Mario Ojemudia Loses His Appeal

Why are football players different?

They don't have to take fifth year players back now, as you know. Michigan may not have room for Spike Albrecht next year. I agree that Ojemudia didn't show himself to be an NFL player for most of his career, but he was much-improved his senior year. Finishing out that year on an upward trend - or finishing next year on an upward trend - was his best chance at the NFL. A player who finishes a full season is far better situated with respect to professional football than one who plays five games and then tears his Achilles. And this rule takes that from him because...why? As I said above, an 80% rule would be fair as long as it applies to everyone. And college football already has grad students and 25 year olds. This would hardly revolutionize the sport.

...opportunities for no good reason. No one has defended the rule itself other than to say it's "reasonable" or simply that it's a rule. The restriction of a player's and school's freedom to run their career/program ought to have a good reason. Here, there is no competitive disadvantage with any change in the rule so long as every team has to adhere to the rule equally. What is the harm of Ojemudia returning to play at Michigan? It wouldn't be an issue if he'd sat out his first year, so presumably no one has a problem with fifth years generally. It wouldn't be an issue if he'd been hurt in the third game instead of the fifth. What's it to the NCAA that he played two more games? The absolute worst-case scenario if you change the rule is that guys keep getting hurt and returning. But why is that bad? There are already grad students playing and players who are, say, 25 years old. Chris Weinke was 28 when he won the Heisman. For Ojemudia, on the other hand, not being able to return is a big deal. His professional opportunities are diminished by not being able to show that he's recovered from an Achilles tear and still capable of being productive. It's fair to say something is harmful if it risks costing a guy hundreds of thousands of dollars. People are sued for such things. We don't have to be talking about murder for the term "harmful" to apply. People would find it bizarre if some outside entity told a business major he had to leave school before he was able to complete a potentially fruitful internship. What's the difference here? You ask why the NCAA should care about draft position. But why should the NCAA be intruding at all? And it should care because large amounts of money are at stake for student-athletes. We as a society are good with students trying to position themselves to make as much money as possible. Or maybe I don't understand the purpose of Ross.