Nearly two years after the draft stock of running back Reggie Bush was threatened by allegations that he owed money to a fledgling sports agency in San Diego, one of this year’s big-name incoming NFL players is facing claims that could result in litigation.

Fortunately for Arkansas running back Darren McFadden, Daniel Bryant and Brant Hawkins aren’t claiming that they paid money to McFadden or his family.  Instead, Bryant and Hawkins want compensation for damages allegedly sustained in connection with a January 2008 incident at Ernie Biggs, a Little Rock, Arkansas bar.

Bryant is the owner of Ernie Biggs, and Hawkins was working there on the night in question as a bouncer.

 ”They are brazen opportunists seeking to cash in on someone else’s hard work and God-given talent,” said McFadden’s lawyer, Frank Shaw, ”and I’m personally offended by this, and I believe the public will be, too.  The truth is a powerful sword, not only in the courtroom, but in the courtroom of public opinion.”

Bryant has a security video from the incident, and he has suggested the possibility of selling the tape to the highest bidder if McFadden doesn’t buy it.  Bryant reportedly wants $500,000 for the tape from McFadden.

“Who’s got a frame of reference when you’re dealing with something like this?” Bryant said.  “You’re talking millions and millions of dollars [that McFadden will make from his first professional contract], and they’re asking me to put a number on it.  I don’t have anywhere to start.  I’m trying to just recoup my losses, and it’s a little intimidating.”

Intimidating?  Really?  Bryant is by all appearances attempting to stick up McFadden by threatening to sell a security video to the media if McFadden doesn’t cough up six figures, and Bryant is feeling intimidated? 

Please. 

As to Hawkins, he reportedly has made a joint demand of $400,000 from McFadden and from the bar.  But Hawkins’ lawyer now says that the claim has been withdrawn “out of respect” to McFadden, so that the two-time Heisman Trophy runner-up can go through the upcoming draft process without the issue hanging over his head.  Hawkins’ lawyer wouldn’t comment on whether the matter will be pursued again after the draft.

The strategy isn’t surprising.  If Hawkins wants to get money from McFadden, the more of it McFadden has the more likely Hawkins will get as much of it as he wants.  If Hawkins’ allegations hurt McFadden’s draft stock, it only means that less money will be available in the end.

Regardless, McFadden’s people aren’t budging.  “Team McFadden is in total agreement that to cave in to this exorbitant scheme is wrong,” Shaw said.  “The right thing to do is be strong, be honest, learn from this and move forward.  We’re not going to compromise our integrity by becoming involved in circumstances of this nature.”

Whether the issue affects McFadden’s draft standing remains to be seen.  We’re told that the video shows no interaction between McFadden and Hawkins.

Moreover, everyone already knows that there was an incident in January 2008.  Whether McFadden faces civil litigation over it shouldn’t change anyone’s pre-existing assessment of his character. 

The big difference between the McFadden case and the Bush case is that Bush reportedly was receiving money in violation of NCAA regulations.  And it’s still unclear whether the Houston Texans passed on Bush with the first overall pick in the 2006 draft because of the off-field issue that popped up a week before the time came for making the pick or because of Bush’s unwillingness to finalize a contract prior to the draft or because of the team’s assessment of whether defensive end Mario Williams would be a better football player at the pro level than Bush.