High Schoolers to enter draft

If you get a court order to live in my house, I am forced by law to abide, you'd never get one because it's an unreasonable request, but it could happen. Golf Courses that are male only still have to hire females that are qualified due to equal oppurtunity employment.

That's exactly the point, Clarrett's request is unreasonable; he is seeking entry to the NFL (the house) when the NFL should be able to determine who and who cannot come in.

EOE doesn't offer sweeping protections; just look at bartenders, people who sell alcohol (i.e. owners of a liquor store), people who drive cars, people seeking to rent a car, people applying for certain senior jobs (that require say 10 years of work experience), people running for political office (i.e. President, Senator, Congressman), and a number of others.

Also, the NFL isn't prohibiting ther entry of young people because they hate those damn youngsters; it's because they believe that the NFL requires physical and emotional maturity which young people lack. That's why the University of Michigan's affirmative action program was held consitutional; it was not seeking people of different races simply because they didn't like white people, it was because they wanted to create a diverse environment that was conducive to learning about a variety of perspectives. This goers beyond someone's birth date, it has to do with maturity and Clarrett is no example of a responsible, wise-beyond his years guy.

I firmly believe that the Clarrett case will be overturned.

I think Daesal was referencing the anti-trust laws because the judge in the Clarrett case ruled the NFL had a monopoly on professional football and that it couldn't discriminate based on age.

However, that's a freaking ridiculous ruling for all the reasons I stated above.


NOTE: I'm not trying to be a jerk, but Daesal and Beems - you guys both need to tone it down a bit. I'm sorta the same way sometimes, but I try not to be. Let's discuss this stuff in a calm manner. Thanks for your cooperation and keep up the good posts and debate, just leave out personal attacks.

And yes, we CAN sue if the employeers qualifications are unreasonable. Which in this case it was decided that they were. He was kept out because of his age, yes it goes by years out of high school, but you know what, that argument doesn't hold water, because of the NFL draft Clarett should have been out of HS for 3 years. He graduated early, in December of 2000, I'm pretty sure. The NFL then quickly said, oh well we didn't mean for it to work like that! So they sued with anti-trust laws, which were OVIOUSLY broken.

I know we CAN sue if we feel employer qualifications are unreasonable. Hell, in this over-litigious society anyone can sue for just about anything. But that isn't the issue, either. When a court rules the way it does here, then privacy rights in this country and freedom of association are quickly becoming obsolete.

This is far from absurd. If there was a court order given for you to live in my house I can not stop you. I can appeal and hope that goes through, but if it is finalized nothing I can do.

You think it is 'far from absurd' for me to seek a court order demanding entry into your house for no other reason that I think I "deserve" to be there? Yes, Daseal. Give that one some thought, will you? Sleep on it tonight and hopefully you will awake tomorrow morning with a better understanding of how hysterically absurd that notion is. Any judge would have thrown my suit out the window, which is what Schindlin should have done with Clarett's.

So go spend some money on Capitol Hill and lobby to get anti-trust laws voided. Goodluck.

What are you talking about? Get the anti-trust laws voided? Daseal, when I read posts like this, I get the feeling you are beginning to lose control. Earlier, you made this statement: "You're forgetting a key aspect of the Clarett case. THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS which you seem to be completely skipping in your analogies." I responded by saying that I am not questioning the fact that Clarett went through the legal process, I'm saying that the court decision is wrong. The fact that this judge made a completely wacked out ruling has nothing to do with whether the anti-trust laws need to be changed.

Wrong. They have to pass a physical which makes them eligible. They won't let someone my size in unless they play kicker! They do need to justify their rules, otherwise they will be overturned like we saw. Also, the NFL is discriminating. It's age, don't let the wording fool you. You think they would let a genius who graduated highschool at 13 play in the NFL when he was 16? Nope, they'd find ways around it.

Passing a physical most certainly is not the only way to make a player eligible. That's a test teams initiate to determine if a player is in proper physical condition to make the roster. It is not used to determine if someone is eligible to play in the NFL. Your size, and Clarett's size are not the issue here. They are not denying him entry because they think he is too small. I don't have a copy of the NFL rulebook, but I'm certain there is a restriction for Einstein-like wizards who graduate at 13 years old, as well.

Who gives a shit?

The NFL gives a shit. You asked earlier "who says Clarett isn't qualified?" I answered your question.

Anything else, Daseal?

