are you secretly hoping clarett fails?

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:47 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1974495

I think Im secretly hoping he does well. But then I also think OSU is guilty, just not as guilty as ESPiN would lead you to believe. Which I think all has to be part of this discussion right? But then this could all stem from me secretly wanting Clarett to do well so that he goes away. far far away from tOSU. Is it time for CFB yet?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:00 pm

I hope he tears every ligament in each knee. No secret about it whatsoever. Bitch tried to ruin the college game. That's my livelihood.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:27 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I hope he tears every ligament in each knee. No secret about it whatsoever. Bitch tried to ruin the college game. That's my livelihood.

Funny you should say that. Your livelihood is the sweat of guys like Clarett. Why don't you guys start sharing some of the jack you're making off the game with those that make it possible? Then you wouldn't HAVE this problem.

TheChief · Post by **TheChief** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:27 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I hope he tears every ligament in each knee. No secret about it whatsoever. Bitch tried to ruin the college game. That's my livelihood.

true dat

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:34 pm

As much as I'd like to see OSU get into trouble, I'd rather just beat them on the field of play. I hope Clarett fails miserably in all of his workouts and ends up being drafted on the second day. Unfortunately, there will be some NFL team so desperate that they'll give him a long look.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:44 pm

BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:I hope he tears every ligament in each knee. No secret about it whatsoever. Bitch tried to ruin the college game. That's my livelihood.
Funny you should say that. Your livelihood is the sweat of guys like Clarett. Why don't you guys start sharing some of the jack you're making off the game with those that make it possible? Then you wouldn't HAVE this problem.

I'm not making shit off the game. When I say my livelihood, I am referring to the amount of pleasure I get from watching the game. If he opened the floodgates to the NFL, the college game would eventually get watered down like college basketball. I still enjoy CBB and would enjoy CFB, but watching players like Clarret, Peterson, Bush, Williams, etc. that would no doubt play one year, maybe 2 if at all, before sprinting off to the NFL would just suck.

Are my views selfish? Hell yeah. Are his? You betcha. The fans win.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:03 pm

I don't wish injuries on anybody. I want him to get drafted, play his ass off, and still fail 'cause he's too fucking stupid to digest an NFL playbook without chewing. Fuck that guy and his lack of respect for all things not him.

the_ouskull

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:05 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I'm not making shit off the game. When I say my livelihood, I am referring to the amount of pleasure I get from watching the game.

Well that's a little different. You do realize that God did not create Maurice Clarett just to entertain you for 4 years? How would you feel if you had the chance to make a half million or so at the age of 19 and some coalition of greedy old fucks denied you that chance?

If he opened the floodgates to the NFL, the college game would eventually get watered down like college basketball. I still enjoy CBB and would enjoy CFB, but watching players like Clarret, Peterson, Bush, Williams, etc. that would no doubt play one year, maybe 2 if at all, before sprinting off to the NFL would just suck.

Well they wouldn't be so likely to sprint off to the NFL if they were given a reasonable level of financial security. And I'm not talking about a couple hundy from a booster now and then.

Are my views selfish? Hell yeah. Are his? You betcha. The fans win.

In the long run, the fans will lose. Eventualy the age rule will be struck down by a lawyer more able than Clarett's. And the NCAA will still refuse to give their main breadwinners jack shit. The result? The watered down product you deserve.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:23 pm

Well, you are bringing up a different issue here and that is paying the players. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that issue. I think the point of view on both sides of that argument has merit, and I understand it. I happen to stand on the side that thinks players shouldn’t be paid monetarily. The absolutely free education that most refuse to work for is compensation enough in my book. I went to college on a full ride from my parents. I could have simply taken general studies and not worked hard for my degree and then sat back and blamed “the man” once I couldn’t get that investment banker position.

