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)
+- 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)
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Mick - 12-27-2016
In the world of big-time college football, there are many intersecting influences. But they all revolve around the player. The paradox is that the player has almost no influence. They are expected to participate as fully as their ability and hard work and inclination or desire will take them. They are expected to listen to their coaches, to support their teammates, to immerse themselves in preparation, to entertain the fans, to help move product, to comport themselves in line with their University's collective behavioral expectations.Â
So all of those groups depend upon and benefit from the player's full participation. And what's in it for the player is the chance to play for a team, to receive a free education, in the majority of instances they are admitted to a University that they couldn't hope to qualify for without their football skills, the opportunity to learn from the best coaches, and ultimately the chance at the brass ring, the NFL.
To say that Christian owes the fans nothing is asinine. Without fans, none of the above is possible. But because the players are so divorced from the fan experience, they feel that they owe fans nothing. In fact, even some fans feel the players owe the fans nothing, despite the fact that fan support funds the entire engine described above.
How would I feel? As a coach, it depends on the team. On a team like Stanford, McCaffrey forced the decision, so his coaches and teammates have to force unity. If I were the coach, I'd be more than a little nervous. You've got a star player who won't play. Forget about missing the final year of eligibility, you're talking about games. If enough of those players bail, your team gets real mediocre real quick. It destroys team unity. Football is the very ultimate in team sports. I've played football with guys I absolutely despise, but on the field and in the locker room, I supported them and they supported me. Period. But if I unilaterally departed -- well, that's quitting. And we know that a large number of coaches use that term "quitter" as the ultimate pejorative. If that was my teammate, I would feel betrayed, and I don't think that's too strong a word for an in-season give-up.
The NFL doesn't really care. They want committed, predictable players who play. Easy enough to weed out those whose commitments are iffy. The vendors don't care, they'll market the next player. No vendor cares if Manziel or McCaffrey pulls themselves out of the market.
Ultimately, the players have influence at two critical times; when they decide which college and coaching staff they'll commit to, and when they conclude that commitment in favor of their postcollegiate career. I won't be surprised to see more football players depart early. It will definitely impact recruiting.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Mick - 12-27-2016
In the world of big-time college football, there are many intersecting influences. But they all revolve around the player. The paradox is that the player has almost no influence. They are expected to participate as fully as their ability and hard work and inclination or desire will take them. They are expected to listen to their coaches, to support their teammates, to immerse themselves in preparation, to entertain the fans, to help move product, to comport themselves in line with their University's collective behavioral expectations.Â
So all of those groups depend upon and benefit from the player's full participation. And what's in it for the player is the chance to play for a team, to receive a free education, in the majority of instances they are admitted to a University that they couldn't hope to qualify for without their football skills, the opportunity to learn from the best coaches, and ultimately the chance at the brass ring, the NFL.
To say that Christian owes the fans nothing is asinine. Without fans, none of the above is possible. But because the players are so divorced from the fan experience, they feel that they owe fans nothing. In fact, even some fans feel the players owe the fans nothing, despite the fact that fan support funds the entire engine described above.
How would I feel? As a coach, it depends on the team. On a team like Stanford, McCaffrey forced the decision, so his coaches and teammates have to force unity. If I were the coach, I'd be more than a little nervous. You've got a star player who won't play. Forget about missing the final year of eligibility, you're talking about games. If enough of those players bail, your team gets real mediocre real quick. It destroys team unity. Football is the very ultimate in team sports. I've played football with guys I absolutely despise, but on the field and in the locker room, I supported them and they supported me. Period. But if I unilaterally departed -- well, that's quitting. And we know that a large number of coaches use that term "quitter" as the ultimate pejorative. If that was my teammate, I would feel betrayed, and I don't think that's too strong a word for an in-season give-up.
The NFL doesn't really care. They want committed, predictable players who play. Easy enough to weed out those whose commitments are iffy. The vendors don't care, they'll market the next player. No vendor cares if Manziel or McCaffrey pulls themselves out of the market.
Ultimately, the players have influence at two critical times; when they decide which college and coaching staff they'll commit to, and when they conclude that commitment in favor of their postcollegiate career. I won't be surprised to see more football players depart early. It will definitely impact recruiting.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
(12-27-2016, 06:31 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:There's a tremendous difference between sitting out a bowl game and sitting out an entire season.
There definitely is, but IMO the mentality is the same. You stop playing when you feel the risk/reward ratio has turned against you.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
(12-27-2016, 06:31 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:There's a tremendous difference between sitting out a bowl game and sitting out an entire season.
There definitely is, but IMO the mentality is the same. You stop playing when you feel the risk/reward ratio has turned against you.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - OutsiderFan - 12-28-2016
I'm not using the team as a proxy for my feelings on the matter. I've already stated I have no problem with someone trying to avoid injury, especially as a RB.Â
My comments on the team likely being pissed is an expression of how I would feel if I were on the team.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - OutsiderFan - 12-28-2016
I'm not using the team as a proxy for my feelings on the matter. I've already stated I have no problem with someone trying to avoid injury, especially as a RB.Â
My comments on the team likely being pissed is an expression of how I would feel if I were on the team.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
The question I would have is that if you support CMac's decision where do you draw the line on it being OK for players to opt out of a game or games based on fear of injury? (Let's assume this is at least one of the reasons he isn't playing even though he hasn't specifically said it is). A "minor"bowl game, any bowl game, the last game of the season, any game(s) of the season?
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
The question I would have is that if you support CMac's decision where do you draw the line on it being OK for players to opt out of a game or games based on fear of injury? (Let's assume this is at least one of the reasons he isn't playing even though he hasn't specifically said it is). A "minor"bowl game, any bowl game, the last game of the season, any game(s) of the season?
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - FarmBoy - 12-28-2016
Let's take the mental exercise even further. For those of you who support CMAC's deciions, are you okay with a player "opting out" for the second half of a game they believe is well in hand and therefore the 2nd half of the game, in their view, is "meaningless"? To be honest, I see almost no difference here. It's a scholarship player, during the season, refusing to take the field. Instead, they're going to rest their body, lift weights and work on their 40 while the rest of the team closes out the game/season. Because it's a better of of their time to further their interests.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - FarmBoy - 12-28-2016
Let's take the mental exercise even further. For those of you who support CMAC's deciions, are you okay with a player "opting out" for the second half of a game they believe is well in hand and therefore the 2nd half of the game, in their view, is "meaningless"? To be honest, I see almost no difference here. It's a scholarship player, during the season, refusing to take the field. Instead, they're going to rest their body, lift weights and work on their 40 while the rest of the team closes out the game/season. Because it's a better of of their time to further their interests.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
Or, if you really want to take it far....
In the middle of a game a coach says to a player on the bench "Jones, get out there."
Jones says, "Geez, coach, you know I've had this premonition all week that I might get hurt. Besides, this is a pretty meaningless game. I think I'm going to stay where I am".
I assume nobody would support that even though Jones is just "looking out for his best interests".
Or would they?
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
Or, if you really want to take it far....
In the middle of a game a coach says to a player on the bench "Jones, get out there."
Jones says, "Geez, coach, you know I've had this premonition all week that I might get hurt. Besides, this is a pretty meaningless game. I think I'm going to stay where I am".
I assume nobody would support that even though Jones is just "looking out for his best interests".
Or would they?
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - OutsiderFan - 12-28-2016
I think everyone can do whatever they want. Just be prepared for the consequences. We all make decisions all the time that require weighing pros, cons, and possible outcomes.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - OutsiderFan - 12-28-2016
I think everyone can do whatever they want. Just be prepared for the consequences. We all make decisions all the time that require weighing pros, cons, and possible outcomes.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 12-28-2016
(12-28-2016, 06:46 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I think everyone can do whatever they want. Just be prepared for the consequences. We all make decisions all the time that require weighing pros, cons, and possible outcomes.
Exactly. Actions have consequences.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - VFRing98 - 12-28-2016
I'm fine whenever a first round talent makes a sound decision for his future.
When a fellow employee leaves a company for a better gig, do you all stomp your feet and hold hands and cast aspersions on that employee's character? Good grief.
And all of your "logical extension" arguments are absurd. None of them remotely compare to what Christian did. And if players started doing those things? I say it's great; college football is rotten to its core and needs to be blown up.
The team may be pissed. Good. It's a valuable life lesson - things don't always go like you want and you better develop some self-reliance.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Goose - 12-28-2016
(12-28-2016, 08:13 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183747#msg183747 date=1482932765]
I think everyone can do whatever they want. Just be prepared for the consequences. We all make decisions all the time that require weighing pros, cons, and possible outcomes.
Exactly. Actions have consequences.
[/quote]
(12-28-2016, 09:03 AM)VFRing98 link Wrote:I'm fine whenever a first round talent makes a sound decision for his future.Wow! This topic really hits a lot of nerves of many people. I feel like I need to quote all of the last N posts. I do agree that people's opinion of CM sitting out probably reflects how each of us thinks we would feel if we were on the team. That has a lot to do with each of us personally. Some here have said they have access to information indicating "the team" is upset. OTOH, we have some tweets from team members indicating that they are not. Is this being PC, or is it real? Who knows? My personal evaluation is that the opinion of each individual team member is certainly individual. All good teams try to remove emotion from things they can't control. This is something they can't control, so they may just not think about it at all. Perhaps later we will see more emotion.
When a fellow employee leaves a company for a better gig, do you all stomp your feet and hold hands and cast aspersions on that employee's character? Good grief.
And all of your "logical extension" arguments are absurd. None of them remotely compare to what Christian did. And if players started doing those things? I say it's great; college football is rotten to its core and needs to be blown up.
The team may be pissed. Good. It's a valuable life lesson - things don't always go like you want and you better develop some self-reliance.
