Inferior talent? So Clarett is inferior to the backup middle lineback for West Texas who is a Sr who has never touched the field except in blow outs and on special teams (fictional character)? Look at other professional sports. The NBA allows guys right out of HS is that inferior talent? MLB takes them right out of HS is that inferior? The NHL takes 18 y/os inteh draft is that inferior? Now just because a guy declares himself for the draft doen't make anyone draft him on "Potential" but allows a team to draft him. By telling someone you can't join our club until you're 21 means you are asking to get sued. Who knows wheter Maurice will pursue it or not.
Fine, you can exchange assmunch with whatever descriptor you feel like. How about the article that this thread was started for? Does that count?
Please cite anything at all which indicates that an applicant for a job at a company has successfully sued OR there is an indication that a suit would be winnable. Anything I have ever read with regards to declaring early for the NFL or NBA (prior to it becoming the norm) said that if the prospective player sued, he would more than likely win. I assume by your comments that you are O.K. with quality (based on skill level) high school sophomores and juniors joining the NBA? If not, why not? By the way I have NEVER seen or read anything that prohibits age discrimination because someone is too young. If you have any resources regarding this, please cite them, I'd like to learn more about it.
The rule isn't about Clarett or, as he'd like to think an exception for. If you open the door to MC, you have to open the door to 'the backup middle lineback for West Texas who is a Sr who has never touched the field except in blow outs and on special teams.' Then we can reference my post re: lowering the overall competition of the game, and the lessening of the impact the draft has on a team. Yes. See my post re: impact of the draft. MLB has a farm system which most kids drafted out of high school would most likely be for the next 3-4 years. I don't know anything about the NHL. See my post re: impact of the draft. It's not about age, but about assumed preparation.
One incident, and we haven't heard his side of the story is all you have to rely on is my point. Yes it counts, but can we at least hear what he has to say.
So what does it take for YOU to form an opinion about a subject, pgabriel? Explain your lengthy scientific process so I can better my underdeveloped opinion making process.
I would like to at least hear what Clarett has to say, but maybe he's just an underdeveloped 19 year old arragant assmunch, so it probably wouldn't matter. Also, I generally try to refrain from personal opinions about college kids who aren't getting paid in the first place. I don't always live up to that rule, but I feel the media scrutiny these guys receive sometimes is ridiculous considering they don't get paid. And no, I don't feel they should be paid either, I just think the media and over zealous fans should get off their backs, and if they don't want to get off their backs don't complain when they want to turn pro and at least profit from all this scrutiny.
Didn't you call him a knucklehead that you disliked? How does hearing his side of the story make or break any unformed opinion you have of him? I generally agree with you on this one. However, most college players don't stir the pot as much as MC does.
How much money did the Ohio State football program earn?? And I doubt a kid from Ohio would have to pay $20M to $30 a year to go to a state school in state, but that's a good exaggeration. Actually tuition is around $5M a year so if you think room and board cost close to $15M to $25M a year, I guess so. So to answer your question NO.
Cool, this is the basis of discrimination and why employers can't ask it: "During a job-application process, can an employer require applicants to provide information relating to an applicant's age? Generally no, although an employer can request an applicant's number of years of experience in the minimum requirements of the job. An employer cannot ask questions directly relating to age, such as the date an applicant graduated from high school, the date of the applicant's first employment experience, or dates of military service." So an employer can't ask are you 3 years out of high school, but the NFL can? Interesting
This is toi protect older employees. Employers can't use anything that would hint as to how OLD an applicant is not how YOUNG.
Employers can ask you other questions to determine what kind of experience you bring and gauge your potential to successfully do the job. The NFL asking if you've been three years removed from high school is simply their way of proposing a minimum level of assumed preparedness.
Since Clarett is a resident he will pay roughly $5500 per year for a full load. Housing could be estimated at around $5000 for the year and food about another $5000. Books and miscellaneous fees probably run at least another $500. They also receive a pittance of cash (used to be deemed 'laundry money') which is inconsequential. All in all an in-state student at Ohio State will receive around $16,000 in benefits for commiting to play football. Regardless of how much money OSU makes from their team, this is still money in his pocket because it is money he would otherwise have to pay (or somebody would). In essence he is getting $16000 per year for 4 months of everyday work (certainly less than 40 hours per week) and various days of unsupervised work throughout the rest of the year.
With this response I see we'll never agree. I think people can age and mature at different levels, you seem to think people only are mature enough (mentally and physically) at a certain date of birth (regardles sof their skills fo rthe job, such as years played football as an experience factor)
4 months of work? These guys have been workign out since 1 week after the Fiesta Bowl. Like most D1 athletes these guys are working at least 11/12 months, they don't just show up in September and get themselves into shape, break down film of the seasons opponents. That's like saying if you're an attorney that you only WORK when you're in court in front of the judge.
If you reread my post you will see that I wrote 4 months of 'everyday' work. The NCAA limits in season practice to 20 hours per week and off season to 8 hours per week. This does not include summer sessions which are (by rule) voluntary. I am being quite generous in using 40 hours per week for 4 months (essentially in season).
Fiscal year 7/01/02 to 6/30/02, the football program at OSU brought in $25,567,612. I just added football program revenue plus bowl game revenue. This is the website. http://senate.ohio-state.edu/2003-02-13SPacket.pdf Assuming there were 50 full scholorship players on the team, that would be $800M in student expenses, and only 3% of the total revenues of the program. And that doesn't include what they received from winning the National Championship as these numbers aren't available yet. Does 3% seem fair???
Actually, I think it is closer to 80 scholarships for division 1, but that's beside the point, the % will still be low. Unfortunately it can't be equitable across all of football. OSU brings in that much, but what about schools that don't? They couldn't equitably offer payments equal to bigger schools. The only way to make it fair is to create a pool of revenue over and above what is necessary for each school to run its athletic budget. I assume that most of us would agree that in most cases football funds the brunt of the entire athletic program at most schools. They rely on this money to enable other athletes to compete in their sports that don't get revenue. The NCAA should be able to easily do a few things to benefit the scholarship athletes: - At the least offer them $100/week during the season for incidentals. - Offer them free or cheap health insurance. - Allow them easier access to off season jobs. Unfortunately, this will require strict compliance and an oversight committee. Wasn't it in the early 70s that a number of UT players were "working" at the state capitol?
