Jadeveon Clowney DE South Carolina (1 Viewer)

[coolnerd]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Because they have determined that is what it takes to be ready for their game without them having to spend as much developing guys?Why does any company set a standard for employment?

The NFL isn't analogous to a company here. It's analogous to an entire industry. Entire industries don't have standards of employment, except to protect the public/customers (license or degree requirements, etc.). This is totally different- the NFL has a standard for employment to protect the existing employees and to benefit the teams by entrenching the NCAA as its free farm system. I can't think of any analogy outside of sports.

well, there are 32 individual businesses which have concluded that it is thier best interest for the entire industry act like one business entity that makes decision for them. We know that the NFL is a monopoly since the courts have ruled as such and the american public accepts the flawed if not otherwise illegal structure of the NFL. Still business entities can choose to set standards of employment even if random and not really logical. there is plenty wrong with the NFL not having a true minor league system like MLB, but there are much worse "injustices" in the world than making a 20 year wait one year to make 20 plus million guaranteed while getting his college paid even if he is not truly going to use that philosophy class again in his life.

Well yeah, sure. But what if he suffers a career-ending injury and it costs him the entire $20 million? Or even a serious injury that knocks him back a couple rounds in the draft and costs him a couple million? Does that bump up the injustice a bit?

Not enough for me to care in the proper sense of caring. Most of the guys who can be drafted as a 18 year old have already won the genetic physical freak lottery over the rest of us. I mean a 3rd round pick still has a signing bonus of over 500,000 with a four year contract having a value of 2-3 million. In large human terms, he at least gets a way better start than the majority of us and will work a job that still gives him a fairly realistic chance to make that 20 million at some point.

 

[sho nuff]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Because they have determined that is what it takes to be ready for their game without them having to spend as much developing guys?Why does any company set a standard for employment?

The NFL isn't analogous to a company here. It's analogous to an entire industry. Entire industries don't have standards of employment, except to protect the public/customers (license or degree requirements, etc.). This is totally different- the NFL has a standard for employment to protect the existing employees and to benefit the teams by entrenching the NCAA as its free farm system. I can't think of any analogy outside of sports.

Almost every business has a standard of employment.Its to protect its own members as well from the risk of guys they don't feel are ready to play in their league.

Really? Almost every business has a standard of employment? One that individual companies are not free to violate if they want to hire someone they feel is talented and qualified? Do they also prevent the individual companies from contracting with a prospective employee before they meet those standards if they feel the risk is worth it? The analogy fails for any number of reasons.

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

 

[Xue]

It's simple. These guys wanna get to the NFL quicker, just need to get out of high school quicker. Amobi Okoye started college at age 15. If they can't get it done in the classroom like the rest of us they shouldn't be treated any differently.Larry Fitzgerald went to a prep school after his Junior year in high school and was Drafted as a Sophomore at Pitt.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Because they have determined that is what it takes to be ready for their game without them having to spend as much developing guys?Why does any company set a standard for employment?

The NFL isn't analogous to a company here. It's analogous to an entire industry. Entire industries don't have standards of employment, except to protect the public/customers (license or degree requirements, etc.). This is totally different- the NFL has a standard for employment to protect the existing employees and to benefit the teams by entrenching the NCAA as its free farm system. I can't think of any analogy outside of sports.

Almost every business has a standard of employment.Its to protect its own members as well from the risk of guys they don't feel are ready to play in their league.

Really? Almost every business has a standard of employment? One that individual companies are not free to violate if they want to hire someone they feel is talented and qualified? Do they also prevent the individual companies from contracting with a prospective employee before they meet those standards if they feel the risk is worth it? The analogy fails for any number of reasons.

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

The standards are stupid and borderline unconstitutional. The standards are in place solely for the league to maintain its power and leverage over its work force.

 

[GregR]

Without the NFL's rule, I imagine we'd see teams drafting players younger and younger. Eventually teams would have to grab the highly touted players as soon as they come out of high school because if they don't, someone else will.

