06-26-2018, 09:47 AM
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.
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.