What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Clarett and Mike Williams BLOCKED! (1 Viewer)

What you're REALLY going to see happen is kids that are very good at football move up a year and graduate early so this rule won't hurt them as much.
This is an interesting point, but is it possible? Moving up and graduating early from high school and exceling in Football would be a major undertaking for the players. Blah, blah, blath....
, the NFL stopping him is the definition of unfair labour laws.
There are alot of people that disagree with this and I'm one of them. Please explain why it's the definition of unfair labour laws. In my opinion he has several options at his disposal if he indeed would want to leave college and play football and get paid (CFL, Arena).
It's also bad business, and unethical. The NFL could care less about the health of their players, they care about the bottom line. Their bottom line means keeping the NCAA as their free farm system.
Actually it's good business you making your league more competitive and keeping the prices lower for the fans. I'm not sure how it is unethical to keep him from joing the NFL please explain. Also if you don't mind please point out why you think the league does not care about it's players. They provide the best sports doctors in the world and also provide excellent health benefits once a player retires. As far as the NCAA being a free farm system that's not true. The top players have good scholorships and have a chance at an excellent education at there schools they should take advantage of. My problem with this is they should also give a living budget to the players to make life a little easier and less hectic. Otherwise the NFL uses college student the same way any other business would.
If ANYONE has the skills to play, they should be let in. That's what makes professional sports leagues great.
Having the skills is only one part of the equation, the other is having the maturity to play at a pro level. Otherwise you will have more Dillons, Owens, Green, etc. than you do now. The NFL is the high quality product we see because of the system they use now. Personally, Clarrett is only doing this because he screwed up by lying and breaking the NCAA rules. I have no sympathy for him and see no reason to change the rules for him. Now for some of the others I think they got drawn to the money like a moth to a flame.
 
Monopoly: A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). I would think that's a perfect definition for the NFL. The Arena league is not a close substitute for the NFL.It doesn't matter if one out of 100 HS players can be in the NFL. Just because the majority can't doesn't mean a rule should be implemented banning everyone.
The arena leage is a replacement for the NFL as is the CFL.
 
There are alot of people that disagree with this and I'm one of them. Please explain why it's the definition of unfair labour laws. In my opinion he has several options at his disposal if he indeed would want to leave college and play football and get paid (CFL, Arena). Actually it's good business you making your league more competitive and keeping the prices lower for the fans. I'm not sure how it is unethical to keep him from joing the NFL please explain. Also if you don't mind please point out why you think the league does not care about it's players. They provide the best sports doctors in the world and also provide excellent health benefits once a player retires. As far as the NCAA being a free farm system that's not true. The top players have good scholorships and have a chance at an excellent education at there schools they should take advantage of. My problem with this is they should also give a living budget to the players to make life a little easier and less hectic. Otherwise the NFL uses college student the same way any other business would.Having the skills is only one part of the equation, the other is having the maturity to play at a pro level. Otherwise you will have more Dillons, Owens, Green, etc. than you do now. The NFL is the high quality product we see because of the system they use now. Personally, Clarrett is only doing this because he screwed up by lying and breaking the NCAA rules. I have no sympathy for him and see no reason to change the rules for him. Now for some of the others I think they got drawn to the money like a moth to a flame.
1) the NFL is a monopoly in my opinion, and in most economic definitions of a monopoly. We could argue this, but I don't see much of a point. For the NFL to exist, it needs to be a monopoly. (Kinda like why the two women basketball leagues joined to become one--I think. My WNBA history is somewhat lacking).2) I disagree that the NFL is more competitive because of this. In fact, I think it's the opposite. By keeping certain players out, they become more competitive? That is illogical. I also think that if you take two players, put one in the NFL for two years and one in college for two years, in year three the one with college experience will not be as good.3) Farm systems are expensive. The NFL doesn't have one, because it has the NCAA.4) By "skills" I mean the total package. Obviously Clarett and Mike Williams appear to have the skills just as much as anyone else in the draft, because there's a strong market for their skills. Whether or not TO is good for the game is not up to me or you, but he's certainly high quality.5) I will agree that he is a bad figure for this case. Of course, that's just because the way the media portrayed him that way :rotflmao: Look at Freddie Adu and Lebron James. If a player is talented enough to play, let him play! I really believe this could come back to bite the NFL if more talented kids avoid the NFL in favor of other sports leagues.
 
