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?!? - Papa John - 12-19-2016

So who returns punts and kickoffs in the Sun Bowl?

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Papa John - 12-19-2016

So who returns punts and kickoffs in the Sun Bowl?

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - teejers1 - 12-19-2016

Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (Cal?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

2.  The poster who said Mac owes the fans nothing.  Largely agree; however, query where Stanford football (indeed, any program) would be without the fans.  These are the kinds of moves that alienate fans. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - teejers1 - 12-19-2016

Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (Cal?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

2.  The poster who said Mac owes the fans nothing.  Largely agree; however, query where Stanford football (indeed, any program) would be without the fans.  These are the kinds of moves that alienate fans. 

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Farm93 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:29 AM)Papa John link Wrote:So who returns punts and kickoffs in the Sun Bowl?
Presumably next season's punt and kickoff returners. 

For the bowls outside of NY6 there is often a theme that the game will help set the table for the next season.  FWIW - If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Farm93 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:29 AM)Papa John link Wrote:So who returns punts and kickoffs in the Sun Bowl?
Presumably next season's punt and kickoff returners. 

For the bowls outside of NY6 there is often a theme that the game will help set the table for the next season.  FWIW - If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - SeattleTree - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 10:48 AM)VFRing98 link Wrote:Wow. The negative response to this has a strong odor of entitlement.

The only people Christian has to explain this to are his teammates. And no one here knows what they think.

As fans, we are owed nothing. That this diminishes Christian in some of your eyes says more about you than it does about him. He was a shooting star at Stanford and we were fortunate; so, so, so very fortunate, to get a glimpse of him and to call him our own for those times.

Thought experiment: would you rather future athletes of Christian's caliber (not saying there will ever be any) NOT come to Stanford, if you knew they would leave prior to a meaningless exhibition game?

Interesting that you feel we as fans can't understand our great fortune in counting Christian as one of our own these last three years and still be disappointed by most recent decision. The two sentiments are not at all mutually exclusive.

I feel extremely fortunate to have watched Christian as a Cardinal these last 3 years, fully understand why he made he decision he did, and am still disappointed by it. If that makes me entitled, so be it. But I don't think things are quite as black and white as you see them; they are more nuanced.



Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - SeattleTree - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 10:48 AM)VFRing98 link Wrote:Wow. The negative response to this has a strong odor of entitlement.

The only people Christian has to explain this to are his teammates. And no one here knows what they think.

As fans, we are owed nothing. That this diminishes Christian in some of your eyes says more about you than it does about him. He was a shooting star at Stanford and we were fortunate; so, so, so very fortunate, to get a glimpse of him and to call him our own for those times.

Thought experiment: would you rather future athletes of Christian's caliber (not saying there will ever be any) NOT come to Stanford, if you knew they would leave prior to a meaningless exhibition game?

Interesting that you feel we as fans can't understand our great fortune in counting Christian as one of our own these last three years and still be disappointed by most recent decision. The two sentiments are not at all mutually exclusive.

I feel extremely fortunate to have watched Christian as a Cardinal these last 3 years, fully understand why he made he decision he did, and am still disappointed by it. If that makes me entitled, so be it. But I don't think things are quite as black and white as you see them; they are more nuanced.



Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:39 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.
I don't agree with this premise at all. Christ will start the bowl game but we really don't know who our QB will be in 2017. Solomon Thomas may or may not return. Freshmen and Sophomores are capable of making major offseason progress but sometimes regress or get hurt. One or two highly recruited true freshmen may be immediate impact players or not. There is considerable upside or downside possible between December, 2016 and September, 2017 and no way to correctly prognosticate. Not to mention that NC is a good team and that anything can happen in a single game. I would hesitate to read much at all about 2017 based on our Sun Bowl performance.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:39 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.
I don't agree with this premise at all. Christ will start the bowl game but we really don't know who our QB will be in 2017. Solomon Thomas may or may not return. Freshmen and Sophomores are capable of making major offseason progress but sometimes regress or get hurt. One or two highly recruited true freshmen may be immediate impact players or not. There is considerable upside or downside possible between December, 2016 and September, 2017 and no way to correctly prognosticate. Not to mention that NC is a good team and that anything can happen in a single game. I would hesitate to read much at all about 2017 based on our Sun Bowl performance.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - CrazedZooChimp - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (ןɐɔ?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

It was ND (Thanksgiving). If I recall correctly he busted his hand when the follow through of a pass hit a Domers dome.

