NCAA reaction to a federal judge's decision overturning a National Football League policy that restricts younger players from entering the draft is tilted toward educational concerns.

NCAA President Myles Brand said he was disappointed with the February 5 ruling, saying, "From an educational perspective, I am very concerned about this decision. Those who stand the most to lose educationally if the decision is upheld are the football student-athletes who leave without their degrees."

The decision from New York District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin states that the NFL's 1990 rule limiting draft eligibility to players three seasons removed from their high-school graduation violates antitrust law. The court decision was the result of a lawsuit filed against the NFL last year by Ohio State University running back Maurice Clarett, who claimed he was ready to compete in the league and was being unfairly excluded just because he had not satisfied the NFL's three-year waiting period.

Clarett played one season at Ohio State, helping the Buckeyes complete an undefeated 2002 campaign with a win over the University of Miami (Florida) in the Bowl Championship Series title game. Clarett sat out the 2003 season.

The NFL, which has asked for a stay while it appeals Scheindlin's decision, claims the rule is the result of a collective-bargaining agreement between the league and its players union and is therefore immune from antitrust scrutiny. The league also maintains that the physical and mental skills required to play at the NFL level justify the age restriction. Scheindlin, though, said those defenses didn't "hold the line" and that the rule "must be sacked." She said that Clarett had standing to sue "because his injury flows from a policy that excludes all players in his position from selling their services to the only viable buyer -- the NFL."

Scheindlin also wrote that Clarett's eligibility was not the union's to trade away. "Those who are categorically denied eligibility for employment, even temporarily, cannot be bound by the terms of employment they cannot obtain," she said.

Scheindlin's decision was a summary judgment, meaning that the case was so clear-cut in her opinion that there was no need for a trial.

The ruling clears Clarett's eligibility for the April 24-25 NFL draft and opens the door for future players closely removed from high-school graduation to follow.

Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said though "the sky is not falling" until the appeal process is completed, the current ruling would certainly "change the way we've all done business for many years."

"We'll all have to do the best we can to give our student-athletes the best advice," he said. "The problem that we all face is that there are those out there in the world who would encourage youngsters to go ahead and get some of that money with maybe a disregard for what their end results might be."

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, head football coach Phillip Fulmer told the Associated Press that he didn't think the ruling would apply to that many student-athletes.

"There might be a rare case that a young man is ready to participate at the professional level," Fulmer said. "For the most part the young men need the maturing time that college gives them."

Division I Board of Directors Chair Robert Hemenway, chancellor of the University of Kansas, said the premise of the ruling has some serious implications.

"It says that anyone who graduates from high school is a free agent and should have no restraints placed upon their pursuit of their economic future," he said. "I'd like to believe that one's economic future is best served by getting a college education."

If the decision is not overturned on appeal, the landscape for high-school graduates will be the same in the NFL as it is in the NBA.

"It is ironic that the two major professional sports without developmental leagues -- basketball and football -- could have two of the most liberal draft rules," Brand said. "It may be time for those two sports to provide another option than intercollegiate athletics as the route for young men whose primary interest is turning professional as quickly as possible."

The ruling also presents a counterplay in the recruiting process. College recruits conceivably could decide to enter the draft even after signing a National Letter of Intent, thus tossing a wrench into a school's scholarship count.

"When you're in the business of working to recruit and sign someone on a certain date and now those decisions could be for naught, (the ruling) makes a recruiter's job much more difficult," said Chris Plonsky, chair of the Division I Management Council.

The NFL has indicated March 1 will be the new deadline for previously restricted players to enter this year's draft. League representatives say they'll seek a legal stay, and that an appeal is definite, though the latter would not be played out before this year's draft.

Teaff noted that juniors who had their declaration time already this year are not eligible to declare for this draft. He also noted that current NCAA legislation that allows student-athletes to declare for the draft and then change their minds within 72 hours remains in effect.

Clarett, who still is enrolled at Ohio State, will not give up the remainder of his collegiate eligibility until he officially declares for the draft.

Plonsky said the ruling would heighten the attention that athletics administrators give to counseling prospective student-athletes.

"You hope that we can continue to provide good counsel and to ensure that if a youngster does make that decision to go pro that they're doing it with full knowledge and preparation as to what it really means to step across that line from playing on behalf of their institution to literally playing for pay," she said.