[Griffins78]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...arents-say

This sounds like one of the youngest person tested for CTE (unfortunately). Scary that it could develop so early and possibly impact so much.

[Griffins78]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...arents-say

This sounds like one of the youngest person tested for CTE (unfortunately). Scary that it could develop so early and possibly impact so much.

[burger]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...arents-say

This sounds like one of the youngest person tested for CTE (unfortunately). Scary that it could develop so early and possibly impact so much.

Isn't it just a matter of time before a major college program loses a giant CTE lawsuit?  Do they have insurance to cover the payouts that will inevitably be coming?  Stories like this make me think that college football will not exist (or will only exist in greatly reduced form) a few decades from now.

Answering my own question...The NCAA has a $70 million fund to pay out CTE lawsuits.  https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...reg-ploetz  I can't imagine that possibly covering all the suits that will be coming down the line.

[burger]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...arents-say

This sounds like one of the youngest person tested for CTE (unfortunately). Scary that it could develop so early and possibly impact so much.

Isn't it just a matter of time before a major college program loses a giant CTE lawsuit?  Do they have insurance to cover the payouts that will inevitably be coming?  Stories like this make me think that college football will not exist (or will only exist in greatly reduced form) a few decades from now.

Answering my own question...The NCAA has a $70 million fund to pay out CTE lawsuits.  https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...reg-ploetz  I can't imagine that possibly covering all the suits that will be coming down the line.

[stupac2]

IANAL, but it seems to me like it would be really hard to simultaneously show:

1) The harm definitively came from the time at the school (Hilinski's almost certainly didn't, right? He hardly played for WSU).
2) The school definitely knew about the potential harms.
3) The student definitely didn't (or wasn't adequately warned or whatever).
4) The school didn't take any preventative measures to lessen the harm.

It seems to me like all or most of those would be necessary for a finding against a school, and it seems like it's going to be a tall order. The NFL? Sure, they were actively hushing this up. But I've never heard that individual schools or the NCAA were involved in anything like that, and they've generally been farther out in front of the problems than the NFL.

[stupac2]

IANAL, but it seems to me like it would be really hard to simultaneously show:

1) The harm definitively came from the time at the school (Hilinski's almost certainly didn't, right? He hardly played for WSU).
2) The school definitely knew about the potential harms.
3) The student definitely didn't (or wasn't adequately warned or whatever).
4) The school didn't take any preventative measures to lessen the harm.

It seems to me like all or most of those would be necessary for a finding against a school, and it seems like it's going to be a tall order. The NFL? Sure, they were actively hushing this up. But I've never heard that individual schools or the NCAA were involved in anything like that, and they've generally been farther out in front of the problems than the NFL.

[2006alum]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

[2006alum]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

[stupac2]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

[stupac2]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

[ColoradoTree]

All the more reason why my preferred solution to the "should we pay players or not" problem--take a big chunk of those revenues and put them in a health insurance program or a pension fund for players later in life--is the correct one.  

This sport we love causes permanent damage to many who play it. It's morally indefensible to do nothing. There may not be an adequate solution to this brain injury crisis other than to discontinue offering the sport altogether (which I'd like to avoid, because, again, I love this sport), but at least taking some of the massive revenues and shifting it from dazzling new facilities to actual post-graduation health care for the players who risk their bodies and minds for their universities would be a start.

And yeah, burger, that $70 million isn't going to cut it. The problem will only get bigger, and that pot of money is sitting there for when it's basically too late to help the player, not for early intervention, counseling, and other programs that might help mitigate some of the harmful effects of CTE, at least for a time. 

I hope that some of the rule changes that the NCAA and NFL consider annually will improve the safety of this sport and reduce the number of concussions and sub-concussive impacts that players experience.  I really do.  But ultimately, we have all come to grips with the fact that this sport is inherently dangerous in a way that other team sports are not. (Also, Stanford doesn't have varsity boxing or MMA, so the moral question for us as Stanford alums isn't as front and center as this one is.) If you can't entirely stop these sorts of injuries from taking place, then goodness, the very least you can do is redirect some of the jaw-dropping profits you make toward something that will help these players later in life when these sorts of symptoms may be more prevalent and likelier to impact quality of life.  I can make my peace with "we know this sport is dangerous and there are brain injury risks, but we're going to try and keep it from happening in the first place, and we'll really and truly take care of you if you develop a brain injury, and not just by writing your family a check after you kill yourself" but not with "well, them's the risks, but gosh, our new football training center sure is pretty, isn't it?"

