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!
Good Answer, good answer!Drafting the week after the NFL draft makes dynasty leagues more in line with the way the NFL works, which is the whole idea of a dynasty league in the first place.
The Hollings draft was July 10. Doesn't mean that'd be the case here though.
That's an approach we briefly talked about. But I think the concensus was more drafts = more fun (which there is some merit to). Again, keep in mind that our final solution was not the one I would have selected.In any case, the general point is that this situation DOES present issues to resolve for various dynasty leagues out there, just as Pirate originally suggested.
Not more skill, just more luck involved. Having an earlier rookie draft means more chance of screwing the weaker teams (who'd have the highest picks) by making their high picks less of a sure thing. And involves making decisions without the opportunity to see the rookies even practice, let alone play, against pro competition. All you're doing is letting everyone work with less information to pick their players. Don't think that makes you so high and mighty.
I agree with Vick and disagree with you. For the highest picks in the draft, there will be little change in perception of value from a week after the draft until opening day. It's the later rounds that make the difference. This has little or no affect on worse teams, unless those teams are worse simply because they have weaker owners.What an early FF rookie draft does do, though, is make prior preparation a must for selecting steals in later rounds.Bottom line, the more mass information that is out there = easier for worse FF players.I am in several leagues with the rookie draft one week after the NFL draft, and one league where the rookie draft is in June. The earlier the better for me.
Not getting to see how players perform in an NFL setting before drafting them, oh my god, tell me it isn't so. It's called reading between the lines, just like the NFL teams have to do in the real NFL draft.You should let the NFL know that they should have the players play with NFL teams for a year before they do the draft so the teams know exactly what there getting. Why involve any skill in drafting?Any fool can draft in August when everything is spelled out, but the skilled prefer to do it before they have the answer sheet in front of them.
And some prefer big, fat women over supermodels. It doesn't mean they're not crazy though.
And GDB draw poker.I'm guessing you haven't paid much attention to how the NCAA works. Mike might have been playing by what he thought were the NFL rules, but the NCAA's rules are you get an agent and you're done. They won't make an exception for Mike Williams. If anything they'll probably want to make an example out of him.
If Mike Williams would have initiated the appeal it might be different. I hope they get in for Mike's sake, he is so ready for the NFL and might have even been last year.I still don't understand the NFL's position on why Mike Williams, a first round draft pick, is not allowed to be in the draft.Of course, it's just as puzzling to me why most fans don't find this equally stupid and downright unfair.I love the NFL, but this is
Additionally, with the Red Sox routing the Yanks and the Patriots grabbing Dillon, (and a final exam tomorrow), this hasn't been the best of days.True, i'm not saying people are "wrong" for drafting later, but I definitely think there is more skill in drafting before everything is layed out in August.After the NFL draft you have plenty of information to evalutate and make assumptions about these players. Being able to do a little reading between the lines is what seperates the sharks from the guppies. JMO.</donewithhijack>
I think this is probably correct. Neither the NCAA nor the NFL wanted Mike to get an agent and seek into the NFL draft. In fact, he was advised against it. Mike snubbed his nose at them and wanted the money now. Not that I blame him, but if I were on the NCAA committee making the decision, I would say "tough luck, you should have listened to us."Besides, Williams has said publicly he would play in Europe or elsewhere and not even attempt to go back to USC.As much as this USC fan would love to see him return, I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons.
I'm just as against it as you. Maybe the league would not have fought Mike as hard as they are fight Clarett. It really doesn't matter because if one gets in the other will too.Who matters who initiates the appeal? The rule is silly, arbitrary and unfair. In case you haven't noticed, I'm firmly against it
This isn't just about M Williams...the NFL has a right, if it thinks that 18-year-olds aren't equipped to succeed to block them from the league.This is NOT a complete bar to the NFL, but just a temporary one (have to be out of HS for 3 years)...there have been some Supreme Court rulings that have said temporary depravations are not unconstiutional. Claret/Williams are not being told they can never play, just not until they are 21.That's why the league is going to win.I still don't understand the NFL's position on why Mike Williams, a first round draft pick, is not allowed to be in the draft.Of course, it's just as puzzling to me why most fans don't find this equally stupid and downright unfair.I love the NFL, but this is
Oh yeah, two more things.Where did the three year rule come from? It's fairly arbitrary. Except it used to be four until the NFL wanted Barry Sanders in the league.Additionally, some players HAVE been drafted into the NFL before the three year exemption. Someone on the Cardinals I believe.Lastly, since the NFL is a monopoly it has to adhere to a different set of rules.
