Clarett ineligible?

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by lsu99, Apr 19, 2004.

  1. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    but you can't just tell an employer you "deserve" a job and force them to hire you. nobody really "deserves" anything. except the guys who invested their own money in being owners of the NFL deserve the right to run their own business without being told who "deserves" to be employed by them.

    the whole argument misses the point. there is no need to argue about whether the kids are physically are mentally ready or are entitled to a chance. the people who hire them are the ones who make those decisions, not me or you or the courts.
     
  2. wesfau

    wesfau Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just because a kid throws his name into the draft pool doesn't mean that someone will draft him. No one is forced to draft anyone. Teams will draft players they think are worth the money. Most underclassmen won't get drafted. Let the economy sort it out.
     
  3. diamondheadtiger

    diamondheadtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1,006
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    incorrect. they NFL could get in huge trouble for collusion if nobody picks him in the draft and the courts believe he should have been, and the league agreed amongst themselves to not hire (draft) him. any time courts are deciding who should be hired by who, it leads to major problems.

    bottom line: the leage, and the league only, should determine who is qualified for the draft, for any reason they choose.
     
  5. wesfau

    wesfau Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    1

    My assertion is only incorrect if there is, in fact, collusion not to draft the player. My reasoning was based on the assumption that teams might each, independently look at a player and decide that he's not worth throwing any money after. Like I said, let the economy sort it out.
     
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    right i agree. however, i think the NFL should have the right to say exactly who is qualified to be drafted.

    of course if courts determine that clarett should be in the draft pool, but nobody drafts him, that opens the door for investigation to see if there could have been collusion, which is ludicrous. courts should never put his name into the list of draft-eligible players. we don't want a situation where the courts are gonna be analyzing picks to see if there was collusion, and i think that will happen if he goes undrafted after courts forcibly make him eligible.

    so what i am saying is the NFL should have the right to say to clarett, "you arent even being considered, we have decided that we arent going to allow teams in our league to draft you, because you dont meet our collective requirements".


    that is easier than having courts declare him "eligible" for the draft only to have him go undrafted. courts should not determine who is eligible or qualified.
     
  7. wesfau

    wesfau Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    1
    That part sounds more like collusion than Clarett going undrafted because no one wants to throw money at a "project" player.

    I think we agree on the end result, just disagree on how to get there.
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    yes we do agree. the decision on who is qualified to be hired (or be declared eligible for hiring) should always be determined by the employer, and never the courts.
     
  9. cadillacattack

    cadillacattack Illegitimi non carborundum est

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes Received:
    184
    JMO, but the NFL is, by definition, in collusion. They aren't stupid. They know they have a (relatively) "free farm system" in today's structure. By honoring (wink-wink) the agreement to deny access to underclassmen, they are effectively colluding to preserve the economics of the business model. The only reason it's not legally collusion is because the players union, through it's collective bargaining agreement, supports the current system.
     
  10. col reb

    col reb Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    387
    Seems to me the owners can still do pretty much what they please. If all are in agreement not to draft the younger players, they can simply state that they were uncomfortable with his attitude etc. Or one could draft him in the last round. Yes....We will draft him but not in an early round. Too many questions to be answered. Make it not worth it to come out. But if basketball and baseball players can do it, the owners may have a fight. Of course, the young man has a point about injury. Take out an insurance policy. I remember a young qb who played for Ole Miss. He came from New Orleans area. He played all of his time. Then made the statement that if he wasn't TAKEN in the early first round, he would play in Canada. He wasn't even drafted. They basically told him to be sure to wipe the snow off his butt before he sat down in his den.
     

Share This Page