I know we CAN sue if we feel employer qualifications are unreasonable. Hell, in this over-litigious society anyone can sue for just about anything. But that isn't the issue, either. When a court rules the way it does here, then privacy rights in this country and freedom of association are quickly becoming obsolete.
You're able to sue for anything you want. I could take you to court for not agreeing with me on this board. Obviously it wouldn't get far, but I'd force you to show up. That's how our lovely legal system works. That's one of the trick questions on the BAR in some cases. Want privacy? Vote democratic, hello Patriot Act!

You think it is 'far from absurd' for me to seek a court order demanding entry into your house for no other reason that I think I "deserve" to be there? Yes, Daseal. Give that one some thought, will you? Sleep on it tonight and hopefully you will awake tomorrow morning with a better understanding of how hysterically absurd that notion is. Any judge would have thrown my suit out the window, which is what Schindlin should have done with Clarett's.

I don't think it's far from absurd to seek one. That's crazy. I was simply stating that if you want to go to a court and state you belong to be in my house, you have the right to do that. Will you get in? Most likely not unless you are somehow entitled to my belongings. I've heard of crazier rulings. A man with his 7th DUI once was forced to move 1 or less blocks away from a liqour store to cut down on his drinking and driving. There are a million extremely odd outcomes to legal cases. I'm saying that if you were to win the lawsuit, there's nothing I could do.


What are you talking about? Get the anti-trust laws voided? Daseal, when I read posts like this, I get the feeling you are beginning to lose control. Earlier, you made this statement: "You're forgetting a key aspect of the Clarett case. THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS which you seem to be completely skipping in your analogies." I responded by saying that I am not questioning the fact that Clarett went through the legal process, I'm saying that the court decision is wrong. The fact that this judge made a completely wacked out ruling has nothing to do with whether the anti-trust laws need to be changed.
The Anti-trust laws being violated are what got Clarett into the NFL.

You didn't answer the is he qualified question. 95% of the football community feels he's qualified to play professionally. You honestly think in the extra year he would mature and grow up to a state much higher than the one he's currently in? I doubt it. One year means just about nothing in terms of maturing, but it means millions of dollars in salary. Which is more than I'll ever see in a year, that's for sure.

The NFL has no right to keep these players out because of their age. Let's talk about Mike Williams some? You seem to dodge questions about him. Is it you just don't like Clarett because he did something for himself? He fought the system which he felt was unfair.

It's like saying that because the blacks once weren't allowed to go to the same schools as white kids that who are they to challenge that rule and want an equal chance. Why does everyone in this country want an equal chance? Maybe if college football wouldn't exploit these kids and let them make some money in college football this would have never happened. Let them take endorsement deals, let them have a small share of jersey sales, fix the fucking BCS, then come whining to me about them wanting to play. They think they can move to the next level, who is the NFL to stop them? The NFL has to give them the ability to apply like stated earlier. It's not like Clarett's asking for a job guarentee, he just want's a chance to have his application in the mix. What's wrong with letting THE BEST PLAYERS into the NFL?

You honestly think in the extra year he would mature and grow up to a state much higher than the one he's currently in? I doubt it. One year means just about nothing in terms of maturing, but it means millions of dollars in salary. Which is more than I'll ever see in a year, that's for sure.

You're right that one year probably does not mean all that much. However, if you value maturity, you need to set some guidelines (even if they seem arbitrary). Plus, we're trying to say that the NFL has the right to make whatever membership rules they choose - provided they are legal.

We are saying that the government's interference in this matter isn't justifiable and legally, the ruling was erroneous.

The NFL has no right to keep these players out because of their age. Let's talk about Mike Williams some? You seem to dodge questions about him. Is it you just don't like Clarett because he did something for himself? He fought the system which he felt was unfair.

Mike Williams is being allowed in because of the ruling. The NFL must follow this ruling until it is overturned. I don't agree with either Clarett or Williams getting into the NFL.

It's like saying that because the blacks once weren't allowed to go to the same schools as white kids that who are they to challenge that rule and want an equal chance. They think they can move to the next level, who is the NFL to stop them?

This situation is in no reasonable waycomparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks in the U.S.

The NFL is the organization Clarett is seeking to enter so I think they have a right to determine who can come into the league. AARP doesn't let kids in either but I'm not going to whine about that. I don't get the kids eat free meal either when I go out. Amusement parks don't give me a kids/senior citizen discount. I don't get to shop at the PX because I'm not in the military (which has its own age, weight, health criteria).