I have the utmost respect for student athletes who actually work for their degrees. Their road is much tougher than just students. For many, the free education, room and board is compensation enough. Some greedy bastards that can’t put in their 3 years minimum whose favorite word is “me” get what they deserve.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:40 pm

Secretly? Nope. I wear that emotion on my sleeve.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:02 pm

Like Killian I don't hope quietly, I flat out hope dude fails. Just like I hope Bloom fails.

BSmack,

I would love to hear your reasons for paying college athletes. Having been there myself there is no reason I can find to pay any college athlete a thing. They get everything they need and then some.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:37 pm

Left Seater wrote:Like Killian I don't hope quietly, I flat out hope dude fails. Just like I hope Bloom fails.

BSmack,

I would love to hear your reasons for paying college athletes. Having been there myself there is no reason I can find to pay any college athlete a thing. They get everything they need and then some.

You pay them because the system is rigged to force athletes to go to college. Either pay them, or let them go pro whenever they want to.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:49 pm

BSmack wrote:You pay them because the system is rigged to force athletes to go to college. Either pay them, or let them go pro whenever they want to.

It's called the arena league. If they want a shit salary for college ball, go to the arena.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:04 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:You pay them because the system is rigged to force athletes to go to college. Either pay them, or let them go pro whenever they want to.
It's called the arena league. If they want a shit salary for college ball, go to the arena.

Apples and oranges. The BCS "championship" game paid out over 20 million to the PAC 10 and Big 12. Of that amount, what did the players see?

Do you think the Arena Bowl pays more or less than that?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:11 pm

BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:You pay them because the system is rigged to force athletes to go to college. Either pay them, or let them go pro whenever they want to.
It's called the arena league. If they want a shit salary for college ball, go to the arena.
Apples and oranges. The BCS "championship" game paid out over 20 million to the PAC 10 and Big 12. Of that amount, what did the players see?

Do you think the Arena Bowl pays more or less than that?

So you think a profit sharing system should be put in place so everyone comes out evenly compensated? Is your next argument going to be that Leinart or Bush deserve a larger cut because of their level of play and the stats they put up?

The college game is what it is. And it is good. So it is said.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:18 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote: It's called the arena league. If they want a shit salary for college ball, go to the arena.
Apples and oranges. The BCS "championship" game paid out over 20 million to the PAC 10 and Big 12. Of that amount, what did the players see?

Do you think the Arena Bowl pays more or less than that?
So you think a profit sharing system should be put in place so everyone comes out evenly compensated? Is your next argument going to be that Leinart or Bush deserve a larger cut because of their level of play and the stats they put up?

The college game is what it is. And it is good. So it is said.

Football is a team game. I'd be just fine with the NFL going to a straight percentage salary and giving the players the right to market themselves as well. And I'd be just fine with that on the DI level as well.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:20 pm

BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:You pay them because the system is rigged to force athletes to go to college. Either pay them, or let them go pro whenever they want to.
It's called the arena league. If they want a shit salary for college ball, go to the arena.
Apples and oranges. The BCS "championship" game paid out over 20 million to the PAC 10 and Big 12. Of that amount, what did the players see?

Do you think the Arena Bowl pays more or less than that?

They all probably saw a couple thousand apiece in the gift bags that they got from the Orange Bowl.

And in your argument shouldn't I get paid an executive's salary? I mean, the system is rigged to force me to go to college and graduate school.

These kids are getting over $40,000 over 4 years. Not bad for what they are doing.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:44 pm

Killian wrote:They all probably saw a couple thousand apiece in the gift bags that they got from the Orange Bowl.

That's peanuts compared to what they made for their masters errr conferences.

And in your argument shouldn't I get paid an executive's salary? I mean, the system is rigged to force me to go to college and graduate school.

No it is not. You can skip college and grad school if you so choose and put your skills on the open market. That option was denied (illegaly) to Clarett.

These kids are getting over $40,000 over 4 years. Not bad for what they are doing.

