1 posted on
02/05/2004 10:11:43 AM PST by
smith288
To: smith288
well so much for rules and reg's that businesses want to use
2 posted on
02/05/2004 10:13:45 AM PST by
markman46
To: smith288
Scheindlin sided with Clarett because he was fighting a policy that excludes all players in his position from selling their services to the only viable buyer, the NFL. *cough* CFL *cough*
3 posted on
02/05/2004 10:14:46 AM PST by
smith288
(If terrorist hate George W. Bush, then he has my vote!)
To: smith288
This is going to ruin the NFL.
Just look at the NBA.
4 posted on
02/05/2004 10:16:10 AM PST by
dyed_in_the_wool
("For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible" - GWB)
To: smith288
I just don't understand why the NFL wants this rule. Why don't they let the freedom of competition decide wether someone is able to play in the NFL.
7 posted on
02/05/2004 10:18:35 AM PST by
Lost Highway
(There's no stoppin the cretins from hoppin.)
To: smith288
Oh, I also think Clarett is going to have a very rough time in the NFL. He's just not developed enough.
10 posted on
02/05/2004 10:19:56 AM PST by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: smith288
Predictions: (Not wishes)
1. This will have little impact on the NCAA or NFL, as most players will still want to maximize their value in the draft by waiting until after their junior year to go pro.
2. MC will be drafted by a crappy team no higher than the second round, and will be injured before the regular 2004 NFL season starts.
12 posted on
02/05/2004 10:20:49 AM PST by
PackerBoy
(Just my opinion ....)
To: smith288
It will be interesting to see which NFL team drafts such an often-injured, multiple lie-teller & high maintainence individual as Clarett.
I don't know how many good running backs are available this year but I bet he doesn't go in the first round. Even without all of the non-football BS, Clarett has been shown to be much too brittle -- and that's just in college ball.
14 posted on
02/05/2004 10:21:14 AM PST by
gdani
(Have you played Atari today?)
To: smith288
The worst part? Once again an athlete gets rewarded for bad behavior. And we wonder why morals and standards are falling in this country.
19 posted on
02/05/2004 10:30:20 AM PST by
rikkir
(The Pats have the trophy, but it's got claw marks all over it !!)
To: smith288
Too bad for the NFL. It's had its troubles, but it aint seen nothing yet! My fearless prediction is that we will see many youths who are dysfunctional who will go to the NFL and two things will happen. First: they will have lots of legal problems. Second: Because of their youth, they will physically break down faster than someone who has survived four years of college. Another sport soon to go the way of the NBA.
36 posted on
02/05/2004 10:57:57 AM PST by
Enterprise
("You sit down. You had your say. Now I'm going to have my say.")
To: smith288
The guy may have talent, but I wonder if it occurred to him that he could not have possibly made himself any less attractive to the NFL in every other aspect. Sheesh.
MM
To: smith288
Judicial Activism. Impeach this judge!
Businesses has a right to estabilish their own rule. In this case not to try to lure teenagers out of high school. For once the rule is changed by the court it can be changed again by a more lenient one and finnally dropped overall.
Thus it's just another liberal judge attacking our children. Impeach them!
49 posted on
02/05/2004 11:30:48 AM PST by
sr4402
To: smith288
Anything the overly subsidized, unionized NFL doesn't like sounds cool to me. Too bad for them they haven't paid congress off to get anti-trust exemptions like the PGA has.
To: smith288
Hmmm?
(putting on NFL General Manager hat and thinking)
(Scratching head)
What draft pick do I want to spend on a whiney, immature kid with an attitude problem who plays a position that has a career expectancy of 5 years who if he doesn't make it on my team will probably blame it on racism?
Um, Coach. I have a question. How are we fixed for placekick holders?
52 posted on
02/05/2004 11:55:23 AM PST by
N. Theknow
(John Kerry is nothing more than Ted Kennedy without a dead girl in the car.)
To: smith288
The anti-trust laws are intended to prevent
some of the owners from getting together and telling the other owners that they can't hire Clarett, thereby screwing Clarett. That appears to be exactly what it happening here.
Of course, the anti-trust laws do not require any of the owners to actually hire him. Theoretically, as long as each owner independently made the decision not to hire him, that would not constitute an anti-trust violation. (Of course, proving that a non-hire occurred as a result of a series of independent decisions, instead of an agreement between the owners, might well be very difficult).
To: smith288
Dunno about the law applied here, but as an OSU fan I say Good riddance. He may wise up someday, but it won't be while he's wearing the Scarlet and Gray.
62 posted on
02/05/2004 3:03:02 PM PST by
pogo101
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson