no NFL for Maurice Clarett

[Victor]

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Shouldn't you be allowed to pursue income, especially if you are qualified? This is clearly discrimination.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1808438NEW YORK -- Maurice Clarett lost yet another court decision in his attempt to play in the NFL next season.



An appeals court said Monday that federal labor policy allows NFL teams to set rules for when players can enter the league.



The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was consistent with the appeals court's refusal last month to permit the former Ohio State running back into the NFL draft.



A lower court judge in February ruled Clarett eligible for the draft. It said the NFL was violating federal antitrust laws by blocking Clarett's entry into his profession with a rule barring eligibility until a player was three years out of high school. Clarett is only two years out of high school.



After the appeals court blocked Clarett's entry, saying it believed it would rule against him, the 20-year-old athlete sought help from the U.S. Supreme Court. Two justices turned him down.



On Monday, the appeals court said Clarett was "no different from the typical worker who is confident that he or she has the skills to fill a job vacancy, but does not possess the qualifications or meet the requisite criteria that have been set."



It said ruling in favor of Clarett would be deciding that professional football players were entitled to advantages under federal labor laws that transport workers, coal miners or meat packers do not enjoy.



The draft was held on April 24-25, and Clarett was ineligible for it. This ruling means he will not be eligible for a supplemental draft and will have to wait for the 2005 draft.


Clarett's attorney Alan C. Milstein told ESPN's Sal Paolontonio that on Tuesday Clarett will file a motion for the case to be heard before the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan.


A victory by Clarett would have helped another college player: wide receiver Mike Williams of Southern California, who also tried to enter the draft despite the three-year rule.


Williams' agent, Michael Azzarelli told ESPN on Monday that he will file a separate lawsuit against NFL in Tampa alleging the NFL encouraged Williams to make himself eligible for the draft.


Azzarelli has said that Williams' NFL eligibility should be considered separately from Clarett's because he entered the draft only after the league set a new deadline for previously ineligible players in the aftermath of the ruling that made Clarett eligible.


NFL officials have said they will keep Williams out of the league along with Clarett if they're legally able to do so because they warned Williams before he entered the draft that they would attempt to overturn the decision and would rule Williams ineligible if they were able to reverse the decision.



NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash said in a statement that the appeals court ruling Monday "leaves no doubt that legal challenges to the NFL's long-standing eligibility rules have no basis whatsoever."



"We are grateful for the court's prompt attention to our appeal, but not at all surprised by the result, which represents a complete victory for the National Football League," he said.



In its Monday ruling, the appeals court said Clarett's case was not an instance "in which the NFL is alleged to have conspired with its players union to drive its competitors out of the market for professional football."



The lawsuit instead "reflects simply a prospective employee's disagreement with the criteria, established by the employer and the labor union, that he must meet in order to be considered for employment."


Williams forfeited his college eligibility when he signed with an agent.



Southern Cal coach Pete Carroll said the school will seek the All-American's reinstatement.



"We've been preparing for this outcome for a while," Carroll said. "Mike was aware of this possibility. He'll now look to get reinstated into college by the NCAA. The process is underway, but it will take a while.




"We're counting on the NCAA to understand the uniqueness of this situation and give Mike the opportunity to come back to school."




Clarett rushed for 1,237 yards and 16 touchdowns as a freshman in 2002, leading the Buckeyes to the national championship. He was suspended before the 2003 season for accepting money from a family friend and lying about it to NCAA and Ohio State investigators.



He also pleaded guilty in January to a misdemeanor after exaggerating the value of items stolen from a car he borrowed from a Columbus used-car dealer. He was fined $100.

[bingledork]

I agree with the NFL on this one. They say he's not qualified. So be it. It's their league and they can set their own rules. He can play arena football or the canadian league. Or get another job.

If I apply for a job, companies can reject me because of my lack of experience. That's the same thing the NFL is doing here.

[Victor]

The notion that suddenly at three years removed from high school a person is qualified for the NFL is arbitrary and just wrong. Clarett clearly has the ability to play in the NFL.

