UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

From an ESPN article:

CHICAGO -- Two more former college football players have sued the NCAA, saying it failed to protect them from concussions.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and it seeks class-action status. The plaintiffs are former Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek Owens and former Northwestern offensive lineman Alex Rucks. Both claim they have suffered preventable brain trauma.

Attorneys for the players say the NCAA failed to establish a head injury screening system and hasn't enforced safety measures introduced in the 1970s. The lawsuit seeks to have the NCAA institute a medical monitoring program.

The NCAA called the lawsuit "merely a copycat" of a lawsuit filed earlier this month by former Eastern Illinois player Adrian Arrington seeking class-action status. The NCAA says Wednesday's lawsuit "contains gross misstatements" and plaintiff's attorneys "have a fundamental misunderstanding" of the NCAA.

The NCAA says it has addressed head injuries "through a combination of playing rules, equipment requirements, and medical best practices."

This is the NCAA's fault how? I'm a little tired of all the frivolous lawsuits these days. You play a sport where you run the risk of a concussion and then sue because, guess what, you got a concussion. If the medical staff cleared you to play and you chose to get back on the field, it's on you after that. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Not saying NCAA has any fault here whatsoever. I would suggest,however,that you put yourself in the shoes of a 19 or 20 year old kid who is trying to keep a scholarship and ,in his mind,is less than he should be if he tells an insistent coach he doesn't think he should be playing. To much power is invested in some coaches who care less about the kid than they do about winning. The only authority that some coaches recognize is the NCAA. Winning at all cost has become the mantra (sp?) for college football. When a guy like Mark Richt is on the hot seat,that tells you something is bad,bad wrong with college football. The NCAA probably should have a good look at the precausionary plans regarding concusions that the Ivy League has initiated.

The thing that is most wrong with NCAA football is ENORMOUS MONEY which drives the rest of the decisions.

Athletes always have the option not to play but that means many will not be able to pay for school. Hard choice for a 19-20 year old.

I am not sure of the differences in rules bewteen high school and college but it seems our high schools in Rogers sit players after any hard hit just to be sure it is not a concussion. Probably a smart precaution.

I'm not sure such a forceful assertion on this issue holds much merit for a couple of reasons. One, by saying you are tired of 'frivolous lawsuits', that would imply that you are intimately familiar with the details of this case. I think it is safe to say that you haven't read the particular brief's filed by either side, and as such don't really know if this suit classifies as frivolous or not. For all we know, the Plaintiff's could have a document in their possession signed by the NCAA prez that states "players with concussions will suffer great harm but nonetheless are to be forced into playing to protect our revenue". Of course this is just a hypothetical. The point is it is too soon to call BS or not on this lawsuit.

Secondly, what you are talking about from the second sentence onward is essentially an assumption of the risk defense. While such a defense can be and is valid in certain situations, I'm not sure that in this instance it is appropriate. If at all, this would be a secondary assumption of the risk claim which is basically where the defendant (NCAA) owes a duty of care to Plaintiff (Owens), but a risk known to player (Owens) happens (concussion) in breach of defendant's (NCAA) duty (to protect players). If this is the case, then the court will apportion blame with a comparative fault test, i.e. the NCAA could be found liable to a degree.

Full disclosure, I suffered two concussions in a season and one even knocked me out cold for a few minutes. That being said, UCA coaches and staff did everything in the world to make sure I was better before I got back on the field. Tbh, the program spent more money on me in that semester on evaluations, doctor visits, MRI's, you name it, than a full year's tuition and room and board. I have never thought that they were at fault for anything.

While I personally don't think that Owens will win his case, I simply wanted to point out that making a rash judgement on legal matters we know next to nothing about is likely premature. We probably shouldn't be lambasting a former bear for exercising his rights as a U.S. citizen.

I apologize for the tone of my original post. It wasn't fair for me to make those kinds of declarative statements. I don't wish what happened to Derek on anyone and I can't even begin to imagine what that's like to have a career ended early outside of your control. I guess my only point is that the lawsuit is against the NCAA whose policy is that if a concussion is even suspected a player must be pulled from all activity until cleared by a physician who has extensive training in concussion evaluation and management. It is a system that leans on the side of caution and unless the physician is somehow in on the whole thing, the athlete should receive the care that he/she needs. Maybe I'm missing something here and this lawsuit will keep what happened to Derek from happening to someone else. If so, I'll gladly admit that I was wrong and be happy that a positive change was made. Again, my apologies for the original post.

FWIW, I never thought that you were stating that "He got what he deserved". As you know, it can be tough at times to adequately express oneself on this type of medium as it can be easy for someone to misinterpret the intent of a particular post. In no way was my response an attack on you.

Honestly, I think we are on the same page on this issue. As stated earlier, I am not confident that this type of suit will result in a black eye judgement against the NCAA. My previous post was mostly intended to operate as a counterpoint to your statement and nothing more. As you iterated, if this suit can serve to help future student-athletes from sustaining these type of injuries, wonderful. If said suit has no merit then we can move on. Either way, the fact that we as former players/fans are cognizant of the dangers of this game can only help concerning a player's future safety. That is why I do not feel that the public should dismiss this problem so easily (nor am I asserting that you attempted to do so).