|
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
I don't get why the NFL (or any organization) can't set a reasonable
minimum age. You have to be 14 to be employed, do you not? You have to
be 35 to be the president. Do any of those violate antitrust laws?
What's wrong with setting a reasonable minimum age? It's not excluding
certain competitors forever (as opposed to gender or racial or maximum
age restrictions)--it's just making them wait a few years until they're
ready. Everyone--owners, executives, coaches, even the players'
union--is in favor of the minimum age. The only people against the
minimum age are Maurice Clarett and sports agents.
"I was pleased that the rule was brought down," Clarett said at a news
conference. "It gives kids an opportunity to choose."
Yes, and it also gives all the sleazy agents out there even more
opportunity to take advantage of kids--especially underprivileged kids
who will buy into the agent's lies about the riches that lie ahead if
they skip college.
"I think it's wrong," said former Redskins quarterback and current ESPN
analyst Joe Theismann. "To me it's a little like the courts of the
United States not understanding the world that they're ruling in and
that they're just going by the letter of the law."
"... a somewhat misguided judge, who might not understand the box of
worms she has opened..." - Len Pasquarelli, ESPN writer
I agree, this judge is blindly following the letter of the law without
any concept of the repercussions of her decision. This ruling will hurt
the NFL, college football, and most of all, the players. It may benefit
some underclassmen who legitimately are ready for the NFL, but overall,
it's going to hurt a lot more people than it will help. This judge has
no understanding of football whatsoever as proved by the quote below:
"While, ordinarily, the best offense is a good defense," Judge Shira
Scheindlin said, "none of these defenses hold the line."
Uh... I believe the phrase is, "the best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE." You
are an ignorant judge.
References:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1727856
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1728315
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1727991
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1728286
|
| |
| |
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
Dumb.
I agree with the NFL's stance on this issue.
|
| |
| |
Dean wrote:
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
I don't get why the NFL (or any organization) can't set a reasonable
minimum age. You have to be 14 to be employed, do you not? You have to
be 35 to be the president. Do any of those violate antitrust laws?
What's wrong with setting a reasonable minimum age? It's not excluding
certain competitors forever (as opposed to gender or racial or maximum
age restrictions)--it's just making them wait a few years until they're
ready. Everyone--owners, executives, coaches, even the players'
union--is in favor of the minimum age. The only people against the
minimum age are Maurice Clarett and sports agents.
An 11 year old child is hardly of legal age to drive a car on the roadways,
but is of legal age to fly an airplane.
A 12 year old child can not consent to sex, but can be married. See Ct.
state law.
An 18 year old now has the right to vote, but has not the right to gamble or
buy alcohol, in many states.
An 18 year old female participant in gymnastics in the olympics is
considered to be "an old lady".
While a 12 year old barely has the experience to achieve such high
standards.
If I had my way, no one under the age of 16 would be permitted in the
olympics.
Since the NFL is a privately run corporation, it can dictate what age is
acceptable and what is not.
As the makeup of the physical human body is most mature and physically
capable of handling the abuse it can take between the ages of 18 and 25, it
is within this age range the NFL seeks participants.
Why is that police departments draw the hiring line at 35 when they have
dozens of officers well beyond that age already participating in every
respect as his junior partner does?
That is their legal right. A company may draw the line for hiring based on
age as long as the policy is strictly adhered to.
So what's wrong with forming a new football league in which participants
MUST be over 40?
|
| |
| |
Dean <noreply@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message news:<GyIUb.185913$sv6.972248@attbi_s52>...
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
I don't get why the NFL (or any organization) can't set a reasonable
minimum age.
I think it is clear that the "minimum age" is just a cover story.
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally unpaid)
from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for. The college players,
who are being totally exploited, can not get a real job, because
the entire league as signed a deal not to hire them.
It's not only anticompetitive, it is deeply evil.
Joshua Levy
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in
Since the NFL is a privately run corporation, it can dictate what age
is acceptable and what is not.
Well, they can try. But they might not be allowed to because there's only
one NFL.
--
Puddles
|
| |
| |
Puddles wrote:
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in
Well, they can try. But they might not be allowed to because there's only
one NFL.
True. But the NFL is comprised of a number of teams which are corporations
and those corporations can set the age factors as they see fit.