They will have to pay them while they are still unsuitable to play the pro game yet. They will have to pay for their development. And they will still need to field a team so will probably need to expand rosters.

Regardless of whether any of us think there should be a rule, I think it's pretty easy to see the NFL benefits as a whole from the rule. It's a lot like the salary cap... imposing such a rule stops the team's natural competition with each other from putting all teams in a worse financial situation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?

and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.

And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.

Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

You act like this makes it OK. You understand that this is the entire thing we're saying is unethical, right?I know what the rules are and I know who put them there. I'm saying they're unjust. Telling me that the teams agreed to them and that the NCAA is the one that prevents them from contracting is totally irrelevant. Also you're wrong- a team can't draft a player before he's eligible and pay him until he is because of NFL rules, not NCAA rules. The NCAA just bans the player from competing in their competitions if that happened. That's also stupid but it's beside the point.

Finally, as far as businesses that do not have strict, objective standards for employment similar to an age requirement that they cannot ignore at their discretion- pretty much all of them. Pick one.

 

[GregR]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer. In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision. It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.

Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer.

In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.

Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

Here's the differences:1. Where a degree or certification is required by law, the law exists for the protection of the consumer- we have no way of knowing if the person we hire is a qualified lawyer or doctor or plumber, so the degree or certificate tell us that. That's not the issue here. Here it exists ostensibly for the protection of the employee (although it is actually for the protection of the cartel). It's an apples and oranges comparison.

2. In other cases where the company puts its own requirement in place, it can bend those rules if a once in a lifetime talent comes along and they want to secure their services. NFL teams obviously would like to do that with someone like Clowney, but they can't because of collusion. Collusion for purposes of maintaining competitive balance is fine, collusion for whatever purposes they've got here, less so in my opinion.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Because they have determined that is what it takes to be ready for their game without them having to spend as much developing guys?Why does any company set a standard for employment?

The NFL isn't analogous to a company here. It's analogous to an entire industry. Entire industries don't have standards of employment, except to protect the public/customers (license or degree requirements, etc.). This is totally different- the NFL has a standard for employment to protect the existing employees and to benefit the teams by entrenching the NCAA as its free farm system. I can't think of any analogy outside of sports.

Almost every business has a standard of employment.Its to protect its own members as well from the risk of guys they don't feel are ready to play in their league.

Really? Almost every business has a standard of employment? One that individual companies are not free to violate if they want to hire someone they feel is talented and qualified? Do they also prevent the individual companies from contracting with a prospective employee before they meet those standards if they feel the risk is worth it? The analogy fails for any number of reasons.

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.

And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.

Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

The standards are stupid and borderline unconstitutional. The standards are in place solely for the league to maintain its power and leverage over its work force.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

 

[Slapdash]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

Seems like exactly the type of answer his shtick deserves.

 

[GregR]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.

Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer.

In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.

Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

Here's the differences:1. Where a degree or certification is required by law, the law exists for the protection of the consumer- we have no way of knowing if the person we hire is a qualified lawyer or doctor or plumber, so the degree or certificate tell us that. That's not the issue here. Here it exists ostensibly for the protection of the employee (although it is actually for the protection of the cartel). It's an apples and oranges comparison.

2. In other cases where the company puts its own requirement in place, it can bend those rules if a once in a lifetime talent comes along and they want to secure their services. NFL teams obviously would like to do that with someone like Clowney, but they can't because of collusion. Collusion for purposes of maintaining competitive balance is fine, collusion for whatever purposes they've got here, less so in my opinion.

So if the NFL and NFLPA have the ability to bend the rule for Adrian Peterson if they choose, it would be ok?

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

Seems like exactly the type of answer his shtick deserves.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

 

[GregR]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I don't know about couching it as a matter of individual rights vs employers rights... so much as it is about the effect age discrimination has on the public interest.Arbitrary age limits, regardless of potential for job performance, burden commerce and the flow of goods in our society. So it is in the public interest that arbitrary age discrimination be avoided.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I don't know about couching it as a matter of individual rights vs employers rights... so much as it is about the effect age discrimination has on the public interest.Arbitrary age limits, regardless of potential for job performance, burden commerce and the flow of goods in our society. So it is in the public interest that arbitrary age discrimination be avoided.