[ColoradoTree]

All the more reason why my preferred solution to the "should we pay players or not" problem--take a big chunk of those revenues and put them in a health insurance program or a pension fund for players later in life--is the correct one.  

This sport we love causes permanent damage to many who play it. It's morally indefensible to do nothing. There may not be an adequate solution to this brain injury crisis other than to discontinue offering the sport altogether (which I'd like to avoid, because, again, I love this sport), but at least taking some of the massive revenues and shifting it from dazzling new facilities to actual post-graduation health care for the players who risk their bodies and minds for their universities would be a start.

And yeah, burger, that $70 million isn't going to cut it. The problem will only get bigger, and that pot of money is sitting there for when it's basically too late to help the player, not for early intervention, counseling, and other programs that might help mitigate some of the harmful effects of CTE, at least for a time. 

I hope that some of the rule changes that the NCAA and NFL consider annually will improve the safety of this sport and reduce the number of concussions and sub-concussive impacts that players experience.  I really do.  But ultimately, we have all come to grips with the fact that this sport is inherently dangerous in a way that other team sports are not. (Also, Stanford doesn't have varsity boxing or MMA, so the moral question for us as Stanford alums isn't as front and center as this one is.) If you can't entirely stop these sorts of injuries from taking place, then goodness, the very least you can do is redirect some of the jaw-dropping profits you make toward something that will help these players later in life when these sorts of symptoms may be more prevalent and likelier to impact quality of life.  I can make my peace with "we know this sport is dangerous and there are brain injury risks, but we're going to try and keep it from happening in the first place, and we'll really and truly take care of you if you develop a brain injury, and not just by writing your family a check after you kill yourself" but not with "well, them's the risks, but gosh, our new football training center sure is pretty, isn't it?"

[fullmetal]

Driving is just transportation, and severe injury or harm is not an expected part of the driving experience.  Violent trauma is part of the football experience (glorified, even), and the assumption of each risk is not equivalent.

Having said that, people still do risky things all the time...so what do we know.

I agree with ColoradoTree's evaluation of the moral responsibility Stanford has as an institution that sponsors a college football team, and as a Stanford supporter, I think we should support and hold Stanford to such a responsibility--to protect the student-athletes from harm in the course of a game.

How far is the imaging research along into being able to detect CTE?  What's the major obstacle...?

[fullmetal]

Driving is just transportation, and severe injury or harm is not an expected part of the driving experience.  Violent trauma is part of the football experience (glorified, even), and the assumption of each risk is not equivalent.

Having said that, people still do risky things all the time...so what do we know.

I agree with ColoradoTree's evaluation of the moral responsibility Stanford has as an institution that sponsors a college football team, and as a Stanford supporter, I think we should support and hold Stanford to such a responsibility--to protect the student-athletes from harm in the course of a game.

How far is the imaging research along into being able to detect CTE?  What's the major obstacle...?

[2006alum]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

Fatalities in cars are a side effect not a design feature. For a number of positions in football, repetitive head trauma is part and parcel to the game. Either that has to be eliminated or the sport will be. Will you let stupac jr be the test case for medical advancements in brain trauma? I sure as h$ck wouldn't let my kid be.

[2006alum]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

Fatalities in cars are a side effect not a design feature. For a number of positions in football, repetitive head trauma is part and parcel to the game. Either that has to be eliminated or the sport will be. Will you let stupac jr be the test case for medical advancements in brain trauma? I sure as h$ck wouldn't let my kid be.

[ColoradoTree]

IANAL, but it seems to me like it would be really hard to simultaneously show:

1) The harm definitively came from the time at the school (Hilinski's almost certainly didn't, right? He hardly played for WSU).
2) The school definitely knew about the potential harms.
3) The student definitely didn't (or wasn't adequately warned or whatever).
4) The school didn't take any preventative measures to lessen the harm.

It seems to me like all or most of those would be necessary for a finding against a school, and it seems like it's going to be a tall order. The NFL? Sure, they were actively hushing this up. But I've never heard that individual schools or the NCAA were involved in anything like that, and they've generally been farther out in front of the problems than the NFL.

