The CardBoard
CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? (/thread-13233.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 12:34 PM)needle link Wrote:
Quote: The difference is the willingness to criticize that decision based on numerous factors, including:  (a) the relative conviction of folks regarding whether or not CMac is doing 'the right thing,' (b) the sense of loyalty folks have to CMac for all he has done for Stanford, © the relative importance people place on being a team member, (d) the relative importance people put on loyalty to coaches and teammates, (e) the belief that football grinds you up and chews you out, so get what you can when you can, (f) the importance of fans in this entire consideration, (g) the importance of the game(s) being bailed on, etc. etc.

We're just fans. If his teammates are good with the decision--and all the evidence suggests they are--how can anyone seriously hold a grudge against C-Mac?

By evidence do you mean their PUBLIC comments?  That's just players supporting the program they are a part of.  They are not going to criticize this decision in public.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 12:34 PM)needle link Wrote:
Quote: The difference is the willingness to criticize that decision based on numerous factors, including:  (a) the relative conviction of folks regarding whether or not CMac is doing 'the right thing,' (b) the sense of loyalty folks have to CMac for all he has done for Stanford, © the relative importance people place on being a team member, (d) the relative importance people put on loyalty to coaches and teammates, (e) the belief that football grinds you up and chews you out, so get what you can when you can, (f) the importance of fans in this entire consideration, (g) the importance of the game(s) being bailed on, etc. etc.

We're just fans. If his teammates are good with the decision--and all the evidence suggests they are--how can anyone seriously hold a grudge against C-Mac?

By evidence do you mean their PUBLIC comments?  That's just players supporting the program they are a part of.  They are not going to criticize this decision in public.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Goose - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:46 PM)Langdude link Wrote:These are good points.  Thanks, Goose!

I would simply say that I disagree that it would have surfaced if a player was unhappy about it. Hard to believe that 85 young men are going to all feel the same about anything. They're getting ready for the bowl game, and if a player was unhappy, he is not going to want to further upset the apple cart by sending out a tweet about it. I'll bet Shaw told everyone to stay on target; his statement alone was not very enthusiastically supportive, probably wanting to balance the mixed emotions they all had.

Also, I appreciate the comparison to coaches. I do think it is similar. But, as a former player, I will say that I would feel abandoned if, after understandably taking a head coaching job, my coach did not show up to coach me and my teammates through the bowl game. And as a player and fan, I would want that coach to coach if his work would help the team win the game. And that is where actually it is dissimilar; the coach would not be risking injury by coming back; I assume that is why CM is not playing.

-m.
Thank you Langdude. I certainly agree that the individual response to CMac not playing will be different among the 85 players. I expect that lots of them just don't consider it their business. I would expect, however, that if there were severe discontent that somebody would slip up. Maybe that will come, I don't know.

As far as coaches moving on, often they ask to coach the bowl game, for exactly the reasons you cite, but essentially universally the school says "No, we want to move ahead" and uses an interim coach. I do think this often is very disappointing to the players, but it is done anyway.
I wonder if the same situation is not playing out here. Maybe not, but I can't believe that Shaw is going to go cry because he doesn't have CMac for this game. He isn't going to have him for the next 12 in 2017 either. It is better to use the 10 practices on those who remain, not those who do not. Hard but true.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Goose - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:46 PM)Langdude link Wrote:These are good points.  Thanks, Goose!

I would simply say that I disagree that it would have surfaced if a player was unhappy about it. Hard to believe that 85 young men are going to all feel the same about anything. They're getting ready for the bowl game, and if a player was unhappy, he is not going to want to further upset the apple cart by sending out a tweet about it. I'll bet Shaw told everyone to stay on target; his statement alone was not very enthusiastically supportive, probably wanting to balance the mixed emotions they all had.

Also, I appreciate the comparison to coaches. I do think it is similar. But, as a former player, I will say that I would feel abandoned if, after understandably taking a head coaching job, my coach did not show up to coach me and my teammates through the bowl game. And as a player and fan, I would want that coach to coach if his work would help the team win the game. And that is where actually it is dissimilar; the coach would not be risking injury by coming back; I assume that is why CM is not playing.

-m.
Thank you Langdude. I certainly agree that the individual response to CMac not playing will be different among the 85 players. I expect that lots of them just don't consider it their business. I would expect, however, that if there were severe discontent that somebody would slip up. Maybe that will come, I don't know.

