LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

For those of you who haven't heard Mike Williams was denied permission to play football for USC this season.

Here's a quick background. Williams is 6-5 and finished 8th in the Heisman voting last season as a sophomore. He likely could have been a top 10 pick in this years NFL draft, but current league rules prohibit anyone from entering the draft until three years after their high school class graduates. Maurice Clarrett (one of the bigger jerks there is) tried to fight this because he got suspended last season for violating some NCAA rules. A federal court ruled in favor of Clarrett and he thought he was in. Therefore Williams declared for the draft as well. A higher court later overturned the decision and said those players weren't elgible. Then Williams wanted to return to USC and play football this year, and the NCAA said no.

I personally think this is unfair. If a federal court ruled it was ok and then he went with it, shouldn't he be like "grandfathered" in? And if not, shouldn't he not be punished for what he did? I understand not letting him into the draft but they should at least let him play college football again. Williams surprised me. He could have gone and played in the CFL or another football league for a year to stay in shape, but instead he is taking classes and still attending USC and just staying in shape on the side. I have respect for him for doing this and I think he should be allowed to play.

The scary part is, USC is STILL a top 5 team in the country AND Williams will still be a first round pick next June.

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:

You're right he shoudl be allowed.

Unlike Mr. "I think I'm so great" asshole boy (Clarett) This guy was just following what was the law of the land at the time. the NCAA is using it's dranconian powers to either jsut be pricks, or to teach this guy not to be so hasty.

Persoanlly I'm guessing a little from both columns

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:17 am Post subject:

i did a little reading, and it sounds like he got a raw deal, but he knew the rules and went against them and got burned. really nobody's fault but his own.

the only thing he can do now is make sure he stays practiced and in shape so that the NFL will want him next year. otherwise, ten years from now he'll be at a party somewhere saying he could have been the greatest and all that stuff. best of luck to him.

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:23 am Post subject:

creed wrote:
Unlike Mr. "I think I'm so great" asshole boy (Clarett) This guy was just following what was the law of the land at the time

but i don't think he was following the law of the land due to a ruling (that was later overturned). it sounds like Clarrett got the chance to go pro early, and williams assumed he could do the same. unless then NCAA changed their rulebook, and then later changed it back the best you could say is he assumed the ruling was the precident, when, as it turned out, the wasn't even applicable to the guy who got it (because it was overturned).

if i get kicked in the shin and get $5 in court from the the guy who did it, you wouldn't expect everyone who walked into court who got kicked in the shin to get $5 from their assailant. the guy doing the kicking being found guilty is precident, sure, but the compensation isn't set. same thing here except williams didn't even have the argument of not being eligible to play college ball to back himself up.

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:14 pm Post subject:

hohlecow wrote:
creed wrote:
Unlike Mr. "I think I'm so great" asshole boy (Clarett) This guy was just following what was the law of the land at the time

but i don't think he was following the law of the land due to a ruling (that was later overturned). it sounds like Clarrett got the chance to go pro early, and williams assumed he could do the same. unless then NCAA changed their rulebook, and then later changed it back the best you could say is he assumed the ruling was the precident, when, as it turned out, the wasn't even applicable to the guy who got it (because it was overturned).

if i get kicked in the shin and get $5 in court from the the guy who did it, you wouldn't expect everyone who walked into court who got kicked in the shin to get $5 from their assailant. the guy doing the kicking being found guilty is precident, sure, but the compensation isn't set. same thing here except williams didn't even have the argument of not being eligible to play college ball to back himself up.

Execpt the way the NFL Draft works, he couldn't wait until the last minute to say he was in. And once the court approved it, he jumped at the chance.

If you were on a highway and the speed limit sign said 100MPH and you drove that, and then a week later the Surpreme Court said that they can't make it taht fast, do you think you should get a ticktet? No because the rules were changed.

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:03 am Post subject:

in previous years any player declaring himself eligible for the draft was immediately no longer elligible to playcollege ball. I thought that they partly changed that so that players could test teh waters before declaring their elligiblility.

On another note, he should have paid more attention in the american gov't/ political science classes. He would have learned that any ruling can be appealled to a higher court until of course you get to the supreme court. the supreme court has final say on all things court-wise.

so basically he jumped the starting gun when he declared not by much but he did. He should have paida little more attention to the case. Even calling clarrett to find out if he wins or loses would he appeal the case. sorry but he got treated as per the rules of the NCAA nothing more nothing less

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:47 am Post subject:

skildude wrote:
in previous years any player declaring himself eligible for the draft was immediately no longer elligible to playcollege ball. I thought that they partly changed that so that players could test teh waters before declaring their elligiblility.

Yea, the rule is that if you don't hire an agent you can "undeclare" yourself before the draft adn return to college.

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:18 am Post subject:

MattSharp wrote:
If you were on a highway and the speed limit sign said 100MPH and you drove that, and then a week later the Surpreme Court said that they can't make it taht fast, do you think you should get a ticktet? No because the rules were changed.

but that's not what happened. it would be more like: Maurice Clarrett got his closed-track license revoked, but because he couldn't drive closed track anymore, they were going to let him drive 100mph on the highway. they didn't post a 100mph speed limit on the highway for everyone, they just gave Maurice Clarret that opportunity. if anyone else drives 100mph, they're busted, because the trial had nothing to do with them, just maurice. so mike williams drove 100mph thinking that if maurice did it, he could too, but it wasn't a rule that was added, it was the result of maurice's court case. there was no precident for mike, because the situation was completely different.

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:23 am Post subject:

hohlecow wrote:
but that's not what happened. it would be more like: Maurice Clarrett got his closed-track license revoked, but because he couldn't drive closed track anymore, they were going to let him drive 100mph on the highway. they didn't post a 100mph speed limit on the highway for everyone, they just gave Maurice Clarret that opportunity. if anyone else drives 100mph, they're busted, because the trial had nothing to do with them, just maurice. so mike williams drove 100mph thinking that if maurice did it, he could too, but it wasn't a rule that was added, it was the result of maurice's court case. there was no precident for mike, because the situation was completely different.

No, the court ruled the rule was "discrimantory" or something like that. Clarrett was challening the rule, not his own personal status.

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:33 am Post subject:

I do think the ncaa should have let him back but he did know what he was getting into and he is taking it like a man.
He said in an interview that he did every thing the ncaa asked and they still didn't let him back in. but he also knew what he was doing and he will just workout untill the draft

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:39 am Post subject:

MattSharp wrote:
hohlecow wrote:
but that's not what happened. it would be more like: Maurice Clarrett got his closed-track license revoked, but because he couldn't drive closed track anymore, they were going to let him drive 100mph on the highway. they didn't post a 100mph speed limit on the highway for everyone, they just gave Maurice Clarret that opportunity. if anyone else drives 100mph, they're busted, because the trial had nothing to do with them, just maurice. so mike williams drove 100mph thinking that if maurice did it, he could too, but it wasn't a rule that was added, it was the result of maurice's court case. there was no precident for mike, because the situation was completely different.

No, the court ruled the rule was "discrimantory" or something like that. Clarrett was challening the rule, not his own personal status.

ahh, touche. at least he's taking it well.