Except that Congress has decided that age discrimination is a problem when its levied against older workers in favor of younger workers.

 

[GregR]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I don't know about couching it as a matter of individual rights vs employers rights... so much as it is about the effect age discrimination has on the public interest.Arbitrary age limits, regardless of potential for job performance, burden commerce and the flow of goods in our society. So it is in the public interest that arbitrary age discrimination be avoided.

Except that Congress has decided that age discrimination is a problem when its levied against older workers in favor of younger workers.

They decided that in addition to what I posted, yes.The law they actually crafted bans employers from discriminating against hiring based on age. Not just based on old age.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I didn't think I said that Clowney had the right to demand a particular employer hire him and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. I'd just like all of his prospective employers to have the chance to.You know, I'd be happy to concede that every legal statement I have made is pure bull hockey and admit that my only argument is that this is the way that I want things to be if you'd just accept your victory and tell me why you prefer the current system instead. Let's just talk, big guy.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I don't know about couching it as a matter of individual rights vs employers rights... so much as it is about the effect age discrimination has on the public interest.Arbitrary age limits, regardless of potential for job performance, burden commerce and the flow of goods in our society. So it is in the public interest that arbitrary age discrimination be avoided.

Except that Congress has decided that age discrimination is a problem when its levied against older workers in favor of younger workers.

They decided that in addition to what I posted, yes.The law they actually crafted bans employers from discriminating against hiring based on age. Not just based on old age.

You need to go re-read the ADEA. It doesn't apply to anyone under 40.

 

[Meecrob]

Without the NFL's rule, I imagine we'd see teams drafting players younger and younger. Eventually teams would have to grab the highly touted players as soon as they come out of high school because if they don't, someone else will.

They will have to pay them while they are still unsuitable to play the pro game yet. They will have to pay for their development. And they will still need to field a team so will probably need to expand rosters.

Regardless of whether any of us think there should be a rule, I think it's pretty easy to see the NFL benefits as a whole from the rule. It's a lot like the salary cap... imposing such a rule stops the team's natural competition with each other from putting all teams in a worse financial situation.

What you just described is how European football (See Soccer) works.

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I didn't think I said that Clowney had the right to demand a particular employer hire him and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. I'd just like all of his prospective employers to have the chance to.You know, I'd be happy to concede that every legal statement I have made is pure bull hockey and admit that my only argument is that this is the way that I want things to be if you'd just accept your victory and tell me why you prefer the current system instead. Let's just talk, big guy.

His prospective employers have all chosen not to hire him.

 

[Slapdash]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

Seems like exactly the type of answer his shtick deserves.

Yep.

 

[coolnerd]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer. In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision. It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

i am going to speculate that we have seen the 18 year old who was able to handle pro sports. The 19 year old who can design a car that gets 60 miles per gallon on dead leaves is not a part of our regular sensibilities. Overall, i think rules are in place for the most of us, and the exceptions are just that exceptions where their "unfair" treatment is not truly an injustice.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I didn't think I said that Clowney had the right to demand a particular employer hire him and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. I'd just like all of his prospective employers to have the chance to.You know, I'd be happy to concede that every legal statement I have made is pure bull hockey and admit that my only argument is that this is the way that I want things to be if you'd just accept your victory and tell me why you prefer the current system instead. Let's just talk, big guy.

His prospective employers have all chosen not to hire him.

I don't like that they've made that decision. How about you?

 

[Christo]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I didn't think I said that Clowney had the right to demand a particular employer hire him and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. I'd just like all of his prospective employers to have the chance to.You know, I'd be happy to concede that every legal statement I have made is pure bull hockey and admit that my only argument is that this is the way that I want things to be if you'd just accept your victory and tell me why you prefer the current system instead. Let's just talk, big guy.

