I'd hope he tore up his knee on the1st day of NFL mini camp. sorry, to me, being on a team, is a commitment, it's insane how many people think it's OK to quit with games left to play.
Stanford's McCaffrey is Skipping the Sun Bowl
- Thread starter UPitt '89
- Start date
I'd hope he tore up his knee on the1st day of NFL mini camp. sorry, to me, being on a team, is a commitment, it's insane how many people think it's OK to quit with games left to play.
Who's to say the team isn't behind him? Hell, who's to say Shaw isn't behind him as well?
Only the playoff games are truly meaningful. The remaining bowls are important to the host cities, to ESPN and the other TV networks, to fans, and to coaches using it as a springboard to Next Year. Pasadena, Miami and New Orleans are nice rewards for a job well done. Shreveport and Detroit, not so much.
You have pro athletes skipping the useless all star games all the time. And the most common excuses are rest, or saving one's body for what really matters. Why wouldn't a kid who is projected to go high in the NFL draft think the same way?
Why don't they just sit out the last 7-8 games of the year if they receive advice they are likely to be drafted? Either you're on the team or not... if you are, then you play. If not, get the hell out and return to the unversity the value of the free ride you received. More egocentric BS from a bunch of pampered 20 year old who have had their butts kissed their entire lives!
"get off my lawn!"
First guy to pull something similar to this was Marcus Dupree. How old is he again?
Shaw has already indicated that he is behind him, but I still don't think it's right.
You make a deal, you honor it and the obligation you have to your teammates...spoiled egomaniacs focused exclusively on themselves. Why don't you just let them decide to sit out the last 7-8 games of the year should they choose to do so? Where does it stop?
Get rid of Title IX and there would be money to do that. But as long as schools need to pay/fund womens sports that lose money to begin with equally, NOT ONE SCHOOL IN THIS LAND CAN AFFORD TO PAY. Go pay your start football or men's BBall player an additional $XXXX.XX and not pay a woman star that. Watch how fast your school has a law suit and is being picketed.
Last edited:
All this talk about being 'teammates' and 'commitment', completely ignoring that those concepts are two-way streets. If I'm about to play in a meaningless bowl game, and my teammate is on the verge of a multi-million dollar NFL contract, I'm telling him 'You have more at stake, and your wants and needs are more important; you do what you need to do'. The bowl game is ultimately immaterial; my teammate's career prospects are not.
Meaningless? Meaningless to his teammates? Everyone should sit the game out to avoid injury. McCaffrey should be shunned..the egotistical little twerp.
Any high school football player that got a division 1 scholarship should probably sit out his high school senior year. Hell Phil jurkovec shouldn't have played for Pine Richland last year.
The whole thing is just silly. Meaningless game? Just because you think it is meaningless.
The whole thing is just silly. Meaningless game? Just because you think it is meaningless.
What happens if Stanford loses the bowl game? Literally nothing, other than the memory of losing the game. McCaffrey could lose millions of dollars, and even his career if he were to be injured badly enough.
Yes, it's meaningless. What's egotistical is putting the mere desire to win a game over someone's very real and very tangible livelihood, and no amount of 'durrrr TEAM' chest thumping changes that.
In his defense he and a few others were close to killing Fraud. The linemen on that team hated Fraud more than any other unit.
I could get injured in a car accident on the way to work. What's the difference? If he got hurt, he could use his free education to get a job better than most of us have anyway. There is a thing they used to call responsibility and commitment, I understand in America today no one cares about either one of those but there once was a time when people thought of others too, not just themselves.
Why is it always spoiled jocks? Why isn't it spoiled nerds for the kids that are on academic scholarships?
One group gets a scholarship and in return is required to spend 60+ hours a week between class and sports while the other is only required to maintain a credit and gpa level.
Up until 2014 one of those groups could have their scholarship revoked for any reason including injury, new instructor(coach), failing to meet gpa standards, break school policy, break team policy, or to make room for someone else. The other group can't have it revoked unless they fail to meet gpa standards or break school policy.
One of these groups of underclassmen(in the case of football and basketball) generates millions in operating revenue that supports the construction of facilities increasing the number of university assets and provides funding for hundreds of other students. The other group willingly pays extra money to the school to watch the other group for entertainment and generates zero immediate revenue or increase in facility value.
ok let's say the average tutiton is $30,000 a year. There are 12 reg season games and a bowl game. So that equates to $2307.69 a game. Are you suggested that they pay back $2307.69 or the full $30,000?
I'll ask again: All of you "commitment to teammates" honks all must hate Larry Fitzgerald.