Question is, if a 90 year old man who was fit and able to perform, was to
apply, and was rejected based upon his age, would that be "age
discrimination"?
The line has to be drawn somewhere.
--
Puddles
|
| |
| |
I think it is clear that the "minimum age" is just a cover story.
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally
unpaid)
from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for. The college players,
who are being totally exploited, can not get a real job, because
the entire league as signed a deal not to hire them.
It's not only anticompetitive, it is deeply evil.
Slave labor? They get a free university education, free room and board in
their own private dorms (nicely furnished with private weight rooms and
massage tables), all manner of under-the-table gifts and payments, local and
national media exposure, and are generally treated like royalty for four or
five years - in exchange for playing a damn game.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
Joshua Levy wrote:
I think it is clear that the "minimum age" is just a cover story.
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally
unpaid) from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for. The college players,
who are being totally exploited, can not get a real job, because
the entire league as signed a deal not to hire them.
It's not only anticompetitive, it is deeply evil.
Joshua Levy
Not entirely true. There have been a number of high school grads go right
into the NFL.
Where baseball has farm teams, that is mainly due to the fact that many
major colleges do not have baseball teams and the popularity of that side is
not there as it is for football or basketball.
Besides, the NFL pro team can watch and see how the contender handles
himself under pressure.
My personal gripe with professional sports is, why does the NBA and the NFL
particularly, recruit black players more than white players?
Where the NBA and the NFL used to be 5% black, it is now 5% white for the
NBA and better than 50% black for the NFL.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in
news:c00rq70lr6@enews3.newsguy.com:
Puddles wrote:
True. But the NFL is comprised of a number of teams which are
corporations and those corporations can set the age factors as they
see fit.
Again, that may not be true because there's only one NFL. Maurice
Clarette (sp?) brought an anti-trust suit.
Question is, if a 90 year old man who was fit and able to
perform, was to apply, and was rejected based upon his age, would
that
be "age discrimination"?
Well, first of all, I don't think age discrimination is an issue here
at all. Like I said, it's an anti-trust suit. But to answer your
question, you can't claim discrimination for being rejected for a job
you're not qualified to hold. Maurice Clarette may or may not be
qualified to play in the NFL. He is suing to be eligible for the NFL
draft where any team that thinks he's qualified can select him.
--
Puddles
|
| |
| |
FO
|
| |
| |
On 6 Feb 2004 11:30:55 -0800, joshualevy@yahoo.com (Joshua Levy)
wrote:
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally unpaid)
from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for.
The NFL also does not compete with colleges for television coverage.
During most of the season, the NFL plays only on Sundays (and Monday
nights), while college games are televised on Saturdays. Once the
college season ends, the NFL starts scheduling games on Saturdays as
well as Sundays.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
I think it is clear that the "minimum age" is just a cover story.
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally
unpaid)
from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for.
Nobody is forcing NFL teams to sign players right out of highschool. Those
that aren't signed go on to college and participate in the free farm system.
Where's the problem?
|
| |
| |
Dean wrote:
An 11 year old child is hardly of legal age to drive a car on the
roadways,
but is of legal age to fly an airplane.
A 12 year old child can not consent to sex, but can be married. See Ct.
state law.
What does this have to do with football, Pedophile Bullis?
An 18 year old now has the right to vote, but has not the right to gamble
or
buy alcohol, in many states.
An 18 year old female participant in gymnastics in the olympics is
considered to be "an old lady".
Just like in your kiddie pr0n groups, right Bullis?
While a 12 year old barely has the experience to achieve such high
standards.
If I had my way, no one under the age of 16 would be permitted in the
olympics.
Too bad you're an unemployed @$#*wit and count for nothing.
Since the NFL is a privately run corporation, it can dictate what age is
acceptable and what is not.
As the makeup of the physical human body is most mature and physically
capable of handling the abuse it can take between the ages of 18 and 25,
it
is within this age range the NFL seeks participants.
Why is that police departments draw the hiring line at 35 when they have
dozens of officers well beyond that age already participating in every
respect as his junior partner does?
That is their legal right. A company may draw the line for hiring based on
age as long as the policy is strictly adhered to.
So what's wrong with forming a new football league in which participants
MUST be over 40?
You're an idiot, St00pid.
Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu
!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!en
ews3
From: "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers,misc.legal
Subject: Re: age rule in NFL
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:13:41 -0600
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <c00hso071v@enews3.newsguy.com>
References: <GyIUb.185913$sv6.972248@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-379.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-No-Archive: yes
FL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29
Xref: sn-us alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers:334767 misc.legal:478373
|
| |
| |
roadways,
What does this have to do with football, Pedophile Bullis?
What do you think it has to do with it? Bullis knows all laws pertaining to
children. And it's no surprise he's still thinking of having sex with
children. Good thing he is too poor to move to Connecticut. Not like he'd
last long there anyway but hey -- it keeps the children safe. I wonder if
Bullis is following the story on this 11 year old who was murdered? It just
means he bears closer watching again.
or
Just like in your kiddie pr0n groups, right Bullis?
Too bad you're an unemployed @$#*wit and count for nothing.
it
You're an idiot, St00pid.
Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu
!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!en
ews3 From: "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers,misc.legal Subject: Re: age rule in NFL Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:13:41 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 51 Message-ID: <c00hso071v@enews3.newsguy.com> References: <GyIUb.185913$sv6.972248@attbi_s52> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-379.newsdawg.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-No-Archive: yes FL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29 Xref: sn-us alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers:334767 misc.legal:478373 |
| |
| |
In article <GyIUb.185913$sv6.972248@attbi_s52>,
Dean <noreply@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
I don't get why the NFL (or any organization) can't set a reasonable
minimum age. You have to be 14 to be employed, do you not? You have to
be 35 to be the president. Do any of those violate antitrust laws?
No. Laws can't violate laws. Those are laws, not conspiracies by
businesses.
What's wrong with setting a reasonable minimum age? It's not excluding
certain competitors forever (as opposed to gender or racial or maximum
age restrictions)--it's just making them wait a few years until they're
ready. Everyone--owners, executives, coaches, even the players'
union--is in favor of the minimum age. The only people against the
minimum age are Maurice Clarett and sports agents.
If everyone were in favor of the minimum age, it wouldn't be necessary to
have a rule. Nobody would draft/sign the younger player. The rule exists
precisely because teams _would_ sign the younger players in the absence of
the rule, because teams are _not_ in favor of the rule.
"I was pleased that the rule was brought down," Clarett said at a news
conference. "It gives kids an opportunity to choose."
Yes, and it also gives all the sleazy agents out there even more
opportunity to take advantage of kids--especially underprivileged kids
who will buy into the agent's lies about the riches that lie ahead if
they skip college.
Oh, is that it? This rule exists to protect underprivileged kids? The NFL
is a charitable institution now, just doing what's best for underprivileged
kids?
"I think it's wrong," said former Redskins quarterback and current ESPN
analyst Joe Theismann. "To me it's a little like the courts of the
United States not understanding the world that they're ruling in and
that they're just going by the letter of the law."
"... a somewhat misguided judge, who might not understand the box of
worms she has opened..." - Len Pasquarelli, ESPN writer
I agree, this judge is blindly following the letter of the law without
any concept of the repercussions of her decision.
In other words, she's doing her job.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
|
| |
| |
Dean wrote:
"One can scarcely think of a more blatantly anticompetitive policy than
one that excludes certain competitors from the market altogether," Judge
Shira Scheindlin wrote.
I don't get why the NFL (or any organization) can't set a reasonable
minimum age. You have to be 14 to be employed, do you not? You have to
be 35 to be the president. Do any of those violate antitrust laws?
Laws can't violate antitrust laws (provided that they are themselves
constitutional, of course).
What's wrong with setting a reasonable minimum age?
Correct me if I am wrong on this, Dean, but I didn't think there was
a minimum age being set. As I understand it, if Clarett had begun
college at age 14, he would be eligible for the draft at the start of
his senior year -- at age 17.
It's not excluding
certain competitors forever (as opposed to gender or racial or maximum
age restrictions)--it's just making them wait a few years until they're
ready.
If they aren't ready to play, you don't hire them. And if you need
to develop them, you change the rules to allow them to sit on your
practice squad. Or, send them to Paris in the spring. Simple.
Everyone--owners, executives,
Hey, who wants to mess with their farm system? Baseball actually has
to *pay* for their player development.
coaches, even the players'
union--is in favor of the minimum age. The only people against the
minimum age are Maurice Clarett and sports agents.
