Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Christian McCaffrey skipping the Sun Bowl

Discuss your thoughts about anything draft related. Mocks, College and Pro. Knock yourselves out!!! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • He's decided to join Leonard Fournette in skipping his team's bowl game to prep for the NFL draft. Personally I think this is the beginning of a terrible precedent where, unless the team is playing in a New Year's Six bowl game, the best players start skipping them to protect their NFL prospects.

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/story ... i-sun-bowl
    Image

    2014 Adopt-A-Rookie: Kiero Small
    2015 Adopt-A-Rookie: Tyler Lockett
    2016 Adopt-A-Rookie: Joey Hunt
    User avatar
    SeatownJay
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9265
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
    Location: Hagerstown, MD


  • So he is going off of his resume at Stanford and not gonna finish to go off of the bowl game. Sounds like a Loser that has his own interests at heart above the team's. That aughta make him some brownie points in the draft.

    Great point at the New Year's 6. If they would chop down the everyone gets a trophy for participation bowl, then these games would have more meaning. Of course that may be the point of all the games too. Maybe they are trying to showcase a lot more recruits for the nfl so they can have a lot more UDFAs making it big. I suppose it all comes down to what is being taught in economics. I dunno...
    Cats will rule the world...just ask my cat. MEOW.......
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6901
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23025
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


  • Smart. Unless your team is still in contention for the national championship I see no problem with it.

    Too bad Jaylon Smith didn't do it last year.
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2051
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 1:45 pm


  • JSeahawks wrote:It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.



    Good thing here though, Stanford has no fans. I've got to say though, if I was his teammate I'd be pissed. We've seen how bad they are without CM, and if they lose its really on him being selfish.
    Last edited by CPHawk on Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3233
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:49 pm


  • JSeahawks wrote:It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.


    Exactly. Sucks but it would be a real shame to end your career before it starts playing in a game that only exists to make someone else money.
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8844
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


  • From a fan's perspective I don't like it. The only reason to watch Stanford is to see what CM might do next. As it is, mortgage your house and bet it all on North Carolina in the Sun Bowl because Stanford without CM is trash.
    Image

    2014 Adopt-A-Rookie: Kiero Small
    2015 Adopt-A-Rookie: Tyler Lockett
    2016 Adopt-A-Rookie: Joey Hunt
    User avatar
    SeatownJay
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9265
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
    Location: Hagerstown, MD


  • I don't like it, but I understand it.

    This new trend just proves further that college sports has jumped the shark and no longer means what it used to mean...................playing for the love of the game, sportsmanship, the pageantry and excitement of going to a bowl and all that brings for each team.

    Now it's one cold hearted question and one cold hearted question only, are you in the Championship bracket? No?..........then who cares I'm out.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Stanford has made enough money off of McCaffrey already, there's not much upside for him to play (having 'Sun Bowl Champion' on his resume isn't going improve his draft stock any) and he stands to lose a LOT if he gets hurt, or even if he has an uncharacteristically poor game. I don't blame him, and hope others follow suit. These players owe the NCAA nothing.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 4601
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


  • This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Agreed. How cool is it that Eastern Michigan gets to play in the Bahamas Bowl? That's a huge deal for that school, and there are other similar stories.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 4601
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.


    Doing this will cause schools to start creating powder puff schedules. This is already an issue now, but creating win minimums would make the matter much more worse rather than solve it. You'll see a lot more games scheduled in against the Portland State's, Cal-Poly's of the world rather than the bigger schools. That's the effect of having a win minimum. Eliminating the lower class bowl games will in itself solve the wins issue. Teams with a losing record would be left out as they should be. Maybe they should re-assign some of the bowl games to FCS or lower divisions. There's no reason to have as many D1 FBS bowls as they do now.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6284
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • The most important thing about making a bowl game (unless its one of the playoffs game), is the extra 3 weeks of practice you get going into next season. The Sun Bowl is meaninless, but the experience it gives a guy like Bryce Love, who will be McCaffrey's replacement nexzt year can be signifigant.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23025
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.


    I don't see anything being diminished. We all know what teams are in the important bowls.