The arena leage is a replacement for the NFL as is the CFL.
Technically the CFL is not a replacement for AMERICAN football. Otherwise you could say no sports leagues have monopolies (European basketball, Mexican baseball, etc.).The AFL's existence does not make the NFL less of a monopoly. See my many earlier points on this. What if I decide to make a basketball league with 14 friends, and we have three teams? And yes, I pay salaries to everyone. Now does my league serve as a suitable replacement for the NBA, and infringe on the basketball market?I will let this die soon, I promise :wall:
 
Technically the CFL is not a replacement for AMERICAN football. Otherwise you could say no sports leagues have monopolies (European basketball, Mexican baseball, etc.).The AFL's existence does not make the NFL less of a monopoly. See my many earlier points on this. What if I decide to make a basketball league with 14 friends, and we have three teams? And yes, I pay salaries to everyone. Now does my league serve as a suitable replacement for the NBA, and infringe on the basketball market?I will let this die soon, I promise :wall:
The CFL to me is a valid replacement in my mind and a close replacement. You have to look at how the sport relates to the American version. They pay good salaries and it can prepare you for a stint in the NFL. I hate baseball so have no way of knowing about Mexican baseball and have not watched basketball (Barring Texas play-off games (Dallas, San Antonio, Houston) since the afore mentioned decline in quality but I would assume the Eurpeon league is a good replacement to earn wages and be able to perform. Good NFL players have come from both Arena & the CFL. Also NFL players have went to the CFL to hone there skils and come back to the NFL succesfully.But this thread has gone along way and you defended you point fairly well and there is no need to drag it out any more.
 
I don't think American law states that a Canadian market will prevent an American product from having a monopoly. I'm not sure on this one. MT?My gut feeling is that Canadian football doesn't justify the NFL having a monopoly on American football. Who would want to move to Canada anyway :boxing:

 
If you feel that roster space is the issue that's watering down the league, I've got news:The last 2 or 3 guys on the bench don't play anyway, and if they had to, the under-prepared, talented rookies would probably do as well as the veteran stiffs.Preventing veteran stiffs from being on the the end of the bench rather than young guys with potential is only hurting the stiffs (who I do feel for, honestly), not the overall NBA product.
Holy...but the NFL doesn't have the wasted roster space built in. Players get cut every year that are capable of contributing in the league. I don't want to see the "He Hate Me's" not get an opportunity because some grabbed Manning's brother out of high school because he showed potential. Ron Powlus (sp?) is another example of someone the would have been drafted by the NFL before entering college that would have flamed out.Chase...The NFL has built it's self into the premier league. Obviously they know what they're doing. It's nice that you have an opinion, but why should they be forced to change a legal business model by outsiders that have no vested interest or a lack of knowledge of what works.
 
The way the NBA is set up, there is simply no room or time to teach fundamentals. They are supposed to have learned that already.
I don't think this is correct. I've gotten to work with a few NBA coaches at summer basketball camps back when I was coaching, and they stressed that their teams worked on basic fundamentals quite a bit in their practices, spending a lot of time on stuff as simple as reverse pivots.
 
Hmmm...I can't wait for the day when one of youngsters permanently injured/killed and the family sues the NFL for letting kids play with fully developed men.

 
Chase...The NFL has built it's self into the premier league. Obviously they know what they're doing. It's nice that you have an opinion, but why should they be forced to change a legal business model by outsiders that have no vested interest or a lack of knowledge of what works.
MLB built itself into the premeir league, but does anyone think they know what they're doing?I know Clarett does not equal Jackie Robinson, but saying a league can do whatever it wants isn't fair either. If the NFL wanted to exclude certain people (whether or not they're doing that here is debatable), would that be ok? No. Just because it's the NFL doesn't mean its right.
 
