NFL 3-Year Rule - what's your opinion on this?

"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction) 01/08/2019 at 14:30 • Filed to: None

1

49

“I don’t know if Trevor Lawrence could succeed in the NFL next year. I do know that there are multiple teams that would give him the chance, and that if he were in any other industry, he’d have the choice to do so. It’s morally indefensible to deny someone life-changing money and instead force him to spend two years of indentured labor that can only negatively affect his future earnings , but in the macro it’s easy to see why it’s the case. The NFL wants its free min or league and to avoid having to take the risks inherent in evaluating teenagers; the NFLPA wants to hold off incoming competition for its members; the NCAA wants its top moneymakers to make them money for as long as possible. It’s a system that serves everyone, except Lawrence.” (from Deadspin article)

I can’t argue with the part in bold. Hope he stays healthy to reap the rewards of his hard work and success. What do you think of the current 3-year rule, and do you think it will hold up long-term to legal challenges?

NKato > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:31

1

A nything to prevent their lives from being wrecked by injuries. It’s a common outcome.

lone_liberal > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:35

1

I don’t like the rule and I find it interesting that a lot of conservative free market boosters from places like Alabama see no issue with restricting somebody from offering their services on the open market. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > NKato 01/08/2019 at 14:35

1

Well, to be 100% certain to avoid that, he’d need to give up the sport entirely (pretty doubtful at this point).

Just Jeepin' > NKato 01/08/2019 at 14:36

1

“Anything” would likely mean “banning football” which, while likely a good outcome, isn’t going to happen any time soon. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > lone_liberal 01/08/2019 at 14:39

0

I don’t like the rule either.

What about “life, liberty and the pursuit of (gobs of money, which apparently can buy) happiness”?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Just Jeepin' 01/08/2019 at 14:40

1

I think it’s time to go back to no pads and leather helmets. 

Arrivederci > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:45

2

As a lover of college football, I like the rule; but as someone who also thinks these guys should be able to earn their worth, it sucks.

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:45

1

The NFL is a private entity and therefore has the ability to set minimum entry rules as it sees fit. I don’t disagree that whole situation of “amateur ” athletes and the NCAA is crazy. T he NFL can do whatever it pleases . No one is forced to go into it. Unless someone challenges the rule based on age discrimination, I don’t see it changing.

I’m more libertarian so while I think he should be able to sell his services to whomever and whenever he pleases, I don’t like the idea of telling a private business how it should be run. Can’t have it both ways, as I see it.

There are sorts of precedents of restricting teens but.....I don’t know. I’m more confused now. Thanks a lot.

fintail > lone_liberal 01/08/2019 at 14:46

1

That’s exactly what I expect from self-titled conservative free market boosters.

ttyymmnn > lone_liberal 01/08/2019 at 14:47

2

But how can we keep being No. 1 if we let good talent go? They have to stay here and pay us back by winning football games. 

Future next gen S2000 owner > NKato 01/08/2019 at 14:47

0

Top prospects have insurance policies against injuries . I’d be surprised if he doesn’t have one entering next season.

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:47

1

Or you could look at it as getting a tuition- free education at an accredited US university that will serve you long after your playing days are over or if they are cut short.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Arrivederci 01/08/2019 at 14:48

1

Especially if he gets hurt in the next couple years, God forbid.

Seems like the only solution is to actually pay them to play in college, but who knows how that works...

ttyymmnn > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:49

2

I’ve been saying this for years. If you want to eliminate concussions in (American) football, take away their helmets. Players will learn to stop leading with their head very, very quickly. Rugby is a fine example of this. Are there no concussions in rugby? Of course not. But those guys know how to tackle with their heads up, using their arms. And they tend not to get concussed repeatedly.

NKato > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:50

1

When people played like gentleman, and not a bunch of roided up killers? 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future next gen S2000 owner 01/08/2019 at 14:51

2

The NFL is a cartel.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/14/why-american-sports-are-organised-as-cartels/#3323aef172a4

Colleges need to pay their elite athletes.

boredalways > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 14:54

0

Exhibit A*:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarett

* yes, he did a lot of stupid stuff off the field to derail his personal & professional life but is pertinent

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > NKato 01/08/2019 at 14:54

1

Doubt if they were gentlemen, but at least they’d have to pay their own consequences to any high-speed, vicious hits.

Just Jeepin' > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 14:56

0

Setting aside the question of whether these kids are getting a quality education, they’re endangering their long-term mental and physical health for it. Not a decision your typical high schooler  is well-qualified to make.