40,000 isn't jack shit next to the revenue that players from top programs generate.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:22 pm

I'll be honest. I'm not sure what the restrictions are, but Canada has a football league. There is NFL Europe, but that might follow the same rules as the NFl. And as mentioned, there is an Arena League. Yeah, none of these pay as much as the NFL, but they are options that pay. For any player that isn't willing to make the sacrifice of studying and conforming to the rules of a student athlete, they have an option to display their skills for the required 3 years.

The Anomaly · Post by **The Anomaly** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:30 pm

bsmack: Are you black? You vehemently attack the basic premise of college athletics. Why? How about paying other sports? They generate revenue? EVer hear of Title whatever?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:39 pm

The Anomaly wrote:bsmack: Are you black? You vehemently attack the basic premise of college athletics. Why? How about paying other sports? They generate revenue? EVer hear of Title whatever?

What does BSmack's race have to do with this?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:45 pm

So BSmack, how much do we pay the women's lacrosse team? Or the women's field hockey team? Because if you are going to pay football athletes then you are going to have to pay every single athlete at every single school.

And save me the crap about the schools are making all this money on the backs of the players. First off an athlete makes a choice to attend school. This is the same as the pharmacutical researcher who goes to work for Astra Zeneca every day. Dude finds a new compound that reduces acid reflux with little to no side effects. AZ markets the new compound and makes billions, while the researcher collects the salary he did before making the discovery. If you are worried about this then don't sign the college scholarship and find another way to showcase your skills for the next three years.

College athletes are more than adequately compensated for their athletic ability. They are given free room, board, tuition, fees, gear, clothes, shoes, meals, and I can go on and on. Plus they have the ability to showcase themselves for future monetary gain.

Bottom line, as soon as you pay a college athlete something, you have a pro athlete.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:49 pm

I agree with 88. Clarett is most probably not going to come to a good end. I hope he proves us wrong...

War Stoops · Post by **War Stoops** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:52 pm

BSmack:

What about the rights of the NFL? Why can it not, as a legal organization, set it's own requirements for the eligibility of NFL players? There is nothing stopping any investor or group of investors from starting a competing league that has different rules. Granted, they would face an uphill battle (XFL USFL), but if the free market wants to see younger players play professionally, it will support a competing league.

Also, you're very full of crap on one front. Football players are not forced to go to college. It just happens to be the best way to market yourself for the NFL. That's just another value-added service of NCAA football, along with a chance at a free education and an invaluable growth experience.

Your arguments play on emotion but they are not grounded in truth. NFL owners, greedy and disgusting as some may be, are the one's risking their capital and should therefore be able to set the rules as they like.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:33 pm

John Feinstein once wrote that he thinks they should set up trust funds for the athletes that they get only after they graduate. I think that is a decent idea. Either that or give them a few bucks a month. These schools are making too much money off of them for them to not at least get a small percentage of that revenue. I'd prefer Feinstein's idea. But I'd be fine with either one.

As for the Womens Lacrosse team or other non-revenue sports.....they don't get a penny. Why? Because they don't deserve it. I may seem like a jackass for saying that and it may seem unfair, but life isn't fair. They'll just have to deal with it. When the Swimming team or the Rowing squad starts making the school money instead of freeloading off of the basketball and football programs, then they can get their share too. Until then, tough shit.

The Anomaly · Post by **The Anomaly** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:25 am

You get a quality education, room, board, tuition, memories for a lifetime.

Whose fault is it if they leave early or don't graduate?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:14 am

War Stoops wrote:What about the rights of the NFL? Why can it not, as a legal organization, set it's own requirements for the eligibility of NFL players?

Because they are in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. The NFL is the only viable option in town. It was certainly apparent that Clarett was considered by some GMs and owners as ready for the NFL. That is why he got an invite to the combines. Would he have been a project? Maybe, but that should be a decision for each team to make, not the league as a whole. Then you have fair competition within the workplace.

There is nothing stopping any investor or group of investors from starting a competing league that has different rules. Granted, they would face an uphill battle (XFL USFL), but if the free market wants to see younger players play professionally, it will support a competing league.