I don't think American law states that a Canadian market will prevent an American product from having a monopoly. I'm not sure on this one. MT?My gut feeling is that Canadian football doesn't justify the NFL having a monopoly on American football. Who would want to move to Canada anyway :boxing:
Doug Flutie :eek:
 
My gut feeling is that Canadian football doesn't justify the NFL having a monopoly on American football.
There's no law against being a monopoly. There's a law against "monopolization," which (to paraphrase) means using unfair business tactics to become a monopoly. Using fair tactics is dandy.But to answer your question, "market power" (the degree to which monopoly status is said to exist) is generally measured by price elasticity. So the NFL would be considered a monopoly based on how much it could raise prices without losing business. If raising prices doesn't affect sales all that much, it doesn't really matter whether the reason is competition from the CFL, competition from movie theaters, or competition from the opera.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MLB built itself into the premeir league, but does anyone think they know what they're doing?I know Clarett does not equal Jackie Robinson, but saying a league can do whatever it wants isn't fair either. If the NFL wanted to exclude certain people (whether or not they're doing that here is debatable), would that be ok? No. Just because it's the NFL doesn't mean its right.
First off, putting Clarett & Jackie Robinson in the same sentence is a travesty & lessens your credibility, IMO. This in no way, shape, or form is illegal discrimination by any stretch of imagination, whereas denial based on race clearly is, and should be. You need to drop this argument.Secondly, this is not an equal opportunity issue, regardless of how much you want it to be. If you think it is, then you need to have someone explain the law to you.Thirdly, as long as companies & corporations are complying with the law, they have the right to organize & run their business any way they like. Would you have it any other way in this country? Talk about wanting to deny people their rights & opportunities. You are trying to deny much more than the NFL is trying to deny Clarett. Are you a socialist? I'm not being a smart alec - that's a serious question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, putting Clarett & Jackie Robinson in the same sentence is a travesty & lessens your credibility, IMO. This in no way, shape, or form is illegal discrimination by any stretch of imagination, whereas denial based on race clearly is, and should be. You need to drop this argument.Secondly, this is not an equal opportunity issue, regardless of how much you want it to be. If you think it is, then you need to have someone explain the law to you.Thirdly, as long as companies & corporations are complying with the law, they have the right to organize & run their business any way they like. Would you have it any other way in this country? Talk about wanting to deny people their rights & opportunities. You are trying to deny much more than the NFL is trying to deny Clarett. Are you a socialist? I'm not being a smart alec - that's a serious question.
No I'm not a socialist.I don't even care about the legal side of it anymore--I don't understand why NFL fans think a NFL calibre player shouldn't be allowed to play. If he was 24 it wouldn't matter if he wasn't three years removed from HS. Do you really think this is a good rule?One could also argue that if for some reason HS players started entering the draft and being selected (I don't foresee this) it would make the draft more interesting. A team like the Packers could take the next great QB and groom him for years. More scenarios = more fun :thumbup:
 
No I'm not a socialist.I don't even care about the legal side of it anymore--I don't understand why NFL fans think a NFL calibre player shouldn't be allowed to play. If he was 24 it wouldn't matter if he wasn't three years removed from HS. Do you really think this is a good rule?One could also argue that if for some reason HS players started entering the draft and being selected (I don't foresee this) it would make the draft more interesting. A team like the Packers could take the next great QB and groom him for years. More scenarios = more fun :thumbup:
Calibre? Labour? You are a friggin' Canadian socialist! ;)Seriously, though, how do you know Clarett is NFL caliber? A lot of people thought Ryan Leaf was NFL caliber & found out differently - especially SD.
 
First off I strongly doubt that you will find 22 year old high school students of the NFL calibre. Most states have cut off ages of the student turning 20 during the last school year. The federal government requires schools to teach special education students through the student's 21st year if they student wishes. You could therefore have a student actually turn 22 before graduation. In terms of sports many states also restrict students over the age of 19 from participating in sports. To think of a student being banned from athletics and then suddenly 2-3 years later at graduation being sought after by NFL teams isn't really probable.

 
Calibre? Labour? You are a friggin' Canadian socialist! ;)Seriously, though, how do you know Clarett is NFL caliber? A lot of people thought Ryan Leaf was NFL caliber & found out differently - especially SD.
Help! Get me out of this country!I write organised now too :wall:
 
Wouldn't this make things really interesting ----- Al Davis drafting one of them anyway, despite the court ruling? This sounds like the next Coen brothers movie.

Contra Costa Times article

Here comes another scenario -- far-fetched as it may seem -- that could result in Davis making the type of bold statement he made when he drafted Bo Jackson in the seventh round in 1987.

The NFL is determined not to allow underclassmen to enter the draft. Nobody enjoys outmaneuvering the NFL more than the league's longtime nemesis, Big Al.

The courts are involved, and we all know the judicial system is Davis' preferred branch of government. This is even an antitrust case. After years spent whipping the league in court, Davis is an expert on antitrust cases.

