Fournette - should he play or sit out?...

[dawgstudent]

I'm not questioning the NFL rule - my original question was if you were Fournette - would you sit out a year?

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Couldn't it be argued that he is being team first by sitting out? As a GM, he is being team first for YOUR team. He is sacrificing the opportunity to play college football and set records for the chance to stay healthy and play for YOUR team. As a GM, that's what you should care about- your team. And he is protecting his body for your team before even being on your team.

I think the next question the GM has to ask, is he going to sit out any time he doesn't feel 100%? He is going to be a hold out in contract negotiations? Is this showing that money is such a priority that once he gets paid his is level of play going to drop significantly? See Jamarcus Russel. It was all about getting paid from that first contract with him. It opens the doors to a lot of questions that effects what kind of performance will we get the player. Not that I think this player would be that way, but the fewer negative questions a GM has to think of on a given player the better I would think.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

I'm not questioning the NFL rule - my original question was if you were Fournette - would you sit out a year?

Yeah I know. The bulk of what I wrote in the second half was about if he should sit out. For me personally, no I don't. For various reasons. I understand the argument for it though. I also see it as opening the door to a lot of issues. Like I mentioned with agents encouraging lesser talented guys to do the same that actually costs them money or gets even more players skirting with illegibility while they are still playing for their college. These issues may sound good for the one time type of player but we need to look at the overall landscape of the future of what problems it could cause as well.

 

[SheltonChoked]

No. Your analogy of 2 guys dropping out of Harvard to create businesses that literally did not exist before, is not the same as letting a high school or college player go pro. There is no partial similarity.


The NFL is not a non profit. It declared $327 million in revenue.

And I'm not talking about forced drafting, but if you think more than 1-2 guys a year will declare, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

The bolded part always makes me laugh. A free college education is nice and all. You can use it to go make $50K a year, and maybe if you're lucky, by the time you've been somewhere 20 years, you'll be making $200K a year or so. If you're really lucky, you may get into the 7 figure range. Meanwhile, if you're a first round draft pick, you can go get 4 years with $5-20M guaranteed and a $3-15M signing bonus. In other words, you can make a lot more in 4 years (without a degree) than you could make with a degree not playing football. That college degree value is so miniscule compared to the NFL opportunity.

If my elementary school kid had someone willing to offer a 4 year deal for $10M with a $5M signing bonus right now, only I'd have to let her quit school, we would drop out of school in a heartbeat. Her education isn't going to be worth nearly as much in the long run as that short-run deal. Now, I'd get her an investment professional and work it out for her to be able to live off that money for the rest of her life, but school would be OVER. It would serve zero purpose anymore.

And what would be their lifetime earning potential be without the free college education? It's a two way street. The average career earnings for an NFL player is $6.7 MIL. The average college graduate is making $1.19 MIL and the average high school graduate is making $335,000 during their lifetime. Now obviously you have to consider that they can finish their degree and have jobs after their playing days. But looking at the demographics of the bulk of football players, how many actually would not even finish high school without the opportunity to play college ball? That free education that you think is laughable I think can change many people's lives, if they choose to embrace it. College football is not the NFL minor leagues and you have to look at the broad picture of the whole of college athletes not the small percentage that will play in the NFL. I don't have a problem with players leaving early in accordance to the rules set. But a free college education, for the vast majority of these players would not be possible if they were not an athelete. No college football no NFL draft. Don't scoff at it, they need to embrace the opportunity.

 

[johnson86-1]

I'm not questioning the NFL rule - my original question was if you were Fournette - would you sit out a year?

I'm assuming if I was fournette I would enjoy playing football, and taking a year off from playing would sound miserable. Throw in the potential that NFL GM's might question my commitment (even though that would be showing commitment to his pro career), and the bridges I'd be burning with LSU, and I'd probably play. He basically has an insurance policy. If he goes out and busts it next year and loses his career to an injury, he'll still have plenty of LSU people looking to help him out. He quits playing for LSU in order to sit out, and he probably loses that insurance policy. And this is ignoring the fact that he can make some money playing another year for LSU. I'm not sure if he can get $100k in extra benefits, but I bet he can get another $30k. Not much in the grand scheme of things but it helps. ETA: Any reason that my posts are now ignoring paragraph breaks? Is the issue on my end or is that the website?

 

[Lucky Dawg]

They are two individuals with exceptional talents/abilities who were allowed to leave school early to pursue a path in their chosen career (entrepreneurship) because there was no self-interested trade organization colluding with their university to mandate that they stay X number of years and/or obtain a degree.