    The rest are a mechanism for college football and sponsors to rewards players, fans and schools socially and financially.

    btw, there is an unspoken mason dixon line for wins, and it's 6, so 7 is going to make a huge difference?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Smart move.

    This is going to be totally commonplace in a couple of years. At least as it relates to top tier talent.

    There is absolutely no value for either of these two players to playing in a final bowl game.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1872
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.

    Nice post Fender..
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3028
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.


    Doing this will cause schools to start creating powder puff schedules. This is already an issue now, but creating win minimums would make the matter much more worse rather than solve it. You'll see a lot more games scheduled in against the Portland State's, Cal-Poly's of the world rather than the bigger schools. That's the effect of having a win minimum. Eliminating the lower class bowl games will in itself solve the wins issue. Teams with a losing record would be left out as they should be. Maybe they should re-assign some of the bowl games to FCS or lower divisions. There's no reason to have as many D1 FBS bowls as they do now.


    Or maybe they could just invite the top 30 ranked teams to a bowl game.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.


    Why is more football a bad thing?

    I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.


    Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.


    I don't see anything being diminished. We all know what teams are in the important bowls.

    The rest are a mechanism for college football and sponsors to rewards players, fans and schools socially and financially.

    btw, there is an unspoken mason dixon line for wins, and it's 6, so 7 is going to make a huge difference?


    It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:I don't like it, but I understand it.

    This new trend just proves further that college sports has jumped the shark and no longer means what it used to mean...................playing for the love of the game, sportsmanship, the pageantry and excitement of going to a bowl and all that brings for each team.

    Now it's one cold hearted question and one cold hearted question only, are you in the Championship bracket? No?..........then who cares I'm out.


    When Jaylen Smith got hurt last year, he went from a top 5 pick to a 2nd rounder. That make his initial contract change from a 4 year, 23.5 million deal to a 4 year, 6.5 million deal. That's 17 million lost.

    The El Paso Toilet bowl isn't worth 17 million to McCaffery.
    zifnab32
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 287
    Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:24 am


  • I think the saddest part of this discussion is just cementing the reality that college football has become all about the few stars that have a shot (not even a guarantee to make it) in the NFL and part of the result is that the of college players that won't seen an NFL down are cast aside as if their contributions to the game don't matter.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 447
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.


    lol, that's really going to satisfy you? Wow, these bowl games seem so much better this year! Must be cause there's 4 less of them!
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Milehighhawk wrote:I think the saddest part of this discussion is just cementing the reality that college football has become all about the few stars that have a shot (not even a guarantee to make it) in the NFL and part of the result is that the of college players that won't seen an NFL down are cast aside as if their contributions to the game don't matter.


    Honestly, I think it's just a player driven correction to the artificial barriers put in place between college and the NFL.

    The NFL adopted a minimum age requirement for entry in the NFL (the 3 years out of high school rule). In part, this was to prevent players from coming out too early (Clarett/Mike Williams). It was seen as a concession between the NCAA and the NFL to force players to stay at college and presumably enrich schools. The NFL still gets their free development league of sorts and schools continue to make profits on student athletes.

    This isn't really any different than the college basketball 'one and done' dynamic. Except it's more punitive to the athletes as a whole and forces increased risk.

    If college football was all about the few stars, then you wouldn't see such resistance to a profit sharing scheme. Or schools could simply not charge for the games and become truly non profit entities as it pertains to sporting events. The bottom line is, when a player (or for that matter just a student at the school studying any discipline) is at a level where they have enough talent to ply their services in the marketplace -- they should be allowed to make that decision.

    To artificially force someone to provide services just because of an arbitrary rule is going to change the labor dynamic. In this case, the student athletes who are imminently eligible to serve professionally weigh risk and loss of value against what is in essence nothing in return.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1872
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.


    lol, that's really going to satisfy you? Wow, these bowl games seem so much better this year! Must be cause there's 4 less of them!


    It will make a difference. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and the amount of bowl games has surpassed the equilibrium.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.


    lol, that's really going to satisfy you? Wow, these bowl games seem so much better this year! Must be cause there's 4 less of them!


    It will make a difference. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and the amount of bowl games has surpassed the equilibrium.