It's easy to envision Davis firing a shot across the bow of the NFL establishment by choosing Clarett and/or Williams in the late rounds.

It's not as if he hasn't thought of this before. The precedent was set when Davis drafted Jackson, who was concentrating on his baseball career at the time, and therefore secured his football rights for one year.

OK, it's unlikely, but not as out there as conspiracy theories team officials have tried to sell to the press and public through the years.

Imagine the glee the Raiders boss will feel when commissioner Paul Tagliabue turns three shades of purple and pops his collar-button on national television.
 
It's not as if he hasn't thought of this before. The precedent was set when Davis drafted Jackson, who was concentrating on his baseball career at the time, and therefore secured his football rights for one year.
The difference here is that Jackson was consider eligible for the draft at the time. Clarett and Williams are not. I am sure a little thing like eligiblity won't stop Al Davis. I wonder why he didn't draft Eli Manning with his 7th pick last year.
 
Just a quick clip from an SI article.

Clarett's CFL rights are owned by the Montreal Alouettes. General manager Jim Popp said he has not spoken to Clarett or anyone in his family or legal team, but would welcome discussions if Clarett elected to play in the CFL.
I'm curious how a CFL team has rights to Clarett. Does anyone know how they pickup new players it seems that don't have to talk to them. But wouldn't the fact that a CFL team is willing to hire him as a player give him another viable option?
 
If the NFL wanted to exclude certain people (whether or not they're doing that here is debatable), would that be ok? No. Just because it's the NFL doesn't mean its right.
again, not an exclusion...a delay. :)an exclusion would be if they never let them in.
 
Excerpts from Shira Scheindlin's opinion granting summary judgment for Clarett:ISSUE: Are the Arena and Canadian Football Leagues a fair substitute for the NFL?"Clarett seeks to sell his services in a labor market. Thus, the harm he alleges is to the market of players selling their services, not to the market of consumers viewing the players.""The League's suggestion that one of the other professional football leagues in North America is a fair substitute for the NFL cannot be taken seriously. 'Market definition is guided by an anlysis of the intercahngeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand for poitential substitute products.' In the case of a labor market or buyer-sided conspiracy, these factors are reversed. 'In such a case, the market is not the market of competing sellers [players] but of competing buyers [Leagues or Teams]. This market is comprised of buyers who are seen by sellers as being reasonably good substitutes.' No elaborate factual record need be developed to recognize that no football player would see the Arena League or the Canadian League as a reasonably good substitute for the NFL.""The relevant market is...the market for NFL players. That the League has exclusive market power in this arena is obvious; the very fact that it can establish a Rule the excludes players from the market altogether demonstrates its market domination."ISSUE: The NFL offered four justifications for exclusion: (1) protecting younger and/or less experienced players from injury; (2) protecting NFL entertainment product from adverse consequences from injuries; (3) protecting NFL teams from costs associated with those injuries; and (4) protecting young players from themselves (i.e, steriods, and misguided hope)."The NFL's first and fourth justifications...can be dismissed out of hand. The NFL's concern for younger players is laudable, but it has nothing to do with promoting competition."Concerning the second justification: "The league may not justify the anticompetitive effects of a policy by arguing that it has procompetitive effects in a different market."Concerning the third justification: "The NFL's desire to keep its costs down is not a legitimate procompetitive justification. THe fact that the League and its teams will save mony by excluding players does not justify that exclusion." ISSUE: Exclusion should be allowed because it is only a temporary exclusion and not permanent."Whether Clarett's exclusion is temporary or permanent goes to the EXTENT of his antitrust injury, not the existence of that injury."ISSUE: Does the nonstatutory exemption apply?"Under the NLRA, mandatory subjects of bargaining between employers and unions pertain to "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Only agreements on these subjects are exempt from antitrust laws.""[T]hose who are categorically denied eligibility for employment, even temporarily, cannot be bound by the terms of employment they cannot obtain. For this reason, too, the nonstatutory exemption does not apply.""Clarett's eligibility was not the union's to trade away."NOTE: The actual rule predates the NFL CBA. Yet still the NFL maintains that the "Rule" was the subject of collective bargaining.I think Clarett is on point when he argues that "the real motivation for the Rule is that it creates a free farm system--a risk-free laboratory for the development of younger players."

 
This somewhat supports Chase's argument that the NFL is a monoply.

