OT: Two-year requirement on NCAA players

BrokenLeftyJumper · Post #81 » by **BrokenLeftyJumper** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:53 am

And I DID quote a Harvard lawyer who works in the sports industry - which is a pretty valid expert opinion, IMHO. If he thinks the athlete has a case - then he probably does, no?

Just to be fair, McCann was a member of Clarett's legal team in Clarett v. NFL, so he thought Clarett had a good case as well, and it didn't turn out that way. As McCann says, a player would certainly have a case against the NBA, but that doesn't mean they would necessarily win, as we saw in the Clarett v. NFL.

RoyHobbs · Post #82 » by **RoyHobbs** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:12 am

GuyClinch wrote:And I DID quote a Harvard lawyer who works in the sports industry - which is a pretty valid expert opinion, IMHO. If he thinks the athlete has a case - then he probably does, no?

Eh... Just because one expert says something doesn't mean he's correct. It would be easy to find 100 different attorneys who would argue the exact opposite of McCann, all of whom are as credentialed as he is. While you're not off the wall in relying upon his opinion, the fact of the matter is that he's wrong on the law.

Also, the NBA's case is actually stronger than the NFL's, because here, an age restriction is specifically collectively bargained for, while in the Clarett case, the three-year restriction was something that the Union essentially conceded, but wasn't specifically codified in the CBA. To the extent that the facts are distinguishable in the NBA's situation, that only helps the NBA, and hurts the potential player/litigant.

Post #83 » by **sully00** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:48 am

RoyHobbs wrote:
It's probably illegal though.. People keep on making the argument about whether its 'good' for the player or it's good for the league or whatever. But lost in this is the players rights. They have them. Even future fat cats have rights.

Based upon the Maurice Clarett decision by the Second Circuit (rather than the one that was overturned, cited earlier in the thread), an age restriction would seem to be legal, so long as it is collectively bargained for. There, the court went through a long litany of decisions showing why, under federal labor practices, antitrust protections do not apply.

I'm curious why so many people say this is "probably illegal", when there's pretty solid case law suggesting the exact opposite. As for the argument that inevitably be raised that the union can't negotiate on behalf of people not in the league yet, that issue has been addressed time and time again, and the answer always is that a potential employee is treated the same as an actual employee under federal law.

If the union agrees to this particular age restriction, there's really not much of a chance of a legal challenge being successful.

Sanity.

Look every Union in this country has an age and education requirement. Are you really going to tell me that a 17 year old drop out isn't talented enough to be a friggin apprentice plumber? If you do then I am discussing this with idiots. Why do they go with rules like that?
Simply because it makes the product better. HS grads, 18 years old are more reliable, it makes the union look better, duh.

Of course Stern is going to negotiate this with the union before he moves forward with such an idea. The guaranteed rookie contracts go or the age limit increases or some combo of both. Were you can be eligible for the draft at upon HS graduation but subject to two years in the D-League making 30-40 grand or NBA eligible, at least financially after two years of college. Ideally I think Stern would love a system that allows LeBron to come to the NBA but keep Jermaine O'Neal in the D-League or College.

If you think this is the Yankee Fan in me talking your a dope and you don't get it. This is the Minnesots Twins or Oakland A's all the way. Teams should be able to get production for their millions invested in the draft and not splinters.

Post #84 » by **sully00** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:57 am

I also love how the heart only bleeds one way, I guess it is a tell. All the outrage over limits on guys who essentially can't earn their money at the same time when is the last time there was a thread on the over 36 rule? Were HOF's who earned theirs are limited on their contracts by age.

As for the lawyers in the room, I don't wish to offend, but almost all of the ones that cared to put their comments in word on the internet guaranteed us that Tony Allen was going to jail. Uh not so much.

GuyClinch · Post #85 » by **GuyClinch** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:09 am

Also, the NBA's case is actually stronger than the NFL's, because here, an age restriction is specifically collectively bargained for, while in the Clarett case, the three-year restriction was something that the Union essentially conceded, but wasn't specifically codified in the CBA. To the extent that the facts are distinguishable in the NBA's situation, that only helps the NBA, and hurts the potential player/litigant.

I hear what your saying about the labor unions pissing all over the Sherman act - but I think the courts will decide their is some limit to this sooner or later.

I am not a lawyer but I have studied cases in school and watched the "law" turn without ANY change in the actual legislation. They just kind of "create" a new catergory or use some different law to argue the decision that they want to.

For example Brown vs. Board of Education...that's a famous one everyone studies.

I am just not conviced the courts are going to lets big business like the NBA run amok just because they managed to convince the union its a good idea.

Right now though it's really not worth the hassle to challenge - but if its expanded to two or three years then I think some super stud will come along and provide an ideal test case in the way that not very talented and unintelligent player Clarrett could not..

Pete

Post #86 » by **UGA Hayes** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:08 pm

Well I'm convinced now that we should start dissolving unions because the powers they claim are ridiculous and I don't care if they are approved by the law.

BrokenLeftyJumper · Post #87 » by **BrokenLeftyJumper** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:57 pm

Sanity.

Look every Union in this country has an age and education requirement. Are you really going to tell me that a 17 year old drop out isn't talented enough to be a friggin apprentice plumber? If you do then I am discussing this with idiots. Why do they go with rules like that?
Simply because it makes the product better. HS grads, 18 years old are more reliable, it makes the union look better, duh.

Thats not really the issue. Your making this sound like its a lot less complicated than it actually is.

If it was so neat and tidy like your saying by comparing the NFL and NBA situations to a plumbers union, then Maurice Clarett would never have had a case. It would have been thrown out the second he stepped into court.

The fact is Maurice Clarett won in federal district court. The trial judge ordered he be allowed into the draft. The case was appealed and the decision was reversed, but just the fact that he won at the trial level proves his case was far from frivolous.

And in no way does the fact that he lost on appeal mean that the law is set in stone. This is still an area of the law that seems very open to interpretation, and I don't think anyone should be surprised to see someone challenge the NBA in the near future.

If you think this is the Yankee Fan in me talking your a dope and you don't get it. This is the Minnesots Twins or Oakland A's all the way. Teams should be able to get production for their millions invested in the draft and not splinters.

Yea, I'm sure the Cavs were really perturbed about the 'splinters' they got back from that 5 million they paid LBJ last year. Or the Suns about the combined 8 mil they paid Amare his first four years in the league. Or the Warriors about the 800,000 they pay Monta Ellis to average 20 a game.

Even take the C's highschoolers. Al Jefferson got paid 1.6 Mil last year and averaged 16 and 11. His first three years he got paid an average of 1.5 mil and he put up an average around 10 and 6. That's doin work for cheap dough in NBA terms. Kendrick Perkins didn't do much his first 4 years, but the C's weren't paying him anything. A mil a season. You can't get two good d-leaguers for that price. Gerald Green? The C's wasted 2.5 mil on him total. Thats a mil less than what the C's waste yearly on Scal.

I could go on and on. The point is, it's total nonsense to say that teams are putting millions into the draft and getting splinters. By and far, highschool players outperform their college counterparts. Why not outlaw four year college players? They are the ones who are most likely to provide splinters while getting paid millions.

And lastly, you act like guaranteed rookie deals are screwing over the owners, when its clear they are screwing over the players. If not for the rookie contract scale, a lot of these guys would be actually getting paid what they are worth from the second they stepped into the league. And it would be a lot more than the chump change they are getting on their rookie deals.