http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=farrey_tom&id=1623766 Let us count the ways this is stupid. 1. Conyers is coming out AGAINST a college education. 2. If colleges exploit their football players for money, why do so many football programs lose money?!?!? This argument would make some sense if we were talking about basketball, a much, much cheaper sport, with 3 times as many games. As it is, it's a very inaccurate depiction of what is happening in Division I football. 3. Curt Flood WASN'T challenging a draft rule, and NOBODY argued that the reserve clause benefitted the players. So it's a stupid analogy. 4. Plus, um, jackass, Curt Flood LOST HIS CASE!!! The players won free agency on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GROUNDS!!! 5. If Clarett didn't like how Ohio State was treating him he had the option of transferring to Grambling, or playing in the CFL. Clarett was coddled, let's face it. The kid should have flunked out. He used Ohio State, Ohio State used him. But then he did some things even OSU can't tolerate. But instead of availing himself of his options, he wants to sue. And to dress this up as a racial issue is pretty obscene. I mean, if he goes to the NFL, who is gonna lose out? Some other NFL running back, who, if you look at the runners (as opposed to the blocking fullbacks) means there's about a 97% chance that guy is gonna be black too. One last note...on PTI, a lawyer who used to work for the NFL stated something like even if the NFL loses the antitrust point, the rule can still stand, as CBAs are exempt from antitrust laws. Man, I'd have paid closer attention if I knew there was gonna be a quiz on it , but the lawyer was very certain that all of the sportswriters are barking up the wrong tree by focusing narrowly on what Clarett's people are saying is the issue. There's more to it. Does anyone have a better memory of his argument?