I didn't realize they piled shit that high in Norman. A "competing league"? You won't see a competing league in our lifetimes.

Also, you're very full of crap on one front. Football players are not forced to go to college. It just happens to be the best way to market yourself for the NFL.

It is the ONLY realistic way. You can count on one hand the number of players in the NFL who never played in college.

Not that I didn't say GRADUATED from college. Just another part of the continuing hypocrisy that is college athletics are the innumerable athletes taking up class seats that would better go to students interested in an education.

Get down from your horse Stoops. I know the womens rugby teams have a 99% graduation rate. I'm talking about the major, revenue producing sports.

That's just another value-added service of NCAA football, along with a chance at a free education and an invaluable growth experience.

There is nothing wrong with going to college. I went and someday my kids will likely go. But if a guy like Clarett, who is clearly not interested in college, wants to persue a work career AND some team wants to take a chance on him, he should be able to do so.

Your arguments play on emotion but they are not grounded in truth. NFL owners, greedy and disgusting as some may be, are the one's risking their capital and should therefore be able to set the rules as they like.

NFL owners are fuckin choir boys compared to the NCAA Board of Directors, college boosters and bowl selection committees. That being said, they are conspiring to maintain what is, in effect, a free farm team system for the league.

The Anomaly · Post by **The Anomaly** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:27 am

Yawn!

They are trying to prevent the downfall of a sport. Drafting on potential has RUINED the NBA. It doesn't work. You need somewhere to polish your skills.......college. Learn.....about life and the sport you want to succeed in...AND should you not be good enough? Get an education. IT lasts a lifetime.

bsmack: You are championing the wrong thing. Instead of worrying about the 1% of black athletes that may make it to the big time eventually, worry about the other 99% getting good grades and a quality education that will benefit them and their families.

It's funny. You see Clarett as some champion. Like he's doing good. How many morons from the inner cities will think they are Mo? And instead of having an opportunity to go to college they will sacrifice it, just at a chance to make a buck. The NFL isn't going anywhere. Get an education. Didn't you hear Bill Cosby? Damn!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:22 am

The Anomaly wrote:They are trying to prevent the downfall of a sport.

If the sport can't compete in the marketplace it deserves to fall.

Drafting on potential has RUINED the NBA. It doesn't work.

Would you or would you not take a 600k a year gig over your last 3 years of college? That's what a low NBA first rounder makes. Even at league minimum (NFL or NBA), a player makes more money in his first year than his scholarship would be worth for 4 years and a redshirt.

Of course, the NCAA was so concerned about Mike Williams education that they told him to go fuck himself when he tried to go back to USC. A real class bunch there. :roll:

You need somewhere to polish your skills.......college. Learn.....about life and the sport you want to succeed in...AND should you not be good enough? Get an education. IT lasts a lifetime.

That's great advice for the 99% who will never make a living in the world of sport. However, when it becomes obvious that a player IS capable of earning his living in his sport, he should be free to make his own decision as an ADULT. I guarantee you the US Army would have taken Clarett had he decided to apply 3 years before his HS class graduated from college. Why not apply the same rules to the NFL?

bsmack: You are championing the wrong thing. Instead of worrying about the 1% of black athletes that may make it to the big time eventually, worry about the other 99% getting good grades and a quality education that will benefit them and their families.

Who said I was talking about black athletes? A Matt Leinart should have the same chance to leave early (if a team would have taken him) as Clarett.

It's funny. You see Clarett as some champion. Like he's doing good. How many morons from the inner cities will think they are Mo? And instead of having an opportunity to go to college they will sacrifice it, just at a chance to make a buck. The NFL isn't going anywhere. Get an education. Didn't you hear Bill Cosby? Damn!

They wouldn't have to sacrifice dick if the NCAA wasn't so backwards about the way it treats their athletes. You should be able to put your name into the draft anytime you want. If you choose not to accept a team's offer, or pull out before the draft, you should get your eligibility back. End of fucking story and nobody is "sacrificing" a college education for nothing.

