Link: Christian McCaffrey Declines to Participate in Bowl Game

Alasippi said:

Maybe the direction it's going is turning me off a bit.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I used to watch NFL and NBA games all the time, but I never watch them anymore.

However, I don't know why some people are acting like the majority of bowl games are just now ceasing to matter. Most of them have and will never matter except to the fans of the teams involved and random college football fans who just happen to be looking for entertainment or channel surfing. I doubt more than three or four bowl games at most in any one year have mattered in deciding the national champion, but many of us still watch a lot of bowl games. I haven't watched many yet this year, but I will probably watch all the games involving SEC teams and any other matchups I find interesting, possibly even including the Stanford game. I've never seen McCaffrey play other than highlights, and I was looking forward to that, but I won't stop watching just because he doesn't play. I'm an old school guy who thinks these kids get a hell of a deal just for playing a dang game- scholarship, books, room, board, clothing, health care, professional training, etc., but the biggest thing that some of these cats receive is all the publicity and hype. CM is missing an opportunity for more people to discover his abilities. It seems like his loss, not mine. His decision is his and his family's decision to make. As an old school guy, I think it's about competition, so he should play. However, with the ability to take care of his family, I also understand. I wish I could pull the old high school bball uni on again, and I would dive on the floor and play as hard as I could to help my team win, even if I injured my old body, which is very likely. However, if 29 years ago, right before my last game, someone had said that I had a great opportunity to heal up and train and possibly make millions of dollars, I may have made the same decision. I hope he at least faced his team and told them first, though.

Edit- I also wanted to add that there are too many bowl games anyway. It wouldn't hurt to lose about ten of them in my opinion anyway.

All those who would show up to their current jobs two weeks from Thursday, after winning this Wednesday night's Powerball, may criticize McCaffrey, Fournette et al. I may not agree with their decisions, but I can see the arguments in their favor.

Given the response, we (consumers/fans) are then relegated to back teams playing in bowl games intended only to be the outlet for advertising. I understand that part. I'm familiar with sports marketing and how the metrics work and the importance of visibility for a brand, service or product. If the only bowl games are mediocre/poor teams, most with winning records, what motivates the fan to watch games and move the needle for the advertisers? This is a "process" spiraling out of control and could have a dismal future. Why go to college? Why not just have semi-pro teams? Pay the players (legally)? We will lose the value of the association of the universities with the sport(s). This is a bad precedent. And, my suspicion is that Coach Saban is preaching the benefits of education and recruiting players he knows will only play 3 years and never FINISH. Hypocrisy at it's best. And, yes, I'm a Bama fan.

dooger said:

Given the response, we (consumers/fans) are then relegated to back teams playing in bowl games intended only to be the outlet for advertising. I understand that part. I'm familiar with sports marketing and how the metrics work and the importance of visibility for a brand, service or product. If the only bowl games are mediocre/poor teams, most with winning records, what motivates the fan to watch games and move the needle for the advertisers? This is a "process" spiraling out of control and could have a dismal future. Why go to college? Why not just have semi-pro teams? Pay the players (legally)? We will lose the value of the association of the universities with the sport(s). This is a bad precedent. And, my suspicion is that Coach Saban is preaching the benefits of education and recruiting players he knows will only play 3 years and never FINISH. Hypocrisy at it's best. And, yes, I'm a Bama fan.

Click to expand...

Moo

Isaiah 63:1 said:

All those who would show up to their current jobs two weeks from Thursday, after winning this Wednesday night's Powerball, may criticize McCaffrey, Fournette et al. I may not agree with their decisions, but I can see the arguments in their favor.

Click to expand...

He hasn't won it yet, he just expects to.

I understand this is a natural consequence of too many bowls, the playoff and the entitlement generation, but I don't like the direction this is headed.

CapitalTider said:

He hasn't won it yet, he just expects to.

I understand this is a natural consequence of too many bowls, the playoff and the entitlement generation, but I don't like the direction this is headed.

Click to expand...

"The entitlement generation?"

Danny Kannell is the only former player I've heard disagree with their decisions. Guess all those former players must be a part of the entitlement generation, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dtgreg said:

Moo

Click to expand...

Moo, that is your response? Is that a less than veiled AU reference?