His prospective employers have all chosen not to hire him.

I don't like that they've made that decision. How about you?

I like it. As you've pointed out, this is a change that would probably lead to other changes (e.g. getting rid of the draft) which I believe would detrimentally affect the product the NFL puts out.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I didn't think I said that Clowney had the right to demand a particular employer hire him and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. I'd just like all of his prospective employers to have the chance to.You know, I'd be happy to concede that every legal statement I have made is pure bull hockey and admit that my only argument is that this is the way that I want things to be if you'd just accept your victory and tell me why you prefer the current system instead. Let's just talk, big guy.

His prospective employers have all chosen not to hire him.

I don't like that they've made that decision. How about you?

I like it. As you've pointed out, this is a change that would probably lead to other changes (e.g. getting rid of the draft) which I believe would detrimentally affect the product the NFL puts out.

Now we're cooking with gas.

 

[sho nuff]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Because they have determined that is what it takes to be ready for their game without them having to spend as much developing guys?Why does any company set a standard for employment?

The NFL isn't analogous to a company here. It's analogous to an entire industry. Entire industries don't have standards of employment, except to protect the public/customers (license or degree requirements, etc.). This is totally different- the NFL has a standard for employment to protect the existing employees and to benefit the teams by entrenching the NCAA as its free farm system. I can't think of any analogy outside of sports.

Almost every business has a standard of employment.Its to protect its own members as well from the risk of guys they don't feel are ready to play in their league.

Really? Almost every business has a standard of employment? One that individual companies are not free to violate if they want to hire someone they feel is talented and qualified? Do they also prevent the individual companies from contracting with a prospective employee before they meet those standards if they feel the risk is worth it? The analogy fails for any number of reasons.

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

The standards are stupid and borderline unconstitutional. The standards are in place solely for the league to maintain its power and leverage over its work force.

If you say so.

 

[sho nuff]

Can you tell me what business does not have a standard for employment?

and its already been explained to you that the individual companies have decided and voted to let the NFL dictate such things to them.

And the NFL does not prevent their teams from contracting with employees...the NCAA does.

Your attempts here are failing for so many reasons as well.

You act like this makes it OK. You understand that this is the entire thing we're saying is unethical, right?I know what the rules are and I know who put them there. I'm saying they're unjust. Telling me that the teams agreed to them and that the NCAA is the one that prevents them from contracting is totally irrelevant. Also you're wrong- a team can't draft a player before he's eligible and pay him until he is because of NFL rules, not NCAA rules. The NCAA just bans the player from competing in their competitions if that happened. That's also stupid but it's beside the point.

Finally, as far as businesses that do not have strict, objective standards for employment similar to an age requirement that they cannot ignore at their discretion- pretty much all of them. Pick one.

I act like Im not trying to confuse and mix NCAA rules and NFL rules as you just did prior to my response.What I stated is not irrelevant at all...but you can keep trying that.

I never stated anything about a team drafting someone....but teams (through agents) could somehow contract or do something with players...but the NCAA would not allow it. nor would it be of any advantage to the team because of the draft.

Oh, now its "strict, objective standards similar....."

You like to move the goalposts don't you?

And even then...you won't see people waiving their standards as you think they will...but you can keep trying I guess.

 

[Instinctive]

Except that Congress has decided that age discrimination is onlya problem when its levied against older workers in favor of younger workers.

They decided that in addition to what I posted, yes.The law they actually crafted bans employers from discriminating against hiring based on age. Not just based on old age.

You need to go re-read the ADEA. It doesn't apply to anyone under 40.

1. Bolded = fixed2. Amazed that is seems to have taken this long for someone to point this out...

 

[Novice2]

This whole system is really screwed up, but there is no way he would sit out a season because of it.

How is the system screwed?

Because these guys have to spend 3 years making millions of dollars for other institutions before they get paid themselves.

so you think a high school kid should be able to go straight to the NFL?

If an 18 year old can play in the NFL why not? Why should they have to make the people who control the NCAA rich for three years before they can get a paycheck?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.

Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer.

In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.

Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

Here's the differences:1. Where a degree or certification is required by law, the law exists for the protection of the consumer- we have no way of knowing if the person we hire is a qualified lawyer or doctor or plumber, so the degree or certificate tell us that. That's not the issue here. Here it exists ostensibly for the protection of the employee (although it is actually for the protection of the cartel). It's an apples and oranges comparison.

2. In other cases where the company puts its own requirement in place, it can bend those rules if a once in a lifetime talent comes along and they want to secure their services. NFL teams obviously would like to do that with someone like Clowney, but they can't because of collusion. Collusion for purposes of maintaining competitive balance is fine, collusion for whatever purposes they've got here, less so in my opinion.

So if the NFL and NFLPA have the ability to bend the rule for Adrian Peterson if they choose, it would be ok?

Well then it wouldn't be a rule. Which would be fine with me.There's no fundamentally right or wrong answer here. We all agree that the rule harms the best interests of a small group of potential employees, right? And that the potential for serious harm exists because of the possibility of injury, albeit only for a very very small group of kids. So the question is whether the benefit outweighs that harm. So what's the benefit? I think the benefit is protecting veterans' roster spots and keeping the NCAA as a free and healthy farm system for the NFL. I don't care about either of those things- in fact I kind of think they're negatives- so I side with the right of the employee to work and provide for himself and his family, especially considering the risk of injury in this field. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This whole system is really screwed up, but there is no way he would sit out a season because of it.

How is the system screwed?

Because these guys have to spend 3 years making millions of dollars for other institutions before they get paid themselves.

so you think a high school kid should be able to go straight to the NFL?

If an 18 year old can play in the NFL why not? Why should they have to make the people who control the NCAA rich for three years before they can get a paycheck?

They don't. Nothing requires them to go play college football.

 

[gandalas]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Does this guy ever contribute anything to a discussion besides one word (or maybe 1 sentence) quips, or the standard smiley when he disagrees with you?just wondering...

 

[roadkill1292]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Does this guy ever contribute anything to a discussion besides one word (or maybe 1 sentence) quips, or the standard smiley when he disagrees with you?just wondering...

He wasn't really out of line in bringing me down to earth after I made some wildassed claims. He's a litigator by profession and tearing holes in people's arguments is what he does professionally and apparently has the personal habit as well. But it's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear why he supports the NFL's practices, not just what the legal standing the parties have in the matter. I want the system to change and I'm happy to put my reasons out there; I'm not sure why everybody doesn't want to do this but then I'm kind of a whack job.

 

[GregR]

Why does the NFL have to set a "standard" for employment? Especially an arbitrary one that ends up excluding qualified employees? One would think that a right to seek employment should trump the league's self-serving employment rules. Either a kid can play well enough to make the team or he can't.

Why?

Why not?edit: No, that's a crappy answer and you deserve better. Because it's yucky, that's why.

It's a simple question. We have two parties. Why does one's rights trump the other's?

I do not have the ability to win an argument of this type with you. Why don't you just make your point? I'm mostly just up on my soapbox here, waving my arms in the air.

You made the statement. I'm just wondering what you think provides the basis for it. Why should the prospective employee's rights trump the prospective employer's rights in this case. You don't have the right to demand a particular employer hire you. Why does Clowney?

I don't know about couching it as a matter of individual rights vs employers rights... so much as it is about the effect age discrimination has on the public interest.Arbitrary age limits, regardless of potential for job performance, burden commerce and the flow of goods in our society. So it is in the public interest that arbitrary age discrimination be avoided.

Except that Congress has decided that age discrimination is a problem when its levied against older workers in favor of younger workers.

They decided that in addition to what I posted, yes.The law they actually crafted bans employers from discriminating against hiring based on age. Not just based on old age.

You need to go re-read the ADEA. It doesn't apply to anyone under 40.

My bad. I had read the restrictions which didn't use wording restricting it to older workers, but didn't read the later part that then added on the under 40 restriction.

