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?!? - Mick - 01-15-2017

(01-14-2017, 09:16 AM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=Mick]

To me, the most interesting part is that Ed McCaffrey said his son sat out because he didn't want to get injured and forfeit $18 million.  That's an odd number to pull out of the air, particularly given the tone of his responses to the interview questions.  So I looked it up...that's what the #7 pick in the draft gets.  So I'm operating on the assumption that the McCaffreys think Christian will go around #7 in the first round.
No Mick, you're misunderstanding what Ed means and vastly underestimating the McCaffrey family's NFL connections and savvy. Ed's referring to ND's Jaylon Smith's draft plummet after he got injured playing in a bowl game. Jaylon had been a consensus top-5 pick (5th pick was guaranteed $23.5 million) but after the injury was picked 34th for a guaranteed contract of $4.4 million). That's the $18 million figure that Ed was referencing.
[/quote]

Actually he was referring to both Christian and Jaylon, in terms of the $18 million.  "He could lose $18 million like Jaylon did" was the exact quote.  So clearly he thinks Christian has $18 million worth of potential.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 01-15-2017

(01-14-2017, 01:19 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Between Shaw not recruiting Dylan and fan reaction to the sun bowl decision, I wonder if the McCaffrey family relationship with Stanford needs some repairs.

If it does then it's largely on Ed.  He's the one who appears to be angry/spiteful/vengeful if these allegations are true.

And if he's so frustrated with Shaw, then why would he want any of his other kids playing here?

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - indiancardinal - 01-15-2017

(01-15-2017, 08:32 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=16303.msg186426#msg186426 date=1484425170]
Between Shaw not recruiting Dylan and fan reaction to the sun bowl decision, I wonder if the McCaffrey family relationship with Stanford needs some repairs.

If it does then it's largely on Ed.  He's the one who appears to be angry/spiteful/vengeful if these allegations are true.

And if he's so frustrated with Shaw, then why would he want any of his other kids playing here?
[/quote]

What did I miss?  the only statement I came across from Ed was the one posted earlier in this thread.I sensed no  anger, spite, vengeance  or any acrimony towards the Stanford program or Shaw. Was there some sort of reaction to Shaw not offering Dylan that i completely missed ?

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JohnR34231 - 01-15-2017

My guess is that the McCaffrey's aren't too upset about having Dylan play for the guy who coached Andrew Luck.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Hurlburt88 - 01-15-2017

Isn't there a younger McCaffrey who is also pretty good?  Will be interesting to see how recruiting him plays out. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - 82lsju - 01-15-2017

(01-15-2017, 10:51 AM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:Isn't there a younger McCaffrey who is also pretty good?  Will be interesting to see how recruiting him plays out.

that would be Luke and he already has an offer from UM

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/18213449/michigan-offers-scholarship-luke-mccaffrey-christian-mccaffrey-youngest-brother

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - winflop - 01-15-2017

I'm not saying there is damage, but to the extent there is I think it is largely on the McCaffrey's to repair it

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - JJJ - 01-15-2017

(01-14-2017, 09:52 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=16303.msg186401#msg186401 date=1484411498]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=16303.msg186376#msg186376 date=1484369978]
Appreciate that someone from the CMac entourage is speaking up, but this quote from Ed McCaffrey made me role my eyes: "It's unfortunate that [Christian] was put in this position."

Say what?

Seriously.  Christian put himself in this position through the decisions he made and has nobody to blame but himself for what's happened since.
[/quote]
You are misconstruing what Ed Mccaffrey (quite explicitly, I think) said. He is not saying that Christian's decision to not play was unfortunate. He is saying that it is unfortunate that in college football the players are at risk without any compensation at all, and when an opportunity does arise, they are forced to be in the position of either protecting themselves (and possibly the risk of losing your good opinion of them)  or accepting large financial risk. The university, the NCAA, and the bowl game itself are not at risk to nearly the same extent that the individual athletes are.
Now, it is also fair to say that the athlete's skills are put on display by the university, the NCAA, and the bowl game, so it is not like they did nothing for the athlete. Ed Mccaffrey just thinks it is not a fair balance. You may disagree with this point of view, but it not without basis.
I think the current system is possibly not optimal, but so far I can't design one that I consider unquestionably better. I can't generate much pity for Christian. He is going to do what he has wanted to do since he was 6 years old, and make tons of money doing it. That is a win. The warts on the system, whatever they may be, didn't prevent him from doing real well.
[/quote]

Finally had the chance to listen to the elder McCaffrey interview. My interpretation agrees with Goose and GoodGrief, FWIW. I sense no ill will toward Stanford, I sense the difficulty of the situation and the frustration that goes with the way the system is currently set up. And no, I don't have a solution, but I get their point of view.