*LOL*At least you called me Captain Obvious instead of Captain Oblivious.didn't recognize the name
Not saying it matters to me, since I personally don't even watch exhibition football. Just saying drafting your rookies now is analagous to going out to the horse track and making your picks without reading the program. If I'm betting my money at the track, I'm using the program.
This isn't unfair labor practices...the NFL has the right to set certain standards for their players. This #### exists everywhere, in different means. You and I may be capable to be the President of the United States, but we can't until we're 35. The NFL has a right to protect itself from what it may find to be diluted play. Maybe there are some 18 and 19 year olds out there that are capable of playing. But chances are there are a whole lot more who CAN'T, who then could declare, miss out on years of practice/experience in college, and never make it to the league when maybe they could have when they were 21 or 22.The league is not blocking these guys from ever playing, and it is certainly not unfair. They feel that players are best equipped to come into the league when they are three years out of high school...some jobs require a bachelor's degree. Some require a doctorate. This is the NFL's standard. It's not a complete bar, and the it is is absolutely fair. If the NFL was blocking Mike Williams from ever playing, we'd have a problem. As it turns out, they are just blocking 20-year-old Mike Williams from playing. He waits one more year and goes in.
I disagree on the "skill" thing - thogh that is a part of it.If dynasty leagues are designed to more mirror the NFL's team building ability, and I believe they are, having the dynasty rookie draft immediately after the real NFL draft makes the ultimate in sense.
The NFL isn't a monopoly, they can go play in the Arena League. Just because it's not as good doesn't make a difference to anybody. It's another option if they want it.And for every one or two kids who could come out and play now, I'm sure the league could provide boatloads of evidence for those who couldn't.
The NFL is a monopoly--it's got to live under a different set of rules.It's silly to think that just because a player is eligible to play in the NFL, he will play in the NFL. If a player is talented enough to make it to the NFL, he will get drafted. If not, he will go to college (or whatever else he wants).Playing college football isn't a pre-requisite to being in the NFL, nor should it be. If the NFL was really concerned about diluted play, they wouldn't do things that would decrease the demand to be a football player.
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.
True, but the NFL can watch the guys perform at the combine. The can bring a guy in to their practice facility and work him out. Doing it immediately after the draft seems extreme to me. In my Dynasty League we draft at the end of June. I would like to see our draft be even later. But I do my research so I'm good with where it's at.We have a Free Agent Night that's usually in Feb or early March, which I think is ridiculous. We have a FA night usually before Free Agency starts. Or the actual night will be after the FA period starts, but we have to have our tagged players in 2 weeks prior to the actual night. I think this year, we had about 3 days of NFL Free Agency before we had to have our tagged players in. We had a guy Transition A-Train and then see Thomas Jones sign with the Bears.
The Arena League offers a service for professional football players. Just because you and I don't see it as being as good as the NFL, doesn't mean that football players don't get paid for playing there. Bottom line is that they have another option to offer their services if they so desire. And that means that the NFL is NOT a monopoly.
I don't mean to go head to head with you on this one, but...The NFL is a monopoly. Everyone knows this. You can define a monopoly by having a certain (very high obviously) percentage of the industry. The NFL generated revenues of what, how many billion last year? And the Arena League? How about player salaries--they aren't even close to comparable. If there is no CLOSE substitute for a product, there is a monopoly. I think you have a better chance arguing that the NBA is a better substitute for some of these players than the Arena League.In reality, this is the way the NFL wants--and needs it. If the Arena league WAS a close substitute, AND the NFL didn't have a monopoly, then some of the better players would CHOOSE the AFL over the NFL. This would of course weaken the NFL. The NFL knows, wants and would admit that they are a monopoly--not that there's anything wrong with that.
Chase,Actually it's my understanding that the NFL's defense is a rather simple and legally sound one in that they hire exclusively from players in the NFLPA, and their hiring practices are COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED. Part of the collective bargaining process is to define who/what/when/where/why a person can become eligible for employ, and the NFL is maintaining that these players (Clarett, Williams, etc..) are essentially trying to force their way in as scabs as they are violating an agreement that was agreed upon by ownership and the vast majority of the league's players.David Stern, who made his mark as a labor lawyer before taking over the NBA, has been vehement in the idea that Clarett and Co have no legal leg to stand on, that it's in fact a very cut and dry situation and that any higher court would in fact overrule the original decree in a heartbeat. He appears to be pretty on point with his analysis thus far.
