Yeah but baseball can do things like block the sale of a team and the movement of a team the other professional sports can't do this. That's why baseball teams don't switch cities like the other sports do. I believe the last team to switch cities in baseball was the Washington Senators in 1971. Since then you have had at least 20 teams move in the other major sports. If you do a google search on the NFL and Collective Bargining it will pull up tons of hits. You can dig through those if you want the details on the agreement. I believe it allot of it stems from a law congress passed in 1998 saying that all major league labor relations are subject to antitrust laws. That should give you a starting point at least
Phil Breaux used to teach (maybe still does) Sports Law at LSU that would talk about this kind of stuff a lot. I think you can use it for an elective if you're in the college of business. I recommend the class for anyone who has the option to take it. Much easier to sit through than some ECON, FIN, or ACCT class. Phil Breaux always reminded me of Hubie Brown. Seems like a good ole regular guy.
i am in favor of people having the right to discriminate all they like. i dont have any problem with racism or sexism or any of those because i feel like people deserve to be able to like and dislike and hire whomever they want, for any reason they want, and not have the government manipulating them. i understand that not everyone thinks this way and wants to meddle in other people's businesses and tell them who they can hire and why they have to hire them. i think that is wrong. if you hate freedom, feel free to oppose discrimination, and force your will on others. discrimination should be our right, for any reason we choose, be it a politically correct reason or not.
Man I tried my whole college carrier to get into Sports Law and Sports Marketing. Finally in my last semester I got into both classes. They are definitely great classes if you can get in.
interesting. all this seems needlessly complex and solved easily by just allowing private undustries to hire whomever they want. now we have an argument where the private industry has to justify its hiring practices by giving "acceptable" reasons for not hiring someone. but any reason should be acceptable, even if it is age discrimination.
yes i am a white male, but the fact that you ask makes me see that you dont understand . i dont go to your house and tell you who your friends should be, or who to invite over, or who your daughter should date. those are your choices. if you decide your daughter can only date christians, then thats your right. i would think that was very stupid, but i am not the one who decides. similarly, you can hire whoever you want to mow your grass. lets say for instance you don't trust irish immigrants. so you won't hire them to mow your grass. fine. even if you ideas are completely based on ignorance, it is not my place to tell you how to manage your property. nobody has any right to equal chances at jobs you offer. even if you decide to never hire people named martin because you think that name sounds stupid, that is your right. to tell people they cant make decisions based on their personal tastes, rational or irrational, is to prosecute their thoughts as politically incorrect. you should not use the government as your means to protect your special little groups that you happen to like. for instance what if i say i dont like to hire people who believe fairy tales to be true. that is fair isnt it? i wants sane people to work for me. but i happen to think religion is a fairy tale. do i now have to go to court because religious beliefs happen to be on the specific list of protected groups i cannot discriminate against? what if you religion is something real stupid like wiccan or satanist, everyone knows those people are morons. can i discriminate then? or do you feel like its your right to tell me what to do, purely because you can manipulate weak politicians with your feelgood ideas? point: discrimination is perfectly acceptable. if the nfl wants to ban people under a certain age that is their right. it not my league, it is theirs.
LSU99...I remember Phil Breaux. He was my instructor for both B-Law classes. He was a character...cranky guy though. He was the type I didn't want to piss off. His classes were always 7:30, 8:30 and it was like he was ticked because he had get up so early.
Learned my lesson during my freshman year not to schedule any classes before 9 AM. Don't think I ever had Breaux that early. Heard the guy who taught the Sports Marketing class always had stories of hanging with Michael Jordan and other famous athletes. My old roomate thought he may be full of it. See you're in Pearland. A few of the guys who play on my city league basketball team went to high school and still live there. Back to the discussion, saw that ESPN show about it last night with a panel of Jim Brown, Robert Smith (retired Vikings RB) and Randy Mueller. The introduction had all of the NFL GM's and coaches agreeing that the 3 yrs out of high school rule should be kept intact. They were basically saying that kids aren't ready for the NFL and it's a much different sport than basketball (collision vs. contact sport). Obviously, I knew Jim Brown's side and expected to disagree with his views, especially after the introduction. However, he and Robert Smith presented their opinions well and I don't know what to think now. When it was pointed out that most of these kids aren't ready for the NFL, the response was that they probably wouldn't be drafted and why should guys like Mike Williams & Clarett be penalized for that. Robert Smith probably gave the best input. I agree with his thoughts that college football is a sport where injuries are common and very often career threatening. If a guy like Mike Williams can be a top 10 pick and make millions of dollars now, he should deserve the opportunity to do so. Playing another year and risking injury doesn't make sense if you're in his situation. Another point was how thorough the scouts and NFL GM's analyze draft prospects. Although the athletes would get even more bad advice from agents if the 3 yr rule was abolished, that already happens (Trev Faulk) today and will continue. Simply put, kids that aren't ready for the NFL won't be drafted. Will it hurt the NFL and college game? Maybe so. I just don't know which side to take. Whenever someone states their side (even on this board), I pretty much agree with their views. I guess I'll just wait and see what happens.
