They are much less significant than a regular season game. Are you serious?
Stanford's McCaffrey is Skipping the Sun Bowl
- Thread starter UPitt '89
- Start date
Would you rather lose this game or a regular season game? If we win this, would you trade it for the Oklahoma state game? Of course you would.
Are you seriously still holding onto that game? Of all our tough losses in the last few years, that one still bothers you?
There was an Oklahoma player who did just that.
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ker-leaves-oklahoma-sooners-prepare-nfl-draft
http://es.pn/2geTLsL
I'll bet a lot of the ham and eggers on this thread bitching about loyalty to teammates would be singing a different song if it was their kid going pro. Bet chu wouldn't want that new car and the mortgage being paid off jeopardized in the Bass Pro Shop Dickslap Bowl.
But in the case with the injury the player will go higher if he can prove he is fully healthy on the field.
Shouldn't you want these kids to be allowed to enter a free market?
I doubt Jimmy Buffet fanatics have been treated well by the free market.
Not a whole lot of successful people squeezing into Salt Life shirts, jorts, gold chains and Oakleys to hang out in truck beds loaded with sand and inflatable palm trees with homely women.
I've always thought the answer was free lifetime tuition. Isn't that what schools are supposed to do??? Be in the business of educating? Preparing young people for life's challenges?
The idea of paying kids opens up a big can of worms....the idea of offering kids a chance to come back to school at any point in their lives truly reflects the mission of the universities.
The kids have earned it. Whether or not they take advantage of this is on them.
The idea of paying kids opens up a big can of worms....the idea of offering kids a chance to come back to school at any point in their lives truly reflects the mission of the universities.
The kids have earned it. Whether or not they take advantage of this is on them.
This is correct, individual players do not affect the line nearly as much as the general public thinks. Especially running backs, which are considered one of the more easily replaceable positions in football. The only times I've ever seen a number move anywhere near a TD on one player being out was when Peyton Manning was in his heyday with the Colts and backups Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter were known to be lousy.
The "move" on the Mccaffrey decision has already occured, from predominantly 3.5 to mostly juiced 3's. Part of the reason it only moved a half point is the reluctance of the books to move past the key number of 3. Had the line been sitting at 4 more than likely it would've moved a full point, but no more.
It may move quite a bit more in either direction as we near gametime, you see some odd movement in these smaller bowl games often. However, any big change will be for other reasons, the Mccaffrey effect has already been factored in.
I must say that is the best name for a fake bowl that I've yet to see.
Um, I think it depends.
I personally view them as championships.
Now, yeah, I don't put much stock in winning the Compass bowl or Dickslap bowl or a lot of these low level bowls.
But I do think there is meaning in winning an Orange Bowl Championship, a Sun Bowl Championship, etc. Ie older, traditional bowls against another good opponent.
There's the rub.
Players in position of knowing they've got a lock on a decent draft pick could start deciding that anytime during their final season is the time to quit amateur sports ....not just at bowl time.
For sure this could become a big deal for the bowls if not addressed by the empty suits running college ball .....but could extend beyond bowls.
Then the amount of time kids are required to spend each week for football should be drastically reduced so they can actually prioritize athletics.
And athletes should be held to the same admission standards as the rest of the school. And less money should go into big time sports.
How's that sound? Are kids on academic scholarships barred from making money doing advertisements or working summer jobs?
Exhibition?? The game counts doesn't it? It's not an all pro game or senior bowl, which by the way many play in.
It's a chance for most to be seen by many scouts.
Last edited:
The answer is a semi pro/minor football and basketball leauges.
Only some of these atheletes are interested in academics.
MLB & NHL has the right idea!
That way the real student athletes play at the U's and the
others in the semi pro league.
Both will feed the NFL and NBA.
The term "college football" has become a joke!
Only some of these atheletes are interested in academics.
MLB & NHL has the right idea!
That way the real student athletes play at the U's and the
others in the semi pro league.
Both will feed the NFL and NBA.
The term "college football" has become a joke!
Last edited:
Yep. I wouldn't like that, but the schools have the ability to not let that happen. However, they choose to hoard the profits these kids create.
So are you mad at the schools/NCAA or the kids? You seem to be taking both sides.
You replied to my post without answering any of my posed questions, only stated your opinion with no supporting evidence, or argument, so here's another question for you: How is Pitt's Bowl game less significant than its last game against Syracuse?
Last edited:
Not mad at anyone. I just get even I'm Italian! Just watch the Godfather movie??
I'd rather see athletes who have no interest in college after HS or getting an education play football and or basketball in a semi pro league. Their main goal is to play in the pro's. The true student athlete can attend a U, play a sport, and have a shot at the pro's or move into the workforce.
The present system encourages U's to invent ways to first admit and keep the so called "student athlete" in the U. It also encourages certain U's to reinvent discipline standards just for the "student athlete."
In addition it sucks up state schlorship money for "student athletes" who don't complete their education and get a degree.
That money could have gone to another student who has an interest in completing their education.
