MACC game

[Warthog]

Well, I can't let this go on any longer. Please, when referring to the championship game of the Mid-America Conference, the correct name to use is the "MARATHON Mac Championship". Similar to the NOKIA Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, etc. Now go buy a tank of gas.

[hammb]

Well, I can't let this go on any longer. Please, when referring to the championship game of the Mid-America Conference, the correct name to use is the "MARATHON Mac Championship". Similar to the NOKIA Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, etc. Now go buy a tank of gas.

Hahaha! Should've known you were gonna chime in.

[jacojdm]

Well, I can't let this go on any longer. Please, when referring to the championship game of the Mid-America Conference, the correct name to use is the "MARATHON Mac Championship". Similar to the NOKIA Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, etc. Now go buy a tank of gas.

actually, that's not exactly right. it's the MARATHON MAC Championship Presented by Cooper Tires.

[MACMAN]

I was an insurance adjuster for 6 years....I have been inside of mangled cars that people were seriously injured or killed in because some drunk took to the road. I had the pleasure of handling a fatality involving an 18 year old who wiped out a motorcycle when he was drunk.

Don't tell me that DUI's are a minor issue...

once again they are treated as a minor issue by legal restriction. I firmly bellieve that a person who kills folks while driving sober or drunk should be subject to death penalty. Point is this the legal ramification do not match the level of seriousnes of the crime. Secondly based upon that and that folks who get a DUI do 3 days, and can continue to drive make it a joke. More evidence of this is the number of people who have had DUIs and that number every year and how that number is a constant.

now should a person lose his job for geting a DUI? No. Espicaly when the employer is not exposed to liabal in anyway during the event. Could extenuating circumstances show that his level as public figure and this event some how hurts OU, yes it could. But if this is the case than any person who gets a dui should lose thier job. now if every person lost thier job for a dui should then be unhirable in a similar position? Cause lets face OU fires solich for Dui he gets hired by temple or another program in hours, what purpose has it truely served, other than some BIZZARO form of PC where it is acceptable to fire and not first attempt to help an employee ( who the univ inthis case made a very large investment in). what about the employee who is discoved to beat his/her signifcant other and children, fire them? What about the child molester should they be allowed to reside near small children, or should they face a mandatory minimum of life in prison as statistic show clearly they are uncuralbe?
Point is to fire some one, any one for a first offense DUI where no one was injured, on a persons own time where the company can not be held lilable, is equally as ilresponsable as the DUI.

[BelieveNBG]

I was apprehensive about the idea at the time and after watching a great football game with no fan support last night, I hate it even more. Then I think back to the atmosphere that was the 2003 MAC championship game. Sure that game matched the best MAC team ever with one that was pretty darn good, in the strongest year in MAC history, but I still think that you don't have near that atmosphere in Detroit. I know the big boys all play their games on neutral turf, but unless we're going to move it to Saturday's to give people more options (which I'm not sure would even help with our general fan support), I think we have to leave the championship game on the campuses. I think it looks REALLY crappy for the conference to show a championship game on national TV with so few fans there.

This is so right that it needs to be posted again. Put the games back on the campus. I always thought about how great this game was gonna be when UT and BG faced off in the championship. The crowd would be great and even the locals would come to see Omar face off against Bruce for the second time, because this time it would be indoors. OK...so we all know how that turned out With the reallity that these games can come down to NIU vs. Akron type match ups, get the games back to the campus. Rotate East to West each year.

[Flipper]

I was an insurance adjuster for 6 years....I have been inside of mangled cars that people were seriously injured or killed in because some drunk took to the road. I had the pleasure of handling a fatality involving an 18 year old who wiped out a motorcycle when he was drunk.