As far as coaches moving on, often they ask to coach the bowl game, for exactly the reasons you cite, but essentially universally the school says "No, we want to move ahead" and uses an interim coach. I do think this often is very disappointing to the players, but it is done anyway.
I wonder if the same situation is not playing out here. Maybe not, but I can't believe that Shaw is going to go cry because he doesn't have CMac for this game. He isn't going to have him for the next 12 in 2017 either. It is better to use the 10 practices on those who remain, not those who do not. Hard but true.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - fullmetal - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:05 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Ok, so the team is mad because there's no evidence that they're mad...and of course if there were, then they'd be mad.  You're telling me that there is zero possibility that the team is largely supporting CMac...c'mon, really?  He's carried the team through much of the last two seasons--surely they're not going to shun him forever because of a Sun Bowl.  So in absence of mutinous evidence, maybe we should all just agree to leave the team's sentiments out of it. (Even though there are tweets from players saying that the whole team is supportive--guess you don't think we can believe those Pollyannas, huh? :))


(12-20-2016, 05:21 PM)SamAtoms1980 link Wrote:Sun Bowl is NOT a fifth-tier bowl game, if the playoff and NY6 are tier one, that puts the Sun Bowl in the second, the third tier at the very lowest.  Fifth-tier bowl games are more like the one going on right now between WKU and Memphis

I meant literally a fifth-tier bowl: Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Foster, Sun.  If you include the CFP, Stanford was picked sixth, but I wasn't going to be that uncharitable.  Wasn't a knock on the quality of the teams playing.

Back to my original point--CMac played when the team stood to benefit from the win.  A Sun Bowl win doesn't advance them anywhere or improve their chances of getting a better postseason game.  I think he'd have been justified in skipping the Rose, though I would be tremendously disappointed at that business decision.  Again, he's committed to forgoing his senior season--no small sacrifice--and if he's going to do that, he may as well commit whole-hog to maximizing his draft potential. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - fullmetal - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 04:05 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Ok, so the team is mad because there's no evidence that they're mad...and of course if there were, then they'd be mad.  You're telling me that there is zero possibility that the team is largely supporting CMac...c'mon, really?  He's carried the team through much of the last two seasons--surely they're not going to shun him forever because of a Sun Bowl.  So in absence of mutinous evidence, maybe we should all just agree to leave the team's sentiments out of it. (Even though there are tweets from players saying that the whole team is supportive--guess you don't think we can believe those Pollyannas, huh? :))


(12-20-2016, 05:21 PM)SamAtoms1980 link Wrote:Sun Bowl is NOT a fifth-tier bowl game, if the playoff and NY6 are tier one, that puts the Sun Bowl in the second, the third tier at the very lowest.  Fifth-tier bowl games are more like the one going on right now between WKU and Memphis

I meant literally a fifth-tier bowl: Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Foster, Sun.  If you include the CFP, Stanford was picked sixth, but I wasn't going to be that uncharitable.  Wasn't a knock on the quality of the teams playing.

Back to my original point--CMac played when the team stood to benefit from the win.  A Sun Bowl win doesn't advance them anywhere or improve their chances of getting a better postseason game.  I think he'd have been justified in skipping the Rose, though I would be tremendously disappointed at that business decision.  Again, he's committed to forgoing his senior season--no small sacrifice--and if he's going to do that, he may as well commit whole-hog to maximizing his draft potential. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 01:41 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

Based on that statement, every game after the loss to Colorado was meaningless.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 01:41 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

Based on that statement, every game after the loss to Colorado was meaningless.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 03:24 PM)Goose link Wrote:I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us.

I think it is up to each of us to decide if CMac's decision is disrespectful/disappointing to each of us as individuals, regardless of whether we are teammates, coaches, fans, commentators, or anyone else.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 03:24 PM)Goose link Wrote:I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us.

I think it is up to each of us to decide if CMac's decision is disrespectful/disappointing to each of us as individuals, regardless of whether we are teammates, coaches, fans, commentators, or anyone else.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:25 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=16303.msg183263#msg183263 date=1482277876]
It has occurred to me that there is a possible altruistic motive.  Love is a very gifted athlete who has been playing in CMac's shadow.  Maybe CMac feels that if he (CMac) is not willing to commit for another year, it is only fair that he should clear the way for Love to play in a spotlight game.