 

[GregR]

Also, coolnerd hit some of the kind of things that left me a bit undecided on how good or bad the rule is.

Many companies won't let you apply for a position without a degree. Talking about positions where the degree isn't required by law like a doctor or lawyer.

In the ways that relate to this conversation, I don't see a significant difference between this and the NFL's rule. I have a hard time saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

It feels a bit hypocritical to me if I say a company can require a degree, regardless if some individual can successfully perform the work without one, but the NFL can't require the amount of time it takes most player's bodies to mature to the pro level, regardless if some individual doesn't require that time.

Yet I still feel there is something wrong about the NFL's rule, but not the other company's.

Here's the differences:1. Where a degree or certification is required by law, the law exists for the protection of the consumer- we have no way of knowing if the person we hire is a qualified lawyer or doctor or plumber, so the degree or certificate tell us that. That's not the issue here. Here it exists ostensibly for the protection of the employee (although it is actually for the protection of the cartel). It's an apples and oranges comparison.

2. In other cases where the company puts its own requirement in place, it can bend those rules if a once in a lifetime talent comes along and they want to secure their services. NFL teams obviously would like to do that with someone like Clowney, but they can't because of collusion. Collusion for purposes of maintaining competitive balance is fine, collusion for whatever purposes they've got here, less so in my opinion.

So if the NFL and NFLPA have the ability to bend the rule for Adrian Peterson if they choose, it would be ok?

Well then it wouldn't be a rule. Which would be fine with me.There's no fundamentally right or wrong answer here. We all agree that the rule harms the best interests of a small group of potential employees, right? And that the potential for serious harm exists because of the possibility of injury, albeit only for a very very small group of kids. So the question is whether the benefit outweighs that harm. So what's the benefit? I think the benefit is protecting veterans' roster spots and keeping the NCAA as a free and healthy farm system for the NFL. I don't care about either of those things- in fact I kind of think they're negatives- so I side with the right of the employee to work and provide for himself and his family, especially considering the risk of injury in this field. Your mileage may vary.

The NFL/NFLPA can amend it anytime they want, same as the company can. So then we can say the NFL doesn't have a rule I guess.I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

The more this topic is discussed, the more I think the real issue is that there isn't an alternative option for players if they don't want to play in college. If there was some other league that was taking younger players that was viewed by us as legitimate enough, there wouldn't be much objection.

But I'm not sure why that should be the NFL's problem whether such a league exists, or whether the only version of it is the NCAA. If there is the big time money to be made doing it, there is nothing stopping those younger players from going out and forming such a league and making it themselves. But that doesn't happen because the college game is going to win out for a lot of reasons (fan connection and history to local colleges, etc). But again, I'm not sure why that's the NFL's problem.

 

[Kenny Powers]

My rough sketch of a proposal would be this: early (early) entrants submit their names for consideration. An advisory board determines which are legitimate candidates to be in the NFL right now, or who should wait a year. Those who they determine qualify get brought in for personal interviews (fly into Indy on their own dime). Any team can interview any player at that time. No workouts. No combine. You're making your call based entirely on this interview and your own scouting. The teams then submit binding offers for what round draft pick of that upcoming year they are willing to draft that player, similar to how the supplemental draft works. The players receive this information back, along with the anticipated contract they would get in that slot. They can then accept and join that team, or reject and go back to school. If accepted, that draft pick is forfeited in the upcoming draft, so in this case, if KC offers their 1st round pick for Clowney and he accepts, JAX is on the clock.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread.

 

[meyerj31]

My rough sketch of a proposal would be this: early (early) entrants submit their names for consideration. An advisory board determines which are legitimate candidates to be in the NFL right now, or who should wait a year. Those who they determine qualify get brought in for personal interviews (fly into Indy on their own dime). Any team can interview any player at that time. No workouts. No combine. You're making your call based entirely on this interview and your own scouting. The teams then submit binding offers for what round draft pick of that upcoming year they are willing to draft that player, similar to how the supplemental draft works. The players receive this information back, along with the anticipated contract they would get in that slot. They can then accept and join that team, or reject and go back to school. If accepted, that draft pick is forfeited in the upcoming draft, so in this case, if KC offers their 1st round pick for Clowney and he accepts, JAX is on the clock.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread.