My brother-in-law has mild but persistent short-term memory problems he attributes to college football.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 15:01

1

Doubtful that any of them leaving after 3 years have a degree at that point, but at least they should be well on their way to one. 

It’s a valid point, and it probably is in the best interest of 90% of freshman athletes with a shot at the NFL, but this kid has basically won the lottery and can’t cash in for 2 more years. I hope he doesn’t lose his ticket between now and then.

Chariotoflove > Just Jeepin' 01/08/2019 at 15:04

0

I’m one of those weirdos who thinks the “student” in student athlete should mean something. I’m sure that too many of those kids don’t take advantage of the opportunity their talent gives them to get that education, and too many of their families and coaches fail to mentor them toward the right choices.

However, even if a kid is using college only as a staging platform for an NFL career, there is a valid argument to be made that most players are not physically developed or experienced  enough to enter the NFL without the college period.  Jumping right to the pros is likely to be a recipe for injury and failure.

glemon > Arrivederci 01/08/2019 at 15:05

1

That pretty much sums it up for me, from a selfish standpoint I like it, from the athlete’ s perspective there is crazy money at risk of one turned knee.

However, if you do away with the rule completely would a lot of kids end up making decent but not life altering money in pro feeder leagues and never make it to the big league, and now not get a college degree either?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > boredalways 01/08/2019 at 15:06

0

So, is it settled law at this point? How much different would his life be today if the earlier decision had not been “ overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an opinion by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarett’s petition for certiorari was refused by the Supreme Court” .

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:09

0

I hope he doesn’t either.  If he keeps on track and doesn’t get injured, he’ll probably be much better prepared for NFL success in a couple of years and command more money.  If he were able to come out now, He might have a bigger chance of getting chewed up and spit out like the NFL has done to so many promising quarterbacks.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 15:21

0

Honestly, I highly doubt he’ll get more in 2 years than he’d get now. His “stock” as a prospect is as high as it will likely ever get, off an unbeaten season and a dominant championship performance. It’s nearly impossible for a player (and a team) to stay that hot for that long.

I can’t argue with your second point, but I wish it was a decision that he could make for himself.

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:31

0

You think he’d get properly developed by an NFL team if he entered now? Most teams seem to take a highly drafted quarterback and throw him in there to sink or swim. Many of them sink. I don’t know how likely an NFL GM is to draft a freshman with one college season for really big money and then hang his whole team on him.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 15:36

0

No idea. Mahomes & Mayfield are 23 - we’ll see how they hold up. 

facw > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:38

2

I don’t like restricting players. For many players going to college is definitely the better choice, and I have no doubt many would make a bad choice if given it, but restricting their choice is a bad way to counter that. One simple and obvious change (which won’t be made, because it doesn’t benefit the NCAA or NFL directly ) would be to let players retain their eligibility if they are drafted but don’t sign as in baseball. That would let players who have an inflated value of their worth get a better picture of what NFL teams think of them without locking them out of college.  

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:38

0

I hope Mahomes and his team don’t hold up very well this week.  I’m a Colts fan.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 15:41

0

Haha - Chiefs fan here! I’m used to disappointment. We’ll see if our defense shows up.

boredalways > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:42

1

Sort of. Si nce normally when SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, it means the last judgement stands. If someone can find an angle that had not gone through the federal judicial system that could become the basis of another case....

Or if Congress  would take their job seriously.

facw > Chariotoflove 01/08/2019 at 15:42

0

It should be, but it clearly isn’t. I don’t think forcing them to play college ball is a good solution though, especially since some of them obviously could play in the NFL (and the NFL presumably would be hesitant to select players they thought weren’t ready). As I said elsewhere, ideally, players who were drafted but didn’t sign would retain their eligibility, so that they wouldn’t be locked out of college opportunities if they misjudged how NFL teams would value them. Even a single year at the league minimum would easily cover the cost of a four-year education at a state school, so if they can go pro , they probably should.  

Arrivederci > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 15:43

0

That’s what I was thinking as well, but I can’t imagine trying to figure out a “fair” pay scale for them in college.

Could it be flat rate? That’s not really fair as men’s basketball and football bring in like 99% of the revenue, so would it be fair for Trevor Lawrence to earn the same money as a field hockey player?

Maybe only revenue-generating sports? That’s probably a Title IX violation somehow.

Tiered by conference? That would only ensure Power 5 keep their stranglehold on control of selection-based outcomes (NCAA Tourney, CFP, etc).

