I dont mean to sound sexist but does anybody wonder if a male judge would've decided the Clarett/underclassmen/high school player issue differently from a female judge? It seems like she's only viewing it from a work/making a living standpoint. From a physical and mental standpoint these kids would get their confidence and bodies smashed. I know that no NFL team would ever take a high school player, but still some kid is gonna get set up for failure. I guess when I really look at it college can be the same way as far as failure/success goes. Its just that the NFL is a different beast and I wonder if she knows that.
I think I'll challenge the age limit to become president of the United States of America, same principle right? Personally I think most any judge regardless of sex makes the exact same decision, it's the easy way out. Noone wants to make a stand anymore; further more I wouldn't be surprised to see in the future some kid challenge the minimum age limit even further in a league like the NBA, I mean like the legal work age in most states is sixteen and you can drop out of HS at what, seventeen. Seriously though, if someone could explain to me how an age limit to become president is any more constitutional than the age limits repealled in this case I'd like to hear it.
I think I would've decided the case the way she did. I don't think most highschool players are ready for the NFL but I don't think the three year thing is good either. Eventually someone's gonna be good enough to enter the NFL at a young age and denying them the ability to make money while they're a legal adult is just wrong. I might be biased against the NCAA because I think the organization exploits young athletes and anything that can force them to change the way they work is fine in my book.
What does being a woman have to do with it? There are plenty of women football fans, just as there are plenty of men with no clue about the sport. I don't think kids should go straight from high school to the nfl for a variety of reasons, but 18YOs are legally adults, so it's kind of tricky to deny them the right to use their bodies to make money... But I seriously doubt the gender of the judge had anything to do with it.
It's simple. The NFL is this kid's ONLY outlet for work in his chosen field. He is an adult and has the right to choose to work. There are clearly teams willing to employ him at his given profession. The NFL is denying him the opportunity to work, not just in the NFL, but in football, period, because there is no equivalent to the NFL. Imagine that you graduated high school and wanted to be a computer programmer, had the skills and had plenty of companies willing to hire you and pay you well even without college, but some overseeing body of computer companies says that you cannot work until you reach a certain age. They are denying you the right to work and that is a violation of the nation's anti-trust rules. I don't think anyone believes for a moment that high school players are equipped, on the whole, to handle football or that it is good for the game, but that is irrelevant to this argument.
The age thing is probably the biggest problem since it is rather arbitrary. And since people's bodies mature at different rates, you can't point and say that any given person at age 21 is physically mature while any other person at age 20 (Clarett's age) is not. In some cases, a 20 year-old might be more developed physically than a 21 year old. If a person were unable to play based on his physical development, it seems like it should be up to the individual teams to make that assessment on a case-by-case basis, rather than just setting forth an age rule.
The owners own the teams. The players are their employees. If they don't want to hire anyone not out of high school for three years then f4ck 'em. they shouldn't hire them.
But, Chance, the owners DO want to hire them. That's the point. If this kid was eligible for the draft, do you think all 32 teams would simply pass him over??? The owners made a decision as a GROUP to exclude people under a certain age, but, as individuals, they'd hire him in a heartbeat. And because there is not equivalent of the NFL anywhere else, you are essentially saying, "Yes, there are plenty of teams who want your services and are willing to pay big bucks for them, however, we will not allow you to pursue those offers because we, as a group, feel you are too young." It's the same thing in baseball. The owners there could easily slow the growth of payroll if they were able to practice restraint. But, when you have guys that are willing to spend $150 million per season on payroll even though it is CLEARLY bad for the game, you have to find some way to force them to stop doing that either through a luxury tax or a salary cap. I don't think anyone believes 19-year-olds playing in the NFL is a great idea, but it's a catch-22. If the owners were able to practice individual restraint and simply not hire guys under a certain age on principal, fine. But, they don't have that restraint so the league tried to protect them from themselves, but that is simply a violation of federal law. Period.
i agree with you...but legally, even that's irrelevant. your first post was dead-on. the NFL is the only market for this guy to sell those skills to. this has been done in MLB and the NBA...we all knew it was just a matter of time before the NFL would be held to the same standard.