Too much subjectivity for who qualifies... inevitably would be someone rejected and a lawsuit. Plus, anything that makes that much sense will never be implemented.

 

[Christo]

My rough sketch of a proposal would be this: early (early) entrants submit their names for consideration. An advisory board determines which are legitimate candidates to be in the NFL right now, or who should wait a year. Those who they determine qualify get brought in for personal interviews (fly into Indy on their own dime). Any team can interview any player at that time. No workouts. No combine. You're making your call based entirely on this interview and your own scouting. The teams then submit binding offers for what round draft pick of that upcoming year they are willing to draft that player, similar to how the supplemental draft works. The players receive this information back, along with the anticipated contract they would get in that slot. They can then accept and join that team, or reject and go back to school. If accepted, that draft pick is forfeited in the upcoming draft, so in this case, if KC offers their 1st round pick for Clowney and he accepts, JAX is on the clock.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread.

Too much subjectivity for who qualifies... inevitably would be someone rejected and a lawsuit. Plus, anything that makes that much sense will never be implemented.

Your second sentence doesn't jibe with your first. It makes no sense precisely because it's subjective and there's no doubt it would be challenged.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

 

[Christo]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).

Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.

Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

That depends on what fans you are talking about. If I'm a USC student or alum and Carolina Panthers fan, I want Clowney at USC as long as he's eligible. It doesn't do me any good to have him drafted by Arizona.

 

[GregR]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

I've already posted previously how general students and non-elite players benefit so not going to type the same words again. Fans benefit by having another league (the NCAA) with elite groups of players worth watching in it.

 

[RUSF18]

My rough sketch of a proposal would be this: early (early) entrants submit their names for consideration. An advisory board determines which are legitimate candidates to be in the NFL right now, or who should wait a year. Those who they determine qualify get brought in for personal interviews (fly into Indy on their own dime). Any team can interview any player at that time. No workouts. No combine. You're making your call based entirely on this interview and your own scouting. The teams then submit binding offers for what round draft pick of that upcoming year they are willing to draft that player, similar to how the supplemental draft works. The players receive this information back, along with the anticipated contract they would get in that slot. They can then accept and join that team, or reject and go back to school. If accepted, that draft pick is forfeited in the upcoming draft, so in this case, if KC offers their 1st round pick for Clowney and he accepts, JAX is on the clock.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread.

Too much subjectivity for who qualifies... inevitably would be someone rejected and a lawsuit. Plus, anything that makes that much sense will never be implemented.

Your second sentence doesn't jibe with your first. It makes no sense precisely because it's subjective and there's no doubt it would be challenged.

Okay, so get rid of that part. The intent was to reduce the number of kids who travel to a central location, only to find that no teams want them this year. Instead, anyone can put their name in, and the teams can request interviews with each applicant. No interview, you don't waste your money.

 

[roadkill1292]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).

Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.

Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

That depends on what fans you are talking about. If I'm a USC student or alum and Carolina Panthers fan, I want Clowney at USC as long as he's eligible. It doesn't do me any good to have him drafted by Arizona.

South Carolina fans are but one subset of fans. There are not only more fans of other college programs than there are USC fans but there are also probably more pro football fans that don't care about college football than there are USC fans.Another argument that's been raised that I don't much care for is the one about NFL teams being "forced" to sign players who aren't ready. Roster spots are way too valuable to fool around with doing this and the "future" in the NFL generally doesn't extend much past next year. Teams don't know if kids can play after they've had four years in college; signing even younger prospects sounds like a great way for a GM to commit career suicide when over half of them are probably already on shaky ground.

These rules are all about controlling labor costs.

 

[Christo]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).

Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.

Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

That depends on what fans you are talking about. If I'm a USC student or alum and Carolina Panthers fan, I want Clowney at USC as long as he's eligible. It doesn't do me any good to have him drafted by Arizona.

South Carolina fans are but one subset of fans. There are not only more fans of other college programs than there are USC fans but there are also probably more pro football fans that don't care about college football than there are USC fans.Another argument that's been raised that I don't much care for is the one about NFL teams being "forced" to sign players who aren't ready. Roster spots are way too valuable to fool around with doing this and the "future" in the NFL generally doesn't extend much past next year. Teams don't know if kids can play after they've had four years in college; signing even younger prospects sounds like a great way for a GM to commit career suicide when over half of them are probably already on shaky ground.

These rules are all about controlling labor costs.

But it works with most major college fan bases. While it's Clowney with USC, it would have been Peterson with OU. If anyone was capable of making the jump from HS to the NFL, it was him.As for the pure NFL guys, CFB has fed their sport for decades so they can stick their opinion where the sun don't shine.

 

[Grahamburn]

If I'm Kansas City I'd be petitioning the NFL to make an exception to this rule and/or using the court system to allow my franchise to select him, assuming Clowney wants to enter the draft of course.

 

[roadkill1292]

I agree with you that there isn't a single right or wrong answer. But I think the benefits of the system go a lot further than what you mention. I already detailed a lot of them in post #67. Players who are not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit. General college populations benefit. The teams benefit by avoiding having to take players before they are ready to play pro ball. And that's not even touching that fans benefit.

I'm not sure how the players not destined for meaningful NFL careers benefit, unless you're under the ridiculous impression that elite football players who don't care about school are still getting an education in college. Also, that strikes me as way too paternalistic. "Your parents and trusted advisors will steer you wrong ... only the NFL knows what's best for every 20 year old kid!" I don't understand how general college populations benefit. Because a tiny handful of players who are good enough to go to the NFL are forced to remain in school? I don't think that would have a any impact on the health of the college game. Not that I care- I'd rather do what's best for the kids directly, rather than do what's best for the schools that are supposedly passing along those benefits to the kids (just as soon as they get done paying Nick Saban another $5 million salary to coach kids who are playing for free).

Sure, the NFL teams collectively benefit ... but again, I don't care about them. If they're not smart enough to properly evaluate talent and potential, why should we protect them from their own incompetence by not letting them pick sophomores? You see this nonsense all the time, most notably from NBA owners. They actually had to create max $ and term contracts, because they're too stupid to properly value star players. Protecting people who suck at their job isn't a "benefit" I care about. Certainly not at the expense of even one Marcus Lattimore or Nerlens Noel.

Not really sure how the fans benefit either. Seems like the fans benefit by having the best players on the biggest stage.

That depends on what fans you are talking about. If I'm a USC student or alum and Carolina Panthers fan, I want Clowney at USC as long as he's eligible. It doesn't do me any good to have him drafted by Arizona.

South Carolina fans are but one subset of fans. There are not only more fans of other college programs than there are USC fans but there are also probably more pro football fans that don't care about college football than there are USC fans.Another argument that's been raised that I don't much care for is the one about NFL teams being "forced" to sign players who aren't ready. Roster spots are way too valuable to fool around with doing this and the "future" in the NFL generally doesn't extend much past next year. Teams don't know if kids can play after they've had four years in college; signing even younger prospects sounds like a great way for a GM to commit career suicide when over half of them are probably already on shaky ground.

These rules are all about controlling labor costs.

But it works with most major college fan bases. While it's Clowney with USC, it would have been Peterson with OU. If anyone was capable of making the jump from HS to the NFL, it was him.As for the pure NFL guys, CFB has fed their sport for decades so they can stick their opinion where the sun don't shine.

I think the number of players this will apply to will be pretty small for reasons I've listed previously. I'd rather those few players have more freedom than the fans from a few schools benefit from seeing the recruit shine for the old alma mater. Which, of course, is pretty easy for me to say, not having a rooting interest in a major program.