I'm not sure you'd have to prove each of those things.  Ultimately, in a negligence case, you need to show that the defendant had a duty to you, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused you damages.  Here's a good rundown of the legal theories in the Ploetz case that just settled:

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...on-lawsuit

In short, the theory was that the NCAA had a duty to minimize the risk of injury and that, despite knowing about brain injury risks, failed to meet that duty.  

Sure, assumption of risk would be a defense, and it might ultimately win some of those lawsuits, as we all know football is inherently dangerous.  But do many of today's players really appreciate the risk of lifelong debilitating brain injury when they send in their letters of intent?  Did a player really know it was that dangerous?  And whether they took protective measures is relevant, but the question, to me, would be whether they took adequate protective measures, not whether they took any measures at all.  As for having to definitively prove that it came solely from Hilinski's time at WSU, you wouldn't have to do that.  There are lots of negligence cases in various areas where multiple factors contribute to the harm.  Depending on the state, in a hypothetical case against the college alone, a jury could require the college to pay the entire sum of damages, and then the college would then be allowed to go after other likely contributors (here, the high school where he played, the college whose player gave him a concussion, etc.) for their share of the damages.  Or, the college could be adjudged only liable for a certain percentage of fault, and it would only have to pay that percentage of the damages.  But you wouldn't have to conclusively prove his time at WSU was the only cause of his CTE, just that it was a cause.  (Specifically for Hilinski, I know he wasn't the primary starter, but he still had 209 career attempts in two seasons, so I'm not sure it's fair to say he barely played. He played enough to get hurt, and he practiced for two years.)

But that's just the legal side, and I'm not disagreeing with your primary point that these cases would be tough for plaintiffs to win.  My main point, as shown in my earlier post, is that there is something deeply wrong about the NCAA--an organization that holds itself out as protecting student-athletes and keeping them safe--and its member institutions reaping the profits from this sport and publicly crowing about their sacred responsibility to ensure the safety of their players while, when push comes to shove, telling players, "hey, tough luck, but you knew what you were getting into."  It may be legally defensible (though we don't know that for sure, as neither side has ever been willing to take one of these cases to verdict), but it isn't morally defensible for a school or the NCAA to make that argument.

[ColoradoTree]

IANAL, but it seems to me like it would be really hard to simultaneously show:

1) The harm definitively came from the time at the school (Hilinski's almost certainly didn't, right? He hardly played for WSU).
2) The school definitely knew about the potential harms.
3) The student definitely didn't (or wasn't adequately warned or whatever).
4) The school didn't take any preventative measures to lessen the harm.

It seems to me like all or most of those would be necessary for a finding against a school, and it seems like it's going to be a tall order. The NFL? Sure, they were actively hushing this up. But I've never heard that individual schools or the NCAA were involved in anything like that, and they've generally been farther out in front of the problems than the NFL.

I'm not sure you'd have to prove each of those things.  Ultimately, in a negligence case, you need to show that the defendant had a duty to you, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused you damages.  Here's a good rundown of the legal theories in the Ploetz case that just settled:

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...on-lawsuit

In short, the theory was that the NCAA had a duty to minimize the risk of injury and that, despite knowing about brain injury risks, failed to meet that duty.  

Sure, assumption of risk would be a defense, and it might ultimately win some of those lawsuits, as we all know football is inherently dangerous.  But do many of today's players really appreciate the risk of lifelong debilitating brain injury when they send in their letters of intent?  Did a player really know it was that dangerous?  And whether they took protective measures is relevant, but the question, to me, would be whether they took adequate protective measures, not whether they took any measures at all.  As for having to definitively prove that it came solely from Hilinski's time at WSU, you wouldn't have to do that.  There are lots of negligence cases in various areas where multiple factors contribute to the harm.  Depending on the state, in a hypothetical case against the college alone, a jury could require the college to pay the entire sum of damages, and then the college would then be allowed to go after other likely contributors (here, the high school where he played, the college whose player gave him a concussion, etc.) for their share of the damages.  Or, the college could be adjudged only liable for a certain percentage of fault, and it would only have to pay that percentage of the damages.  But you wouldn't have to conclusively prove his time at WSU was the only cause of his CTE, just that it was a cause.  (Specifically for Hilinski, I know he wasn't the primary starter, but he still had 209 career attempts in two seasons, so I'm not sure it's fair to say he barely played. He played enough to get hurt, and he practiced for two years.)