Don't tell me that DUI's are a minor issue...

once again they are treated as a minor issue by legal restriction. I firmly bellieve that a person who kills folks while driving sober or drunk should be subject to death penalty. Point is this the legal ramification do not match the level of seriousnes of the crime. Secondly based upon that and that folks who get a DUI do 3 days, and can continue to drive make it a joke. More evidence of this is the number of people who have had DUIs and that number every year and how that number is a constant.

now should a person lose his job for geting a DUI? No. Espicaly when the employer is not exposed to liabal in anyway during the event. Could extenuating circumstances show that his level as public figure and this event some how hurts OU, yes it could. But if this is the case than any person who gets a dui should lose thier job. now if every person lost thier job for a dui should then be unhirable in a similar position? Cause lets face OU fires solich for Dui he gets hired by temple or another program in hours, what purpose has it truely served, other than some BIZZARO form of PC where it is acceptable to fire and not first attempt to help an employee ( who the univ inthis case made a very large investment in). what about the employee who is discoved to beat his/her signifcant other and children, fire them? What about the child molester should they be allowed to reside near small children, or should they face a mandatory minimum of life in prison as statistic show clearly they are uncuralbe?
Point is to fire some one, any one for a first offense DUI where no one was injured, on a persons own time where the company can not be held lilable, is equally as ilresponsable as the DUI.

Who may or may not hire the guy next isn't material. You make the decision to fire him or not based on your view of your institutuion's moral compass. If you're going top stand on principles you HAVE to be willing to filter out al of the extraneous issues (money, etc...) or you're not really standing on your principles.

I have worked for several companies that had a zero tolerance policy for DUI's. Here in Ohio, that was an outgrowth of the Cincinnati Vs Ferguson case. The State Supreme Court found that a person's employer could be found liable for the employee's negligence in operating a motor vehicle even if that employee were operating his or her own vehicle outside of their company duties. So, you could be driving yor car on the weekend, get drunk and hit someone and your employer could be brought into it under their insurance (that's pretty F'd up)

I wonder if Botox knows if that was overturned?

[Ineedbotox]

Well, I can't let this go on any longer. Please, when referring to the championship game of the Mid-America Conference, the correct name to use is the "MARATHON Mac Championship". Similar to the NOKIA Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, etc. Now go buy a tank of gas.

You know, I thought about the fact that there were a bunch of Marathon employees here. Did they send out any company e-mails? Something like:

For anyone whose interested, we have MAC Championship game tickets available. Hurry, these are running out fast. Please limit your requests to 100 tickets per employee. Since the game is approaching quickly, we are giving these out for free...

[Flipper]

It wasn't cincy /Ferguson that extened UMBI coverage to employees....it was Pontzer v Liberty Mutual...silly me.

[Ineedbotox]

Here in Ohio, that was an outgrowth of the Cincinnati Vs Ferguson case. The State Supreme Court found that a person's employer could be found liable for the employee's negligence in operating a motor vehicle even if that employee were operating his or her own vehicle outside of their company duties. So, you could be driving yor car on the weekend, get drunk and hit someone and your employer could be brought into it under their insurance (that's pretty F'd up)

I wonder if Botox knows if that was overturned?

I know NOTHING about Ohio law so I have no idea. But on the issue of employer liability in general, it would make sense that if it is a company owned car, that if you entrust one of your vehicles to someone, you can be held liable for letting a drunk loser drive one of your cars, even if they are not working at the time. It's called the doctrine of negligent entrustment. If you have a reason to suspect that this person is not a responsible driver (i.e., past DUI's or accidents), then you should not give them access to a company vehicle.

But if you have an employee owned vehicle, the only way the employer could be held liable would be if the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment while driving the vehicle. Your hypo though said that it was the employee's own vehicle, on non-company business. That makes no sense, & if that's what happened, it SHOULD have been overturned.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Ohio U. owned Solich's car?...

[PGY Tiercel]

I know NOTHING about Ohio law so I have no idea. But on the issue of employer liability in general, it would make sense that if it is a company owned car, that if you entrust one of your vehicles to someone, you can be held liable for letting a drunk loser drive one of your cars, even if they are not working at the time. It's called the doctrine of negligent entrustment. If you have a reason to suspect that this person is not a responsible driver (i.e., past DUI's or accidents), then you should not give them access to a company vehicle.

But if you have an employee owned vehicle, the only way the employer could be held liable would be if the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment while driving the vehicle.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Ohio U. owned Solich's car?...