War Stoops · Post by **War Stoops** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:57 am

BSmack wrote:Because they are in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. The NFL is the only viable option in town. It was certainly apparent that Clarett was considered by some GMs and owners as ready for the NFL. That is why he got an invite to the combines. Would he have been a project? Maybe, but that should be a decision for each team to make, not the league as a whole. Then you have fair competition within the workplace.

Um, nope. A three-judge appeals panel rejected this argument because they were smart enough to tell the difference between an employer and an employee. The eligibility rule is part of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement with its players. I'm no 88, but for the Sherman Act to be relevant in this case, the issue would have to be with the franchises/owners and not the players.

Also, the owners have every right to encourage their peers to change the rule. Get enough votes and its done. But they should do it for their own reasons and not be forced to do so by an activist court.

BSmack wrote:I didn't realize they piled shit that high in Norman. A "competing league"? You won't see a competing league in our lifetimes.

There are plenty of tall piles of shit in Norman, but that's another argument. As for this one, you're absolutely right. But the reason we won't see a competing league is not because the NFL won't let it happen, it's because the market doesn't want it. Again, I can reference a court decision to back up my point (this time from a jury) via the case of the NFL vs. the USFL. The jury heard some 7,000 pages of testimony against the NFL, including from the USFL's star witness Al Davis. You know what they found? The USFL folded because of shoddy management and a lack of fan interest. Not the NFL's dirty tricks.

BSmack wrote:It is the ONLY realistic way. You can count on one hand the number of players in the NFL who never played in college.

Not that I didn't say GRADUATED from college. Just another part of the continuing hypocrisy that is college athletics are the innumerable athletes taking up class seats that would better go to students interested in an education.

Get down from your horse Stoops. I know the womens rugby teams have a 99% graduation rate. I'm talking about the major, revenue producing sports.

So you're saying that the US Government should interfere with a private industry because the only realistic way to play football for a living is to first endure three years of college for free? I can hear from here the red army marching in your head. :)

Yes, it's overwhelmingly the best route, but it's not the only route and the NFL has no rules requiring college attendence.

Your point about atheletes not caring about class is well taken. But, again, their lack of caring does not warrant government interference. Who dares claim the authority to proclaim who deserves a classroom seat? Also, how many students are drawn to schools because of the athletic programs? How much money from athletics is pumped back into the school? After all, most successful programs are not-for-profit State-run Universities.

BSmack wrote:There is nothing wrong with going to college. I went and someday my kids will likely go. But if a guy like Clarett, who is clearly not interested in college, wants to persue a work career AND some team wants to take a chance on him, he should be able to do so.

See the numerous posts pointing to the short-term alternatives to the NFL.

BSmack wrote:NFL owners are fuckin choir boys compared to the NCAA Board of Directors, college boosters and bowl selection committees. That being said, they are conspiring to maintain what is, in effect, a free farm team system for the league.

No one hates the NCAA more than me so I'll agree with you there. The farm system analogy is flawed at best.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:43 am

War Stoops wrote:Um, nope. A three-judge appeals panel rejected this argument because they were smart enough to tell the difference between an employer and an employee. The eligibility rule is part of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement with its players. I'm no 88, but for the Sherman Act to be relevant in this case, the issue would have to be with the franchises/owners and not the players.

Well I just play a lawyer on a bbs, but that sure smell like collusion and restraint of trade to me. Perhaps the next Clarett will have a better lawyer to guide him through this process. It is quite apparent that Clarett did not have able counsel.

Also, the owners have every right to encourage their peers to change the rule. Get enough votes and its done. But they should do it for their own reasons and not be forced to do so by an activist court.

They should do it because it is the right thing to do.