My underlying point is that we have the wrong level of participant running the sport. Agents, players and coaches who have a concern that if they don't recruit players and potentially promise the player they may be able to forego a game or two because they are concerned about injury is the ultimate dichotomy. Does this put coaches who recruit at a disadvantage if they refuse to make that "commitment" to the recruit? So, now coaches capitulate to the player and who is really concerned with the welfare of the team?? Neither the coach or the team. This is a losing proposition from all, if not many, perspectives. What is to stop a player from sitting out a game against a very strong opponent because the player is concerned about injury. Perhaps, the player may "fane" injury. And, the coach does nothing because he is concerned about losing his 5 star recruit. This is unbelievable. But, as the guy said, "College football is just a business". So was Dr. Kevorkian's business of assisted suicide, but, you don't kill patients, regardless of requests, to save a business. Someone has to take a stand...I hope it's Coach Saban at Bama and others.

Many people keep referring to scholarships like they are payment for services rendered. This is not the case. A scholarship is awarded to a student for their potential contribution to the university community. No one would think twice if an IT student on an academic scholarship got a windfall based on a website they developed, a music student getting a record deal, or a drama student getting an acting gig and deciding to leave school before their terms are complete. The suggestions of prorating the games and billing the student for skipping one is absurd, but let's play that game.

Stanford made $17.6M in PROFIT last year from football. This is after deducting all football related expenses (facility maintenance, salaries, uniforms, equipment, travel, per diem... etc). Let's say the coaches and staff alone are the reason for 50% of the profit and the players actually playing the games are responsible for 50%. Also, let's say that all 85 scholarship players are equal contributors to that half of the profit (even though we know that's not the case). Each scholarship player's contribution to that profit would be $100K+/yr. Stanford's tuition, housing, fees, and miscellaneous costs total $63K/yr. I think the school has gotten a fair return on their "investment".

Now this isn't every school, but it is a snapshot of the economics involved. Yes the school provides an education and football training, but these students have also fulfilled their potential to contribute to the university community.

I have been watching college football and the bowls longer than most everyone on here and IMO ESPN, the BCS and now the CFPC have ruined the importance of the bowl system. If you were not selected by the BCS computer system and now by the CFP Committee nothing else matters, so it has evolved into a money grab. Conference expansion, over exposure and media hype have been a detriment to college football, but it is about the money and after all, that settles most arguments. With the exception of the major bowls I had rather watch TWD reruns.

TampaTide813 said:

Many people keep referring to scholarships like they are payment for services rendered. This is not the case. A scholarship is awarded to a student for their potential contribution to the university community. No one would think twice if an IT student on an academic scholarship got a windfall based on a website they developed, a music student getting a record deal, or a drama student getting an acting gig and deciding to leave school before their terms are complete. The suggestions of prorating the games and billing the student for skipping one is absurd, but let's play that game.

Stanford made $17.6M in PROFIT last year from football. This is after deducting all football related expenses (facility maintenance, salaries, uniforms, equipment, travel, per diem... etc). Let's say the coaches and staff alone are the reason for 50% of the profit and the players actually playing the games are responsible for 50%. Also, let's say that all 85 scholarship players are equal contributors to that profit (even though we know that's not the case). Each scholarship player's contribution to that profit would be $100K+/yr. Stanford's tuition, housing, fees, and miscellaneous costs total $63K/yr. I think the school has gotten a fair return on their "investment".

Now this isn't every school, but it is a snapshot of the economics involved. Yes the school provides an education and football training, but these students have also fulfilled their potential to contribute to the university community.

Click to expand...

Then, why have university athletics? Let all the sports support themselves on an individual basis and remove the academics. What has become the purpose of university athletics (football and other profitable sports) except to fund other university sports and support the school? And, some intrinsic value.
University athletics contribute greatly to the school. But, there is no allegiance or loyalty from the players to the school or team, despite the financial or educational commitment by the school. I.E., if the trend continues. So, if the trend is no commitment or loyalty to the school, what is the purpose of the school's scholarship if not to use the players and teams as a money machine. If athletics are removed, tuitions increase, businesses fail, etc. That is my point. This is no minor issue.

I don't think it is wholly on the diminished value of the bowls due to the playoffs and number of bowl games. The money that can be lost in the draft has gotten to be much more dramatic. Especially with the last NFL CBA where the NFL owners and NFLPA reigned in the rookie contract money and made the fall from the top of the 1st round to 2nd round much more steep. As people have pointed out this week, Jaylon Smith probably lost upward 20 million dollars due to a bowl injury. The fall off is steeper now. There is a huge difference in the money between 1st and 2nd round. Honestly, there is a huge difference in the money between the top half and bottom half of the first round.

But these are some of the same factors for why we got guys like OJ Howard, Jonathan Allen, Tim Williams, and Ryan Anderson back this year. The money outside the first round isn't quite as good anymore. So these players thought they could solidify their slot in the draft by coming back for one more year.