The only reason these kids go to college is its their only pathway to a pro sport! That's why MLB and NHL have the correct system. Access to the pro level thru college or the minor leauges.
This would expand the pool of players competing for pro jobs and maybe even change the demographics of pro football and basketball.
Last edited:
Should coaches need to repay salary they earned during a semester if they take a new job and don't coach a bowl game?
Look man.
These players are used by the school as pawns. Yes, they get free room and board. They also sacrifice their bodies (and if the research is to be believed, brains) so that the school can sell tickets, and gear and get tv revenue. The more good players, the better the team, the more money.
These kids were all recruited as business decisions by the school. None of these guys were recruited because they were good dudes. They were all recruited because Pitt Football Inc. thought they would add value to the organization.
Well, now these kids are making business decisions. College football is basically an unpaid internship. Spare me the "free school" argument. Isn't the same as a paycheck and you know it. A free education isn't paying off mom's mortgage, or putting some cash aside so dad can get tha back surgery he's been putting off.
If anything, both sides are now using each other.
These players are used by the school as pawns. Yes, they get free room and board. They also sacrifice their bodies (and if the research is to be believed, brains) so that the school can sell tickets, and gear and get tv revenue. The more good players, the better the team, the more money.
These kids were all recruited as business decisions by the school. None of these guys were recruited because they were good dudes. They were all recruited because Pitt Football Inc. thought they would add value to the organization.
Well, now these kids are making business decisions. College football is basically an unpaid internship. Spare me the "free school" argument. Isn't the same as a paycheck and you know it. A free education isn't paying off mom's mortgage, or putting some cash aside so dad can get tha back surgery he's been putting off.
If anything, both sides are now using each other.
I think you have a legitimate question. At what point during the season did the games stop mattering for McCaffrey? When he realized he wouldn't win the Heisman? When he wouldn't be a serious candidate for any POY awards? When WSU blew the doors off Stanford? When they realized they couldn't play in the pac 12 championship?
I say F THEM! We just paid them a full ride scholarship! THEY OWE US to play in that last game! THEY --- OWE --- US!!! Hey, they're doing it on the premise of getting rich in the NFL draft, so when McCaffrey gets his $10 MILLION SIGNING BONUS, it should be no burden at all to PAY BACK THE TUITION for the year he skipped out on his OBLIGATION to play football for the TEAM. The reason they get the SCHOLARSHIP is to PLAY FOOTBALL FOR THE SCHOOL, if you're healthy and just decide not to play, F-U, PAY US BACK!
Over and over again I hear about the school.
Take them out of it for a second. These players are a team. Stanford has a chance at a 10 win season, that's big for a lot of these guys that will play their final game that day.
Christian Mccaffrey doesn't owe the fans or fine even the school.....but he didn't get those yards on his own. I think it's a wise business decision for himself but selfish for his team.
Take them out of it for a second. These players are a team. Stanford has a chance at a 10 win season, that's big for a lot of these guys that will play their final game that day.
Christian Mccaffrey doesn't owe the fans or fine even the school.....but he didn't get those yards on his own. I think it's a wise business decision for himself but selfish for his team.
Of course it is a legitimate question.
But also from the perspective of the team and the program, what is the difference between regular season games and a bowl (once a team is eliminated from championship contention)?
Mostly games for teams not in championship contention are played either to achieve bowl eligibility or to position for a better bowl. You can't say that games played using the motivation of achieving a bowl are less important than the bowl itself. That is nonsense.
At least since the 1980s...
Bowls count the same as a regular season game to a team's overall record.
Bowl statistics count towards team and individual totals.
Bowl results influence rankings
Bowls afford extra weeks of practice
Bowls afford extra weeks of media coverage for the program
Bowls typically receive more media attention and are broadcast to wider audience than regular season games
Bowls come with perks for players.
Bowls are never declined or skipped unless as part of a punishment.
Bowls wins come with a trophy and often rings.
My question isn't whether or not a player has the right to skip them, but if they do, why is it any different than skipping the last few regular season games of a team not in contention? The class/graduation argument is a little disingenuous since many players, especially those that might be prone to do this anyway, are more likely to leave early or don't really attend college to earn a bachelors degree in the first place. It is a slippery slope.
Last edited:
What is your point here? Your employer might fire you. You likely have brought very, very little value to your employer over your career. If that is the case, they might not want to deal with you skipping something they deem important. If you are extremely valuable to them? They might evaluate the situation and decide on a different outcome.
McCaffrey is no longer a Stanford football player and has provided immense value to Stanford.
Thursday night games, Wednesday night games, jersey sales....
Should a coach be expected to pay back wages earned if they don't coach a bowl game because they took a new job?
He is no longer a Stanford football player or student. However, even if he was, Stanford can force that. You know how they do that? Give those players performance contracts that acknowledge their value to athletics. Why don't schools want to do that? Because it would cost them millions and millions of dollars. This decision is completely on Stanford and their partner schools. Pay up or deal with the fact these are amateurs and they could "screw you over" whenever they want and you have very little recourse because of the money on the line.