There are plenty of tall piles of shit in Norman, but that's another argument. As for this one, you're absolutely right. But the reason we won't see a competing league is not because the NFL won't let it happen, it's because the market doesn't want it. Again, I can reference a court decision to back up my point (this time from a jury) via the case of the NFL vs. the USFL. The jury heard some 7,000 pages of testimony against the NFL, including from the USFL's star witness Al Davis. You know what they found? The USFL folded because of shoddy management and a lack of fan interest. Not the NFL's dirty tricks.

I remember the USFL vs NFL days. The NFL was ruled in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act in that case. Of course, as you say, damages were assessed at exactly one dollar. Trebled to three, that was the jury's way of saying the NFL was not the reason for the fall of the USFL.

That being said, do you seriously think that the NFL is pro competition? Look at their most recent marketing deals. They don't even like competition with their video game franchises.

So you're saying that the US Government should interfere with a private industry because the only realistic way to play football for a living is to first endure three years of college for free? I can hear from here the red army marching in your head. :)

Yes, it's overwhelmingly the best route, but it's not the only route and the NFL has no rules requiring college attendence.

Again, you can count the number of non-college players in the NFL on one hand. The last high profile player I remember was Eric Swann.

Your point about atheletes not caring about class is well taken. But, again, their lack of caring does not warrant government interference. Who dares claim the authority to proclaim who deserves a classroom seat? Also, how many students are drawn to schools because of the athletic programs? How much money from athletics is pumped back into the school? After all, most successful programs are not-for-profit State-run Universities.

All irrelevant to the discussion at hand. A player still should have the right to declare for the draft and, if chosen, play in the NFL.

See the numerous posts pointing to the short-term alternatives to the NFL.

Oh boy! Let's play in the Arena League! Never mind that the Arena League is nothing like NFL football and doesn't even utilize 11 PLAYERS.

No one hates the NCAA more than me so I'll agree with you there. The farm system analogy is flawed at best.

How is it flawed? Every year there is a fresh crop of talent, developed at the expense of universities, ready and waiting to join the NFL. If that's not a feeder system or a farm system, then I don't know what is.

Oh, and btw, BASEBALL is the only sport with an antitrust exemption.

Anti Trust Exemption

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:20 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:No Sherman Anti-Trust violation, because Congress gave pro sports an exemption.

Actually, with the exception of MLB, pro sports have only a limited exemption from federal antitrust laws.

Where does that exemption end? Therein lies the crux of this matter.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:50 pm

BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:I hope he tears every ligament in each knee. No secret about it whatsoever. Bitch tried to ruin the college game. That's my livelihood.
Funny you should say that. Your livelihood is the sweat of guys like Clarett. Why don't you guys start sharing some of the jack you're making off the game with those that make it possible? Then you wouldn't HAVE this problem.

Yes because every player on a DI team is going to the NFL undoubtedly and that 20k to 45k a year education, room, and board is absolutly worthless here in the real world :roll:

An allowance for the players to survive on their own each month is more than acceptable but lets not continue this sharade that they are getting screwed in the deal.

The Anomaly · Post by **The Anomaly** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:52 pm

BSmack wrote:

Would you or would you not take a 600k a year gig over your last 3 years of college? That's what a low NBA first rounder makes. Even at league minimum (NFL or NBA), a player makes more money in his first year than his scholarship would be worth for 4 years and a redshirt.

Of course, the NCAA was so concerned about Mike Williams education that they told him to go fuck himself when he tried to go back to USC. A real class bunch there. :roll:

You just proved my point. It is NOT is the best interest of the sport to pay someone any money to develop on a bench. It's stupid and not sound business. The NBA is in the worst shape I have ever seen. The players lack basic fundamentals. They cannot shoot. They can jump, higher. Run faster. Dunk harder.....but they suck. They is zero team concept. This is what happens when you draft a bunch of high schoolers. Unpolished products. With the salary cap in place in the NFL, there is no room for players to take 3 years to develop. The NFL Players Union will never let this happen. They will not lose jobs to kids that have "potential". It's stupid and the NBA is paying a high price for it right now.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:06 pm

Killian wrote:And in your argument shouldn't I get paid an executive's salary? I mean, the system is rigged to force me to go to college and graduate school.

