Follow Up On Baning Football, Now SI's Peter King Is Thinking About Banning FB

[Lennys Tap]

I'm not talking about the pending NFL lawsuit...

Remember when the "Whiplash Willies" had everyone involved in any car accident wearing neck braces? How about a class action suit by everyone who's played football from Pop Warner to the NFL over the last 60 years? I'm getting a headache (and having memory lapses) just thinking about it.

[Pakuni]

I'm not talking about the pending NFL lawsuit...

Then what suit are you talking about?
Plaintiffs can't go sue "football."

[Pakuni]

Remember when the "Whiplash Willies" had everyone involved in any car accident wearing neck braces? How about a class action suit by everyone who's played football from Pop Warner to the NFL over the last 60 years? I'm getting a headache (and having memory lapses) just thinking about it.

Who's the defendant?

[Lennys Tap]

Who's the defendant?

What if Odessa, Tx. has had a 5th-8th grade feeder program for 40 years? And the High school has played football for that long. What say we sue the municipality, whoever manufactured the helmets, everyone who ever coached and the high school for starters. Wash, rinse, repeat in thousands of communities.

[Pakuni]

What if Odessa, Tx. has had a 5th-8th grade feeder program for 40 years? And the High school has played football for that long. What say we sue the municipality, whoever manufactured the helmets, everyone who ever coached and the high school for starters. Wash, rinse, repeat in thousands of communities.

Good luck to the plaintiff stating a cause of action that proves:

1. He suffered a concussion playing football up to 40 years ago.

2. That concussion, and not some other injury, is the primary cause of health problems for which damages should now be recovered.

3. Every coach who ever coached at the school is personally liable for the concussion, as well as the school, helmet manufacturer and municipality (unless, the schools are run by a school district, in which case the municipality has no involvement). Note: most school's carry liability insurance for employees, so you'd realistically never be able to sue the coaches individually.

4. The coaches/schools/government entities were not only negligent to the potential of long-term harm resulting from football-related head injuries, but knew of the potential and willfully disregarded it. Given that the research on said long-term effects is relatively recent, I doubt you'd convince a jury that Coach Gaines at Odessa Permian knew in 1985 what neurologists are only confirming today.
Texas, like most states, has limited immunity for public officials and entities, so you can't sue them for simple negligence. Have to prove their conduct (that, in this case, led to long-term brain injury) was willful.

5. Somehow getting around the statute of limitations. (The standard SOL in Texas is two years on a personal injury case).

Hmmm. Nope. Don't see it happening that way.

[Benny B]

Good luck to the plaintiff stating a cause of action that proves:

1. He suffered a concussion playing football up to 40 years ago.

2. That concussion, and not some other injury, is the primary cause of health problems for which damages should now be recovered.

3. Every coach who ever coached at the school is personally liable for the concussion, as well as the school, helmet manufacturer and municipality (unless, the schools are run by a school district, in which case the municipality has no involvement). Note: most school's carry liability insurance for employees, so you'd realistically never be able to sue the coaches individually.

4. The coaches/schools/government entities were not only negligent to the potential of long-term harm resulting from football-related head injuries, but knew of the potential and willfully disregarded it. Given that the research on said long-term effects is relatively recent, I doubt you'd convince a jury that Coach Gaines at Odessa Permian knew in 1985 what neurologists are only confirming today.
Texas, like most states, has limited immunity for public officials and entities, so you can't sue them for simple negligence. Have to prove their conduct (that, in this case, led to long-term brain injury) was willful.

5. Somehow getting around the statute of limitations. (The standard SOL in Texas is two years on a personal injury case).

Hmmm. Nope. Don't see it happening that way.

The lawsuit won't be against Coach Gaines et al, the lawsuit will be against the 125 FBS schools who have derived billions of dollars in revenues from putting student-athletes at grave risk of long-term and potentially irreparable neurological issues.

A jury isn't going to be too sympathetic to a defendant who says "until a few months ago, it didn't occur to us that we should have examined the long-term consequences of 250 pound men bashing their heads against one another for the past 50 years."

[Pakuni]

The lawsuit won't be against Coach Gaines et al, the lawsuit will be against the 125 FBS schools who have derived billions of dollars in revenues from putting student-athletes at grave risk of long-term and potentially irreparable neurological issues.

A jury isn't going to be too sympathetic to a defendant who says "until a few months ago, it didn't occur to us that we should have examined the long-term consequences of 250 pound men bashing their heads against one another for the past 50 years."

Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?

As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?

[Silkk the Shaka]

Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?

As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?

Biggest misconception regarding CTE is that it's strictly concussion related. Linemen who never had a concussion have suffered some of the worst cases due to repeated sub-concussive impact (read: every time the ball is snapped). Won't be necessary to prove a concussion occurred.

[Tugg Speedman]

Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?

