|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Aug 26, 2004 18:54:55 GMT -5
He screwed up, and he paid for it. I do feel sorry for him and the USC program. But if the NCAA let him back in, who knows how many other people would try this same thing. Anyway....what is your take on this?  |
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Aug 26, 2004 19:26:31 GMT -5
Seeing how the NCAA treats Jeremy Bloom this year, and countless other actually eligible juniors and others who leave early, no, he shouldn't be allowed back. I have personally seen juniors send a letter of intent to the draft, and then change their mind without signing with agents or taking money and their eligibility is gone regardless. Who cares if he paid the money back. He broke a rule, he knew it was a possible consequence. Tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by PJ520 on Aug 26, 2004 22:55:55 GMT -5
It's not Williams fault. He would have been a Top 10 pick, the rule was changed temporarily so Williams entered the draft and hired an agent because the rule allowed him to. Then it doesn't and the ncaa won't allow him back. That's dumb
|
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 26, 2004 23:41:37 GMT -5
This is a heartless, selfserving decision. ANd though I know I shouldn't be surprised, I am.
Appalling.
|
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Aug 26, 2004 23:53:54 GMT -5
It's not dumb or heartless. The NFL told him that if they won the appeal, they would not give him a supplemental draft. ANY OTHER ATHLETE WHO DECLARES INSTANTLY LOSES ELIGIBILITY, regardless of whether they are drafted or not.
The rule was never changed, it was just put on hold until they determined the legality.
The Bloom thing shows that the NCAA doesn't care about student athletes.
Had MW waited, and the court upheld Clarett's position, Williams could have gone into a supplemental draft and wouldn't have lost both opportunities.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 27, 2004 0:15:26 GMT -5
He shouldn't have had to wait. He was following the judges ruling, then got screwed after it changed on appeal. He returned all his money, what would the NCAA lose if they let him return.
The NCAA is a monopoly, which is fine as long as the NCAA doesn't run itself as a business with capitalist principles.
BTW, I believe in capitalism, and the invisible hand. I even believe in trickle-down economics. But capitalism at its corp cannot allow for monoplistic businesses. The NCAA is that and the only reason that is acceptable is because of the idea that the NCAA is not acting only in self-interest. This, along with ountless other rulings show that the NCAA acts in self-interest.
Their interest in the Mike Williams case was only to scare other players in the future into not testing NFL draft waters.
Let me ask everyone, If their were 2 or more major college football organizations, would the NCAA have not reinstated Mike Williams and, in so doing, allowed him to play in another organization? ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Aug 27, 2004 17:55:33 GMT -5
He shouldn't have had to wait. He was following the judges ruling, then got screwed after it changed on appeal. He returned all his money, what would the NCAA lose if they let him return. The NCAA is a monopoly, which is fine as long as the NCAA doesn't run itself as a business with capitalist principles. BTW, I believe in capitalism, and the invisible hand. I even believe in trickle-down economics. But capitalism at its corp cannot allow for monoplistic businesses. The NCAA is that and the only reason that is acceptable is because of the idea that the NCAA is not acting only in self-interest. This, along with ountless other rulings show that the NCAA acts in self-interest. Their interest in the Mike Williams case was only to scare other players in the future into not testing NFL draft waters. Let me ask everyone, If their were 2 or more major college football organizations, would the NCAA have not reinstated Mike Williams and, in so doing, allowed him to play in another organization? ? Point taken. And yeah they probably would have let em' back in. Although I think they were right in trying to scare others from testing the NFL waters. Although I am sorry they did it with such a talented person. |
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Aug 27, 2004 19:45:37 GMT -5
Football is the only sport where coaches are guaranteed at least 3 years before kids can leave. Ask any NCAA baseball or basketball coach if he feels for MW or PC. They lose freshmen who have decent years, not even stellar ones.
MW was not following a judge's official ruling, he was following an appeal that was still working its way to the top. He could have stayed in class, and not signed with an agent, and not taken money, and still been able to leave at moment's notice for the draft if the Supreme Court agreed with Clarett.
I was shocked that for once the Supreme Court allowed a business to have their own discriminatory (by age) rules stand, unlike the PGA decision a few years back.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Aug 27, 2004 20:04:32 GMT -5
Football is the only sport where coaches are guaranteed at least 3 years before kids can leave. Ask any NCAA baseball or basketball coach if he feels for MW or PC. They lose freshmen who have decent years, not even stellar ones. MW was not following a judge's official ruling, he was following an appeal that was still working its way to the top. He could have stayed in class, and not signed with an agent, and not taken money, and still been able to leave at moment's notice for the draft if the Supreme Court agreed with Clarett. I was shocked that for once the Supreme Court allowed a business to have their own discriminatory (by age) rules stand, unlike the PGA decision a few years back. It is a little odd. However I have to say the decision was the correct one.  |
|
