Jetstorm - Your argument is valid however Hockey is as violent as football (Trust me it is, and its faster) And they have highschool draft picks as much as Baseball. they just play in the minor minor leagues... Until physically ready. Also you cannot legislate physical punishment perception. It has to be black and white. Meaning if you told me I could not do it because you think I might get hurt wont hold in a court of law. That is a perception and you are telling me your opinion dicatates my right to work and legally participate. See girls playing football they won this very argument... They tried to stop because we all know they will be killed. The court allowed it because you can legislate such a thing. In short you are violating my rights to work/participate because you think I might get hurt. As we say in Louisiana - That dog dont hunt The whole reason that is in place is because College football is a cash cow. Take out the stars and put them in a football farm system and you have Tulane. I agree on your OSU comment.
Interesting comment on the whole Tressell/Youngstown St. thing. Could be sour grapes from runners up but where theres smoke...
Hockey IS just as brutal as football. And you know what they have? A comprehensive minor league system (same as baseball) in both Canada and the U.S., where the 18-year olds are brought up, one step at a time, in leagues with players of similar age and ability levels. Football has no minor league system of similar nature, but college football currently serves that purpose, albeit independently of the NFL (let's hope it stays that way). If football developed a sufficient minor league system, than the age limit would not be threatened, unfortunately, that's going to siphon off outstanding players from college (a similar thing is happening in the NBA with players going to the pros and the NBA starting a minor league, the D-league). I understand that we are dealing with a concept that is gray, not black and white, but courts can rule that the age limit is valid if it serves a compelling interest, the compelling interest being to make sure a bunch of kids don't end up in wheelchairs trying to grow up too fast. They've done it before. Women playing football hasn't worked out the same way. Girls were suing for the right to play pee-wee and high school football, not college or NFL. So the bodily risk element, while still present, is not near as much a factor. Women still have made very little impact in football except as punters and kickers, I have yet to see a girl in a field position beyond the junior high level. Age limits on work deemed to be too dangerous or physical for a certain age and developmental level are nothing new; we have child labor restrictions on just about every manufacturing job sector in this country, and with good reason. Employers have consistently been given the right to discriminate in hiring if they think a prospective employee is physically incapable of doing the job (i.e., it makes no sense to hire a 5'3", 112 lb. woman to be a steel worker) The NFL, as a private entity, has the right to decide what age and what body development type is capable of doing the job they want their employees to do, which is to play professional football. At least, that's the way I see it.
Good retort. You should have been a lawyer. But I guess I see this going against all the logic you posted (See the woman and the citadel, etc etc) If they want to sue, they can make a case you cannot tell me I cannot be a steel worker.. and probably win. Its all bunk and I agree with everything you said. But in the world where the Liberal dwells there will be a court case to counter logic and common sense...
Of course. And hey, the NFL can still lose. They have to PROVE that their age limit does serve as a vital safety restriction and that it is not just an arbitrary boundary, but that either being 21 or having three years of post-high school football experience (I think that's the standards they use) is necessary. They have to have some kind of evidence (scientific or otherwise) to back it up. Do they have emperical physiological data to show that a football player at 21 is tougher and more capable of playing in the NFL than a person at 18? Common sense says yes, but common sense has been a quality sorely lacking in the American judiciary in the last half-century. They may want SCIENTIFIC proof that a 21 year old can take a hit that would break an 18 year old in half. That may be hard to come by.
Another factor is that the age limit was not arbitrarily set by the NFL but collectively bargained by the players. I'm not sure but I think that would have some bearing on the issue, especially since the NFL is private and can set it's own rules for entry, just like a club that doesn't want to admit women.
Isn't this ironic.....I pulled for OSU in the NC because of my perception of Miami as cheaters and thugs.
This is slightly off topic . . . but does anyone else feel that Clarrett is not as good as advertised, and possible a little over-rated. Let's get serious. He was a freshman who had a wonderful season, that is all. He didn't reinvent the position, just ran behind one of the better O lines in the country. Would Clarrett have been as good, running behind the Vandy O Line? No doubt Clarrett is a good college football player, but I don't see him as the next Bo Jackson. Just seeing the numbers from OSU first game show that just about any back can run behind that O line and get good stats. I don't think this will hurt OSU on the field, unless it really becomes a distraction (which it seems the coach is going to great lengths to avoid). I could be wrong he could be the best back to ever step on the field, but it seems to me that he might be a little over-rated when you consider the talent at RB across the country.
I really don't know all the issues surrounding Maurice Clarett. It just seems to me that this is what happens when you have someone of insufficient character who is thrown into the national spotlight too young. It doesn't matter what your background is. If you are a person of good character you go to class and do what you are supposed to do - regardless of what short-cuts your school might improperly offer you. You don't diss the school that gave you a scholarship. You don't lie to police. There are plenty of other freshmen out there who are responsible people and who know to do things the right way. Maurice Clarett does not seem to be this type of person. If it is determined that he and Ohio State cheated, I won't feel bad for either of them when the NCAA gavel comes down.
Age discriminations(against adults) are OK as long as it pertains to things they want it too, ie. alcohol, gambling....:cuss:. However that is a whole different story that I could go on for days about......