I'm honestly fine with this reality because the NFL has actually discouraged marginal cases from entering the draft after their 3rd year out of high school. If we have to live with a few 1st rounders shorting their career by one exhibition then so be it. I think the system has worked to our benefit more than to our harm over the last few years.

dooger said:

Then, why have university athletics? Let all the sports support themselves on an individual basis and remove the academics. What has become the purpose of university athletics (football and other profitable sports) except to fund other university sports and support the school? And, some intrinsic value.
University athletics contribute greatly to the school. But, there is no allegiance or loyalty from the players to the school or team, despite the financial or educational commitment by the school. I.E., if the trend continues. So, if the trend is no commitment or loyalty to the school, what is the purpose of the school's scholarship if not to use the players and teams as a money machine. If athletics are removed, tuitions increase, businesses fail, etc. That is my point. This is no minor issue.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think that many fans view it as the student being the only one benefitting from the relationship when this is not the case. They are expected to have a level of loyalty that is not expected from the folks who are paid handsomely from the same venture. University Presidents, ADs, administrators, coaches, and other staff (many of them alumni) come and go with little to no scrutiny. A few players decide to skip a bowl game with no conference or national implications and there are fans all over the country up in arms. CFB is a multi-billion dollar business screaming at the top of its lungs to anyone who will listen that it's amateur and the student in student-athlete is first for a reason. Well, it's becoming increasingly hard to hear over the engines of the private jets these amateurs are helping purchase for their benevolent universities.

RTR91 said:

"The entitlement generation?"

Danny Kannell is the only former player I've heard disagree with their decisions. Guess all those former players must be a part of the entitlement generation, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Keyshawn Johnson has as well. And Brock Huard. I haven't sought out the opinions of former players, but I haven't heard any of them applaud the choice yet.

GrayTide said:

I have been watching college football and the bowls longer than most everyone on here and IMO ESPN, the BCS and now the CFPC have ruined the importance of the bowl system. If you were not selected by the BCS computer system and now by the CFP Committee nothing else matters, so it has evolved into a money grab. Conference expansion, over exposure and media hype have been a detriment to college football, but it is about the money and after all, that settles most arguments. With the exception of the major bowls I had rather watch TWD reruns.

Click to expand...

Preach it brother!

GrayTide said:

I have been watching college football and the bowls longer than most everyone on here and IMO ESPN, the BCS and now the CFPC have ruined the importance of the bowl system. If you were not selected by the BCS computer system and now by the CFP Committee nothing else matters, so it has evolved into a money grab. Conference expansion, over exposure and media hype have been a detriment to college football, but it is about the money and after all, that settles most arguments. With the exception of the major bowls I had rather watch TWD reruns.

Click to expand...

You really can't compare the old bowl era with the BCS and CFP eras. What you had before the BCS was the worst system in the history of sports to award a national champion. The bowls benefited, but at the expense of the sport itself. If bowls are less attractive because of the new system, so be it. The new system is so much better that I would rather do away with all bowls than go back to the pre-BCS system.

That said, if the number of bowls not included in the CFP were reduced significantly, it would probably create a lot more interest in those games, but enough player interest to stop this sort of thing? I'm not so sure.

dooger said:

Then, why have university athletics? Let all the sports support themselves on an individual basis and remove the academics. What has become the purpose of university athletics (football and other profitable sports) except to fund other university sports and support the school? And, some intrinsic value.
University athletics contribute greatly to the school. But, there is no allegiance or loyalty from the players to the school or team, despite the financial or educational commitment by the school. I.E., if the trend continues. So, if the trend is no commitment or loyalty to the school, what is the purpose of the school's scholarship if not to use the players and teams as a money machine. If athletics are removed, tuitions increase, businesses fail, etc. That is my point. This is no minor issue.

Click to expand...

This line of questioning is absurd and disconnected from reality. The vast majority of the players are very closely connected to their schools. A handful of players choose not to stay for a bowl game and suddenly the system doesn't work anymore? Suddenly players don't love their school or team mates? We should just do away with college athletics altogether?

You need to step back from the ledge and accept that there is more than one valid point of view here.

CajunCrimson said:

Well, let's take it one step further...when Stanford lost their 2nd game, they were out of the playoff discussion. Why not bail then? Why keep playing?

Click to expand...

Because he loves his team, school and team mates?

RTR91 said:

"The entitlement generation?"

Danny Kannell is the only former player I've heard disagree with their decisions. Guess all those former players must be a part of the entitlement generation, too.

Click to expand...

Every generation sees some inherent flaw in the generations that follow. Some hit the ripe old age of 30 and already begin to see flaws in those younger than himself.