I would however suggest that the amount of anger/disappointment the team feels will be proportional to the degree they think CM not being there will hurt their chances of winning. If this were a third string long snapper deciding not to play, nobody would care. CM has been extremely important to the team (understatement alert). However, if the team thinks they will be ok without him, maybe they will not end up pissed. I think this probably is the case, but I don't know. It may depend on the outcome of the game.
Using the analogy of a valuable co-worker who quits for a better job, your reaction depends on circumstances. If the person leaves in the middle of a project where their skills are essential to being successful, you probably would be upset. If it was at a point that you could get by without them, your reaction may be "godspeed". If the person leaves at a "bad" time, but that gets you promoted and a raise, you personally may say "get the bum out now before he changes his mind". It all depends on the situation. I think CM evaluated the situation and decided it was an ok time to go. We will see what the team thinks in a few months.
As far as the examples of players selectively quitting, the "actions have consequences" clause cuts in. The coach says, "Fine, you won't go into the game. Go turn in your uniform, clean out your locker, and I hope you can pay tuition next quarter." Simple. You can only do this (quit) once if that is what the coach wants. If you do it in such a way it doesn't cause too much trouble, they may take you back (Hoffpauir). But they don't have to. So if you go, you are gone. It won't ever be a "play if you want" game. The point here is that all departures are not identical. For that reason, I don't think I would feel "disrespected" or "let down" by CM leaving now if I were on the team. It would be a "godspeed" case. If we the lose the Sun Bowl, I would say it was on us, not him. Or maybe not.
As far as NCAA football being a mess, I think we all agree there are issues. Exactly what these issues are generates at least as much heat as this thread. I do not agree that it is corrupt to the core, but I do think there are issues that the University presidents must address as Universities, not as sports franchises. So far, they haven't, and that is bad!
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - FarmBoy - 12-28-2016
Goose, of course the coaches can apply those consequences. No one disputes that. I was more curious if people supporting a player opting out of a bowl game or even part of a season will be okay with players deciding they no longer want to play a game once it's out of hand. Do you think that is being a good teammate? Is it honorable? Does the self interest of the individual justify the weakness or challenges it places on the rest of the team?
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 12-28-2016
The extreme examples of players quitting were cited not because anyone thinks they are comparable to what CMac did, but as part of a question. Specifically, are there any circumstances where you would not support a player bailing on his team? It seems as though the answer for at least one poster is no, as long as they feel the player is making "a sound decision for his future". Perhaps the answer is that you really have to take it on a case by case basis, and there are no real standards.
Of course people can do anything they want, but the question was would you support them if they did.
Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Goose - 12-28-2016
(12-28-2016, 11:16 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Goose, of course the coaches can apply those consequences. No one disputes that. I was more curious if people supporting a player opting out of a bowl game or even part of a season will be okay with players deciding they no longer want to play a game once it's out of hand. Do you think that is being a good teammate? Is it honorable? Does the self interest of the individual justify the weakness or challenges it places on the rest of the team?OK, Fair questions. Sure, I am ok with a player "opting out" of a game when it is out of hand, or any other time. BUT that player has no right to expect to ever play for that team again. Is it being a good teammate? Well if the game is out of hand, it doesn't hurt the team in that respect. However, football is a command society. The coach says "play", you play. You can't do that just when you think it benefits you. So, when/if you do that, you are no longer a teammate. Period. Is it honorable? Well, if it is a blowout, and you are ok with never playing again, I can't call it dishonorable. Stupid perhaps. However, in the case of CM its is not (yet) a blowout. It is a game that hasn't been started. If it were Toby back when he was all we had, I would call it borderline at best, probably dishonorable. In this case, CM isn't all we have. It is reasonable to expect that we win anyway. The game line certainly still reflects this, FWIW. Also, we did get plenty of notice (It wasn't quitting just before the game started), so I can't say it is dishonorable. I think it is possibly "extremely rational", i.e. one of those things you do because it is necessary, not because you want to. Or maybe CM is just "done" with Stanford football and really can't get excited about another game. Or maybe he feels he will be "playing scared". If he feels he can't go at 100%, it may in fact be more honorable to say so and opt out than to make everybody think (and plan as if) they are getting the real CM and they aren't. I don't know. He decided it was time to go. I can't generate any moral outrage to condemn him under these circumstances.
Does self-interest justify not playing? Under these circumstances, I think it explains it. I don't think it "justifies it". I think the decision not to play, for whatever reason, is justified only if you feel that you have done what you promised to your teammates and to the Coach. If you feel you have done that, it is all that can be asked. If your coach is really not ok with it, or your teammates are really not ok with it, you have to seriously question whether you have lived up to what you promised. I don't know what the real situation is. Some have said "the team is pissed". If they are, CM needs to be real sure about what he is doing. Nobody promised to play football forever. They won't let you. You CAN quit at any time. That is always true. You don't have to justify it. But you do have to live with it. I am going to answer the question by saying that I (me alone) think it is acceptable if CM feels he can't give 100% and that the team will be better off with BLove. If CM has become so risk averse (possibly for very rational reasons) that he can't play adequately (i.e. at all), then he shouldn't. And I think Shaw and the team understands this, perhaps reluctantly. MHO.