clarett lost his case...

[Guest S.  Bien]

Sigh...I can't help it.  Gotta say it.  No that's not what I'm saying.  DANG NAMIT!  If there were no desire to sign the younger kids, there would be no reason/need for the min. age rule.   Right now, the owners, not allowing anyone under 20-21 yrs of age to be eligible to play is borderline collusion.  That's what I was reading in ESPNMag and hearing on the radio 9-10 months ago.  Lotta people were surprized when MC's lawyer failed.  Wonder why?

Remove the rule.  If nobody truly wants a 19 yr old kid he will not be drafted or signed.  That's known as a TRUE free capitalist market place IMO.  The owners have the rule for the benefit of NCAA football aka the NFL's farm system.  Player union agrees to the age minimum b/c it protects jobs for the older veterans.  What if the NFL put a 40 yr old cap on the max age?  Then what?

Let me iterate again that I think the rule has merit but is not fair.  Age should never be sole criteria for any type exclusion for adults.  If my opinion is really so wrong please give me more professions that have exclusionary rules based on age alone.  5 examples will sway my opinion.  10 examples will probably change it.  I'm not a closed minded individual.  

SIGH, we do not see it the same....the reason for the age rule is to prevent presumptious agents and players from forcing kids to jump early, or ignore the rules.  If we Remove the talent from the NCAA before they are ready, we will force teams to sign kids before they are ready.   The NBA does it now, no teams wants to sign a high school kid, and most agree that 1 out of every 20 have the immediate impact of Lebron, but agents have gone out and hit the HS scene so hard these kids don't even care about college, they don't even watch college, and they don't have any ambition for it.  Agents are the evil here.

People think the product on the hardwood is atrocious, just wait until you've got a bunch of 18-19 kids trying to make NFL teams.  

The problem when you remove age limits is the power falls into the hands of the agents, as they are capable of bottle necking the talent.  Therefore, these agents will sign 25 kids in hopes of landing one Lebron.   They will infest the high school ranks as bad as they've done to basketball, and to a lesser extent baseball.  

 

Rules are not a problem in this country, people's inability to obide by them is, and thus it forces us to either create more rules to handle them, or to destroy good ones that were meant for the safety and protection of others.

[smazza]

the court of appeal ruling is inconsistent with all existing case law

nfl looks silly not allowing clarett to play.

emmit smith was 5 months older when he played for cowboys.

no one is complaining about middle schooler freddy adu hanging around with men.

scbulls- your examples don't fly and are not even close.

Clarete can clearly play with big boys.he has physical skills to compete in a physical game.

age requirement is not rationally related to any legitmate purpose.

no other court case in last 35 years ruled this way.

jsu because chp and duke university cops have stupid rules doesn't make them valid

slavery used to be legal in this country also  sc bull

scbull- you have to do much more to convince me

[smazza]

conversely,an 18 year old can die for his country

he can play in NFL in my book

[BULLheaded]

rule is fair, owner's business...owner's rules. Again the business is not there for the players, the owners extend a privelege to those they allow to play, it is not a "right" of the players. The rule is also across the board and applies to everyone who wants to be a player in the nfl, this rule does not pick and choose so in that sense it is also fair. The only reason a couple of kids are now in a predicament of getting "screwed" is because they thought they could get around these rules and NOT because the owners put them there. The rules were known, the owners made it clear ahead of time they were not flexible and they would be defended so these kids knew that by trying to go to the nfl early they might be in this predicament so this was a risk they took and lost...again NOT the owners fault.

These rules may or may not be the best way to achieve the intended results, they may not even make any sense at all but they ARE fair since owners have and should have the rights to run their businesses as they see fit.

If we really want to fight age discrimination why don't we start with the laws that are in place that actually take away an individuals rights such as

drinking age 21 - can be tried as an adult for breaking the law, can die for the country (a la smazza's example) but can't have a beer

being a bartender - guess being 21 is necessary to pour drinks. This would certainly affect more of the populations employment but nobody complains

must be 21 to enter a strip joint even when no alcohol is served - can be married at 16, an adult at 18 yet can't see anyone naked in a bar until 21.

Truth is nobody seems to mind age discrimination so much as long as it doesn't seem to be coming from rich people running their business. Society forcing a kid to be 21 to drink and it's ok since it is for their protection.....an owner forcing a kid to be a particular age to play in a league full of 300-400 pound killers and whoa!!! they are so discriminatory, call the lawers on this travesty!!

of course once the courts win and force anyone to be able to play just wait untill the first few underage kids start getting paralyzed or suffer some sort of other permanant injury....we'll have the lawers immediately calling for the heads of the owners for allowing these kids to be put into dangerous situations. I can here it now, everyone crying negligence on the owners part for allowing a talented but undersized kid to play.

[BULLheaded]

conversely,an 18 year old can die for his country

he can play in NFL in my book

the only problem is that it is NOT your book, it is the owner's book and their right to decide who can read it. So many people seem to think that book is public property and anyone who can read has an inherent "right" to it

[Apis Bull]

scbulls- your examples don't fly and are not even close.

What do you mean, they don't fly?  Bulldoug asked for examples of any other job that had a minimum age limit.  I gave him three examples.

slavery used to be legal in this country also  sc bull

WTF?!  What does slavery have to do with any of this?

scbull- you have to do much more to convince me

I'm not trying to convince anyone.  Just stating facts.

[smazza]

scbull-  because it is a rule or leagal doesn't make it right

owners have no right to discriminate based on age and restrain trade

bullheaded- the nfl owners are violating law

[Guest S. Bien]

scbull-  because it is a rule or leagal doesn't make it right

owners have no right to discriminate based on age and restrain trade

bullheaded- the nfl owners are violating law

My 14 year-old nephew wants to drive a car.  Care to represent him?  Just as asinine, and take your litigious crazed world to the Mad Cow lounge.  This is a sports board.

[Apis Bull]

scbull-  because it is a rule or leagal doesn't make it right

owners have no right to discriminate based on age and restrain trade

bullheaded- the nfl owners are violating law

I just gave you three examples where one is "discrimnated" against based on age.  Are they all violating the law?  The President being 35 is the law.  It's clearly stated in the Constitution.

[Guest S.  Bien]

I just gave you three examples where one is "discrimnated" against based on age.  Are they all violating the law?  The President being 35 is the law.  It's clearly stated in the Constitution.

Don't tell a few on this board, then we'll be lobbying to change the constitution based on age discrimination.  Why have parents since its clear that some believe we can all make decisions without care about maturity or age.  Hell, let's drop laws, at least we wouldn't be suing each other so much.

There is too much precidents in this country where age does matter for someone to come here and state it doesn't.  IF it was simply age as the a discriminatory motive, and by that I mean too young, then we would absolutely throw our country into a tailspin.  The court challenges for other similar situations could be maddening.

The one thing that really upset me were the lawyers that were posing on Clarrett's side because most represented the blood-thirsty, ravishing litigious world of litigants that all they saw were dollar signs and opportunities with an over-turn in this case.  Sometimes lawyers are so worry about money and prestigious they ignore the fact that they are willing to sellout, and bastardize our system and way-of-life for personal benefit, over the gain of a few.