And the whole point of this discussion is that players should have the ability to declare if they believe they're ready for the NFL - just because they declare doesn't mean a team will or must draft them. You're acting like teams will be forced to draft sophomores just because they declare for the draft.

Anyways, I've already expended 3x more keystrokes than this conversation is worth.

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

I think he has to play if he wants NFL GMs to draft him where he will want to be drafted. That does not mean he has to play in the NCAA though.

The arguments that are being made that it is unfair to make him wait 3 years post-high school to "pursue his chosen profession" are off the mark, as are the analogies to child prodigies. Those child prodigies are still probably not getting hired at 17 years old to work for a Fortune 500 company, because those companies have hiring criteria that they, I assume, stick to. That does not mean that those child prodigies cannot go work for someone else willing to take the risk, or even start their own company. That same principle applies to Fournette. Just because he cannot be "hired" by the NFL because he doesn't meet their criteria yet, does not stop him from making money at his chosen profession.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I agree that the opportunity for a free education for many athletes is a very nice opportunity to be granted.

For players that are surefire first round talents, that free education has little value at all. That's the type of argument that I guarantee some of our dumbass fans will try to make after this year when Tunsil, Nkemdiche, Treadwell, and likely Conner all decide to declare early. Some idiot will argue that they should finish their degree, because it has so much value.

That's complete BS for those guys. They're going to make big money in the NFL, and the sooner they get to the second contract, the better for them. If things don't work out in the NFL, they should have enough money to come back and complete a degree if it's important to them.

Now, some might mismanage that money and be broke 5 years after their career is over, but that's not the discussion. Just purely on opportunity and value, leaving early is almost always the best bet if you're going to be a high draft pick. The degree's value doesn't come close to the value you gain by going ahead and starting your career.

 

[codeDawg]

The difference is that there is a players union which negotiates most of these things with the league. Most of the actual profits go to the players anyway, so it would be difficult to argue employees don't have a seat at the table.

The other side of this is that they have plenty of evidence that players drafted under the age of 21 have a much lower probability of success than those older than 21, thus justifying the job requirement.

 

[johnson86-1]

The difference is that there is a players union which negotiates most of these things with the league. Most of the actual profits go to the players anyway, so it would be difficult to argue employees don't have a seat at the table.

So it's ok because people with interests adverse to theirs are at the negotiating table? Not sure how that helps the case that the rule should be allowed.

The other side of this is that they have plenty of evidence that players drafted under the age of 21 have a much lower probability of success than those older than 21, thus justifying the job requirement.

That doesn't change the analysis either. Employers could very easily show that employees were more successful after they have spent three years as an intern. If you're worried about qualifications and likelihood of success, you don't need to collude with other employers. The only reason to conclude is to suppress competition that would drive up wages. That doesn't change anything.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

I agree that the opportunity for a free education for many athletes is a very nice opportunity to be granted.

For players that are surefire first round talents, that free education has little value at all. That's the type of argument that I guarantee some of our dumbass fans will try to make after this year when Tunsil, Nkemdiche, Treadwell, and likely Conner all decide to declare early. Some idiot will argue that they should finish their degree, because it has so much value.

That's complete BS for those guys. They're going to make big money in the NFL, and the sooner they get to the second contract, the better for them. If things don't work out in the NFL, they should have enough money to come back and complete a degree if it's important to them.

Now, some might mismanage that money and be broke 5 years after their career is over, but that's not the discussion. Just purely on opportunity and value, leaving early is almost always the best bet if you're going to be a high draft pick. The degree's value doesn't come close to the value you gain by going ahead and starting your career.

I don't necessarily disagree and all of those players decided to play and not sit out. And are going to go out early in accordance with the rules. I'm fine with that. I just see a lot of potential misuse, abuse, and pitfalls with atheletes if they start just sitting and waiting for a year. For one individual it might make a lot of sense. But it would not stop at just one and that to me is a big issue. As big of an ego many players already have, how many will decided or have agents whispering to them that they are a sure fire need to sit player to protect themselves. Rabbit hole.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Sit out, without question. Imagine if you had a rare talent, let's say you were a savant at the stock market, and the brokerage houses had colluded so that you were forced to work for Wells Fargo, for minimum wage, for three years before you could sell your talents on the open market. You will earn them and the rest of the brokers millions while you do so. Sure, you could go work for some Canadian firm, but you're a GD American, so that doesn't really appeal to you. On top of that, you're unique talent has a time limit of 10 years of active trading maximum, after that you're a washed up hack that will be changing careers. Also, one bad trade and you're out of the market forever, even if it happens during your probation years. You're given the option of spending one of those years working for minimum, or preserving that year for the day you can go strait to the market with your talent and make millions. What do you choose?

That is regulated as well. You can't trade without a license and in most states you have to be at least 18 and some 21. Most brokerage houses will not even hire you unless you are 21 and with a BS degree. And most FINRA exams require a sponsor to even take to be able to work in the market. So the analogy doesn't really work.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Two sides ..

OK...but if you are a prodigy in your field that does something that gets published in journals across the world, then you would probably be able to get around the whole 3-5 years experience thing and get a pretty sweet gig.

That's what Fournette is. He's a prodigy in his chosen field, so the comparison to Average Joe College Degree Guy isn't accurate.

For each and every Fournette out there, there are 20+ Rufus Frenchs and Jevan Sneads that are being convinced that they are all 'prodigies' by greedy agents willing to take a chance and a cut of any signing bonus. And, those two ONLY left with one year of eligibility left. Never mind that neither was actually even drafted by a team. Imagine the carnage when players were allowed to leave after ONLY one year.

 

[aTotal360]

Again, I think it's ridiculous to let an outlier change standards. You can't be everything to everyone.

 

[johnson86-1]

Again, I think it's ridiculous to let an outlier change standards. You can't be everything to everyone.

It's not changing standards. It's applying the same standards to football, to the extent feasible, that apply to other industries. If you're going to give an industry the ability to collude and refuse to hire certain people, there needs to be a good reason. A good reason to lock an individual out of a job market, not a reason that it makes sense for the employers. There's a compelling reason to allow collusion on rules; to have a league, you have to have some agreement on rules. There's a good if not compelling reason to have a draft. I'm not sure there is a good reason to lock adults out of employment period based on age.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Sorry ..

If employers in an industry (or even just the 30 best employers in an industry) met annually or more often in order to reach an agreement that they wouldn't pay anybody a market wage until they had worked for at least three years as an intern making $15 an hour, you'd see people batting plenty of eyes. It's complicated with sports leagues because there has to be some collusion in order to have a league, so it's not as clearly a problem as when industries do it, but that doesn't mean that any and all collusion should be ok.

but it happens exactly this way in a LOT of professions. Medical interns, new lawyers, accountants, engineers .. thousands of folks start at the bottom, making less than they are actually worth to move up the ladder.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

It's not changing standards. It's applying the same standards to football, to the extent feasible, that apply to other industries. If you're going to give an industry the ability to collude and refuse to hire certain people, there needs to be a good reason. A good reason to lock an individual out of a job market, not a reason that it makes sense for the employers. There's a compelling reason to allow collusion on rules; to have a league, you have to have some agreement on rules. There's a good if not compelling reason to have a draft. I'm not sure there is a good reason to lock adults out of employment period based on age.

Well if this is your reasoning then the government is the biggest offender out there. There are numerous jobs, not even getting into elected officials, that have age restrictions in the government. A postal inspector has to be 21 but not over 36 to apply. It's one of their first eligibility requirements.

 

[aTotal360]

How about basing it on college experience and not age?

 

[RebelBruiser]

We could call it the USFL...

Difference being, the USFL didn't position itself as an NFL development league. It positioned itself as a competitor to the NFL.

You could theoretically pay players right out of high school and compete directly with the college ranks. The problem I see is that I don't think you'd have the fan attention. Ultimately that's what keeps the college/NFL system afloat. Support is not for the support itself but for the brand names, which is where I run into issues in justifying extensive pay for players.

Fournette has an extreme amount of value to LSU, but much of Fournette's value is tied to the LSU brand. Granted, he does drive additional value to that LSU brand. That's the part that where the elite players are getting shafted. How much more exposure and money does the LSU brand rake in because Fournette brings them success?

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Difference being, the USFL didn't position itself as an NFL development league. It positioned itself as a competitor to the NFL.

You could theoretically pay players right out of high school and compete directly with the college ranks. The problem I see is that I don't think you'd have the fan attention. Ultimately that's what keeps the college/NFL system afloat. Support is not for the support itself but for the brand names, which is where I run into issues in justifying extensive pay for players.