So now there are two rationalizations of CMac's decision I could live with--loyalty to Bryce or that CMac is spooked by a hidden injury.  But I am clutching at straws.
For me, I don't see it as CMac clearing the way. I see it more as Shaw and the rest of the team possibly saying, "OK, you are no longer one of us. No offense, you are doing what is best for you. We understand and support your choice. We wish you well. But, now we must do what is best for those who are staying. So get out of the way." Next Man Up has to always trump sentiment. If Christian had kept the fact he was leaving to himself, even though he knew he was, took the reps, and played in the game, would that be doing the team a service? I don't think so. The fans may think so, but the team would know better. CMac may have made the hard choice and done the right thing. Perhaps we should applaud him, not excoriate him.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand why everyone is spending so much time coming up with other reasons to explain the decision...unless you think CMAC is lying about why he did it.  He himself said that he did it so he could concentrate on preparing for the draft.  He didn't say he was doing it so Love could get more touches or that it was better to degrade our chances to win this game in order to increase the chances to win more games next season when he wasn't here.

As for "Next Man Up trumping sentiment," my feeling is that "taking one for the team" trumps "Next Man Up."  Obviously, I'm a fan and not a teammate, but, as a fan, I will always admire the "taking one for the team" guy more than the guy who isn't, and I'm still skeptical that there would be unanimous support for a team captain who walks in and says, essentially, "I hope you guys do well, but I'm outta here."

Maybe I missed it in this rather lengthy thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't seen any discussion of what seems like the most analogous situation at Stanford -- all-star soccer players who have missed Stanford matches in order to play with the National Team.  Although that bothers me as well, at least in those instances the players were faced with conflicts based on actual circumstances -- missing the Stanford match[es] clearly hurt Stanford, but failing to show up when called would, presumably, clearly hurt their chances on the National team.  In CMAC's case, unless there is an undisclosed injury [which I'm assuming there isn't, or he would have said something, given that there is no way that the NFL evaluation process won't find it out anyway], his not playing clearly hurts Stanford, but it only hypothetically helps him, since the odds are that he wouldn't sustain an injury of consequence. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:25 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=16303.msg183263#msg183263 date=1482277876]
It has occurred to me that there is a possible altruistic motive.  Love is a very gifted athlete who has been playing in CMac's shadow.  Maybe CMac feels that if he (CMac) is not willing to commit for another year, it is only fair that he should clear the way for Love to play in a spotlight game.

So now there are two rationalizations of CMac's decision I could live with--loyalty to Bryce or that CMac is spooked by a hidden injury.  But I am clutching at straws.
For me, I don't see it as CMac clearing the way. I see it more as Shaw and the rest of the team possibly saying, "OK, you are no longer one of us. No offense, you are doing what is best for you. We understand and support your choice. We wish you well. But, now we must do what is best for those who are staying. So get out of the way." Next Man Up has to always trump sentiment. If Christian had kept the fact he was leaving to himself, even though he knew he was, took the reps, and played in the game, would that be doing the team a service? I don't think so. The fans may think so, but the team would know better. CMac may have made the hard choice and done the right thing. Perhaps we should applaud him, not excoriate him.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand why everyone is spending so much time coming up with other reasons to explain the decision...unless you think CMAC is lying about why he did it.  He himself said that he did it so he could concentrate on preparing for the draft.  He didn't say he was doing it so Love could get more touches or that it was better to degrade our chances to win this game in order to increase the chances to win more games next season when he wasn't here.

As for "Next Man Up trumping sentiment," my feeling is that "taking one for the team" trumps "Next Man Up."  Obviously, I'm a fan and not a teammate, but, as a fan, I will always admire the "taking one for the team" guy more than the guy who isn't, and I'm still skeptical that there would be unanimous support for a team captain who walks in and says, essentially, "I hope you guys do well, but I'm outta here."

