Mike Williams and Clarett could be in the draft after all...

[Jimmy James]

It is only my opinion, but I think more than half of the arguments being made in this thread have absolutely no legal bearing yet we have an awwwweeful lot of wannabe lawyers in here.

As quite possibly the foremost wannabe lawyer here (I am in law school), I just want to let you know I'm well aware that I'm not really arguing many issues of law here. I'm also interested in the NFL doing the right thing no matter how this decision comes down. It's a bad rule, and I hope others will see why it's a bad rule.

Since I'm on the topic, I just want to make it clear I am in no way competant to give legal advice and that I am not attempting to do so by replying to threads like this one.

 

[ckparrothead]

No worries. You do have some standing if you're in law school though. At the very least you must be finishing your first year, so something has to have rubbed off on ya. I just like how some people bring up some legal arguments without really knowing.

Personally I think its wrong to place an age restriction on a job that can be done competently by someone old enough to be skilled enough to fight and die for the freedom of our nation. And yes, I believe there are plenty of players under the age restriction that could be ready for the NFL. You want proof look no further than Mike Williams, set to be a high first round draft pick, possibly top 10. The NFL teams themselves have adequate mechanisms in place to weed out which guys aren't ready and which guys are. And if you think there aren't many players younger than the restriction that are ready for the NFL, you don't need to worry about the integrity of NCAA football. Not a whole lot of players will give up their scholarships to come out and be 6th or 7th rounders, or worst undrafted, when they can stay in school for free, work hard, and become more highly sought, well-paid players within a year or two's time. Thats my personal feeling on the matter, my instinct.

 

[Dphins4me]

I disagree. I think the NFL knows it would ruin a lot of people's careers.

Clarrett isn't ready for the NFL. It is obvious by how serious he took the NFL combine.

So anyone that does not take the combine serious should not be allowed in the NFL because if obviously shows that they are not ready?

 

[Dphins4me]

It should be upheld. The reason the appeals court made the decision in the first place was that the issue over not being able to declare until you are three years removed from high school is in the collective bargaining agreement. Anything that is in the CBA is protected with the anti-trust exemption.

But we are dealing with RBG here, who is a staunch liberal judge and a Clinton appointee.

Actually I do not believe it is part of the current CBA. At least that what I believe the lawyer for the NFL said yesterday on the NFL network.

 

[KB21]

If you want the NFL to spiral downward in quality, then you take away their rule. By doing that, you do nothing but create the situation that the NBA currently has. Too many players who aren't ready for the pros.

To preserve the quality of the game, freshmen, sophomores, and high school seniors should not be allowed to declare for the draft.

 

[ckparrothead]

I think the draft mechanism itself would prevent that more effectively than the NBA draft. Football salaries on an individual basis are a lot lower than NBA salaries, to my recollection. Kids that think they are good enough for the NFL, if they aren't really, they will get drafted lower and get less money for the first 4 years of their career. If they stay in school they get to improve their draft standing. Otherwise, all players would be coming out as juniors. Instead, most stay for their senior season to try and improve their draft standing.

Most younger guys aren't ready for the NFL. But some are. And I think the NFL itself has adequate mechanisms in place to distinguish between the two.

 

[KB21]

You will eventually get to the point where, because players have declared before they are ready, you have to take them because nothing else is available.

This is a road the NFL does not want to travel, and that's why they will fight this to the end.

 

[Jimmy James]

If you want the NFL to spiral downward in quality, then you take away their rule. By doing that, you do nothing but create the situation that the NBA currently has. Too many players who aren't ready for the pros.

To preserve the quality of the game, freshmen, sophomores, and high school seniors should not be allowed to declare for the draft.

The NFL will never look like the NBA because the effect of young players is exaggerated in their system due to the tiny roster sizes. NFL rosters are huge, yet there is less ability to just stash a guy away like the Pistons have mostly done with Darko Milicic. Players have to be able to contribute on special teams at a minimum.

What will we see if there is no rule? We'll see sophomores come out, but I think it's frankly doubtful we'll ever see more than a few freshmen or high schoolers do so. In the short term, there will be a shakeout effect due to teams figuring out when it's smart to take the younger guys. That will disappear relatively quickly, though.