Maybe flat rate stipends that are affordable for all member institutions plus giving them the ability to sign endorsement deals both locally and nationally.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > facw 01/08/2019 at 15:49

0

Yeah, that’d be a good change. Too bad it’s so unlikely. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Arrivederci 01/08/2019 at 15:55

0

There’s definitely no easy solution, but the endorsement thing is a good idea.

Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:12

1

Lots of jobs have barriers to entry that to some people seem unnecessary. Anyone who wants to play pro football knows they need to have a plan between high school and that time. And a free college education is a pretty good plan.

I think forcing at least a little delay is good; but I think it could be one year.

The real problem is that top level college football and basketball is such a weird thing compared to all other college football/basketball and sports. For 99.9% of college athletes, including lots of D1 football  players, a scholarship is a great trade off. But for those .1% of athletes there is something very off balance but I don’t know what the solution is(I don’t think it’s straight up paying them but could be wrong).

Chuckles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:16

0

I don’t love the rule, but at the same time:

-nobody is forcing him to keep playing in college for free.

-nobody is banning him from earning money playing football.

That’s just the path if he chooses to play in college and then go to the NFL. There's nothing to stop him from sitting out, or playing in another, less lucrative league. He's not being forced to do anything.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chuckles 01/08/2019 at 16:18

1

Yeah, “force” is the wrong word, but it is really his only reasonable choice at this point. 

Monkey B > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:20

1

it’d be asking NFL teams to risk draft picks. That’s harder to swallow in the NFL than it is with MLB since those drafted players generally marinate in the minors for a handful of years. Most NFL picks are drafted for immediate production or 1-2 year projects expected to produce in around that time...making NFL picks more valuable.

Chuckles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:22

0

I think that college athletes should get paid, but that’s a separate issue.

In general, it is probably good for most athletes that they can't play in the NFL until 3 years after high school. There might be a few exceptions, but I don't see much good out of giving 18 year old kids millions of dollars to get tackled by large adults. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Monkey B 01/08/2019 at 16:35

0

Couldn’t there be a rule added that would say that the team that drafted them (if they decided to go back to college) would have first right of refusal to sign them once they were ready to enter the NFL? 

Monkey B > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:43

1

they could, but I think even that wouldn’t work for NFL teams as they draft to fill needs...so that position would likely be addressed already. Draft picks are gold to NFL teams.

I’m sure there’s a better solution. But the simplest one is pay the college player...because I’m sure 90% of the “student athletes ” aren’t really doing much with academics. I also assume they don’t have time to have jobs, and high profile players I assume aren’t allowed .

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 16:46

1

My thinking is, if the NCAA Basketball players can play 1 year and go pro, why can’t football players. The likelihood of a NCAA Football player can injured is greater than basketball and could lead to him not making the NFL at all.

If he doesn’t play and just either sits out or quits for 2 years he doesn’t make as much when he goes into the NFL. He isn’t FORCED to play, but he’s certainly trapped if he wants that big paycheck at the end of the road.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chuckles 01/08/2019 at 16:48

0

In general, you’re right. But what if it was you ?

What if you had the opportunity to cash in early like this? Any sane person would take it NOW, no question.

Baker Mayfield, for comparison, got ~$33 million guaranteed. If Lawrence get hurts badly next season, he could get NOTHING. I hope he does great the next 2 years and gets a huge contract and does well in the pros, but there are lots of “ ifs” along the way.

Anyway, it’s doubtful anything will change...

Chuckles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 17:10

0

I don’t know what the right answer is (besides paying college athletes). If the NFL started taking kids straight out of high school, I can’t imagine that they'd be getting paid Baker Mayfield money since they'd be largely untested.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chuckles 01/08/2019 at 17:16

0

NBA’s rule is 19 years old (so, lots of “one and done” - also not ideal). 

Chuckles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 17:20

0

The NBA, while physical, isn’t the same level of physically demanding as the NFL. If NFL teams could start snatching high school kids, do you really think they’d start taking any lineme n or linebackers? I doubt it, because there is a considerable size difference between 18 year old lineme n and 21 year old linemen. And RBs are practically a disposable commodity in the NFL now.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chuckles 01/08/2019 at 17:32

1

It is crazy that the era of the dominant RB is basically over.

For WRs and CBs, strength is good, but speed it where it’s at (and an athlete only has so many years of top speed - could argue that 3 of those years are being “wasted” in college, and will mean less career earnings in the pros ).

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 01/08/2019 at 18:19

0

I agree with paying athletes in college, but that is the weakest argument for the NFL as a cartel as you could make.