After the FBS schools lose and are drained of money, the rest of the players from other divisions will file by the end of that day.  The next day remaining schools will settle draining themselves of yet more money.

Follow the money,as Chicos said.

[Tugg Speedman]

Meanwhile, Gand drew a 48.1 rating.  May end up highest rated program in history.  Follow the money.

Spoke too soon

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-super-bowl-2013-tv-ratings-dip-20130204,0,7786554.story

Super Bowl 2013: TV ratings dip for blackout-plagued CBS game


Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII ratings were a little like the San Francisco 49ers' offense: Still powerful, but not quite at peak form.

In a marathon game marred by an unprecedented 34-minute blackout at the Superdome in New Orleans, an average of 108.4 million total viewers tuned in to watch the Baltimore Ravens defeat the 49ers, 34-31, on CBS, according to Nielsen.

That was down 3% from last year's Super Bowl telecast, when 111.3 million tuned in. That event remains the No. 1 ratings champion in U.S. history.


Added ... and Darren Rovell, business reporter for ESPN (and formerly CNBC) tweeted yesterday that 48% of the US population did not watch one play of the game.

[Pakuni]

Biggest misconception regarding CTE is that it's strictly concussion related. Linemen who never had a concussion have suffered some of the worst cases due to repeated sub-concussive impact (read: every time the ball is snapped). Won't be necessary to prove a concussion occurred.

No, CTE is not strictly concussion related, but there's an obvious and strong link. That's important legally speaking, because someone who's going to court arguing that football caused CTE needs to show demonstrative proof of a head injury. A record of a concussion - or, better yet, multiple concussions - would do that.

And, again, proving that people suffered head injuries playing football is not going to win anyone a dime in court.

[Abode4life]

Spoke too soon

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-super-bowl-2013-tv-ratings-dip-20130204,0,7786554.story

Super Bowl 2013: TV ratings dip for blackout-plagued CBS game


Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII ratings were a little like the San Francisco 49ers' offense: Still powerful, but not quite at peak form.

In a marathon game marred by an unprecedented 34-minute blackout at the Superdome in New Orleans, an average of 108.4 million total viewers tuned in to watch the Baltimore Ravens defeat the 49ers, 34-31, on CBS, according to Nielsen.

That was down 3% from last year's Super Bowl telecast, when 111.3 million tuned in. That event remains the No. 1 ratings champion in U.S. history.


Added ... and Darren Rovell, business reporter for ESPN (and formerly CNBC) tweeted yesterday that 48% of the US population did not watch one play of the game.

The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending!  Its over!

And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all.  And i would bet that's not that higher historically.

[Tugg Speedman]

The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending!  Its over!

And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all.  And i would bet that's not that higher historically.

Seriously, football is at a peak, only has one way to go ... down.

Now is a good time to sell a team if you have one, will not get a higher "real" price.

(real = adjusted for inflation and other equivalent investments)

[Benny B]

Why the FBS schools? Why not FCS? Why not Division II?
Are the players who suffered head injuries playing D-III ball less deserving of compensation than the kids hurt playing at Florida and USC? Does their suffering not matter?

As for the sympathy thing, it's not relevant.
Explain to me how you overcome limited immunity. Showing negligence isn't enough.
Explain to me how you overcome the statute of limitations issues? Even attorneys representing current plaintiffs - who naturally are optimistic about such things - thing the statute of limitations already may have passed for retired players.
Explain to me how a guy proves any medical issues he has today are the result of a concussion incurred 20 years ago, especially when - as we now is the case - many of these concussions went unreported?

"Why FBS, not FCS, DIII, etc.": Easy... deepest pockets, that's PI Rule #1.

"Limited Immunity": This may vary from state to state as some states put caps on damages or prohibit punitive damages, but not all.  In any event, not all of the FBS schools are public institutions.  And even for those that are, the whole basis of gov't immunity is to prevent taxpayers from footing the bill.  When you have some colleges - for example Michigan - who operate a football program that is at least partially autonomous from the institution or like Temple who is considered to - despite being a public school - operate independently from the state, there is an argument to be made that gov't immunity does not apply because a judgment would be against the the football, athletic program, and/or college, not the taxpayers.

"Statute of Limitations" and "Prove health issues today result of 20 years ago":  It's not entirely about the actual "damage" that has been done, it's about what responsibility do colleges have for fostering an environment where "damage" was likely to have occurred.  IOW, the plaintiffs may not get compensation for what has happened to older athletes, but they might end up winning continuing care for damage that could have happened to the younger athletes.  This would potentially be to the defendants' detriment --- it's a lot cheaper to fix a problem that you know has occurred to a select number of individuals than to provide long-term care to an entire population for something that (may or) may not materialize for decades.

[Pakuni]

The superbowl is down 3%? Football is ending!  Its over!

