[BostonCard]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

[CTcard]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

Of course it will be interesting to see where this goes.

A few questions immediately come to mind - some of which I found at least partial answers.

1. Why is the target of the suit the NCAA and not the University of Texas? 

2. What was known about CTE in 1968-72?
The article notes claims from the complainant that for 12 years the NCAA knew that mouthguards could help prevent concussions before they were mandated. Another article I found says that they became required in 1973 - though that article says the issue was protecting teeth.

3. Would a case involving a player from 1968-72 have any direct impact on the current rules/legal landscape?
Today there are far more rules about what equipment must be worn and players must sign forms acknowledging the risk of head injuries. Does any of that actually provide any legal immunity to the NCAA, the conferences, the universities, the coaches?

[CTcard]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

Of course it will be interesting to see where this goes.

A few questions immediately come to mind - some of which I found at least partial answers.

1. Why is the target of the suit the NCAA and not the University of Texas? 

2. What was known about CTE in 1968-72?
The article notes claims from the complainant that for 12 years the NCAA knew that mouthguards could help prevent concussions before they were mandated. Another article I found says that they became required in 1973 - though that article says the issue was protecting teeth.

3. Would a case involving a player from 1968-72 have any direct impact on the current rules/legal landscape?
Today there are far more rules about what equipment must be worn and players must sign forms acknowledging the risk of head injuries. Does any of that actually provide any legal immunity to the NCAA, the conferences, the universities, the coaches?

[81alum]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

Of course it will be interesting to see where this goes.

A few questions immediately come to mind - some of which I found at least partial answers.

1. Why is the target of the suit the NCAA and not the University of Texas? 

2. What was known about CTE in 1968-72?
The article notes claims from the complainant that for 12 years the NCAA knew that mouthguards could help prevent concussions before they were mandated. Another article I found says that they became required in 1973 - though that article says the issue was protecting teeth.

3. Would a case involving a player from 1968-72 have any direct impact on the current rules/legal landscape?
Today there are far more rules about what equipment must be worn and players must sign forms acknowledging the risk of head injuries. Does any of that actually provide any legal immunity to the NCAA, the conferences, the universities, the coaches?

Who knows how this particular suit will turn out, but sooner or later I think CTE lawsuits will eat up NCAA football.  The science is going to get better, the awareness is increasing, and there is growing concern that CTE is caused by lesser things than concussions--the sort of jars and jolts inherent to the game.  Football, and some other contact sports, may have dim futures.

[81alum]

https://qz.com/1302232/the-fate-of-ncaa-...y-lawsuit/

In 2017, Hardin-Ploetz sued the NCAA for over $1 million on two grounds, reports Sports Illustrated: First, for negligence generally, meaning that the NCAA did little to warn or protect players like Ploetz about CTE, while knowing the dangers of playing the sport and taking years of hits to the head. Second, for wrongful death, which is a negligence claim made by the victim of someone who is deceased and applies to Ploetz specifically.

I'm not putting the OT label on it because the implications of the lawsuit are quite high.

FWIW, given the NFL's large ($1 billion) settlement for CTE and the fact that the NCAA doesn't pay players, I think this is going to be an important issue going forward.

BC

Of course it will be interesting to see where this goes.

A few questions immediately come to mind - some of which I found at least partial answers.

1. Why is the target of the suit the NCAA and not the University of Texas? 

2. What was known about CTE in 1968-72?
The article notes claims from the complainant that for 12 years the NCAA knew that mouthguards could help prevent concussions before they were mandated. Another article I found says that they became required in 1973 - though that article says the issue was protecting teeth.

3. Would a case involving a player from 1968-72 have any direct impact on the current rules/legal landscape?
Today there are far more rules about what equipment must be worn and players must sign forms acknowledging the risk of head injuries. Does any of that actually provide any legal immunity to the NCAA, the conferences, the universities, the coaches?

Who knows how this particular suit will turn out, but sooner or later I think CTE lawsuits will eat up NCAA football.  The science is going to get better, the awareness is increasing, and there is growing concern that CTE is caused by lesser things than concussions--the sort of jars and jolts inherent to the game.  Football, and some other contact sports, may have dim futures.