This article from cbssportsline.com says exactly how I've been feeling about this issue. HONOLULU -- Colts head coach Tony Dungy stood before the elite of the AFC earlier this week and informed his squad of All-Stars of an alarming decision. A judge had just ruled in favor of Maurice Clarett, giving the Ohio State youngster and all others the right to enter the NFL Draft. "That poor kid," one player immediately belted out. LaVar Arrington says, 'You have to learn what's going on physically and emotionally. The NFL is not for kids.'(Getty Images) Every year, the fine folks at SportsLine.com banish me to Hawaii to get a pulse of a burning issue or two to head into the offseason with. This year's topic couldn't have been more hotly talked about. This year's Pro Bowl is a bit different than in years past. Rather than the typical stress-free week where the NFL's crème de la crème can congregate together and talk about football on its highest levels, the week was marred. In fact, all week long, NFL players -- after forgetting about the nipple shot heard round the world -- reacted with outrage and couldn't let it go even days after the Clarett decision was rendered. "I would hope whoever the first one to try it, the teams would send them a message that this is not what the NFL is about," Colts quarterback Peyton Manning said regarding a boycott of drafting such a youngster. "I've never faulted a kid in college from coming out early when he has been eligible. "You have to go to college for three years and get an understanding of what life is about. You have to be ready or you'll never get over the hump." The most outspoken person during the week was Redskins linebacker LaVar Arrington, who has talked about targeting any premature draftees in order to send a message. "It gives people a false impression that they can be bigger than the league, bigger than the game," Arrington said. "This is some serious stuff here. There are some serious killers in this game, grown men who try to knock your head off every single play. "They have grown-men bodies and speed you've never seen before. You have to learn what's going on physically and emotionally. The NFL is not for kids." Arrington and Manning's sentiments were heard from corner to corner of both Pro Bowl locker rooms. The league's stars talked all week about cheapening the game and most actually took it personally. Their biggest concern isn't so much the college sophomore, but the fear of a world of LeBron Jameses trying to infiltrate the NFL. "It's a slap in our face to have a high school kid come out and think he could step up to a league where 100 percent of the combatants are men," Miami LB Zach Thomas said. "This is a whole different story on this level. I'm really against this." "Pay your dues like everyone else before you, and do the right thing," Arrington said. "All this is doing is taking our game and that one single person can devalue everything. That's fine though because at one point in time we'll have a chance to see what he's about out there anyway." "This isn't basketball, where your goal is to come out and throw a ball through a hole," Ravens LB Ray Lewis said. "Every other sport is different from ours, because our sport revolves around such physical activity. You bring in a kid who is 18 years old, I don't think they're that grown. "The body has to go through years of maturing against injury. You might catch a phenomenon coming out, but it'll hurt more than it helps. Maurice is a good friend of mine, but at the same time, the longevity of what they are trying to execute is impossible." The wide-ranging ramifications of the Clarett decision for the league were cause for conversation at practice, at the pool, on the golf course, in between sips of Mai Tais. Each Pro Bowler has his own take on what could be a terrible tailspin for professional football. "It's going to be a big mess, just like basketball," Chiefs fullback Tony Richardson said. "Kids will start making crazy decisions to chase the money instead of chasing their goals in a sport that they should be chasing. "It's not good for our sport. I just hope that it doesn't send our sport in a negative direction, because it could bring a class of young, mentally immature kids into the league, and that won't be good." "It hurts the entire fabric of our sport," Thomas said. "Now agents are going to start going after kids in high school. How many of these kids will be lured in by $1,000 bonus by some agent. They are too immature to deal with this right now." Giants DE Michael Strahan also added his opinion: "The courts have done these kids a great injustice. I actually feel bad for these kids, because they are going to change their lives due to a false impression about something. I don't care how physically gifted a kid thinks he is, the mental and maturity aspect of the game will engulf you. "The level of maturity needed to play in the NFL is incredible, and if they mess that up, it'll be too hard for them to recover." Even some of the agents (who might stand to the gain the most from this decision) present at the Pro Bowl were disappointed by the decision. Ralph Cindrich asked at what point does he and his cohorts now have to start looking at talent? Early high school years? "It's going to be a mess," Cindrich said. "When you go to college and have two years away from home, they can mature a little bit," Jets center Kevin Mawae said. "It's not a game for a bunch of 18-year-old athletes to run around out here. This isn't AAA state championship, it's the real deal." "You may be able to have someone come out with the physical ability to compete, but nobody will be able to handle the mental complexity of and the scrutiny of it," Manning said. "The difference between a college playbook and a pro playbook is astronomical. The difference between a high school playbook and the NFL? It's not even a conversation. "It's disappointing. Someone will try to do it, and the chances of that kid succeeding are very slim." Players also asked if there was something the NFL could eventually do to prevent their fears from coming true. Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA head, and league officials both said they would take steps to shut the window. "I was surprised to see the ruling, and I thought we had something different from other leagues," Manning said. "I've never liked how the NBA and the major leagues set up their situations. Hopefully there is something that the players union and the league can still do." Hopefully, because Hawaii isn't supposed to be this stressful.
