[s1020]

I like variety... the NFL variety.
Memories??? Do you remember Tom Brady at Michigan? I doubt it... Do you remember Tony Romo? Undrafted... Arian Foster? Undrafted... Their "college" performance got them undrafted... So how many memorable moments can you remember of an NFL star in college?
If I say, Matt Forte, you'd probably say Bears before his college. How about Dan Marino? Dolphins... College? Gotta look it up more than likely. How about Kurt Warner? Many don't even know where Peyton Manning went to college without looking it up or seeing it on a UD card.

---

Can you imagine the level of awkwardness if you ever held a conversation with RGIII and his UD Rookie card?
"So Grif, how was your rookie year at Baylor?"
***and the crickets chirp***

Just by reading the entire post It looks like your opinion is in the minority on this subject and most collectors still consider UD rookies as rookies. Me personally I don't like the fact that they are in college jerseys and that UD doesn't have an NFL license. Now buy other products with NFL licenses because Im not a big fan of college football but I still consider them as rookie cards. To me if its a players first year card in a product regardless of what jersey they have on and the card has Rookie stamped on it, I view it as a rookie.

[jheringa09]

Why does it have to state Redskins or NFL for it to be considered a rookie?? The use of MJ was just an example of how a players "first card" in a product can be considered a RC card.

Because you are not a rookie in college. It's freshman, sophomore, junior, senior...
First card is a whole different subject.
The main use of the word ROOKIE is someone's first year representing as a pro in a pro year in a pro uni on a pro team in a pro organization.
I don't see UD representing anything Pro about any of their cards since 2009.

[coachlew10]

Why does it have to state Redskins or NFL for it to be considered a rookie?? The use of MJ was just an example of how a players "first card" in a product can be considered a RC card.

Poor example, as the reason the MJ was a rookie is that there were no other licensed companies to produce Basketball products in the early to mid 80's but Fleer. The 1986-87 Fleer card is the one and only licensed NBA product of Michael Jordan made since his first year in the NBA. The Star company made unlicensed cards during the 80's but those are not his RC because they are unlicensed. There were no licensed basketball cards from 1983 to 1986. Star company produced cards but they are not Rookies. Fleer produced the 1986-1987 set and every card in there of a player that came into the league after the 1982 Topps release are rookies, because it is their first licensed product.

[jheringa09]

The logic is correct and it is not an opinion, it's fact that a card from a non licensed product can NOT be a rookie card, only a draft issue. Also, a player makes the Pro Football Hall of Fame solely on their NFL career. They might make the college hall of fame based on their college career, but not the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Thank you.

[coachlew10]

Because you are not a rookie in college. It's freshman, sophomore, junior, senior...
First card is a whole different subject.
The main use of the word ROOKIE is someone's first year representing as a pro in a pro year in a pro uni on a pro team in a pro organization.
I don't see UD representing anything Pro about any of their cards since 2009.

Amen.

---

Just by reading the entire post It looks like your opinion is in the minority on this subject and most collectors still consider UD rookies as rookies. Me personally I don't like the fact that they are in college jerseys and that UD doesn't have an NFL license. Now buy other products with NFL licenses because Im not a big fan of college football but I still consider them as rookie cards. To me if its a players first year card in a product regardless of what jersey they have on and the card has Rookie stamped on it, I view it as a rookie.

The majority is incorrect. They can consider all they want. The facts are the facts.

[s1020]

Because you are not a rookie in college. It's freshman, sophomore, junior, senior...
First card is a whole different subject.
The main use of the word ROOKIE is someone's first year representing as a pro in a pro year in a pro uni on a pro team in a pro organization.
I don't see UD representing anything Pro about any of their cards since 2009.

I can see the logic in that. Does anyone know why UD lost their NFL license? Did they get out bid by Panini or did they just not want to pay for it? UD has always been a "Pro" Licensed card company and I don't remember them ever doing much of anything in a college format before they lost their license. I think that has a lot to do with why so many of us still consider their "RCs" rookies. As far as I know its not a thing were UD wanted to not do NFL cards anymore and wanted to focus on college but a fact that somehow they lost their license with the NFL and had no other choice but to show players in their college uniforms.

[jheringa09]

Just by reading the entire post It looks like your opinion is in the minority on this subject and most collectors still consider UD rookies as rookies. Me personally I don't like the fact that they are in college jerseys and that UD doesn't have an NFL license. Now buy other products with NFL licenses because Im not a big fan of college football but I still consider them as rookie cards. To me if its a players first year card in a product regardless of what jersey they have on and the card has Rookie stamped on it, I view it as a rookie.