But that's just the legal side, and I'm not disagreeing with your primary point that these cases would be tough for plaintiffs to win.  My main point, as shown in my earlier post, is that there is something deeply wrong about the NCAA--an organization that holds itself out as protecting student-athletes and keeping them safe--and its member institutions reaping the profits from this sport and publicly crowing about their sacred responsibility to ensure the safety of their players while, when push comes to shove, telling players, "hey, tough luck, but you knew what you were getting into."  It may be legally defensible (though we don't know that for sure, as neither side has ever been willing to take one of these cases to verdict), but it isn't morally defensible for a school or the NCAA to make that argument.

[qwerty49]

There needs to be a baseline metric at some point.

I’m not even sure that a medical metric exists, but say just for an argument that a player gets an MRI before he participates in his first contact activity. And again once his collegiate career ends.

Then in theory there would be something to assess what portion of trauma is attributable to college football. And the insurance metrics can be overlaid to the baseline.

All in theory, of course, as a non-post-mortem medical metric may not exist, and how could you say x% of CTE was due to the college years. But I do like the concept of paying into a medical or insurance fund for the players.

[qwerty49]

There needs to be a baseline metric at some point.

I’m not even sure that a medical metric exists, but say just for an argument that a player gets an MRI before he participates in his first contact activity. And again once his collegiate career ends.

Then in theory there would be something to assess what portion of trauma is attributable to college football. And the insurance metrics can be overlaid to the baseline.

All in theory, of course, as a non-post-mortem medical metric may not exist, and how could you say x% of CTE was due to the college years. But I do like the concept of paying into a medical or insurance fund for the players.

[M T]

I'm curious why this topic was moved from Normal Threads to Important Threads?  [I'm guessing it wasn't intentional and may get moved back.]

[M T]

I'm curious why this topic was moved from Normal Threads to Important Threads?  [I'm guessing it wasn't intentional and may get moved back.]

[2006alum]

I'm curious why this topic was moved from Normal Threads to Important Threads?  [I'm guessing it wasn't intentional and may get moved back.]

Apologies, I may have hit it by accident. I'm on my phone on a train and my connection has been really bad. Fixed.

[2006alum]

I'm curious why this topic was moved from Normal Threads to Important Threads?  [I'm guessing it wasn't intentional and may get moved back.]

Apologies, I may have hit it by accident. I'm on my phone on a train and my connection has been really bad. Fixed.

[stupac2]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

Fatalities in cars are a side effect not a design feature. For a number of positions in football, repetitive head trauma is part and parcel to the game. Either that has to be eliminated or the sport will be. Will you let stupac jr be the test case for medical advancements in brain trauma? I sure as h$ck wouldn't let my kid be.

...Fatalities in cars are not a side effect. It's a design feature every bit as much as it is in football. You're giving people with limited informational intake, awareness, and processing capacity a one-ton machine capable of going in excess of 100 mph, putting them onto inadequately maintained, regulated, and patrolled streets, and having them go at it. Fatalities are expected and for some damned reason tolerated despite being a national crisis. People's blindness to the insanity of our car-centric transportation regime is beyond baffling. I don't see how you could possibly look at this situation and the situation in football and think they're totally different. In both cases there's a set of rules and goals and they're inadequate to prevent harm. You can argue that the economic gains from driving make it inapt, but that's ignoring that, unlike football, the alternative isn't "no driving", there are lots of non-insane transportation methods out there.

Regardless of my analogy, does football need to change? Maybe. I think people are wildly jumping the gun on the available evidence here. For instance everyone seems to say that the sub-concussive impacts are more important than actual concussions, but where does that come from? How do you possibly track that? Animal models? Those are great. And the compositional problems in these studies are massive, something that I don't think gets nearly enough coverage.

It just seems to me that, given cases like this one where someone who played an already-protected position, hardly accrued any time in college, and still had a super-advanced case of CTE, there's a lot more going on here than we understand. Given his progression damn near everyone who's ever played football (or soccer or hockey or rugby) should have it. They don't. So clearly something else is going on, and the question is what. Until we can study this in living people I don't think we'll really understand it.

As for letting my kid play, he's currently 2, so no. In a dozen years when it becomes relevant: maybe? (I am disinclined to do pop warner or equivalent because it seems pointless.) He seems to be a lefty (vastly preferring the left hand for throwing, which he's started to do with gusto right now) so baseball seems a more enticing prospect. But insofar as one can plan for these things I'd rather let him make his own decision.