    Like you didn't watch the Air Force Reserves Celebration Bowl....
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.


    lol, that's really going to satisfy you? Wow, these bowl games seem so much better this year! Must be cause there's 4 less of them!


    It will make a difference. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and the amount of bowl games has surpassed the equilibrium.


    There's always been a lot of bowl games, and yes most of them are uninteresting to the large majority of the country.

    But they're not to the hosting city and the two teams and their fans. It helps to build an up and coming program to go to a bowl game, even a smaller one.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • There hasn't always been a lot of bowl games. It started with one, and then expanded to 5, then to 8 in the 60s, and it's been expanding ever since.

    As a long-time fan of college football, I can honestly say that all these non-major bowl games makes them less fun. Last year I barely even cared about UW's bowl game. When people's teams win 8 or 9 games and get invited to play a non-major bowl game, they think "why do I even care when we could have been in a non-major bowl game with 6 wins?" If we eliminate some of these bowls so we can leave out .500 and barely over .500 teams, fans and players would feel like playing in a bowl game is a bigger deal, and would be more likely to participate.

    The NCAA would be very wise to consider the long-term impact on playing too many bowl games. Of course, if they ruin the whole bowl game tradition with over-saturation, it could lead to them needing to eliminate them altogether in favor of a bigger playoff, which would make a lot of people happy. In the short term, sure, the bowl games are making money and getting a lot of ratings...but you know what else did? That episode of Happy Days where Fonzie jumped over the shark...and we all know what happened after that.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5956
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • For whatever it's worth, one thing I've heard from alot of coaches in the buildup to these bowl games is how helpful the extra practices are. They get more time with the younger players and developing their team that what's afforded in the very short and chaotic "regular" season.

    Maybe the Bowl games are just that... a way to extend the season for the players and coaches.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    The NCAA would be very wise to consider the long-term impact on playing too many bowl games. Of course, if they ruin the whole bowl game tradition with over-saturation, it could lead to them needing to eliminate them altogether in favor of a bigger playoff, which would make a lot of people happy. In the short term, sure, the bowl games are making money and getting a lot of ratings...but you know what else did? That episode of Happy Days where Fonzie jumped over the shark...and we all know what happened after that.


    I think it's pretty clear that the NCAA agrees with me, the more bowl games, the more exposure and revenue for the NCAA and the schools.

    I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with your assessment that it's a negative. The only negative is when the bowl is poorly attended and losing money, then THAT'S when it usually goes away. Remember the Seattle Bowl here in Seattle like 15 years ago? It stunk, lost money and was blown up.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Attyla the Hawk wrote:
    Milehighhawk wrote:I think the saddest part of this discussion is just cementing the reality that college football has become all about the few stars that have a shot (not even a guarantee to make it) in the NFL and part of the result is that the of college players that won't seen an NFL down are cast aside as if their contributions to the game don't matter.


    Honestly, I think it's just a player driven correction to the artificial barriers put in place between college and the NFL.

    The NFL adopted a minimum age requirement for entry in the NFL (the 3 years out of high school rule). In part, this was to prevent players from coming out too early (Clarett/Mike Williams). It was seen as a concession between the NCAA and the NFL to force players to stay at college and presumably enrich schools. The NFL still gets their free development league of sorts and schools continue to make profits on student athletes.

    This isn't really any different than the college basketball 'one and done' dynamic. Except it's more punitive to the athletes as a whole and forces increased risk.

    If college football was all about the few stars, then you wouldn't see such resistance to a profit sharing scheme. Or schools could simply not charge for the games and become truly non profit entities as it pertains to sporting events. The bottom line is, when a player (or for that matter just a student at the school studying any discipline) is at a level where they have enough talent to ply their services in the marketplace -- they should be allowed to make that decision.

    To artificially force someone to provide services just because of an arbitrary rule is going to change the labor dynamic. In this case, the student athletes who are imminently eligible to serve professionally weigh risk and loss of value against what is in essence nothing in return.