I think the constituition says something about being allowed to make a living. Something about the puruit of happiness.

But, the most confusing thing is, why did the courts allow teenagers in the NBA? This inconsistency makes the situation seem very shady.

[jdl22]

You are confused:

[ QUOTE ]
I think the constituition says something about being allowed to make a living. Something about the puruit of happiness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly the consitution says nothing of the sort. The Declaration of Independence says that humans are born with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness).

The consitution doesn't say what people can and cannot do to one another. What it is there for is to state what the government can and cannot do. There is only 1 crime listed in the constitution and that is treason. There was a stretch where selling alcohol was a crime in the constitution but that has since been reversed.

The NFL is a private organisation. They don't have to follow the same legal principles that public organisations such as public schools and government agencies have to follow. For example, shortly after Brown v Board of Education in some districts of Virginia they established private schools that were only for white students. These schools were declared to be illegal under civil rights legislation but were not unconstitutional. In the Brown case they ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The difference is the word public.

Private firms are allowed to do what some would call discrimination. For example, private schools or businesses are allowed to give racial preference as long as the practice is a) done for good reason and b) the preference does not go over and above what is necesary to carry out the reason.

On your question of the NBA the court never ruled one way or the other. The NBA has never had this rule and so there were never challenges to it. The courts will only hear cases that come to them, they don't go out looking for them.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
You are confused:

[ QUOTE ]
I think the constituition says something about being allowed to make a living. Something about the puruit of happiness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly the consitution says nothing of the sort. The Declaration of Independence says that humans are born with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness).

The consitution doesn't say what people can and cannot do to one another. What it is there for is to state what the government can and cannot do. There is only 1 crime listed in the constitution and that is treason. There was a stretch where selling alcohol was a crime in the constitution but that has since been reversed.

The NFL is a private organisation. They don't have to follow the same legal principles that public organisations such as public schools and government agencies have to follow. For example, shortly after Brown v Board of Education in some districts of Virginia they established private schools that were only for white students. These schools were declared to be illegal under civil rights legislation but were not unconstitutional. In the Brown case they ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The difference is the word public.

Private firms are allowed to do what some would call discrimination. For example, private schools or businesses are allowed to give racial preference as long as the practice is a) done for good reason and b) the preference does not go over and above what is necesary to carry out the reason.

On your question of the NBA the court never ruled one way or the other. The NBA has never had this rule and so there were never challenges to it. The courts will only hear cases that come to them, they don't go out looking for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Hooter's has right to only hire female waitresses?

[jdl22]

hmm. Not sure. I would guess it would meet the same standard as the race preference I gave above. So they need to show that they have a good reason to hire hot female waitresses and then show that they aren't hiring too many of these hotties to go along with that reason.

Interesting question whether it was meant to be serious or not.

[Sloats]

It's more an agreement that the NFL, as a private organization has a right to set up it's own standards for employment. No one would argue about race, but the NFL does have is right to have age and education requirements.... Just like Hooters has a proper 'ass' requirement.

I do not want High Schoolers playing in the NFL. It's bad enough that the NBA has a 'cocky punk' element (even if some of them played for a college team, not attended college).

(BTW, I cheated and only read the first two paragraphs of your original post.)

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
On your question of the NBA the court never ruled one way or the other. The NBA has never had this rule and so there were never challenges to it. The courts will only hear cases that come to them, they don't go out looking for them.


[/ QUOTE ]


In the 70's Spencer Haywood went to the Supreme Court and challenged the NBA early entry rule. The Court ruled in his favor.
article

[jdl22]

Thanks, I was unaware of that. I'll read it now.

[pudley4]

The reason why the NFL is allowed to keep this rule is because the NFLPA (NFL Players Association - the players union) agreed to this in their last collective bargaining agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
(he has a) disagreement with the criteria, established by the employer and the labor union, that he must meet in order to be considered for employment."

[/ QUOTE ]

In the NBA, the only rule is that the player's high school class must have graduated.