[stupac2]

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

---

Seems like the writing is on the wall. They said his brain looked like a 65-year-old's at 21. What parent wants to let their kid do that to themselves?

The vast majority of players don't have trauma this bad. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but everyone's still fine driving.

I also think that our understanding of CTE is going to change dramatically once it can be diagnosed before death.

Fatalities in cars are a side effect not a design feature. For a number of positions in football, repetitive head trauma is part and parcel to the game. Either that has to be eliminated or the sport will be. Will you let stupac jr be the test case for medical advancements in brain trauma? I sure as h$ck wouldn't let my kid be.

...Fatalities in cars are not a side effect. It's a design feature every bit as much as it is in football. You're giving people with limited informational intake, awareness, and processing capacity a one-ton machine capable of going in excess of 100 mph, putting them onto inadequately maintained, regulated, and patrolled streets, and having them go at it. Fatalities are expected and for some damned reason tolerated despite being a national crisis. People's blindness to the insanity of our car-centric transportation regime is beyond baffling. I don't see how you could possibly look at this situation and the situation in football and think they're totally different. In both cases there's a set of rules and goals and they're inadequate to prevent harm. You can argue that the economic gains from driving make it inapt, but that's ignoring that, unlike football, the alternative isn't "no driving", there are lots of non-insane transportation methods out there.

Regardless of my analogy, does football need to change? Maybe. I think people are wildly jumping the gun on the available evidence here. For instance everyone seems to say that the sub-concussive impacts are more important than actual concussions, but where does that come from? How do you possibly track that? Animal models? Those are great. And the compositional problems in these studies are massive, something that I don't think gets nearly enough coverage.

It just seems to me that, given cases like this one where someone who played an already-protected position, hardly accrued any time in college, and still had a super-advanced case of CTE, there's a lot more going on here than we understand. Given his progression damn near everyone who's ever played football (or soccer or hockey or rugby) should have it. They don't. So clearly something else is going on, and the question is what. Until we can study this in living people I don't think we'll really understand it.

As for letting my kid play, he's currently 2, so no. In a dozen years when it becomes relevant: maybe? (I am disinclined to do pop warner or equivalent because it seems pointless.) He seems to be a lefty (vastly preferring the left hand for throwing, which he's started to do with gusto right now) so baseball seems a more enticing prospect. But insofar as one can plan for these things I'd rather let him make his own decision.

[82lsju]

related to this the new NFL "use of helmet" rule has a video out showing what is a penalty and what can get you ejected.  I'm thinking there could be a lot of penalties and ejections in the NFL in 2018

https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/statu...a-video%2F

[82lsju]

related to this the new NFL "use of helmet" rule has a video out showing what is a penalty and what can get you ejected.  I'm thinking there could be a lot of penalties and ejections in the NFL in 2018

https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/statu...a-video%2F

[needle]

I'll believe CTE concerns have a remote chance of "killing" the sport from the bottom up when the Lehighs and Lafayettes of the CFB universe have trouble fielding teams.

That said, CTE in such a young guy will probably have some fallout among current/potential players.

[needle]

I'll believe CTE concerns have a remote chance of "killing" the sport from the bottom up when the Lehighs and Lafayettes of the CFB universe have trouble fielding teams.

That said, CTE in such a young guy will probably have some fallout among current/potential players.

[BobK]

While the subject seems males and football and granted several Stanford football players have retired due to concussions so have Stanford Women

Basketball
Soccer
Volleyball 

It’s a concern for all athletes

[BobK]

While the subject seems males and football and granted several Stanford football players have retired due to concussions so have Stanford Women

Basketball
Soccer
Volleyball 

It’s a concern for all athletes

[lex24]

So are there other causes for CTE. I’m becoming a little skeptical. Because I see lawyers lurking.

[lex24]

So are there other causes for CTE. I’m becoming a little skeptical. Because I see lawyers lurking.

[qwerty49]

So are there other causes for CTE. I’m becoming a little skeptical. Because I see lawyers lurking.

What other causes are you referring to? Head injuries can occur in many sports.

[qwerty49]

So are there other causes for CTE. I’m becoming a little skeptical. Because I see lawyers lurking.

What other causes are you referring to? Head injuries can occur in many sports.

[JJJ]

A long and heavy read, for those who want to put themselves through it. RIP.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...ate-qb-cte

[JJJ]

A long and heavy read, for those who want to put themselves through it. RIP.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018...ate-qb-cte