And 48% not watching one play isn't surprising at all.  And i would bet that's not that higher historically.

I'm sure that 3 percent dip has nothing to do with the fact this year's game pitted Baltimore and San Francisco instead of New York and Boston.

[Pakuni]

"Why FBS, not FCS, DIII, etc.": Easy... deepest pockets, that's PI Rule #1.

Great, but that doesn't address the point I was making.

"Limited Immunity": This may vary from state to state as some states put caps on damages or prohibit punitive damages, but not all.  In any event, not all of the FBS schools are public institutions.  And even for those that are, the whole basis of gov't immunity is to prevent taxpayers from footing the bill.  When you have some colleges - for example Michigan - who operate a football program that is at least partially autonomous from the institution or like Temple who is considered to - despite being a public school - operate independently from the state, there is an argument to be made that gov't immunity does not apply because a judgment would be against the the football, athletic program, and/or college, not the taxpayers.

No, Benny, applying limited immunity is not at a court's discretion. It's the law. A judge isn't going to throw out more than a century of constitutionally supported case law because he/she feels this particular defendant can afford to pay.
And good luck going after all these wealthy athletic departments. Most barely break even, if that.

"Statute of Limitations" and "Prove health issues today result of 20 years ago":  It's not entirely about the actual "damage" that has been done, it's about what responsibility do colleges have for fostering an environment where "damage" was likely to have occurred.  

So you're suggesting that a court order damages that not only aren't proven to be the result of a football injury, but may not have even occurred or ever will occur?
So, like, the University of Michigan will be ordered to fork over a billion dollars to former football players who aren't injured, because maybe sometime they might be?
Somehow I find that unlikely.

But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?

[Benny B]

But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?

I'm not... I'm merely prognosticating that there's a lawyer smarter than you out there who will figure it out.

[Pakuni]

I'm not... I'm merely prognosticating that there's a lawyer smarter than you out there who will figure it out.

The smart lawyers involved so far - and I'm sure they're vary smart - so far are building their case around allegations that the NFL knew of the head injury risk and not only failed to disclose it from players, but actively hid it.
They're not even trying the negligence route, and the NFL - unlike colleges - don't have immunity protections.

[Silkk the Shaka]

The smart lawyers involved so far - and I'm sure they're vary smart - so far are building their case around allegations that the NFL knew of the head injury risk and not only failed to disclose it from players, but actively hid it.
They're not even trying the negligence route, and the NFL - unlike colleges - don't have immunity protections.

So you're saying they don't have a shot with the former strategy?

[Lennys Tap]

But, again, you first need to prove the colleges willfully exposed players to dangers of which they were aware but the players were not. How are you doing that again?

"Proving" something and getting a jury to go along with you in a civil case aren't exactly the same thing. For example, the idea that customers at McDonalds were unaware (and that the evil corp. knew the HIDDEN danger) of spilled hot coffee in one's lap is preposterous on its face. The college/player scenario isn't.

[Pakuni]

"Proving" something and getting a jury to go along with you in a civil case aren't exactly the same thing. For example, the idea that customers at McDonalds were unaware (and that the evil corp. knew the HIDDEN danger) of spilled hot coffee in one's lap is preposterous on its face. The college/player scenario isn't.

You really ought to read the facts of that McDonald's case.
And then you'd see why it's a) not the injustice it's been sold as and b) not remotely relevant to a potential football trial.

But, really, if the plaintiffs are resting their hopes on some sort of jury nullification, then their chances are even worse than I imagine.

[Pakuni]

So you're saying they don't have a shot with the former strategy?

Which former strategy?

[Silkk the Shaka]

Which former strategy?

Former vs. latter as you laid out
Hiding info vs. negligence

[Pakuni]

Former vs. latter as you laid out
Hiding info vs. negligence

I think they'll ultimately try both, but the fact they're trying to claim the NFL hid information means:
1. They don't believe the negligence claims is very strong
2. Even if they succeed on negligence, they recognize damages will be relatively small (a jury will likely apportion a share - probably large share - of the blame on the players for voluntarily exposing themselves to the injury), so they need to seek higher damages by alleging conspiracy/fraud.

[Lennys Tap]

You really ought to read the facts of that McDonald's case.
And then you'd see why it's a) not the injustice it's been sold as and b) not remotely relevant to a potential football trial.

But, really, if the plaintiffs are resting their hopes on some sort of jury nullification, then their chances are even worse than I imagine.

I'm not a lawyer. I presume you are. But after some of the things that have happened in America's courtrooms in the past few decades I don't see (with all due respect) how you can be so sure on how any case might turn out. One of my best friends got a big fat check from a class action lawsuit against Millie Vanillie and their record company due to them lip synching on a live album. If those kind of "injuries" demand reparations shouldn't real ones? I think I want me some serious tort reform.