    Firstly, thank you for the well thought-out response and overlooking my rushed typing. I concede that the schools do still largely value the average individual student athlete (not without exceptions), however I would submit the media seems to not consider them at all when forming narratives around these topics (pay for play, bowls, etc..). There are several issues with considering performance based pay for college players (I am inferring this from your statement here so feel free to correct) which also apply to players opting out of bowl games. You see the school bears the vast majority of the risk of a player throughout their time in college. The school provides the platform and everything except the performance on the field in games or at practice. This includes not only tuition, but also transportation, media coverage, lodging, and all kinds of allowances (granted not much "spending" cash).

    The short of it the school is providing a complete platform from which that player has the opportunity to cash in at the next level should they perform. Now the player is saying hey, thanks for helping me this far, but I no longer need you. I would think any scholarship offer should have some contractual demands in return that aren't being met. I mean if a player decides to quit football mid-way through a four year scholarship, I know in most instances, they forfeit at a minimum a portion of that scholarship. It seems like, based upon the way the system is set up today, the player is failing to live up to their end of the bargain by opting out simply because they are a star.

    To take this a step further, imagine if every scholarship player on the team found themselves in a situation where they became risk averse to participating in a bowl game for fear of future loss of earnings (of which the school bears zero responsibility to the student). If the school, for that reason, couldn't field a team for the bowl game and therefore lost the financial rewards they would otherwise obtain to help fund future programs, how would we view that? It would seem there has to be some responsibility for the athlete to play in good faith or somehow reciprocate for non-participation.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 447
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:So he is going off of his resume at Stanford and not gonna finish to go off of the bowl game. Sounds like a Loser that has his own interests at heart above the team's. That aughta make him some brownie points in the draft.


    It's the Sun Bowl. :lol:
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11073
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:So he is going off of his resume at Stanford and not gonna finish to go off of the bowl game. Sounds like a Loser that has his own interests at heart above the team's. That aughta make him some brownie points in the draft.


    It's the Sun Bowl. :lol:


    Ahh....I see....not a good bowl game like the Idaho Potato Bowl. :shock:
    Cats will rule the world...just ask my cat. MEOW.......
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6901
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Funny how people act like a full ride scholarship means nothing... at a place like Stanford, that's what... 100k???

    That's 25k per year for a teenager.

    And all this talk about football injuries, like "what a traumatic experience" ... really?

    More than you can make in on a fishing boat or crabber in Alaska risking your effing life.... like so many of my generation did. I worked on a gill netter, and in a machine shop to pay my way through college at 18/19 years old. Almost lost my life in a storm, and I did lose a finger at 19 years old because of an idiot boss. I finished paying off my student loans for my engineering degree at 36 freaking years old.

    So, while everyone wants to cry "poor baby'" and coddle these football players, I'm playing the world's tiniest effing violin.


    I swear, people are so freaking spoiled these days it's utterly mind boggling. Millennials my ass, it's the "little bitch" generation.
    User avatar
    The_Z_Man
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1675
    Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm
    Location: Tucson, AZ


  • The_Z_Man wrote:Funny how people act like a full ride scholarship means nothing... at a place like Stanford, that's what... 100k???

    That's 25k per year for a teenager.

    And all this talk about football injuries, like "what a traumatic experience" ... really?

    More than you can make in on a fishing boat or crabber in Alaska risking your effing life.... like so many of my generation did. I worked on a gill netter, and in a machine shop to pay my way through college at 18/19 years old. Almost lost my life in a storm, and I did lose a finger at 19 years old because of an idiot boss. I finished paying off my student loans for my engineering degree at 36 freaking years old.

    So, while everyone wants to cry "poor baby'" and coddle these football players, I'm playing the world's tiniest effing violin.


    I swear, people are so freaking spoiled these days it's utterly mind boggling. Millennials my ass, it's the "little bitch" generation.


    I must say, I appreciate this "rant style" post as much as Attyla's more reasoned response. Aren't message boards fun? I generally concur with the thought process, nothing is a given.

    Also, if Stanford is anything like the schools my oldest is looking at now, it is more like 200K+ in total. Which, for an 18-22 year old is a decent chunk of change.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 447
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:There hasn't always been a lot of bowl games. It started with one, and then expanded to 5, then to 8 in the 60s, and it's been expanding ever since.