Maybe I missed it in this rather lengthy thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't seen any discussion of what seems like the most analogous situation at Stanford -- all-star soccer players who have missed Stanford matches in order to play with the National Team.  Although that bothers me as well, at least in those instances the players were faced with conflicts based on actual circumstances -- missing the Stanford match[es] clearly hurt Stanford, but failing to show up when called would, presumably, clearly hurt their chances on the National team.  In CMAC's case, unless there is an undisclosed injury [which I'm assuming there isn't, or he would have said something, given that there is no way that the NFL evaluation process won't find it out anyway], his not playing clearly hurts Stanford, but it only hypothetically helps him, since the odds are that he wouldn't sustain an injury of consequence. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:49 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183252#msg183252 date=1482272657]
I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us.

I think it is up to each of us to decide if CMac's decision is disrespectful/disappointing to each of us as individuals, regardless of whether we are teammates, coaches, fans, commentators, or anyone else.
[/quote]

+1  Wow...first teejers and now I agree wholeheartedly with winflop!  ;D 

Perhaps I really owe thanks to CMAC for bringing more harmony to the Board...  ;D

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 76lsjumb - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:49 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183252#msg183252 date=1482272657]
I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us.

I think it is up to each of us to decide if CMac's decision is disrespectful/disappointing to each of us as individuals, regardless of whether we are teammates, coaches, fans, commentators, or anyone else.
[/quote]

+1  Wow...first teejers and now I agree wholeheartedly with winflop!  ;D 

Perhaps I really owe thanks to CMAC for bringing more harmony to the Board...  ;D

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 81alum - 12-20-2016

Clearly, this decision inspires sharp disagreements among us fans.  Why?

The obvious reason is that we as fans have different reasons for being fans, and bring different values to our enjoyment of Stanford sports.

Defining those different values is tricky.  I probably shouldn't try.  But I would guess that the most committed football enthusiasts--those who love the game first and foremost, will be most understanding and forgiving of CMac's decision.  To them, CMac represents a gift for however long he has played, and to them, Stanford is only benefited by becoming known more as a place that is friendly to future pros and supportive of their professional decisions.  The goal is for Stanford to win a national championship and to attract the kinds of players that are necessary to do so.  You are the realists.

I would also guess that those of us who love Stanford's unique student-athlete culture first and the actual game second, come to a different view.  Many of us don't bother to watch professional football, for example.  And most of us would not enjoy college football at nearly any other university, since those "other places" so often diminish their ideals in one way or another to attempt to create high powered football programs.  Our goal is to prove to the country that there can be at least one place which produces great football without compromising on this student-athlete model, and so events and decisions that seem to tarnish that ideal sit uneasy with us.  So the increasing influence of money and professionalization is not always welcome.  We are the idealists.

Naturally, someone like Shaw and a University like Stanford, conducts its program in the interstices of realism and idealism.  Neither side is "wrong;" in fact, the tension between these two outlooks is probably necessary to keep Stanford's program both competitive and unique.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 81alum - 12-20-2016

Clearly, this decision inspires sharp disagreements among us fans.  Why?

The obvious reason is that we as fans have different reasons for being fans, and bring different values to our enjoyment of Stanford sports.

Defining those different values is tricky.  I probably shouldn't try.  But I would guess that the most committed football enthusiasts--those who love the game first and foremost, will be most understanding and forgiving of CMac's decision.  To them, CMac represents a gift for however long he has played, and to them, Stanford is only benefited by becoming known more as a place that is friendly to future pros and supportive of their professional decisions.  The goal is for Stanford to win a national championship and to attract the kinds of players that are necessary to do so.  You are the realists.

I would also guess that those of us who love Stanford's unique student-athlete culture first and the actual game second, come to a different view.  Many of us don't bother to watch professional football, for example.  And most of us would not enjoy college football at nearly any other university, since those "other places" so often diminish their ideals in one way or another to attempt to create high powered football programs.  Our goal is to prove to the country that there can be at least one place which produces great football without compromising on this student-athlete model, and so events and decisions that seem to tarnish that ideal sit uneasy with us.  So the increasing influence of money and professionalization is not always welcome.  We are the idealists.

