Stanford's McCaffrey is Skipping the Sun Bowl
- Thread starter UPitt '89
- Start date
Just because people are part of a team, doesn't make them equal, especially in sports. When has the long snapper ever been considered equal in importance to the quarterback, the 2nd man in a 4-man relay ever as important as the anchor, the 8th batter as the 4th, the reliever as the starter, the Olympics' representative versus the alternate, The first line center versus the 4th line winger, Johnny Unitas versus Lamar McHan, etc?
Playing time, contracts, endorsements, promotion, and salaries have always played a role in demonstrating differing levels of importance. The issue is that in college football, most of those are taken out of the player's control.
How they have done historically has no relevance whatsoever to the issue we're discussing-none-the interesting thing will be if this situation affects the team going forward. No one at Stanford has done this before so your observation isn't on point.
It's a team... you don't just walk away when it's in your exclusive personal interest. Like I said earlier in the thread, the next primma Donna will want to walk away a third of the way thru the season- based on your reasoning, that's commendable conduct which is nonsense and completely antithetical to the values which underlying team sports.
Go tell that to Mc Caffrey's teammates and see the reaction you receive. You're either part of the team or not... you don't get to pick and choose when that suits you.
Fits played by thE rules, chump. You have no position- you're a chump grasping for straws!
Wrong again, dipsh!t.
INSIDE THE N.F.L.; Fitzgerald May Contest N.F.L. Eligibility Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/s...zgerald-may-contest-nfl-eligibility-rule.html
Fitz plated by the rules, moron, you dumb JA!!! He left after the season, JA!
He left after he contested a rule which prevented him from leaving. Sorry, you're wrong. You don't get your own set of facts to fit your narrative. And you calling someone a "moron" with your sentence structure is the definition of ironic.
And by winning that game, Pitt finished in fourth place in the division.
Had they lost, Pitt would have finished in.....wait for it.....you guessed it: fourth place.
The most meaningful thing about that game is that it guaranteed a Tier One bowl, whereas losing it meant they'd have gone to Detroit or Shreveport or some other place.
Now for the bowl, Pitt has a chance to be Pinstripe Bowl champions. Just like Psu can be Rose Bowl champions, North Carolina can be Sun Bowl champions, etc.
It's your call on whether that means anything to you or not.
My last comment, college football is bad enough as it is, with the beauty contest playoff system. Honestly, if the best players stop playing in the bowl games because they "mean nothing" why even bother following it at all?
I think they could easily structure it without any issue. The problem is the schools don't want to do that because they will have to give up far, far too much money to those athletes and then would have to scope back many, many sports to make up for the paid out revenue.
That guard is more than welcome to do so. All these players need to decide what's best for them based on their respective situations. The team and the schools don't really care about them beyond their value to win games and generate money, so the players need to look out for themselves.
I'd figure you'd be in favor of getting rid of the participation trophies that are non-playoff bowl games.
This is a difficult subject as I can clearly see both arguments. However, I am sure he is not the only Stanford player who may have NFL in his future, why aren't they skipping the bowl game also. Unlike Fournette, who was injured off and on all year, CM is a little different to me in that regard.
Just like Jaylon Smith for ND who had that terrible injury in the bowl game last year, I can see why they would skip it. However, just like Jaylon Smith I guarantee you they have a nice sizable insurance policy to give them some protection shall an injury occur.
It is something that could start to spin out of control, and every bowl game every year, except for a couple, have absolutely no meaning, so where does it stop. That is my concern?
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day I lean towards the athletes being screwed by coaches taking new jobs and leaving the kids they recruited at a whim, they have to sit a year out when they transfer and other aspects of the system that are hypocritical, so when the athlete has an option to make his own choice to affect his own life, who am I to say it is wrong. He is the one that will have to live with his decision forever, not I.
And I am not speaking about players being paid, etc, because they receive alot of nice perks I wish I had when at college, especially if going for free, but with that said they are also screwed over in alot of ways.
Just like Jaylon Smith for ND who had that terrible injury in the bowl game last year, I can see why they would skip it. However, just like Jaylon Smith I guarantee you they have a nice sizable insurance policy to give them some protection shall an injury occur.
It is something that could start to spin out of control, and every bowl game every year, except for a couple, have absolutely no meaning, so where does it stop. That is my concern?
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day I lean towards the athletes being screwed by coaches taking new jobs and leaving the kids they recruited at a whim, they have to sit a year out when they transfer and other aspects of the system that are hypocritical, so when the athlete has an option to make his own choice to affect his own life, who am I to say it is wrong. He is the one that will have to live with his decision forever, not I.
And I am not speaking about players being paid, etc, because they receive alot of nice perks I wish I had when at college, especially if going for free, but with that said they are also screwed over in alot of ways.
The fact that he challenged the interpretation of a rule doesn't as you suggest place him in the same category as an egocentric primma donna like McCaffrey...he didn't walk out on his team before the seson bwas over... any lucid person would see that. And you started the name calling.. because you were made a fool.