On July 29, 1986, the United States Football League won the battle but lost its war against the National Football League. After five days of deliberation, the jury that heard the USFL's case against the NFL found the older league guilty of monopolizing professional football and of using predatory tactics but awarded the USFL just $1 in damages. The fact that the antitrust award was trebled to $3 was of little solace to the struggling owners of the eight remaining USFL teams.

 
I don't understand why NFL fans think a NFL calibre player shouldn't be allowed to play. If he was 24 it wouldn't matter if he wasn't three years removed from HS. Do you really think this is a good rule?One could also argue that if for some reason HS players started entering the draft and being selected (I don't foresee this) it would make the draft more interesting. A team like the Packers could take the next great QB and groom him for years. More scenarios = more fun :thumbup:
I wouldn't care if you could assure me that the net impact would be a better calibre of football. The reality is that teams would start loading up on developement projects to avoid missing out on the next Marino or Payton. It's easy to say they wouldn't have to do this, but fans would be screaming to management to pursue this strategy after seeing one team hit big. Nevermind the other teams that flame out using the same strategy.High school players would not make the draft more interesting. Compare the interest in the NBA draft v. the NFL draft. I would imagine that the NFL draft gets at least 10 fold more coverage the the NFL draft. Once the shift from drafting established players we've rooted for and seen play to high school talent no one has heard of occurs, the NFL draft would become a much smaller draw. Once again this supports letting the NFL run their own business. It's been about 3 months since a game has been played and 3 more until another one is played, yet the NFL draft is the biggest sports topic this week.
 
The post above goes a long way to what I've been trying to say...nice job Snotbubbles :thumbup: I've had enough arguing this issue. It worked out pretty well. I'm dissapointed that we won't get to see Clarett and Mike Williams this year, and hopefully their careers aren't significantly worse off because of it (if both have to miss a year of football, two in a row for Clarett's sake).

 
They feel that players are best equipped to come into the league when they are three years out of high school.
No they don't feel that way.All indications leaned towards Mike Williams as a 1st round draft pick. Meaning the NFL, I repeat !!THE NFL!! believes he is one of the best 30 amateur football players in the world. Given the chance, every NFL team will pick Mike Williams with their first or at least second pick. That in itself proves that the NFL knows full well these guys are ready. At least more ready than the hundreds of players that would have been picked after them.It's such an obvious double standard it is sickening. Out of one side of their mouths the NFL is saying kids that age aren't ready, out of the other side they are drafting them in the 1st round.... hmmmm. Sounds like someone just wants a free farm system.If they aren't ready they won't be drafted. Period. End of Story. That's the whole point of the draft. :wall:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i'm okay with the ncaa being a 'farm system.' it's in the best interest of everyone besides these morons who are trying to skip the system. there was already a collective bargaining agreement on this issue. period. :yes:

 
First off let me say I'm sure everyone here will agree that a judge can and will make mistakes. So I'll address some things in the article above I disagree with.