Then you're getting robbed blindly when the obvious that you have stated is clearly in your face.
10-15 years from now, the majority of NFL fans won't even remember that Andrew Luck came from Stanford or that Cam Newton won a BCS Championship...
I don't know how long you've been collecting cards, but here's a PERFECT example: The 90's CLASSIC cards. No one remembers them...

---

I can see the logic in that. Does anyone know why UD lost their NFL license? Did they get out bid by Panini or did they just not want to pay for it? UD has always been a "Pro" Licensed card company and I don't remember them ever doing much of anything in a college format before they lost their license. I think that has a lot to do with why so many of us still consider their "RCs" rookies. As far as I know its not a thing were UD wanted to not do NFL cards anymore and wanted to focus on college but a fact that somehow they lost their license with the NFL and had no other choice but to show players in their college uniforms.

The NFL doesn't sell their licensing to just one company ala exclusive rights...
And to answer your questions, they didn't plan on losing their license. They were planning on adding the college thingy to their products.
So in order to compete and stay afloat against Topps and Panini, they have to put the RC stamps and ROOKIE word on their cards to fake the public. Don't get it twisted...

---

Here:
Read up on UD...
http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/nfl...2-million/

[s1020]

Amen.

---

The majority is incorrect. They can consider all they want. The facts are the facts.

There are no Facts!! Only speculations. There is no rule or law that states a player must be on a licensed product for it to be considered a rookie. The market and the consumer makes the rules and if the majority considers them rookies then who are you to say other wise. Its all a matter of personal opinion. I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when becketts started coming they did list MJs Star as a RC and it booked for over $1000 way back then. And if Im correct they still sell for about the same as the Fleer "RC" does today. So I would assume based on real selling prices of that card that Most collectors still consider his "Star RC" as a rookie card.

I've been collecting cards for around 24 years, since I was about 10 years old. And I do remember Classic and back then they were considered rookie cards.

[jheringa09]

There are no Facts!! Only speculations. There is no rule or law that states a player must be on a licensed product for it to be considered a rookie. The market and the consumer makes the rules and if the majority considers them rookies then who are you to say other wise. Its all a matter of personal opinion. I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when becketts started coming they did list MJs Star as a RC and it booked for over $1000 way back then. And if Im correct they still sell for about the same as the Fleer "RC" does today. So I would assume based on real selling prices of that card that Most collectors still consider his "Star RC" as a rookie card.

I've been collecting cards for around 24 years, since I was about 10 years old. And I do remember Classic and back then they were considered rookie cards.

???????????
Nobody considered them rookies back then... No one. Not a single person at a card convention, a card shop, and even the manufacturers themselves. No one said that they were rookie cards... And if you've been collecting for around 24 years, you would've known the NFL took that licensing away from them... Not to put you on the spot or anything, but UD owes and they owe a lot. They only way they can sell efficiently is to advertise the word ROOKIE on their cards. I would not be surprised if Panini or Topps bought them later or a big time company comes through and buys them.

[coachlew10]

There are no Facts!! Only speculations. The market and the consumer makes the rules and if the majority considers them rookies then who are you to say other wise. Its all a matter of personal opinion. I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when becketts started coming they did list MJs Star as a RC and it booked for over $1000 way back then. And if Im correct they still sell for about the same as the Fleer "RC" does today. So I would assume based on real selling prices of that card that Most collectors still consider his "Star RC" as a rookie card.

I've been collecting cards for around 24 years, since I was about 10 years old. And I do remember Classic and back then they were considered rookie cards.

"There is no rule or law that states a player must be on a licensed product for it to be considered a rookie." The quoted sentence above is absolutely false. The market and consumer decide what they buy, true, but they are not the group that determines a RC card from a first year card. There are absolute facts in terms of what a RC card is and is not to think otherwise flys in the face of the foundation of this hobby. The definition of what is a Rookie Card was made by the almighty BECKETT. They determine what is and is not a rookie and since UD lost their license, they do not list Upper Deck products as Rookies any longer. As far as the value of the Michael Jordans currently, the Star company Michael Jordan from 85-86 Gem Mint graded 9.5 can be bought for $695. I would love to buy a Gem Mint graded 9.5 BGS 1986-87 Fleer Jordan RC for $695. By the way, age has little to do with being correct, but for the record, I too remember Classic (not rookies) and have been collecting 10 years longer then you.