Clarett officially sues

Would that be his high school education?

 

let him go early. he'll be blackballed much like the kid from raleigh was who got his ged to enter the baseball draft after his junior year.

 

If Clarett is available he'll slip as Boo has stated. He has too many negatives if he were a great prospect. He is only a good prospect IMO. When he is healthy and on the field he is ultra productive but still needs to improve. He lacks top end speed and his injuries will be a major concern.

That said IF he can stay healthy he certainly has talent. He seems to show good vision and cutback abilities and he is a power kid that follows blocks well. He appears to have nice hands as well.

I'm not gonna hype him a lot because to be honest I expect there to be a lot of more attractive players at that position and although he compares favorably with Ricky Williams - I don't think he is half as good. He can certainly make it in the NFL but he'll need some help and luck (injury wise).

 

The age limit for almost everything except holding office and drinking is 18 years old. If the NFL had a rule about being 18, I think it would be fine. It goes in with many other work rules about being 18.

As far as drinking, there is a TON of evidence that 18-20 year olds kill other people, much more than any other age group, when they drink. The state has a very compelling interest in raising the age. That's a public interest. Those are the key legal words.

As far as holding office, those are in the constitution, and don't seem to be used as precedent for much of anything.

The court WILL look at other age restrictions, but they need to be very closely relevant.

As far as rules are rules, no. There used to be rules that blacks couldnt drink out of water fountains. Those rules violated the Civil Rights Act of whatever year. So they're gone. Rules have be be legal. Laws have to be constitutional. Just about everything has something higher it has to conform to.

These rules, assuming Clarett can document his contention that there is no legitimate business reason for them, and that they violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, or whatever variation of the antitrust statutes they're claiming under, are illegal too. And immoral. They are intended to give the colleges slave labor. That's why I think they're immoral. And Clarett is claiming that too. We'll see how it unfolds.

 

I think the rule should be a guy can't PLAY in the NFL for 2 years (during regular season) but he can be on an NFL team straight out of high school. Think how great that would be to have a football version of Lebron come straight to your team sit for to years learn the system and start at 19 or 20 years old.

 

You're fucking insane if you think kids playing in college is the equivalent of slave labor. How many of those kids have zero chance at the NFL but still play for the love of the game or whatever reason? There is a very small percentage of college athletes who go on to the pros, yet teams have no problems filling their rosters. Many of these kids are fortunate just to have a chance at a higher education.

Too many fucking "victims" in this world and not enough people who take responsibility for their own actions. Clarett fucked up his college career of his own volition, and now he wants a free pass. I hope the fucker is Mr. Irrelevant in 2005 after losing his lawsuit and sitting around getting fat instead of going to class and playing at Grambling. And fuck Jim Brown for trying to make this a racial thing against the OSU administration.

 

Clarett says that the rule violates anti-trust laws... which brings up the questions: doesn't the NFL have the right to impose its own restrictions as to who it accepts as members? While the NFL is a business, isn't it also a private club, and therefore is able to establish its own membership requirements?

I'm no antitrust lawyer, but I think the short answer to these questions is no. This is an area of antitrust law which is way over my head, but in absence of a more knowledgeable source I'll try to hit some of the major points.

The idea behind antitrust is this: Congress takes as a given (pretty much) that competition ultimately benefits consumers. Therefore, a group of businesses cannot decide as a group how their business should be run; instead, each individual business decides how it wants to operate, and the ones that have the most attractive plan (from a consumer standpoint) are the ones that get patronized, while the rest either fall in line, innovate, or wither and die. The NFL is by no means a private club -- it is an association of separately-owned business which makes up rules with which those businesses comply. Antitrust doesn't care about rules which actually "enhance" competition, and it's clear to see that some NFL rules have this effect -- it'd be pretty difficult to stage a game if the Jets counted a field goal as three points and the Redskins as twelve -- or if the Bengals decided to start fielding a 15-person team.

However, Clarett's suit would seem to be saying that the draft-age rule does not enhance competition because the use of a player of a different age doesn't effect the ability of two teams to agree on the rules of the game. (And indeed, I think he's got a strong argument on this.) The point is that if the rule were restricted, maybe he would be drafted, and if people want to see him play, the NFL's rules would be stopping one club who wants to run its business in this way from doing so -- and from attracting ticket sales from the folks who want to see Clarett play.

The complication here is that professional sports leagues generally have weird rules in antitrust law, based largely on the undeniable fact that rules are necessary for business which compete in games in a way that rules are not necessary for businesses which compete in the marketplace. Baseball has a court-created exemption from the antitrust laws. Football doesn't, but some exemptions do apply to football, especially one related to labor contracts. I don't think it's apposite here, but I don't understand it very well, so maybe I'm wrong.

Here's the other major question: given Clarett's acedemic and legal problems (that led to his being suspended from the team for this season), wouldn't suing to get a job in the NFL seems to be a very bad way to make yourself appealing to your potential employer

Here's the deal here as I understand it: the NFL would not be his employer -- some individual team would be. So maybe Clarett does piss off the NFL -- all he needs to do is convince one of the 32 owners that he's worth it. If he could but for the NFL rule prohibiting it, then it's a clear case of the cartel making decisions which affect individual members' ability to compete. The question remains whether this is a permissable restriction (either because in the final analysis it enhances competition or because there is some antitrust exemption which applies).

 

Can't you say the same thing about Augusta not accepting women? They don't have to let women in if it's "private".

 

lets not forget why this is happening. he fucked up and broke the rules. if not for that, he would still be in the buckeyes backfield.

i hope he's not allowed. on the other hand, it would be fun watching him get crushed by NFL defenses. i never have cared for him. i don't see his NFL career lasting too long. he's already had injury problems and that will continue.


someone said there is not one underclassmen ready for the NFL. i have to throw 2 names out there that will be there if this clarett thing goes thru in enough time. both WR. mike williams, usc, and larry fitzgerald, pittsburgh. unlike clarett, these 2 are ready for the NFL.

 

I agree that most of these kids are lucky. I just want them to be there by choice. Not because the NFL manuvered them to be. Whether its good for them or not is not an issue with me. Even if its good for me to eat a certain food for dinner, I don't want someone else to force it on me.

Maybe slave labor is too strong. However, in Clarett's case, the money he brings to Ohio State far far far outstrips the value of that scholarship, room and board. The college experience was priceless to me. To some, it has no value at all. I think its stupid for a kid to go to the NFL until he's FOUR years out of high school. But just as I don't want other people making decisions for me (particularly if they're benefiting themselves from that decision), I won't make decisions for these kids.

Clarett has not ruined his college career. Most say he could easily be playing at Ohio State in 2004 if he wanted to. Remember, he was strongly thinking about challenging the rule even before any of this happened. I think the fact that he got suspended was just that last little impetus. And the fact that he's suspended is not part of his attorney's argument whatsoever.

You're right about any racial aspect. That should not be a part of this discussion.