    As a long-time fan of college football, I can honestly say that all these non-major bowl games makes them less fun. Last year I barely even cared about UW's bowl game. When people's teams win 8 or 9 games and get invited to play a non-major bowl game, they think "why do I even care when we could have been in a non-major bowl game with 6 wins?" If we eliminate some of these bowls so we can leave out .500 and barely over .500 teams, fans and players would feel like playing in a bowl game is a bigger deal, and would be more likely to participate.

    The NCAA would be very wise to consider the long-term impact on playing too many bowl games. Of course, if they ruin the whole bowl game tradition with over-saturation, it could lead to them needing to eliminate them altogether in favor of a bigger playoff, which would make a lot of people happy. In the short term, sure, the bowl games are making money and getting a lot of ratings...but you know what else did? That episode of Happy Days where Fonzie jumped over the shark...and we all know what happened after that.

    The explosion of bowl games coincided with the explosion of cable and, more specifically, ESPN. From 1978, when the NCAA officially split division 1 into the A & AA subdivisions, to 1996, there were 15-19 bowl games a year. From 1997 to 2005 the number of games rose from 20 up to 28. 2006 saw the number of games jump to 32 and more games were added every couple of years until we hit 42 bowl games last year. This year is the first time since 1995 that there are fewer bowl games than the year before with only 41.

    The biggest benefactors of the increase of the bowl games, other than the broadcasters, have been the smaller conferences. In 1996 there were 36 bowl teams, 29 of which were from the power conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 12, SEC). That's roughly 81% of the bowl teams. By 2006, when we hit 64 bowl teams, only 67% of them were from the power conferences. This year there are 80 bowl teams, only 56% of which are from the power conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC). so, in the past 20 years the smaller conferences have saw their number of bowl participants rise from 7 teams to 35.
    Image

    2014 Adopt-A-Rookie: Kiero Small
    2015 Adopt-A-Rookie: Tyler Lockett
    2016 Adopt-A-Rookie: Joey Hunt
    User avatar
    SeatownJay
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9265
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
    Location: Hagerstown, MD


  • The_Z_Man wrote:Funny how people act like a full ride scholarship means nothing... at a place like Stanford, that's what... 100k???

    That's 25k per year for a teenager.

    And all this talk about football injuries, like "what a traumatic experience" ... really?

    More than you can make in on a fishing boat or crabber in Alaska risking your effing life.... like so many of my generation did. I worked on a gill netter, and in a machine shop to pay my way through college at 18/19 years old. Almost lost my life in a storm, and I did lose a finger at 19 years old because of an idiot boss. I finished paying off my student loans for my engineering degree at 36 freaking years old.

    So, while everyone wants to cry "poor baby'" and coddle these football players, I'm playing the world's tiniest effing violin.


    I swear, people are so freaking spoiled these days it's utterly mind boggling. Millennials my ass, it's the "little bitch" generation.


    Final exams are over and he isn't returning to school in January, that means it is time to be a pro and enter the workforce, which he is doing.

    He's paid back the value of that scholarship ten-fold with every appearance on ESPN, FOX, in magazines, and on billboards wearing Stanford colors.

    There is nothing left for him at the college level.
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2051
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 1:45 pm


  • Damn, what has happened to pride and tradition?...Money and greed is the answer. Grow a pair Mc Caffrey.

    What a Pussy move, I might get hurt and squander my NFL career...PLEASE. People are asking if he is Seahawky?...NO, he screams Joey Galloway all day.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34838
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • The_Z_Man wrote:Funny how people act like a full ride scholarship means nothing... at a place like Stanford, that's what... 100k???


    How much money has Stanford made off the back of Christian McCaffrey? Hint: It's a lot more than 100K.

    The_Z_Man wrote:That's 25k per year for a teenager.

    And all this talk about football injuries, like "what a traumatic experience" ... really?

    More than you can make in on a fishing boat or crabber in Alaska risking your effing life.... like so many of my generation did. I worked on a gill netter, and in a machine shop to pay my way through college at 18/19 years old. Almost lost my life in a storm, and I did lose a finger at 19 years old because of an idiot boss. I finished paying off my student loans for my engineering degree at 36 freaking years old.