You're right, they should. It's not their call though, its his. Everyone should be courteous of each other but in the end it is one man's decision.
I'd say the whole thing. He was paid this scholarship specifically to play football.
There are many ways around Title IX to compensate men's revenue producing athletes and not have to pay female athletes or non revenue male athletes. They could comply with Title IX with scholarships and student support and make additional income relative to sport revenues, like they do in any other job.
With that said, of course Title IX (as it applies to sports and scholarships) is absolutely ludicrous and should be struck down.
The fundamental problem is one of treating everyone on the team equally and fairly and not setting some arbitrary standard as to when a team member can for his own personal reasons refuse to participate. Like I said above- where do you draw the line. If I receive a draft projection after the third game of the year that I am likely to be drafted in the first couple rounds is it ok for me to decline to play from that point forward? As far as I'm concerned the Stanford kid is telling his teammates I'm more important than you-you go play in the bowl and I will do that which is exclusively in my best interests. Screw him and the selfish motivation that underlies his actions. As Conner was quoted in today's papers, your teammates are your brothers and you don't leave them out to dry because "you're special."
Sure. Why not? Will the teams offering him a scholarship mind? That is all that would matter. It is certainly his choice to make and he is bound by nothing to play. Hell, high school kids make the decision all the time to not play other sports and jeopardize their future in one where they can excel to greater heights.
what are you guys arguing about. It's quite simple.. it's a jack ass move by the player but you cant do anything to enforce a player to stay and play in a bowl game if he doesn't want to..
So you could negotiate not having to make that commute to work to avoid cost, delay, injury, or reduced performance? I know you will find this crazy, but many, many people do just that.
Actually the scholarship agreement does not include any agreement to participate (whether if healthy or not healthy) in the team's games.
So, if you have a problem with that being "too stupid to even comment on" you have a problem with the system (which schools desperately want to keep, so they don't have to compensate a guy like McCaffrey) and not me.
Fitz played in the bowl game! He honored his commitment to his teammates so long as he was a member of the team. Don't equate leaving school at the end of the then current season with leaving your teammates out to dry in a bowl game just because you feel you have more at stake than your teammates. McCaffrey has essentially given his teammates the finger and told them: you chumps do this bowl game thing whether you are likely to get injured or not but I'm not risking my future because I'm better and more important than you.
You're beyond stupid.
Larry Fitzgerald challenged an NFL rule in order to leave Pitt early and enter the draft. Under your mindset, Fitzgerald should have played his junior year under the existing rule - because that was the commitment he agreed to - rather than take on the NFL and argue that his year at Valley Forge should count towards his eligibility.
McCaffrey is leaving a game early. Fitzgerald challenged a rule to get the hell away from us an entire season sooner. We were so mad about it that we retired his number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/s...zgerald-may-contest-nfl-eligibility-rule.html
The difference is that you are justly compensated for your labor, and McCaffrey is not. He has helped earn Stanford and the NCAA millions of dollars, and he has not seen a fair cut of that revenue (even accounting for the high cost of tuition). And on top of that, they have completely controlled his image and likeness: he can't endorse products, sell memorabilia, act in commercials, do paid autograph sessions, etc. Like I said, if Stanford was hiring an accountant, no one would think tuition remission is acceptable compensation (to say nothing of the fact that he or she wouldn't be asked to risk their physical health and/or career prospects). He is on the cusp of earning millions of dollars playing professionally, and it defies logic to suggest he should risk that for the sake of earning Stanford one meaningless win.
McCaffrey *is* better and more important than his (non-NFL bound) teammates. It's hilarious that you would try to enforce some sense of equity among every player; isn't the whole anti-participation-trophy mindset specifically against the notion that everyone is equal?
That is easier said than done. There would be lawsuits for sure if star football player got paid and little Susie did not. I agree that it is ludicrous and should be struck down, but it won't.
Last edited:
You don't build a team with that that mindset/ philosophy - simple as that! You acknowledge that approach you have NO team... that's a fact. I guarantee there are a large number of Stanford players who while they won't say so publicly believe MCCaffrry is s selfish twit.
And he did play 12 times. he is not playing the 13th time. Look I do not like this one bit, i think it is gutless and speaks a ton about his lack of character and values, but seriously there is not much that can be done.
The Stanford football team has done pretty well for itself, and will continue to do well for itself, so it would seem that it's actually pretty easy to build a team in spite of that mindset.
Also, as an aside, I love how some of you are applying a sense of collectivism to the proceedings. On the cusp of a multi-million dollar professional career? Risk your INDIVIDUAL aspirations for the GREATER GOOD of the team. I'm sure that perception is highly compatible with your various personal and political opinions.