Fournette has an extreme amount of value to LSU, but much of Fournette's value is tied to the LSU brand. Granted, he does drive additional value to that LSU brand. That's the part that where the elite players are getting shafted. How much more exposure and money does the LSU brand rake in because Fournette brings them success?

It is kind of circular though. How much does the LSU and conference brand enhance his stock as well? It kind of feeds itself in both directions. If he plays for Tulane instead of LSU, is he a heisman front runner right now? It's not like LSU is getting a huge spike in revenue from him. Unlike a case you could have made for RGIII at Baylor. That would be more noticeable I would think.

 

[o_1984Dawg]

Terrible comparison. Professionals in those industries have tons of liability, which is why the intern period is necessary. Athletes have zero. Basically every sport that isn't football or basketball operates on the premise that if you can play, you can play, and you have a right to get paid your market value, whether that's based on what you can do on the field this year or talent projections for down the road.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

1) it's college football, part of the educational system

2) the rules are straightforward and well known

3) players are free to not participate at all if they don't want to and/or don't value their scholarship

For all those reasons I say shut up and ball or don't come at all.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Terrible comparison. Professionals in those industries have tons of liability, which is why the intern period is necessary. Athletes have zero. Basically every sport that isn't football or basketball operates on the premise that if you can play, you can play, and you have a right to get paid your market value, whether that's based on what you can do on the field this year or talent projections for down the road.

But is it not why the NFL and NFLPA set up the guidlines? They don't believe they can play at the professional level right out of high school whether it's for the physical or mental side or both. And the other sports mostly have a minor league systems in place to reduce the risk of team and player jumping straight to the major leagues.

 

[RebelBruiser]

1) it's college football, part of the educational system

2) the rules are straightforward and well known

3) players are free to not participate at all if they don't want to and/or don't value their scholarship

For all those reasons I say shut up and ball or don't come at all.

Which is why, in theory, I think there is a potential market for a league to compete directly with college football. I just don't know if you could attract the fans to the product.

Competing with the NFL is a no go. You're not going to make that work. However, college's stipulations that you 1) have to meet academic requirements, and 2) can't get paid, create a potential supply of talent in that 18-21 age range if you wanted to stand up a private league to house and train that talent and allow it to compete.

If you were going to make it work, I think you'd have to play the season in the early Spring months, so that you'd be operating not in direct competition for TV time, and you'd also want to have the opportunity to try to recruit players that either didn't make the grades at the last minute, or guys that simply decide they'd rather make money instead of playing college ball.

 

[aTotal360]

Joey Galloway properly ended this debate (Mutt approved)

http://deadspin.com/joey-galloway-ends-leonard-fournette-debate-by-insultin-1734100673

 

[Dogariffic]

Baseball does it. Basketball does it. Football should too. Free trade or whatever you want to call it. If your good enough you should be allowed to make a living without age discrimination.

 

[aTotal360]

Which one of those 3 sports is thriving? Again, I have zero problem burdening a few players for the benefit of the whole.

 

[lazlow]

I heard herbie's BS on Nashville ESPN radio the other day....anyone notice how many times he brought up Marcus lattimore? Exactly....hstreet gets paid to run his Dsucker and he doesn't say jack about lattimore anymore because he's not there.

LF is a 17 tard if he plays next year just to make hstreet and the rest of us college fans happy.

 

[ronpolk]

Couldn't it be argued that he is being team first by sitting out? As a GM, he is being team first for YOUR team. He is sacrificing the opportunity to play college football and set records for the chance to stay healthy and play for YOUR team. As a GM, that's what you should care about- your team. And he is protecting his body for your team before even being on your team.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. I guess I would worry that once he accomplished his goal of getting a large contract with some guaranteed money, he'd take a year or 2 off. Obviously, I don't think that is the case with LF. I also don't think he will sit out next year. Although I don't think anyone could blame him if he did.

 

[BugaPainTrain7]

Selfishly - I want him to play as an overall college football fan. As a Mississippi State fan - I hope he sits out. If I was him - I would sit out.

It was funny to read Herbsteit's take on it yesterday saying it was preposterous to even think he should sit out. I just wonder if it was Herbsteit's kid - what would he say.

Fournette won't sit out even if he wins the Heisman and the National Championship this year. He is a very selfless player, he's the true definition of a team player. He doesn't want to win the Heisman, he wants to bring that Natty back to BR. He's a great guy, he really has his priorities straight. I've never seen him out at the bars and I really like that.