clarett lost his case...

[Guest S.  Bien]

Now you are talking.  If a child with a gift of an astronomical IQ can  get the req'd education & pass the req'd test to become a Dr/Lawyer should he be allowed to be a Dr/Lawyer by age 16 (ie Duggie Houzer TV show)?

I do agree the rule is good but I also believe its unfair.  I also believe Maurice Clarrett has displayed the capability to play NFL football which should be the only criteria for any doing a job.  It the NFL wants a criteria test to play in its league then they should develope it.  I have no issues with that but I just think its unfair to arbitrarily set an age.

As for the AARP formly known as the American Association of RETIRED People, that is a private organization.  They should be allowed to set thier own membership criteria but I am sure if they discriminated against persons of less than 50 yrs of age when hiring for gainful employm't there would be issues.

Here's another angle.  The NFL rule is to protect an individual against himself or for himself...right?  Kinda sounds similar to the seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws.  Now why in the heck do we havta buckle up and a m'cyclist doesn't havta wear a helmet?  Explain why one law is okay and the other isn't.

BTW this topic belongs on the Mad Cow.

WHAAA, AARP is a private organization....don't tell the NFL they might go private too.  Wait I think they already did.  Same asinine principals apply.

[BullDoug]

Employment and private club membership are different.  NFL needs a test for employm't not a set age.

[BULLheaded]

Employment and private club membership are different.  NFL needs a test for employm't not a set age.

That's my point...they are not different to the owner.

If you go out and buy a business, funded from your own pocket and start up say a little coffee shop then that is YOUR property every bit as much as your home, your car or any private club you may be a member of. If you want only 25 year old plummers in your home that is no different then wanting only 25 year old counter help at your coffee shop....heck maybe you only want 18 year old beautiful blonde chicks there  

regardless of the criteria you want it should be you and you alone that determine who and why a person gets employed in that business...after all employment in your business is a privelege extended by you to a person not an obligation of yours to the public. I will agree that some may not be morally correct in their decisions but that is still their decision to make, best way to counteract that as a society is in giving incentives (ie tax breaks or other financial breaks) to those that don't discriminate. In other words give benefits to those that follow certain hiring practices and NOT taking away the rights of those that don't.

[BullDoug]

B'headed,

I do understand what you are saying about a private citizen which owes a company should be able to set any criteria (age, sex, sexual orientation and race) for who the company hires.  In a perfect world that's the way it should be but ask an AfroAmerican or a woman for that matter what working in the US would be like w/o the EOE Act.  We'd still be back in the 50's.

If the NFL owners do not think a player has potential they will not sign/hire them.  Its that simple.  Right now, owners don't even have the option to give MC a consideration.  MC just wants to be considered eligible to play.  His lawyers aren't forcing a contract on the NFL owners.  Again the owners do not havta sign/hire him.  Its up to the each individual ownership to make that decision.  SB even wrote, age alone is not an appropriate criteria for determining abilities to do tasks.

Here's an age criteria that hasn't been broached.  I believe the president of the USA must be older than 35.  It seems to be a wise rule until someone comes along that the public feels can break that rule.  Then consideration will change it.  How about being the President and being born in the US.  Some citizens are calling for a change in that rule/law for the "Cali Govenator's" sake.

BTW I'm done with this topic.  I don't know why I've even posted as much as I have.  I really could careless how this turns out 'cuz I don't particularly like MC but I am disappointed for M.Williams.

[BULLheaded]

actually the owners did have a choice to look at and hire any age, it was the owners themselves who decided to take this choice away feeling it was for the better of the sport and the league. This is still a choice I feel they have a right to make as owners and right or wrong the courts would have no right to take that away.

As far as the president, that is up to the public to make those choices so it is up to the citizens and the courts and the government to do so.

do I feel bad for the players affected? hmmmm, lets see...they might actually have to get a real job like the rest of the population instead of making bazillions of dollars playing a game....ok realistically they'll wait a year and still make a bazillion dollars playing a game and will only have to face reality for that one year. No I don't feel too bad that these kids might have to actually spend some time in college or mature a bit before they can play a game for the rest of their lives. The ones I feel sorry for are all the owners across the US that could be affected (ie more rights taken away) due to legislation resulting from something like this.