Again, this is not age discrimination, its maturity discrimination. Though the rules seem arbitrary, they are the league's rules and since they are not illegal (in my mind), the government should not force the hand of the league.

Let's settle the legal aspect of the NFL age-discrimination situation since the Supreme Court will take a year to reach a ruling. The age discrimination laws apply to those 40 or older, not 40 or under. Hence, laws restricting minors and those under 21 from applying for certain jobs (i.e. bartender).

So, any discussion about the EOE is irrelevant.

Now, the second issue in Clarett v. NFL concerns Clarett's contention that the NFL is a monopoly and therefore it has no legal right to prohibit him from entering the NFL draft (thereby preventing him from pursuing his career).

I really doubt that Judge Judy's ruling in favor of Clarett will withstand the tests the appellate courts will apply. I say this with confidence because the Supreme Court has already ruled that the NFL is not subject to anti-trust laws since the NFL has a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.

This legal antitrust precedent was established in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that terms of employment are immune from antitrust challenges. The court wrote, in an 8-1 voting judgment, that terms and conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. Therefore, anti-trust laws were not designed to, nor should they be used to interfere in situations such as Clarett's (in which the labor union does not have a dispute with the employer (NFL) and there is a collective bargaining agreement).

Judge Judy had no right to ignore the precedent established by the Supreme Court ruling.

Ramseyfan rests your Honor.

For starters, Clarrett is not, I repeat not a better player than Mike Williams, and I can say that knowing that williams has atleast put up 2 seasons with incredibles stats and is a physically gifted WR. Clarrett on the other hand has not played a full season of football since highschool 3 years ago, we've seen quite a few other runningbacks through the years with the same physical traits, and he's coming to the nfl because he couldn't make the grade, pardon the pun. Secondly, while I know this wasn't part of the debate, I think college athletes should be paid because they are pretty much working for the college. Of course the opposing view on that would be that most are there on athletic scholarships and that is their method of payment.

I hate the ruling allowing pretty much anyone who wants a shot to try out for football regardless of age and expirience, but I understand it's a ruling following the letter of the law. That being said, I agree with the argument that if certain jobs require certain training and expirience, why is it that the NFL can't make similar standards of employment. I dont know how old everyone writing about this is, but I can't remember knowing anyone in highschool and college that was anywhere near both physically and mentally ready to play football on a professional level. I know there are very rare exceptions, but I'm sorry clarrett fans, a player who couldn't even play a full season(about 13-14 weeks of games plus a possible bowl game) of college football is not going to last a full nfl season(20 weeks of games plus any possible playoffs.) And I think its same to say with him having both legal and eligability(sp?) problems in one year rules him out as being altogether mature. and plus if he cared so much about getting into the league, why did he show up to the combine looking like he hadn;t worked out in monthes?

Overall the whole thing sucks but I don't see us winding up with watered down talent like the nba. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this part of the ruling or not but how do you feel about the judge ruling that anyone entering doesn't lose their eligability and can rejoin their college/highschool team?

when I said I couldn't remember anyone in highschool or college being physically or mentally ready I meant underclassmen as relating to the college aspect of that.

Its funny that the best of these highschoolers that want into the league was a DB that had no interceptions, not passes defended, and played on an 0-10 team. Obviously these guys will not be playing in the league anytime soon.

they should have the right to try out if they want to.as long as they all know that by trying out they can never play college sports ever again.they need to make sure they know what they are losing out on.

the thing about it is, is that you guys have to know that when most if not all of these guys don't get drafted, they are going to sue the nfl for collusion in an effort to prevent highschoolers and early underclassmen from being drafted. even if there isn't any collusion, there'd be an investigation and if anything actually was found who knows what the punishments might be.and that note about that hs cb entering the draft is pathetic. how in the blue hell did he even think he was good enough to be selected in the draft? the towel and water boys have better stats than that.

Ok, Since this subject has become REALLY heavy, I feel the need to unleash some comic relief. This is ACTUALLY posted in the article linked on page one.

After Clarett and Williams, the best player would figure to be Ronnie McCrae of Pasadena (Calif.) City College. However, McCrae, a defensive back, had no interceptions for a team that went 0-10, according to The Washington Post.

OK, everyone laugh now. lol :D