    So, while everyone wants to cry "poor baby'" and coddle these football players, I'm playing the world's tiniest effing violin.


    Z Man, I like you and your posts are on point usually but you're missing the mark here big time (or BIGLY as our PEOTUS would say). The Fournette/McCaffrey thing IMO is not very far off of Sherm's rant about why playing on TNF sucks. If you were a 20-21 year old that was essentially a lock to be a millionaire in a manner of months, would you risk that to play in a LITERALLY meaningless game where absolutely nobody will care about this 12 months from now? Hell probably sooner than that in all honesty.

    Yeah I am aware they have insurance policies in place, and McCaffrey is a smart enough kid with a decorated education that he'd probably be a-ok in the event he blew his knee and had his career shortened or ended, but there is no reason for him to play in a meaningless game when his position has a finite life span in the NFL. Figure he has IF HE IS LUCKY and plays at the top 10-20% of his position... MAYBE 8-9 years? And of those 8-9, probably 5-6 that will be prime seasons.

    Again, it takes one flukey shot to the knee, one flukey shot to the head/neck area, etc. to end his career or injure him to the point where he falls in the draft.

    Does this set a precedent? Probably. But this is good. As someone else alluded to, there are way too many bowl games right now that are only in place because ESPN wants to fill a 3 hour block of TV for the next 2 weeks. Make the postseason meaningful, and this won't happen.

    The_Z_Man wrote:I swear, people are so freaking spoiled these days it's utterly mind boggling. Millennials my ass, it's the "little bitch" generation.


    As a 'Millennial' myself, I can say we're not spoiled, we're much more aware. There's no bravado to be had playing in the Sun Bowl. I'm sorry, there just isnt.

    End of the day these are student athletes attempting to garner a career. This is no different than a college grad taking necessary steps to ensure they're not put in a situation that could jeopardize everything they worked for.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11073
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:Damn, what has happened to pride and tradition?...Money and greed is the answer. Grow a pair Mc Caffrey.

    What a Pussy move, I might get hurt and squander my NFL career...PLEASE. People are asking if he is Seahawky?...NO, he screams Joey Galloway all day.


    The PRIDE and TRADITION of the HYUNDAI SUN BOWL! GET HYPED!

    This post makes me love C-Mac even more. :lol:
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11073
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:Damn, what has happened to pride and tradition?...Money and greed is the answer. Grow a pair Mc Caffrey.

    What a Pussy move, I might get hurt and squander my NFL career...PLEASE. People are asking if he is Seahawky?...NO, he screams Joey Galloway all day.


    Money and greed is college sports though. Why shouldn't the players be able to play within it?

    He is simply playing in the system that was created around him. He's been at Stanford for what, 3 years already. Stanford and the NCAA have made a ton of money with him. No other part of the system has to remain "loyal."

    So why are we upset when a 20-22 year old "kid" exercises the same business options that his coach, the school or the ruling organization can elicit at any time? Why are the athletes the only ones with no control in this situation and when they try to help themselves people jump on them?

    I understand people are fearful that this may signal a crack that may lead to the rupture of college athletics. But come on... we are cheering for kids who are basically being used to make millions upon millions of dollars and try and pretend as if they should just do it for the sake of "pride, tradition" or even better, "college."

    He literally has nothing to gain from playing in this game. He used his skills to put himself in this position. He was used for his skills to make other people lots of money. He now has one opportunity to think about himself. Why shouldn't he?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:So he is going off of his resume at Stanford and not gonna finish to go off of the bowl game. Sounds like a Loser that has his own interests at heart above the team's. That aughta make him some brownie points in the draft.


    It's the Sun Bowl. :lol:


    Ahh....I see....not a good bowl game like the Idaho Potato Bowl. :shock:


    Well yeah clearly if he skipped out on the Potato Bowl and the free iPad and Beats headphones that came with it - that'd be a much different situation.

    ;)

    This would be like getting up in arms over a projected 1st round pick in the NBA backing out of playing in the CBI.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11073
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:Damn, what has happened to pride and tradition?...Money and greed is the answer. Grow a pair Mc Caffrey.


