We have heard talk of petitions and briefs. There has been a ruling and a stay, with a reversal expected in the near future.
There have been all sorts of legal maneuvers in the NFL's battle to keep younger men out of its annual draft.
All we lack is this:
Honesty.
In the next day or two, a U.S. Supreme Court decision will determine whether Maurice Clarett and Tampa's Mike Williams will be permitted to join Saturday's draft. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has asked the NFL to file a response to Clarett's emergency appeal by this morning.
The NFL, that font of compassion, would have you believe it cares only about the welfare of young athletes. Ditto for the players association. The NCAA suggests its greatest concern is the education of students.
In legal terms, this would be known as deceit or misrepresentation.
Outside of court, it would be crapola.
Now, understand, there is great anticipation the NFL will win this legal battle. That antitrust laws and precedent are on the league's side.
And many of the issues raised by the NFL are valid. Particularly when the league argues most 19- and 20-year-olds are not physically prepared to handle the rigors of playing at the sport's highest level.
But it is difficult to throw support behind the NFL and the NCAA when you realize the hypocrisy that is driving their arguments.
When push comes to shove, the NFL could care less about the well-being of its players. It is a league of disposable parts. A league that loved the cost-effectiveness of artificial turf. A league without guaranteed contracts. A league that markets brutality in its video games.
There is one, overriding reason the NFL is fearful of high school graduates or college freshmen entering the league:
It would be an added expense.
Under the current system, the NFL essentially pays nothing for a farm system. Not only does the NCAA function as a de facto minor league, but it serves as a marketing tool. This way, by the time they reach the NFL, players already have a measurable star appeal.
If players were allowed to flee college too early, or skip it altogether, the NFL would suddenly be responsible for developing and promoting talent.
A place on the roster - and payroll - might be taken up by a player who is still a couple of years from being productive. That also means by the time he is ready to play, he is that much closer to being a free agent.
Not to mention, the NFL would have to expand its scouting to include high school players. And since younger players are more difficult to evaluate, it would increase the possibility of high-priced mistakes.
"It's an economic issue disguised as so many other issues," said Thomas Ramsberger, a St. Petersburg attorney and professor of sports law at Stetson University. "There is black and there is white and, in this case, there is an awful lot of gray that's involved."
As for the NCAA? Its hypocrisy may even be worse.
At least the NFL is a private business. It is supposed to be cutthroat and protect its profits. The NCAA, on the other hand, has no excuse.
The NCAA filed a brief earlier this month in support of the NFL's appeal. At the time, president Myles Brand said the NCAA was worried less about its economic interests than in the continuing education of student-athletes.
This would be much easier to swallow if the NCAA did not put money ahead of education at almost every opportunity. Expanded schedules, cross-country travel, primetime games in the middle of the week, conference defections and relaxed admissions policies? All for the good of the students, right?
The reality is NCAA officials are concerned college football will be watered down if the best players are allowed to leave after a year or two, instead of three or four.
Considering these are scholarship students, the graduation rates for football players at most universities already are abysmal. So the impact of this ruling would be minimal, if not negligible.
Surely Brand, and others, recognize this.
Since the original court ruling that allowed Clarett to petition for the draft, nine total players have declared. Six were high school students, one was a junior college player and Clarett and Williams were the others.
This would hardly constitute an assault on the NCAA's integrity or the NFL's ability to conduct business. Now, maybe, in the future there will be more. But it is just as likely the attrition rate will be the best deterrent.
Look, I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be foolhardy for 99.9 percent of the world's 20-year-old football players to attempt a jump to the NFL, though the majority of those who would try probably are not mortarboard material.
And I don't fault the NFL or the NCAA for wanting to protect their interests in the best way they know how.
It is the false sincerity that is so annoying. The Father Flanagan posturing from organizations with bottom-line motives.
If it were really so disastrous for a 20-year-old to enter the NFL, why is it Williams is considered a top-15 pick? If it turns out he eventually becomes available in a supplemental draft, do you suppose there might be more than just a few teams willing to use a first-round pick on him?
You've got to believe the NFL is not trying to protect young players. Nor is it trying to protect the NCAA. It is protecting itself from temptation.
Essentially, the NFL is protecting itself from itself.