Naturally, someone like Shaw and a University like Stanford, conducts its program in the interstices of realism and idealism.  Neither side is "wrong;" in fact, the tension between these two outlooks is probably necessary to keep Stanford's program both competitive and unique.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - TreesAndBirds - 12-20-2016

81 alum...this is very thoughtful. I think it's a continuum, and very few of us would fit completely in one category. I am closer to the second, but while it bothers me when players leave early without graduating, I completely understand and it doesnt diminish how I feel about them. I just hope they eventually come back and graduate. But I feel differently about players leaving before the season is over. Maybe that's just where I draw my imperfect line.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - TreesAndBirds - 12-20-2016

81 alum...this is very thoughtful. I think it's a continuum, and very few of us would fit completely in one category. I am closer to the second, but while it bothers me when players leave early without graduating, I completely understand and it doesnt diminish how I feel about them. I just hope they eventually come back and graduate. But I feel differently about players leaving before the season is over. Maybe that's just where I draw my imperfect line.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Langdude - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:45 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=16303.msg183262#msg183262 date=1482277582]

These are good points.  Thanks, Goose!

I would simply say that I disagree that it would have surfaced if a player was unhappy about it. Hard to believe that 85 young men are going to all feel the same about anything. They're getting ready for the bowl game, and if a player was unhappy, he is not going to want to further upset the apple cart by sending out a tweet about it. I'll bet Shaw told everyone to stay on target; his statement alone was not very enthusiastically supportive, probably wanting to balance the mixed emotions they all had.

Also, I appreciate the comparison to coaches. I do think it is similar. But, as a former player, I will say that I would feel abandoned if, after understandably taking a head coaching job, my coach did not show up to coach me and my teammates through the bowl game. And as a player and fan, I would want that coach to coach if his work would help the team win the game. And that is where actually it is dissimilar; the coach would not be risking injury by coming back; I assume that is why CM is not playing.

-m.
Thank you Langdude. I certainly agree that the individual response to CMac not playing will be different among the 85 players. I expect that lots of them just don't consider it their business. I would expect, however, that if there were severe discontent that somebody would slip up. Maybe that will come, I don't know.

As far as coaches moving on, often they ask to coach the bowl game, for exactly the reasons you cite, but essentially universally the school says "No, we want to move ahead" and uses an interim coach. I do think this often is very disappointing to the players, but it is done anyway.
I wonder if the same situation is not playing out here. Maybe not, but I can't believe that Shaw is going to go cry because he doesn't have CMac for this game. He isn't going to have him for the next 12 in 2017 either. It is better to use the 10 practices on those who remain, not those who do not. Hard but true.
[/quote]

Yes, that's true. Sometimes the school opts to move on when coaches take other jobs, despite what the players think. Good point. And I totally agree that Shaw is moving forward with his team, whatever he might feel about CM's decision.

-m.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Langdude - 12-20-2016

(12-20-2016, 05:45 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=16303.msg183262#msg183262 date=1482277582]

These are good points.  Thanks, Goose!

I would simply say that I disagree that it would have surfaced if a player was unhappy about it. Hard to believe that 85 young men are going to all feel the same about anything. They're getting ready for the bowl game, and if a player was unhappy, he is not going to want to further upset the apple cart by sending out a tweet about it. I'll bet Shaw told everyone to stay on target; his statement alone was not very enthusiastically supportive, probably wanting to balance the mixed emotions they all had.

Also, I appreciate the comparison to coaches. I do think it is similar. But, as a former player, I will say that I would feel abandoned if, after understandably taking a head coaching job, my coach did not show up to coach me and my teammates through the bowl game. And as a player and fan, I would want that coach to coach if his work would help the team win the game. And that is where actually it is dissimilar; the coach would not be risking injury by coming back; I assume that is why CM is not playing.

-m.
Thank you Langdude. I certainly agree that the individual response to CMac not playing will be different among the 85 players. I expect that lots of them just don't consider it their business. I would expect, however, that if there were severe discontent that somebody would slip up. Maybe that will come, I don't know.

As far as coaches moving on, often they ask to coach the bowl game, for exactly the reasons you cite, but essentially universally the school says "No, we want to move ahead" and uses an interim coach. I do think this often is very disappointing to the players, but it is done anyway.
I wonder if the same situation is not playing out here. Maybe not, but I can't believe that Shaw is going to go cry because he doesn't have CMac for this game. He isn't going to have him for the next 12 in 2017 either. It is better to use the 10 practices on those who remain, not those who do not. Hard but true.
[/quote]

Yes, that's true. Sometimes the school opts to move on when coaches take other jobs, despite what the players think. Good point. And I totally agree that Shaw is moving forward with his team, whatever he might feel about CM's decision.

-m.