@spendius,
spendius wrote: Why should he go and live in a backwoods like San Diego.
You've never been to San Diego, have you Spendi?
On the other hand, I agree he should be free to choose whether to sign a contract, or not sign a contract.
spendius wrote: And where would the NFL be had not Commissioner Bert Bell in 1936 acted to initiate a college draft? If you are going to consider that matter you really ought to do so and not just pass on as if nobody is noticing that you are not considering it at all. The NFL would have evolved to survive and prosper or gone under to allow something better to replace it. Like soccer say.
Sounds like an assertion from you. In your world, soccer is "better" than American football. And while you believe that to be true, it of course does not make it so. And you know this is said by one who has never played American football, and has played soccer at a competitive level since I was just a pup.
spendius wrote: Suppose the best law graduates were directed to the worst law firms and, if one presumes a reverse operation, the worst ones to the best law firms.
Okay, suppose that were to occur? I mean, if we are going to consider the matter, we really ought to do so and not just pass on as if nobody is noticing that we are not considering it at all.
But even if we were to presume that allowing the "best" law graduates to be free to choose to work at the "best" law firms is the "better" plan ... it does not necessarily follow that it would be "better" to allow the "best" football players to choose to work for the "best" football teams. The fundamental difference of opinion between you and those who would believe the present draft system is superior, is you disagree with the NFL's philosophy of forced parity. Yet, the assertion is made that such parity makes the NFL a superior product. You disagree, but again, that does not make your view on the subject the correct one.
spendius wrote:They are trying to cover up a basic fault in your game because the forward pass renders it non-exportable and thus unable to strut the world stage and that being jingoistic and All American Ball Player type tough guy type about it somehow abolishes this flaw. And being allowed to handle the ball in a game called football is plain silly. Rugby players don't use their feet much in a game. It's almost all handling. And they have to use the back pass. It shows patience. The only "try" (a touchdown) here that shows impatience is a result of an interception.
Well, I don't know whether the forward pass renders the NFL "non-exportable," but I do know that I don't care. Yes, that's me being jingoistic about it. You might think being allowed to "handle the ball in a game called football" is silly, but it's permitted in the rules of the game.
And how silly is cricket? I mean, there's absolutely no crickets in that game, that I can see. And the guy pitching the ball isn't called a pitcher, like he is in baseball. No, he is a "bowler" because he "bowls" the ball to the batsman ... so why don't you call this sport bowling? And why are some games called "test cricket"? Is one game a test and another isn't?
And how silly is soccer? A game where only one guy can use his hands? How silly is that? And why do you call a soccer field a "pitch"? Nobody's pitching anything.
spendius wrote:So once you allow the forward pass and the handling of the football your game cannot help being as it is.
And it's just fine the way it is. I'm not aware of anyone clamoring to change the rules to abolish the forward pass, or forbid the use of hands. You might not have noticed, but football is pretty popular over here.
spendius wrote:And with all the substitutes you allow every able-bodied male can be in the team, and their relatives and neighbours go to see them play and stuff some sat-fat and guzzle some bevvies, ...
Okay, you disagree with allowing substitutions. That, again, is a fundamental difference in philosophy. You think a sport is "better" if you cannot substitute off the field. I remind you that because you think it better does not make it so.
And let's see here ... you are choosing to criticize this sport because people go to watch them play, and eat and drink when they do? Let's take a quick look at the typical soccer fans over in England, shall we:
Yes ... English soccer fans are MUCH better.
spendius wrote:... and most of them hardly run as far as one might run for a bus before giving up and with all the inevitable stop/starting to allow time for the sponsors and for the congregation to congratulate themselves on being American, and with the padding and the head gear the player's personalities being a bit alienated and all, and, I say, with all of that it's "provincial" and unsuited to globalisation tendencies.
And if it is unsuited to globilization? What's your point? I might just as well say soccer is unsuited to import to the US because you can't use your hands, there is very little scoring, there are no breaks so I can run to the bathroom while I'm watching it, and with all the little pansy diving and rolling around clutching your ankle like you're really hurt but you're not and we all know you've just going to run back on the field when they dump you off that little stretcher over on the sidelines.
But don't think soccer hasn't caught hold over here. Little girls can play soccer, and it's one of the most popular sports for little girls over here.
spendius wrote:Three of our top clubs are owned by Americans and another by a Russian. The Arabs have another. They meet people at the big matches.
I'm having trouble deciphering your point.
spendius wrote:Quote:The draft's basis was acceptable to young Manning's father and to his brother, but not to him, and he worked his ploy. ...
What Eli's Dad and brother have to do with it I can't imagine.
I don't know if you said that because you think Eli's his own man and capable of making decisions without the counsel of his family, or you just have no idea who Payton or Archie Manning are.
spendius wrote:They should get nothing for finishing last. Fancy giving them a better choice than 5th last. They should get relegated and the top team in the next league down replace them. They look like they are trying to protect a monopoly to me.
Wouldn't allowing the best players to choose to the richest team who could pay them the most scratch have the effect of perpetuating a monopoly? I fail to see how you can on the one hand endorse allowing that to be the rule, yet complain about protection of monopolies.
But, again, what this boils down to is your difference in philosophy about this whole relegation nonsense. When are you going to see the light and finally come around to clear thinking on this issue?
spendius wrote:Quote:. The NFL is a lesser thing when its college draft is made meaningless.
That's another assertion. It's donkey's years since I heard of this draft system and think it's as ridiculous now as I did then.
Oh, that's an assertion, huh? As opposed you your statements that soccer is "better" than football, that the forward pass is a bad idea, as is allowing the players to freely substitute, use their hands, hide the football, use pads and helmets, and allow the worst team to get the "best" player. None of
those are assertions, are they now?