IOW, the precious few directly affected by the rule. (Herschel
Walker comes to mind. He goes down with an injury, and he becomes just
another discarded piece of meat. But he goes pro, and his financial
future is a lot more secure. "Going pro" is thus a no-brainer, for
those who can.) Isn't that ALWAYS the case?
"I was pleased that the rule was brought down," Clarett said at a news
conference. "It gives kids an opportunity to choose."
Yes, and it also gives all the sleazy agents out there even more
opportunity to take advantage of kids--especially underprivileged kids
who will buy into the agent's lies about the riches that lie ahead if
they skip college.
Again, I am hardly an expert, but doesn't the NFL do a credible job
of letting the kids know where they can reasonably be expected to go in
the draft?
"I think it's wrong," said former Redskins quarterback and current ESPN
analyst Joe Theismann. "To me it's a little like the courts of the
United States not understanding the world that they're ruling in and
that they're just going by the letter of the law."
All we should ever ask of judges is that they go by the letter of the
law....
"... a somewhat misguided judge, who might not understand the box of
worms she has opened..." - Len Pasquarelli, ESPN writer
I agree, this judge is blindly following the letter of the law without
any concept of the repercussions of her decision. This ruling will hurt
the NFL, college football, and most of all, the players. It may benefit
some underclassmen who legitimately are ready for the NFL, but overall,
it's going to hurt a lot more people than it will help. This judge has
no understanding of football whatsoever as proved by the quote below:
"While, ordinarily, the best offense is a good defense," Judge Shira
Scheindlin said, "none of these defenses hold the line."
Uh... I believe the phrase is, "the best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE." You
are an ignorant judge.
Actually, it sounds like she was a Baltimore Ravens fan.... :)
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:49:47 -0600, "PCameron" <PCameron@Houston.com>
wrote:
Dumb.
I agree with the NFL's stance on this issue.
Nothing would please me more than to watch the draft and not see his
name called. But some dumb #@($ GM will do it. He certainly doesn't
deserve first round money though. If he gets drafted, I hope it's in
the low rounds where he'll be offered the minimum.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:13:41 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
An 11 year old child is hardly of legal age to drive a car on the roadways,
but is of legal age to fly an airplane.
A 12 year old child can not consent to sex, but can be married. See Ct.
state law.
An 18 year old now has the right to vote, but has not the right to gamble or
buy alcohol, in many states.
In Wisconsin, a 6 year old can drink alcohol with a guardian, but a 20
year old has no legal right to drink with anyone. hehe
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:32:46 +0000 (UTC), Puddles
<johnheim@nospam.tds.net> wrote:
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in
Well, they can try. But they might not be allowed to because there's only
one NFL.
CFL, Arena League, NFLE. He can find employment there until he's of
age. There's no monopoly.
|
| |
| |
Nothing would please me more than to watch the draft and not see his
name called. But some dumb #@($ GM will do it. He certainly doesn't
deserve first round money though. If he gets drafted, I hope it's in
the low rounds where he'll be offered the minimum.
Some GM might, maybe, do it in the 3rd. It wouldn't surprise me at all to
see him drop to the second day. Even if he's drafted as high as the 2nd, he
might decide he can do better by returning to Ohio St. (which I believe
he'll still be able to do, won't he?). That will drop his value even more.
Tom S.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:21:52 -0600, "Thomas R. Shannon"
<tshannon@rush.REMOVEME.edu> wrote:
Even if he's drafted as high as the 2nd, he
might decide he can do better by returning to Ohio St. (which I believe
he'll still be able to do, won't he?).
Not once he talks to an agent.
|
| |
| |
From: JK <sendjkemail@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers,misc.legal
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:25:49 -0600
Subject: Re: age rule in NFL
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:21:52 -0600, "Thomas R. Shannon"
<tshannon@rush.REMOVEME.edu> wrote:
Not once he talks to an agent.
Actually IIRC he can't go back to Ohio St. He might be able to try a
different school, though.
Ed
|
| |
| |
I only read the 1st posting in this thread, so what I am saying may
have already been said:
Earl Campbell and Herschel Walker were the only two people that scouts
ever thought could play in the NFL directly from high school.
Meanwhile, there are this many high schoolers jumping into the NHL,
NBA, and ML Baseball EVERY YEAR. You should have stayed in school,
fool.