"The relevant market is...the market for NFL players. That the League has exclusive market power in this arena is obvious; the very fact that it can establish a Rule the excludes players from the market altogether demonstrates its market domination."
To me this is like bringing this same suite against Microsoft and stating that The relevant market is...the market for Microsoft developers. Which is by no means correct the market is for Football Players not NFL players.
"The League's suggestion that one of the other professional football leagues in North America is a fair substitute for the NFL cannot be taken seriously.
No elaborate factual record need be developed to recognize that no football player would see the Arena League or the Canadian League as a reasonably good substitute for the NFL."
Why not take the suggestion seriously and get a factual record, I don't understand the reasoning behind this. It sounds as if an opinion was already set to me. There have been players come and go from all of the leagues. Warner accepted the AFL as a viable option as Moon and Flutie did the CFL.
the very fact that it can establish a Rule the excludes players from the market altogether demonstrates its market domination."
This has been rehashed here and I believe he's not being excluded from the league, just told he needs more development before he can be hired. Please come back next year and you'll be considerd by all teams.
ISSUE: The NFL offered four justifications for exclusion: (1) protecting younger and/or less experienced players from injury; (2) protecting NFL entertainment product from adverse consequences from injuries; (3) protecting NFL teams from costs associated with those injuries; and (4) protecting young players from themselves (i.e, steriods, and misguided hope)."The NFL's first and fourth justifications...can be dismissed out of hand.  The NFL's concern for younger players is laudable, but it has nothing to do with promoting competition."
Why would the 1st & 4th be dismissed out of hand? More quickly handling the case without thought in my opinion. Point 1: My son started playing contact football and is currently turning 7. If point 1 is not an issue to anyone why was he in a 5&6 year old league with wieght restrictions? If development doesn't matter why not group it where you don't have to worry about a league forming and taking all the way up to 8 year olds? Why not combine Jr. High and High School teams to get a better talent pool and put a better product on the field for cities. Point 2: I personally don'g understand her response here if someone could explain it I'd appreciate it.Point 3: This one is hard to call. I would like to see the NFL keep costs down because fewer and fewer fans can actually afford to go as is. I think the NFL phrased this wrong and should not have associated cost with it. The concern should be for permant injury to a younger player that would end his career early. As stated it is not a valid point.Point 4: Streiod and performance enhancing drugs are already a problem at the Youth level and needs to be addressed. I agree with the NFL on this point also in that more kids will take steroids in the hope of skipping college and going for the big score.
ISSUE: Exclusion should be allowed because it is only a temporary exclusion and not permanent."Whether Clarett's exclusion is temporary or permanent goes to the EXTENT of his antitrust injury, not the existence of that injury."
This make sense but does not apply anywhere in the real world and the NFL is correct on th is argument in my opinion. There are temporary exclusions everywhere and I'm glad they exists and am glad the NFL has the exclusions it does.
ISSUE: Does the nonstatutory exemption apply?"Under the NLRA, mandatory subjects of bargaining between employers and unions pertain to "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.  Only agreements on these subjects are exempt from antitrust laws.""[T]hose who are categorically denied eligibility for employment, even temporarily, cannot be bound by the terms of employment they cannot obtain.  For this reason, too, the nonstatutory exemption does not apply.""Clarett's eligibility was not the union's to trade away."NOTE: The actual rule predates the NFL CBA.  Yet still the NFL maintains that the "Rule" was the subject of collective bargaining.
This part makes sense and the NFL and Union could adjust this in there next bargaining agreement by lowering the base wage for players to $2,000 a month so that teams can sign players affordably and not waste large contracts. This would encourage kids to stay in school and give the NFL a way to have the before mentioned project players.
I think Clarett is on point when he argues that "the real motivation for the Rule is that it creates a free farm system--a risk-free laboratory for the development of younger players."
Clarett is off point and only cares for him self. If he hadn't screwed up in the first place this wouldn't be an issue at all. I doubt he would sign with a team for $25,000 a year as a project player. Also, why should the NFL pay him before they hire him? He is paid in part by the University in the form of scholorships which needs to be expanded to include living expenses for the players. Other than that there asking there players to have a certain growth and maturity before entering the league. Every field in business expects kids to goto college and develop to a certain degree I see no issue with the NFL doing it. My biggest concern would be getting a living budget for the players.I still don't understand why everyone wants to dilute the league and supports this guy. Oh well to each his own.NOTE: Please ignore all the spelling mistakes and such. This was typed on and off at work and I was focusing on the points versus the grammer/spelling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No they don't feel that way.All indications leaned towards Mike Williams as a 1st round draft pick. Meaning the NFL, I repeat !!THE NFL!! believes he is one of the best 30 amateur football players in the world. Given the chance, every NFL team will pick Mike Williams with their first or at least second pick. That in itself proves that the NFL knows full well these guys are ready. At least more ready than the hundreds of players that would have been picked after them.It's such an obvious double standard it is sickening. Out of one side of their mouths the NFL is saying kids that age aren't ready, out of the other side they are drafting them in the 1st round.... hmmmm. Sounds like someone just wants a free farm system.If they aren't ready they won't be drafted. Period. End of Story. That's the whole point of the draft. :wall:
The NFL believes in it's rules. Did you see a team trying to change the rules in order to get Williams in the first round? NO. Do you think a team would have traded a pick this year to get him next? NO. Did you hear about any team stating they wished he was in this year draft because he wasy ready prior to this mess? No. Will Williams being in the draft make the league better this year? No. All it means is that he has raw talent and since thier hand is being forced they will not take a chance on missing out on him. He is in the draft he will be taken because he has talent. It does not mean anything else.
 
Not the case at all. There have been more players than can be listed that were drafted that were not ready for the NFL and failed. The others generally do not m ake a big impact in there first years although some do. The draft is an attempt to enhance your team. Just because a player is in the draft and drafted does not mean he is ready to play in the NFL.
 
Not the case at all. There have been more players than can be listed that were drafted that were not ready for the NFL and failed. The others generally do not m ake a big impact in there first years although some do. The draft is an attempt to enhance your team. Just because a player is in the draft and drafted does not mean he is ready to play in the NFL.
Exactly. The only problem with your argument is that it helps Maurice Clarett's argument. Up to this point in time only those players who are 3 years out have been eligible to be drafted and according to you, those players are no well more equipt to being an NFL player than someone else.
To me this is like bringing this same suite against Microsoft and stating that The relevant market is...the market for Microsoft developers. Which is by no means correct the market is for Football Players not NFL players.
Can't really respond to this because I don't know the facts of the case. Please elaborate.
Why not take the suggestion seriously and get a factual record, I don't understand the reasoning behind this. It sounds as if an opinion was already set to me. There have been players come and go from all of the leagues. Warner accepted the AFL as a viable option as Moon and Flutie did the CFL.
Obviously there will be exceptions. However, if less than 1% of football players who have EVER PLAYED the game have used these other options that doesn't make them viable. To exhaust the courts remedies on an argument that even the NFL doesn't believe is a waste of everybody's time.
Why would the 1st & 4th be dismissed out of hand? More quickly handling the case without thought in my opinion. Point 1: My son started playing contact football and is currently turning 7. If point 1 is not an issue to anyone why was he in a 5&6 year old league with wieght restrictions? If development doesn't matter why not group it where you don't have to worry about a league forming and taking all the way up to 8 year olds? Why not combine Jr. High and High School teams to get a better talent pool and put a better product on the field for cities. Point 2: I personally don'g understand her response here if someone could explain it I'd appreciate it.Point 3: This one is hard to call. I would like to see the NFL keep costs down because fewer and fewer fans can actually afford to go as is. I think the NFL phrased this wrong and should not have associated cost with it. The concern should be for permant injury to a younger player that would end his career early. As stated it is not a valid point.Point 4: Streiod and performance enhancing drugs are already a problem at the Youth level and needs to be addressed. I agree with the NFL on this point also in that more kids will take steroids in the hope of skipping college and going for the big score.
The case is about a violation of antitrust laws which deals with restraint on trade. Only those issues have relevance. Even if the court heard arguments on issue 1 and 4, the NFL would have a hard time providing any evidence that such a problem would arise.
Clarett is off point and only cares for him self. If he hadn't screwed up in the first place this wouldn't be an issue at all. I doubt he would sign with a team for $25,000 a year as a project player. Also, why should the NFL pay him before they hire him? He is paid in part by the University in the form of scholorships which needs to be expanded to include living expenses for the players. Other than that there asking there players to have a certain growth and maturity before entering the league. Every field in business expects kids to goto college and develop to a certain degree I see no issue with the NFL doing it. My biggest concern would be getting a living budget for the players.
Who else is Clarett supposed to care about. Some millionaire NFL vet who's job he's gonna take? Sure he gets a scholarship to play in college. What happens when he doesn't want to go to college anymore. Should he then be told he can't start working at his profession for another year REGARDLESS of whether he stays in college or not?
I still don't understand why everyone wants to dilute the league and supports this guy. Oh well to each his own.
Your joking right? I had to sit through a season watching James Thrash and Todd Pinkston as the starting receivers on the Eagles. Clarett and Williams won't dilute the league talent. Williams is a projected 1st round pick, and Clarett is a 2nd or 3rd rounder. You need to be really talented to be taken on the 1st day of the draft. Dilute the talent you say. If the league was worried about diluting talent they would totally scrap the second day of the draft.
 
QUOTE]Exactly. The only problem with your argument is that it helps Maurice Clarett's argument. Up to this point in time only those players who are 3 years out have been eligible to be drafted and according to you, those players are no well more equipt to being an NFL player than someone else.

I believe they failed due to maturity and work ethic. Allowing even younger more immature players in does not help the league at all. But i do see you point that it could help clarett's argument.

Can't really respond to this because I don't know the facts of the case. Please elaborate
This is not an actual case. I'm just comparing the two.

Obviously there will be exceptions. However, if less than 1% of football players who have EVER PLAYED the game have used these other options that doesn't make them viable. To exhaust the courts remedies on an argument that even the NFL doesn't believe is a waste of everybody's time.
Well I'm not sure about the 1% at all. What % of players make the NFL?

