Quote:
|
Originally Posted by osugrad21
The true question in the case lies in the Collective Bargaining Agreement...the 3 year Rule is not explicitly discussed in the text of the agreement. However, the court ruled that its implied agreement by both sides constituted a legally binding agreement. Also, the court precedence shows that previous judgements have not interfered with collective bargaining agreements and have shown a tendancy to protect the best interests of the game itself.
|
Here is my take:
A part of the 3 year rule is about the maturity of a player. Kids who are less than 3 years out of school lack the physical, mental and emotional maturity to play in the NFL. Some are looking only at a player's physical maturity. Clarett and others may have the physical maturity, however they lack the mental and emotional maturity to play in the NFL; thus the 3 year rule. IMO, Clarett's immature behaviors due to his age and length of time out of high school gives the NFL and the NFL Players' Union collective bargaining agreement some of the foudation needed for the 3 year rule. On the other hand, a more mature player with less than 3 years out of school shows that the physical, emotional and mental maturity of players does not apply to a whole population.
I know about collective bargaining agreements have been upheld in court in the past. I'm trying to justify a reason for the 3 year Rule agreement. Clarret's immature behavor gives this rule some leverage.