After Clarett falls on his face in the NFL he won't be able to get
another NCAA scholarship, so his life will be ruined. Unless he
already ruined it by @#$%ing up at Ohio State. So he will sue and get
a big payday, and retire. The American Way. On ESPN he was a
discussion topic yesterday. Basically they said that Clarett was a
2nd round draft pick who had already done a lot to ruin his life by
screwing up at Ohio State.
Aaron Hirshberg
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Puddles wrote:
True. But the NFL is comprised of a number of teams which are corporations
and those corporations can set the age factors as they see fit.
Except that the judge ruled it as a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act. Doesn't matter if it's a private corporation or not. This was the
basis for the ruling in baseball that first allowed free agency. This
is why there can be no set age limit restricting participation.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<4024BF45.7060001@it.com>...
Dean wrote:
Laws can't violate antitrust laws (provided that they are themselves
constitutional, of course).
Correct me if I am wrong on this, Dean, but I didn't think there was
a minimum age being set. As I understand it, if Clarett had begun
college at age 14, he would be eligible for the draft at the start of
his senior year -- at age 17.
Just like Doogie Howser.
Aaron Hirshberg
|
| |
| |
Actually IIRC he can't go back to Ohio St. He might be able to try a
different school, though.
Could be wrong about this but I think if he asked for reinstatement, OSU
could consider taking him back. The Bears just hired the OSU RB coach and
he's known to have encouraged Clarret to return.
Tom S.
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Except that the judge ruled it as a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act. Doesn't matter if it's a private corporation or not. This was the
basis for the ruling in baseball that first allowed free agency. This
is why there can be no set age limit restricting participation.
The NFL's position is that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act can't be applied to
the result of collective bargaining (with the NFLPA in this case). The NFL
lawyers have said point blank that the judge's ruling is illegal.
I'm not a lawyer but I've got a feeling that - legally - they may have a
point.
Tom S.
|
| |
| |
From: "Thomas R. Shannon" <tshannon@rush.REMOVEME.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers,misc.legal
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:30:24 -0600
Subject: Re: age rule in NFL
Could be wrong about this but I think if he asked for reinstatement, OSU
could consider taking him back. The Bears just hired the OSU RB coach and
he's known to have encouraged Clarret to return.
Wasn't that early last year, before Clarett took the steps to give up his
remaining NCAA eligibility and declare for the NFL draft?
Ed
|
| |
| |
In article <mcb820peeki75ptic03bk3tql8civba0ga@4ax.com>,
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2004 11:30:55 -0800, joshualevy@yahoo.com (Joshua Levy) wrote:
The purpose of this policy is to force footbal players to play for
colleges for free for years. The colleges get slave labor (totally unpaid)
from which they can make huge amounts of money, and the NFL gets
a farm league that they don't need to pay for.
The NFL also does not compete with colleges for television coverage.
During most of the season, the NFL plays only on Sundays (and Monday
nights), while college games are televised on Saturdays. Once the
college season ends, the NFL starts scheduling games on Saturdays as
well as Sundays.
This isn't an accident; by law the NFL is not allowed to compete with
college football (or high school football!) on television. See 15 USC 1293.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
|
| |
| |
Thomas R. Shannon wrote:
The NFL's position is that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act can't be applied to
the result of collective bargaining (with the NFLPA in this case). The NFL
lawyers have said point blank that the judge's ruling is illegal.
I'm not a lawyer but I've got a feeling that - legally - they may have a
point.
Generally speaking, collective bargaining must not violate already
established statutes. Baseball was granted an exemption for so many
years because the belief was held by the courts that baseball was a
sporting enterprise and not a business. I'm not sure we can say that
about professional sports anymore.
Tom S.
|
| |
| |
Wasn't that early last year, before Clarett took the steps to give up his
remaining NCAA eligibility and declare for the NFL draft?
Probably. Spencer hasn't commented recently because of his conflict as a
Bears coach and the part of the article I'm referring to didn't give a
specific date when he was encouraging him to return.
I'm still under the impression that they could take him back. Again, I
can't come up with hard evidence so I'll admit, I'm really not sure. I just
don't remember OSU saying he was permanently off with no possibility of
reinstatement.
Tom S.
|
| |
| |
|