I want to make clear I'm not arguing for no rule. I'm arguing for a good rule. I'm arguing for one that doesn't punish a guy in Clarett's position when other 22 year olds can come out. I could live with age, but I think it would really be far simpler to just make the combine mandatory and require certain benchmarks as proof that the potential player in question is ready for the NFL. How does that degrade the game?

 

[Agua]

Well, I am a lawyer, practicing for 11 years now. The comment I made, and that KB subsequently made concerning exemptions for professional sports associations is correct. The only thing that allows the NFL to operate with all the restrictions upon ownership, eligibility and the like are the exemptions from anti-trust laws. IIrc, these are not statutory exemptions, but judicial gloss. It's been 12 years since I took anti-trust; it's not something offered to first year students.

[Edited to include the following:] Antitrust laws prohibit anti-trade / anti-competitive conduct. However, courts have traditionally given wide leeway to the judgment of professional sports associations because they're not competing against other sports associations, but promoting competition within their association. Courts have traditionally deferred to rules promulgated by sports associations as long as there is some sort of rational justification for the rule which improves quality or promotes competition or has some legitimate business purpose. Courts have traditionally figured that these sports associations are in a better position to judge what promotes athletic competition than they (the courts) are in.

 

[Jimmy James]

Baseball does have an antitrust exemption that is legislative in character. I don't know this from my classes -- I know it as a baseball fan. It's one of the things that Kenesaw Mountain Landis landed for the sport in the aftermath of the Blacksox scandal.

It was my understanding that the principle was extended to other sports via judicial gloss as you mentioned. While I certainly defer to your superior knowledge and experience, Aqua, that is the reason I think football's exemption doesn't have to be considered absolute. It would seem to me that it would be much easier for the court to scrutinize a rule such as this and determine that it is not reasonable.

 

[Agua]

Well, you know how courts whittle away at things. However, it would require a breaking with precedent to establish some sort of different standard, either in the depth of the scrutiny or in the level of justification itself. That's not something that *should* be done lightly; but you never know nowadays. Remember also, that the higher up the appellate level you go, the less concerned the Court is supposed to be with the "fairness" of the particular case, but more concerned with the policy implications and soundness of the principle (the legal principle, not the professional association's principle).

 

[Bottle Nose]

Doesn't the rule state that you aren't eligable utill three years after your graduating class uh graduates?

ergo ipso facto leaving school early won't help.

 

[Dphins4me]

If you want the NFL to spiral downward in quality, then you take away their rule. By doing that, you do nothing but create the situation that the NBA currently has. Too many players who aren't ready for the pros.

To preserve the quality of the game, freshmen, sophomores, and high school seniors should not be allowed to declare for the draft.

This kills me. People will support discrimination because they believe it is for a good reason.

I do wonder if this was not a professional sport, instead it was Microsoft (As the other poster used) and they said you had to be 35 before you could work for them. How many would support that?

Wouldn't Microsoft have the right to protect itself from younger people because they are afraid someone young would be more tempted to steal industry secrets?

This is not about what is good for the NFL, and I could care less if Clarett is playing 2 years from now. Its his life for screw up.

Its about what is right and wrong.

 

[Dphins4me]

Doesn't the rule state that you aren't eligable utill three years after your graduating class uh graduates?

ergo ipso facto leaving school early won't help.

Your graduating class is the class you walk with.

By the NFL rule, a 18 year old would be eligible for the draft if he graduated at 15, but a 21 year old would not be if he graduated at 19.

 

[Dphins4me]

Well, you know how courts whittle away at things. However, it would require a breaking with precedent to establish some sort of different standard, either in the depth of the scrutiny or in the level of justification itself. That's not something that *should* be done lightly; but you never know nowadays. Remember also, that the higher up the appellate level you go, the less concerned the Court is supposed to be with the "fairness" of the particular case, but more concerned with the policy implications and soundness of the principle (the legal principle, not the professional association's principle).

There is president for this. Spencer Haywood won his rights to go to the NBA back in the '70s, which opened the door for everyone else.