I'll state some of my limited knowledge on the CFL and if you like I could even put some AFL info up. But both are viable oppurtunities for clarett to work in his chosen profession.

1) NCAA players are invited to try-outs and play for CFL teams. Sure it's a smaller number than the NFL but there are fewer teams. In fact I believe one of the teams (starts with ar) has the rights to Clarett.

2) The NFL/CFL have an agreement to that is attempting to grow the CFL into a larger organization and CFL players entering the option years of their contracts will be permitted to sign with NFL clubs.

3) There are 8 teams in the cfl with a roster size of around

40+ players. So the teams are employing around 420 players or more.

4) Last time I looked at the rosters (last time I saw a Flutie story) they appeared to be made up of at least 50% NCAA players if not more I did not go through all of them.

5) What's the biggest drawback for the Clarett's of the world the salary cap for the teams is around 2.5-3 million. But still it's employment in his field.

I'm sure if you investigate the league more you would see that it is an option for players.

Who else is Clarett supposed to care about. Some millionaire NFL vet who's job he's gonna take? Sure he gets a scholarship to play in college. What happens when he doesn't want to go to college anymore. Should he then be told he can't start working at his profession for another year REGARDLESS of whether he stays in college or not?
I agree he should take care of him self but not at the chance of destorying the league he wants in so badly. TO you point if I decided I want to be a doctor but screw up before I finish my required classes should I be allowed to practice. Why should I have to go through an intership if my percieved skill level is better than the doctor I"m going to replace? it's the system they put in place as other business' have to keep a good product. It really is that simple.

Your joking right? I had to sit through a season watching James Thrash and Todd Pinkston as the starting receivers on the Eagles. Clarett and Williams won't dilute the league talent. Williams is a projected 1st round pick, and Clarett is a 2nd or 3rd rounder. You need to be really talented to be taken on the 1st day of the draft. Dilute the talent you say. If the league was worried about diluting talent they would totally scrap the second day of the draft.
No I'm not joking. What i see is talent worse than Pinkston and Thrash having to be picked up due to a slight chance they will turn out good. Eating up cap space and screwing the talent level of the game. Sure they can increase the cap to allow for this but then it comes back to the fan who has to pay higher ticket prices to watch low quality product. And once again your wrong about talent. You don't have to be good or the best to be picked up in the 1st round. You just have to appear good and fill a need for the team drafting you there's a big difference in this. Don't forget Tom Brady was drafted in the Sixth round so scrapping the second day would be a mistake.

 
There is absolutely no doubt that b-ball players learn their game best at the college level. The way the NBA is set up, there is simply no room or time to teach fundamentals. They are supposed to have learned that already.So as far as saying that an NBA player who skipped college is as good as the same player who went to college, it's silly. Of course it's beneficial to a player to learn more about the game, and college is easily the best place to learn it.There has been all sorts of tremendous success stories of players going straight from high school. From Moses Malone to Kevin Garnett, the list includes current players like LeBron, Kobe and McGrady. No question such a list is impressive. Others, like Magic, left college early, and that list is equally impressive. But whether or not some players happen to have both the maturity and/or previous learning necessary to thrive on the NBA level is irrelevant. As a whole, you would be hard pressed to find an NBA exec, scout or top evaluator that does not agree that the number of high school players coming straight into the game has damaged the overall play. Sure, there are many that have been hugely successful. Ironically, it's because of those players that the influx of others coming straight into the NBA has grown so rapidly.So would the players be better off having to play in college first? No, not if you look at their financial situation. Whether they ever become a star or not, they will become rich beyond their dreams just by being drafted. Would they become better ball players by learning more of the fundamentals of the game? Of course. That stuff is not teached or even tolerated on the professional level. Staying in college also helps them grow as humans, maturing from their late teens to their early 20's. Those of you that don't think you matured much during that period in your lives, please raise your hand.How about the NBA? Would they be better off if players stayed in college at least a couple years. Absolutely, positively, no doubt. Sure, it might have meant that guys like Garnett, Kobe, McGrady and LeBron might have had to wait another two years before they came into the league, but that loss would be more than supplanted by the increase in overall maturity and fundamental skills of the rest of the players coming out.The NBA would be better off players had to go to college for at least a couple years before making it into the NBA. I certainly understand a player believing he has the right to make a living at 18. But if you're asking what's truly best for the game? C'mon.
Very good post.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top