with inconclusive information at the moment. It would be defensible in court and many very wealthy organizations have a vested interest to defend it. Opening the door for head injury settlements eliminates all sports because there is an associated risk with every sport for long-term disabilities, arthritis, lagging limb injuries, etc. If someone is awarded a multi-million dollar settlement for head injuries, then the next will be someone who had a devastating knee injury, then someone who can't pursue a career that requires typing because of a "debilitating" wrist injury, then....
It's overblown and over hyped by a media, but, hey, they are just catering to us. This is the US. We love to tear down large successful entities in any way we can.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:11 am
It's overblown and over hyped by a media, but, hey, they are just catering to us. This is the US. We love to tear down large successful entities in any way we can.
Huh? Insurance companies are not the media. They are companies that spend a lot of capital and do a lot of independent research to evaluate risk and to give risk a monetary value...after valuation, the insurance companies pass that risk on to a large group of insured parties through insurance premiums. If this was all media driven, insurance companies wouldn't be bailing and would absolutely continue to offer policies...they are in the business of making money which requires collecting and insuring more clients.
Too much money in the sport. It will be insured. Pop warner might get sacrificed.
When science shakes out, this topic will fade. This is where the media is at fault. They have tilted public opinion, ie juries, without sufficient science to back it up.
WYO1016 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am
I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:07 am
Too much money in the sport. It will be insured. Pop warner might get sacrificed.
When science shakes out, this topic will fade. This is where the media is at fault. They have tilted public opinion, ie juries, without sufficient science to back it up.
Pop Warner should be sacrificed. IMO, and in the opinion in a growing number of medical professionals, contact football should be outlawed until high school.
There is absolutely no reason 8, 10, 12-year olds should be running around bashing heads with each other. I would be very interested to see what would happen to CTE prevalence if contact wasn't allowed until high school or ~15 years old.
I don’t think FBS football is going anywhere anytime soon, but there are thousands of JuCos, D2, D3, programs that won’t be able to afford the insurance and other costs associated with sponsoring football that I do think will go away in the next 20 years or so.
Boxing was really the first sport that all this became a concern in, and these studies seem to show that it is not a big problem until professional (or applying it to football -- I'll say college/NFL) ranks. CTE has up to a 20% incidence in professional boxers -- Muhammed Ali is one that comes to mind -- but no strong evidence of CTE in amateur boxers.
It was said earlier that there have been no studies demonstrating the incidence of CTE in the general population, but I'd bet that similar to boxing, it is not as huge a problem in the lower ranks.
I loved playing football in elementary school through high school and hope that my kids get to have that fun too, at least until there is more evidence to suggest that I shouldn't let them.
Boxing was really the first sport that all this became a concern in, and these studies seem to show that it is not a big problem until professional (or applying it to football -- I'll say college/NFL) ranks. CTE has up to a 20% incidence in professional boxers -- Muhammed Ali is one that comes to mind -- but no strong evidence of CTE in amateur boxers.
It was said earlier that there have been no studies demonstrating the incidence of CTE in the general population, but I'd bet that similar to boxing, it is not as huge a problem in the lower ranks.
I loved playing football in elementary school through high school and hope that my kids get to have that fun too, at least until there is more evidence to suggest that I shouldn't let them.
CTE can only be confirmed post-mortem. So it's a problem to assess CTE impacts for younger athletes.