No, It was a loan/gift (in that he gets to use it for free, but doesn't own it) from a dealer. A standard practice with college sport coaches. It would get the Auto dealer those elusive OU season tickets But, would this put liability on the auto dealer? And in such maybe jepordize relations with OU and contributions it might receive from said Auto dealer

[Warthog]

Well, I can't let this go on any longer. Please, when referring to the championship game of the Mid-America Conference, the correct name to use is the "MARATHON Mac Championship". Similar to the NOKIA Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, etc. Now go buy a tank of gas.

You know, I thought about the fact that there were a bunch of Marathon employees here. Did they send out any company e-mails? Something like:

For anyone whose interested, we have MAC Championship game tickets available. Hurry, these are running out fast. Please limit your requests to 100 tickets per employee. Since the game is approaching quickly, we are giving these out for free...

Actually, no, nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch. Another guy and I here commented on that yesterday. Our company is forking over some serious dollars to put our name out as sponsor of this event and yet there was not a single mention here of it.

You would think they would have been giving tickets to employees just to have more people there and lend some legitimacy to the event. But nothing.

There was a promotion going on where, if you bought 8 gals of gas, you could get a voucher to purchase a MACC ticket for $5. Two problems with this.

First, this offer was only valid in Detroit-area, Toledo-area, and BG. The freakin' head office with 1500 employees (several hundred graduates of MAC schools) is in Findlay and the stations there didn't have the coupons. Also, what about the rest of the MAC? We have Marathon stations throughout the MAC geography, yet none of those fans had acces to the voucher either.

Second, I went to Newman's on Sunday 11/20 (after we beat Miami so I thought we had a good shot at playing in the MACC game and I thought I might go if I can get a ticket for $5) and asked about the voucher. The kid looked at me like I had three heads. Oh well. So then I was Westside Marathon on the afternoon of the UT game and asked there. The guy there at least knew what I was talking about but didn't have any vouchers. He said that he talked to someone and that they would be delivering the vouchers by 7:00 that night, thinking there might be some interest in the MACC in BG after the game. Well that didn't pan out, did it.

None the less, I think Marathon did a poor job supporting the game.

[Flipper]

But if you have an employee owned vehicle, the only way the employer could be held liable would be if the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment while driving the vehicle. Your hypo though said that it was the employee's own vehicle, on non-company business. That makes no sense, & if that's what happened, it SHOULD have been overturned.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Ohio U. owned Solich's car?...

You would think so but....in Pontzer vs Liberty Mutual the court ruled differently. Scott Pontzer was killed in an auto accident while driving a car owned by his wife. The court found in a 4-3 vote that Mr Pontzer was entitled to coverage under Mrs Pontzer's employer's (Superior Dairy) commercial vehicle policy for uninsured/underinsured motorists. It found that she was also entitled to coverage under their excess umbrella because it provided coverage for uninusred and underinsured motorists.

The court later found in the Galatis case that such coverage does not include activities outside the scope of employment.

I was a territory manager in P&C Insurance when this (pontzer) came down. My agents were absoloutely FREAKING out because it seemingly extended UM/UIM coverage globally....

I think OU could face some liability issues re Solich driving a comped vehicle if the vehicle was provided via his contract with OU....if OU had no role in procuring the vehicle, they're probably safe.

An equally interesting question surrounds scope of employment. As a well publicized figure representing the University, when is Solich not within the scope of his employmetn when interacting with the general public?

[Ineedbotox]

Dangit Flipper, you made me look that one up. FYI, the Ohio Legislature remedied the situation, effectively overturning Pontzer in 2001 (Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 3937.18 ).

I don't do coverage work, but when you said that, it didn't make any sense. Apparently, in the Pontzer case, it was the wife's car, but the dead husband worked for the company with the UIM coverage. But the cases in between the Pontzer case & the legislation were the interesting ones. The insurance companies had to go ahead & pony up their UIM coverage in bad cases. I.e., one case had a bad wreck, and the lady's attorney demanded the entire $ 25 million in UIM coverage from the employer's policy. Yes, it got overturned, and yes I used to make my money off of insurance companies. But you gotta love somebody other than the insurance companies having some power for once!