Supplemental Draft - 8-29-2011

[Ballboy]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/terrelle-pryor-will-be-in-mondays-supplemental-draft/

Anybody know anything about these players? Once I started to think about it, why hasnt TT been real active in these? Is the fact that these are usually "lower" character players?

[Upnorth]

It is not exclusively for problem children, but does have a lot higher portion than the normal draft. More importantly are there any dline worth a0 hoot in here?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see Tyrone Pryor is eligible. Good! Should have been a no-brainer. The NFL should not be preventing anyone from working because they were naughty in college.

[Smidgeon]

I see Tyrone Pryor is eligible. Good! Should have been a no-brainer. The NFL should not be preventing anyone from working because they were naughty in college.

He's eligible now that he has an immediate 5 game suspension...

[Brandon494]

Goodell would pull some shit like this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He's eligible now that he has an immediate 5 game suspension...

Huh!? I don't get it. Why is the NFL acting as the tattoo police for the corrupt NCAA?

[Smidgeon]

Huh!? I don't get it. Why is the NFL acting as the tattoo police for the corrupt NCAA?

No idea and I don't know any details. Just that the NFLPA agreed to it and that the suspension won't be appealed.

[3irty1]

The rush end from UNC might be worth a look. I'm only basing this on the fact that he played behind two first rounders. I guess he only got busted for $110 worth of crap. Doesn't seem like that big of a char risk.

[pittstang5]

Uh....Supplemental Draft is scheduled for next Monday - Aug. 22 not Aug. 29.

[Lurker64]

Huh!? I don't get it. Why is the NFL acting as the tattoo police for the corrupt NCAA?

The NFL very much both wants a) the NCAA to be friendly and b) the NCAA to exist in perpetuity, since the alternative is the NFL having to run their own farm system, which they very much would like to avoid.

[pbmax]

Incredible how in bed they are together. And the NFLPA wants to arrangement to continue so a developmental league doesn't siphon off resources.

I am sure its more complicated than I am currently expecting it to be, but with a limited anti-trust exemption, someone is going to challenge this farce and win.

Or someone will start a league that draws players away from college for an actual paycheck for work. Not a scholarship that many do not want.

[Lurker64]

I am sure its more complicated than I am currently expecting it to be, but with a limited anti-trust exemption, someone is going to challenge this farce and win.

Or someone will start a league that draws players away from college for an actual paycheck for work. Not a scholarship that many do not want.

The only anti-trust exemption that the NFL has is the ability to package the broadcast rights of it's games and sell them collectively (so that if you want to show Pats-Colts, you also have to pay for Raiders-Broncos twice a year). But the issue here is that a collective bargaining agreement shields you from most anti-trust allegations (c.f. Clarett v. NFL). The relevant language that shields the NFL here is in Article 8.6 of the Bylaws:

The Commissioner is authorized . . . to take appropriate steps as he deems necessary and proper in the best interests of the league . . . whenever any party or organization not a member of, employed by, or connected with the league or any member thereof is guilty of any conduct detrimental either to the league, its member clubs or employees, or to professional football.

So basically "the commissioner can do anything he wants" is in the CBA, so the battle to challenge it will be a hairy one.

As for starting a new league, that's entirely possible but you would need to have extremely deep pockets if you wanted to adopt a competitive position against the NFL and/or NCAA. Once you get past the huge startup costs of renting arenas and luring away players from other leagues, you will still find yourself in a position where the NFL and NCAA can sue you into submission with frivolous lawsuits if they find you threatening. Pretty much any startup league in this country has to kowtow to its betters, or it doesn't stand a chance (the UFL's only chance appears to be "getting the NFL to buy it" at this point.)

[pbmax]

The only anti-trust exemption that the NFL has is the ability to package the broadcast rights of it's games and sell them collectively (so that if you want to show Pats-Colts, you also have to pay for Raiders-Broncos twice a year). But the issue here is that a collective bargaining agreement shields you from most anti-trust allegations (c.f. Clarett v. NFL). The relevant language that shields the NFL here is in Article 8.6 of the Bylaws:



So basically "the commissioner can do anything he wants" is in the CBA, so the battle to challenge it will be a hairy one.

As for starting a new league, that's entirely possible but you would need to have extremely deep pockets if you wanted to adopt a competitive position against the NFL and/or NCAA. Once you get past the huge startup costs of renting arenas and luring away players from other leagues, you will still find yourself in a position where the NFL and NCAA can sue you into submission with frivolous lawsuits if they find you threatening. Pretty much any startup league in this country has to kowtow to its betters, or it doesn't stand a chance (the UFL's only chance appears to be "getting the NFL to buy it" at this point.)

Yes, but as the college students are not yet members of the Union, I think the case could have a chance. That was one concern of the owners during the lockout after decertification, that college players would launch an attack on the draft and then it would be a game of chicken to secure a CBA before that case wound its way through the courts.

Ultimately, it could come down to whether or not a minimum age (above the age of majority) for work is an item that is proper for collective bargaining.

[pbmax]

I think the UFL could do it, not compete directly with either the NCAA or the NFL, and pay the high school graduates a pittance compared to college budgets.

[Lurker64]

Yes, but as the college students are not yet members of the Union, I think the case could have a chance. That was one concern of the owners during the lockout after decertification, that college players would launch an attack on the draft and then it would be a game of chicken to secure a CBA before that case wound its way through the courts.

Ultimately, it could come down to whether or not a minimum age (above the age of majority) for work is an item that is proper for collective bargaining.

The problem is that labor law is generally written in such a way that management and labor can bind those parties who are prospective employees, but are not yet employed. If you were to make it so that the NFL and the NFLPA can't collectively make rules regarding prospective employees and the conditions of their employment, you would generally gut labor law in this country, so that's not going to happen.

The NFL was only concerned about the lawsuit from college players while the NFLPA was decertified and the NFL was not operating under the protection of a CBA. With a CBA in place, those lawsuits go nowhere. The precedent of Clarett v. NFL is pretty clear, for grievances about the NFL's treatment of prospective employees, that's not anti-trust law that's labor-law.