LOL yeah, I know what you mean but hey...sometimes it's just impossible to stop  

[Guest S.  Bien]

B'headed,

I do understand what you are saying about a private citizen which owes a company should be able to set any criteria (age, sex, sexual orientation and race) for who the company hires.  In a perfect world that's the way it should be but ask an AfroAmerican or a woman for that matter what working in the US would be like w/o the EOE Act.  We'd still be back in the 50's.

If the NFL owners do not think a player has potential they will not sign/hire them.  Its that simple.  Right now, owners don't even have the option to give MC a consideration.  MC just wants to be considered eligible to play.  His lawyers aren't forcing a contract on the NFL owners.  Again the owners do not havta sign/hire him.  Its up to the each individual ownership to make that decision.  SB even wrote, age alone is not an appropriate criteria for determining abilities to do tasks.

Here's an age criteria that hasn't been broached.  I believe the president of the USA must be older than 35.  It seems to be a wise rule until someone comes along that the public feels can break that rule.  Then consideration will change it.  How about being the President and being born in the US.  Some citizens are calling for a change in that rule/law for the "Cali Govenator's" sake.

BTW I'm done with this topic.  I don't know why I've even posted as much as I have.  I really could careless how this turns out 'cuz I don't particularly like MC but I am disappointed for M.Williams.

BullDoug,  

Your argument would hold water if the NFL teams, and Players Unions didn't BOTH voted to approve the limitations.  Therefore, the point is there wasn't a market for Maurice Clarrett, and Williams because no one wanted to hire them.  Now you are telling the NFL that despite their lack of desire to hire them they are forced to because they are discriminating?  That's not a free-market society.  Let the organization decide.  I know Mike Azzarelli, and Williams will be just fine.  The kid isn't even 21 years old yet.

This litigious society we live in makes me wonder if many Americans really want to live in a Republic, free-market society.

[Apis Bull]

the owners do not havta sign/hire him.  Its up to the each individual ownership to make that decision.

If he were deemed eligible and no owners picked him, then he would sue for collusion.

[BullDoug]

Now you are telling the NFL that despite their lack of desire to hire them they are forced to because they are discriminating?

Sigh...I can't help it.  Gotta say it.  No that's not what I'm saying.  DANG NAMIT!  If there were no desire to sign the younger kids, there would be no reason/need for the min. age rule.   Right now, the owners, not allowing anyone under 20-21 yrs of age to be eligible to play is borderline collusion.  That's what I was reading in ESPNMag and hearing on the radio 9-10 months ago.  Lotta people were surprized when MC's lawyer failed.  Wonder why?

Remove the rule.  If nobody truly wants a 19 yr old kid he will not be drafted or signed.  That's known as a TRUE free capitalist market place IMO.  The owners have the rule for the benefit of NCAA football aka the NFL's farm system.  Player union agrees to the age minimum b/c it protects jobs for the older veterans.  What if the NFL put a 40 yr old cap on the max age?  Then what?

Let me iterate again that I think the rule has merit but is not fair.  Age should never be sole criteria for any type exclusion for adults.  If my opinion is really so wrong please give me more professions that have exclusionary rules based on age alone.  5 examples will sway my opinion.  10 examples will probably change it.  I'm not a closed minded individual.  

[Apis Bull]

Let me iterate again that I think the rule has merit but is not fair.  Age should never be sole criteria for any type exclusion for adults.  If my opinion is really so wrong please give me more professions that have exclusionary rules based on age alone.  5 examples will sway my opinion.  10 examples will probably change it.  I'm not a closed minded individual.  

I have two so far.

The obvious one is President of the United States.

Another is a traffic patrol officer for the California Highway Patrol.  One must be 21.

I'll find more later.

[Apis Bull]

Police officer for Duke University- Minimum age 20