"He didn't challenge any rule!"
(Link story with headline that reads "Fitzgerald may challenge rule")
"You were made a fool."
Proof that calling you beyond stupid isn't name-calling, but is instead a factually-accurate statement.
Get totally rid of them? Sure, but only if we have at last a 16 team tournament and every conference champ has an automatic bid.
Let's just take a team vote before every game to determine who wants to play in a given week. None of the following players will play because: one guy has a test he's preparing for, another's grandfather is ill, a third thinks he will be drafted in a couple of months, anorther wants to change positions and then there's the guy who isn't satisfied with his playing time. Let's forget about the team and play Romper Room.
Your point was flipping irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the debate.
So you have no problem with adding more games for the "student athletes" to play? That will take up precious time during their final exams because they'll need to do film prep, etc.?
Heh.
Yeah, the bowl and especially a 6-6 Northwestern squad aren't particularly marketable.
That said, imagine if one of Smfs crazy scenarios actually game true and Pitt was playing Michigan in the Orange Bowl. If Pitt scored the upset, would you view this as meaningless?
Ok. That sounds fine. The way the schools currently have things set up, there is essentially nothing the schools can do about it, until the end of the grant period. They made that choice and it will burn them in a case like this. I am sure certain athletes (at a minimum) would be happy to renegotiate that agreement, so they can be fairly compensated and so they would be actually contracted to perform in games or face fines and penalties.
No, not at all. The schools have not structured things that way, because then they would open themselves up to likely having to pony up actual pay for play.
How meaningful was it for 11-0 Utah to pound the hell out of a weak-ass Pitt than has a lame duck coach?
How meaningful was it when they pussed out and matched Boise State and TCU against each other in 2009 instead of having them play big boy schools.
How meaningful was it when Florida State and Penn state slapped up against each other like two wet bags of cement for 17 overtimes?
How meaningful was the Alamo Bowl Baylor beat Washington something like 66-60?
These games were never about meaning. They were always about getting people to travel and put asses in seats.
I believe the coaches forfeit their pay when they terminate their contractual arrangement with their employers...ditto for the players who fail to fulfill theirs to the school that footed the bill for their tuition....
They aren't forced to accept a scholarship... they can, like any other student, enroll and pay their own way should they believe the life of a div. 1 athlete is too onerous.
Well, given my interactions with fans of those teams...including Wvu.....it means a lot.
That's part of the problem Pitt fans have with this discussion. How many big bowl games has Pitt qualified for in the past thirty years? Compared to how many Dickslap bowls, and how many years they didn't even make one?
Today I learned that it is OK if a constituency gets a raw deal, so long as they had an ostensible choice. Making millions of dollars for entities while you get 'paid' with something worth considerably less, all the while having no control over your image or ability to freely transfer? Well hey, that was your choice!
What a bunch of reductive horse****.
What a bunch of reductive horse****.
If they want to sit around stroking themselves over beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl that's fine, but we kept them out of what matters - the BCS championship. And now that we have a four-team playoff, if you're not in that final four you're an irrelevant boner.
You realize their grant isn't actually tied to them playing in games, correct? The schools have structured it this way so they won't be forced to pay them. The school can't do anything about it until they have to make the decision to renew the grant. A kid could accept and sign his grant and decide not to play and the school can't do a damn thing about it if the kid is still enrolled and an eligible student (note: not eligible athlete).
Except that isn't how the grants/scholarships are set up. And the schools don't set them up that way because they don't want to further open themselves up to having to actually compensate those revenue athletes a portion of all the revenue they are producing.
It's obviously subjective, but pretty any of the newer bowls.....especially ones with commercial names instead of traditional.....with teams that either don't deserve a berth, and/or ones that no one cares about.
To me, in a perfect world, there would be about 15 or 16 bowls. Enough to cover conference champions and the Top 25. You'd have good to great matchups between deserving teams, with a sense that you actually are playing for something meaningful.
It gets rid of the excess dilution that the current bowl setup has right now.
Notice you left out their win over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, and their emasculation of Clemson in the Orange Bowl.
So again, a hypothetical win over Michigan in the Orange Bowl would have done nothing for you?
But the win over Clemson did, even though all it did was guarantee that Pitt qualified for a bowl?
Raw deal? No one's putting a gun to anyone's head. You're typical of the those who accept a deal and then want to change the rules after you've accepted the deal. If you don't like it, go be a regular student!
That is dumb... he does get compensated... he is going to one of the best schools in the country for free.
He could just not go to school. I know our chemical engineering class brought in 100's of millions dollars to Pitt... we didnt get any money, and had to pay for school (outside of other scholarships).
Completely different subject to argue compensation vs ethically finishing the season for your team. Its like Gerrit Cole not pitching much last year cause he was upset with his contract. He got paid gobs of money, but didnt think it was enough. Same with Mccaffery.
And again... the win isnt meaningless AT ALL. Coaches, AD's, staffs all get graded at the end of the day on their r ecord