    College football jumped the pride and tradition shark decades ago.

    IMO this isn't even on McCaffrey, it's on David Shaw. Urban Meyer said this week that you'll never see one of his players skipping a bowl game, cause that's not how he rolls as a program.

    Shaw needed to lay down the law to his players, and his recruits coming to play for Stanford. "If you come here, you play, period, we don't act selfishly here."
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    "If you come here, you play, period, we don't act selfishly here."


    This is the NCAA, right?

    I wonder how all those kids at Florida felt when Urban just quit on them.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    "If you come here, you play, period, we don't act selfishly here."


    This is the NCAA, right?

    I wonder how all those kids at Florida felt when Urban just quit on them.


    Definitely some hypocrisy to his statement. Also how many times is Ohio State going to play in a nothing bowl under Myer?

    The sentiment still holds true though, if this is the sign of the times and something coaches and programs have to address long before the athlete and his agent opt out of bowl games.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11105
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    "If you come here, you play, period, we don't act selfishly here."


    This is the NCAA, right?

    I wonder how all those kids at Florida felt when Urban just quit on them.


    Definitely some hypocrisy to his statement. Also how many times is Ohio State going to play in a nothing bowl under Myer?

    The sentiment still holds true though, if this is the sign of the times and something coaches and programs have to address long before the athlete and his agent opt out of bowl games.


    Oh I agree. I don't like it. I'm just saying under the current conditions no one should be too critical of McCaffrey for his choice.

    If the NCAA or (and?) NFL ever figure out a way to make college football more meaningful the players I think they will stem the tide of this type of behavior.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Damn, what has happened to pride and tradition?...Money and greed is the answer. Grow a pair Mc Caffrey.

    What a Pussy move, I might get hurt and squander my NFL career...PLEASE. People are asking if he is Seahawky?...NO, he screams Joey Galloway all day.


    Money and greed is college sports though. Why shouldn't the players be able to play within it?

    He is simply playing in the system that was created around him. He's been at Stanford for what, 3 years already. Stanford and the NCAA have made a ton of money with him. No other part of the system has to remain "loyal."

    So why are we upset when a 20-22 year old "kid" exercises the same business options that his coach, the school or the ruling organization can elicit at any time? Why are the athletes the only ones with no control in this situation and when they try to help themselves people jump on them?

    I understand people are fearful that this may signal a crack that may lead to the rupture of college athletics. But come on... we are cheering for kids who are basically being used to make millions upon millions of dollars and try and pretend as if they should just do it for the sake of "pride, tradition" or even better, "college."

    He literally has nothing to gain from playing in this game. He used his skills to put himself in this position. He was used for his skills to make other people lots of money. He now has one opportunity to think about himself. Why shouldn't he?


    With this kind of logic, why even have bowl games? A team plays as a team for a goal (a bowl game) and now we have a completely different set of rules because a player is so worried about getting hurt that he bows out of the team goal?

    What is the point of even having a goal?

    Answer?....GREED and MONEY.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34838
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:


    Answer?....GREED and MONEY.


    This is correct. College football, the NCAA, TV, corporations, the colleges, and coaches have been making millions upon millions off these kids for decades.

    One kid decides he's going to look out for himself in the very end and HE"s the greedy and selfish one?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11860
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:Shaw needed to lay down the law to his players, and his recruits coming to play for Stanford. "If you come here, you play, period, we don't act selfishly here."


    Laying down the law wouldn't have prevented this though. What is Shaw going to do to force a player to play? Especially one with one foot out the door heading into the NFL.

    What created this is the college playoff rendering these bowl games even more useless than they already were AND players, especially collegiate athletes, becoming more and more aware of their worth and health.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11073
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Even Pete said in his presser today he was not appreciative of the fact that some are not playing in their bowl games. But he also mentioned that some dont play in the probowl. So it sets a different precedent. It was near the end of today's presser.
    Cats will rule the world...just ask my cat. MEOW.......
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6901
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


Next


It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 9:29 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: dumbrabbit and 5 guests