BSmack wrote:No it is not. You can skip college and grad school if you so choose and put your skills on the open market. That option was denied (illegaly) to Clarett.

Same thing. I would have to take a shitty job making close to minimum wage and work my way to better money. Clarett wasn't denied placing his skills on the open market. He could have and gone to the Arena league, or the CFL. He was denied as much as a high school grad is when applying for a job with the minimum qualification being a college degree.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:58 pm

Jon, if you pay one athlete you will have to pay them all. This will put many more athletic programs further in the red. And even if somehow only basketball and football players got money do you pay all basketball players, even those whose schools don't make money?

BSmack, your thoughts on paying the lacrosse team?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:10 pm

BSmack,

Plain and simple, the NFL set their age limit to 3 years removed from High School. They have that right. There are 18 year olds out there that are responsible enough to handle alcohol but they still got to wait 3 more years. There are successful 33 year old politicians that are capable of being the President of the United States, but they have to wait 3 more years. There are 15 year old kids who can handle a full time job flipping burgers and their school work, but they have to adhere to child labor laws and wait 3 more years.

Just because there are a few 18 year olds that can handle alcohol, are you ready to say all 18 year olds should legally get alcohol? Same for the kids and the child labor laws?

I also like how you claim that you HAVE to go to college to get to the NFL minus the number you can count on one hand that didn’t and made it while the same analogy doesn’t fly with you for other kinds of jobs. In the grand scheme of things, you can say thousands of people make hundreds of thousands of dollars who didn’t go to college but you are now talking about out of millions of people.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:31 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Plain and simple, the NFL set their age limit to 3 years removed from High School. They have that right.

They will find out someday the do not have that right. Clarett's attorney was obviously outdueled by the NFL this time around. Since Clarett is in this year's draft, he will no longer have standing to persue his case. But somewhere down the road, there will be a player with the game to score a high NFL draft slot right out of HS or his freshman year. And that player, if he plays his cards right, will have a better lawyer than Clarett and then you will see the age restriction go down.

BTW: There is a precedent for this. Back in the early 80s, you might remember a back by the name of Marcus Dupree who came out after his freshman year and signed with the USFL

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/dupree/1518441.html

Here's an interesting little passage

Walker's signing as an underclassman a year earlier had created havoc within collegiate athletics. The USFL was moved to say it would stay away from players with college eligibility remaining. But when a U.S. District judge ruled that the league's rule constituted a boycott in violation of the law, Dupree -- who had been ruled ineligible by the NCAA -- became fair game.

Sound familiar?

His rights belonged to the N.J. Generals, who held his territorial rights, but when the Breakers gave up a first-round draft choice, he was theirs. In March, 1984 he signed a $6 million, five-year contract. While only the $1.1 million signing bonus was guaranteed, it was more money than the 19-year-old had ever seen -- or imagined.

Now, would you take a 1.1 million dollar signing bonus or a 4 year scholarship? Don't even begin to try to tell me Dupree would have been better off staying with Barry Switzer. :roll:

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:33 pm

Left Seater wrote:Jon, if you pay one athlete you will have to pay them all. This will put many more athletic programs further in the red. And even if somehow only basketball and football players got money do you pay all basketball players, even those whose schools don't make money?

BSmack, your thoughts on paying the lacrosse team?

Jesus, are we capitalists or not? Give the players a percentage of the gate and TV contracts of their respective sports. End of fucking story.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:46 pm

BSmack wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Jon, if you pay one athlete you will have to pay them all. This will put many more athletic programs further in the red. And even if somehow only basketball and football players got money do you pay all basketball players, even those whose schools don't make money?

BSmack, your thoughts on paying the lacrosse team?
Jesus, are we capitalists or not? Give the players a percentage of the gate and TV contracts of their respective sports. End of fucking story.

Then you would have another Title IX on your hands. No way you can pay the football and basketball players more than the Woman's basketball or Volleyball teams.