We'll have to disagree. Major League Baseball is a monopoly. There are no other viable options for baseball players.Football players can play in the Arena League, get some national recognition and make a liveable wage playing football. Just because it is not as good means nothing.
And what if the NFLPA and NFL collectively bargained to ban black players from the NFL? If all the white owners and white players agree to it of course.From my understanding, everyone said this was an open and shut case for Clarett that he would win. And he did. I haven't followed the appeal as much.
I'm the one that's supposed to be studying for finals...Interesting thing about the divorce example, would have to think that one over a bit.We'll have to disagree. Major League Baseball is a monopoly. There are no other viable options for baseball players.
Football players can play in the Arena League, get some national recognition and make a liveable wage playing football. Just because it is not as good does means nothing.
Obviously the NFL is more powerful and the more attractive option. But they have the right to have minimum requirements in place, as long as they are not complete restrictions to enter. And they aren't. They are temporary. You have to wait till you are 21.
Off the beat a bit, but along the same context...if I move to Iowa and want to get a divorce, I would have to wait until I was a citizen of Iowa for one year. You could fight this and say you want to be divorced NOW, but the court would find that it wasn't a complete restriction, you could come back later and get the divorce, thus it is legal.
*studying for finals*
Yes I know what you said--my hypothetical was directed towards Mr. Wood, sorry about that.THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETE RESTRICTION
This is not. You just have to wait till you are three years out of high school.
Well Capella answered for me Chase, a black person is black permanently (unless he's Michael Jackson
), your example simply doesn't apply to this example, try as you might.
Capella,I'm in complete agreement with you on the complete restriction issue, but just one fine point which is actually at the heart of this debate. Major League Baseball is currently exempt from Sherman Antitrust regulations, NFL/NBA/NHL are not. MLB is the ONLY business in the U.S. with such exemption.We'll have to disagree. Major League Baseball is a monopoly. There are no other viable options for baseball players.
Football players can play in the Arena League, get some national recognition and make a liveable wage playing football. Just because it is not as good means nothing.
Obviously the NFL is more powerful and the more attractive option. But they have the right to have minimum requirements in place, as long as they are not complete restrictions to enter. And they aren't. They are temporary. You have to wait till you are 21.
Off the beat a bit, but along the same context...if I move to Iowa and want to get a divorce, I would have to wait until I was a citizen of Iowa for one year. You could fight this and say you want to be divorced NOW, but the court would find that it wasn't a complete restriction, you could come back later and get the divorce, thus it is legal.
*studying for finals*
The divorce case is real, see Sosna v. Iowa, S Ct decision. Ct says this barrier isn't uncostitutional because it is not a complete bar, but only a delay. As for your example, it's not on point. Every state in the country requires me to have a law degree and to have passed the bar to practice. Those are the requirements these states have set out for me to practice law, whether I think they are fair or not. Maybe there are plenty of competent people out there who could be attorneys, but don't have the financial means/time to go to law school. The NFL has determined that you need to be three years out of high school to satisfy their standards.I'm the one that's supposed to be studying for finals...Interesting thing about the divorce example, would have to think that one over a bit.Yes the NFL is a monopoly and I will agree to disagree
That's up to the team and the player (and his agent).Tony Hollings was taken with a 2nd round pick and is making on par for what a RB would have made in that area of the regular draft.If someone takes Williams and won't pay him money equal to what he'd have made in the NFL draft, he has the same option any player taken in the regular draft has. Hold out, don't play, and go back into the draft the next year.
I was just responding to your argument that because it was agreed upon by both the NFLPA and the NFL, that it's ok. It's not. I don't think that's a good argument. Additionally, Clarett wasn't involved in this bargaining at all. I just don't see how this rule holds up in a court of law. ESPECIALLY after the NFL has let players in without being three years removed.Well Capella answered for me Chase, a black person is black permanently (unless he's Michael Jackson
Because it's going to hurt them in the future. The bad for business part is threefold:1) The possible negative press from this (which hasn't happenned).2) Not letting the best players play will hurt the talent level of the league3) This will drive down demand for athletic young adults to play football.Yes, the NCAA is certainly very good for their bottom line. I should have clarified things.
When defining a monopoly, IT DOES MATTER how bad of a substitute it is. A monopoly DOES NOT have to be a pure monopoly to be a monopoly.
, still doesn't change my stance any. 