And yeah, that situation isn't the same at all. More similar would be if Toby had decided to sit it out (although his NFL prospects clearly weren't as high).

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - CrazedZooChimp - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (ןɐɔ?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

It was ND (Thanksgiving). If I recall correctly he busted his hand when the follow through of a pass hit a Domers dome.

And yeah, that situation isn't the same at all. More similar would be if Toby had decided to sit it out (although his NFL prospects clearly weren't as high).

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:01 PM)SeattleTree link Wrote:[quote author=VFRing98 link=topic=16303.msg182994#msg182994 date=1482169719]
Wow. The negative response to this has a strong odor of entitlement.

The only people Christian has to explain this to are his teammates. And no one here knows what they think.

As fans, we are owed nothing. That this diminishes Christian in some of your eyes says more about you than it does about him. He was a shooting star at Stanford and we were fortunate; so, so, so very fortunate, to get a glimpse of him and to call him our own for those times.

Thought experiment: would you rather future athletes of Christian's caliber (not saying there will ever be any) NOT come to Stanford, if you knew they would leave prior to a meaningless exhibition game?

Interesting that you feel we as fans can't understand our great fortune in counting Christian as one of our own these last three years and still be disappointed by most recent decision. The two sentiments are not at all mutually exclusive.

I feel extremely fortunate to have watched Christian as a Cardinal these last 3 years, fully understand why he made he decision he did, and am still disappointed by it. If that makes me entitled, so be it. But I don't think things are quite as black and white as you see them; they are more nuanced.
[/quote]
Excellent post, SeattleTree.

I remain a big fan of C-Mac, he has represented the university very well and he makes me proud as an alum. I don't feel that he personally owes me anything, so I don't feel entitled with respect to him. But I am still disappointed in his decision, and would be surprised if his teammates and coaches didn't feel disappointed for the most part. My only caveat is that we may not know all the relevant information that went into his decision.

P.S. I am surprised by the repeated references to the Sun Bowl as an "exhibition", it is certainly no more of an exhibition than the season finale against Rice.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:01 PM)SeattleTree link Wrote:[quote author=VFRing98 link=topic=16303.msg182994#msg182994 date=1482169719]
Wow. The negative response to this has a strong odor of entitlement.

The only people Christian has to explain this to are his teammates. And no one here knows what they think.

As fans, we are owed nothing. That this diminishes Christian in some of your eyes says more about you than it does about him. He was a shooting star at Stanford and we were fortunate; so, so, so very fortunate, to get a glimpse of him and to call him our own for those times.

Thought experiment: would you rather future athletes of Christian's caliber (not saying there will ever be any) NOT come to Stanford, if you knew they would leave prior to a meaningless exhibition game?

Interesting that you feel we as fans can't understand our great fortune in counting Christian as one of our own these last three years and still be disappointed by most recent decision. The two sentiments are not at all mutually exclusive.

I feel extremely fortunate to have watched Christian as a Cardinal these last 3 years, fully understand why he made he decision he did, and am still disappointed by it. If that makes me entitled, so be it. But I don't think things are quite as black and white as you see them; they are more nuanced.
[/quote]
Excellent post, SeattleTree.

I remain a big fan of C-Mac, he has represented the university very well and he makes me proud as an alum. I don't feel that he personally owes me anything, so I don't feel entitled with respect to him. But I am still disappointed in his decision, and would be surprised if his teammates and coaches didn't feel disappointed for the most part. My only caveat is that we may not know all the relevant information that went into his decision.

P.S. I am surprised by the repeated references to the Sun Bowl as an "exhibition", it is certainly no more of an exhibition than the season finale against Rice.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - TreesAndBirds - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:02 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16303.msg183005#msg183005 date=1482172751]

If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.
I don't agree with this premise at all. Christ will start the bowl game but we really don't know who our QB will be in 2017. Solomon Thomas may or may not return. Freshmen and Sophomores are capable of making major offseason progress but sometimes regress or get hurt. One or two highly recruited true freshmen may be immediate impact players or not. There is considerable upside or downside possible between December, 2016 and September, 2017 and no way to correctly prognosticate. Not to mention that NC is a good team and that anything can happen in a single game. I would hesitate to read much at all about 2017 based on our Sun Bowl performance.
[/quote]

And we were only 3 point favorites with CM. I havent seen the new odds yet.
And we now have to change our offensive strategy that was focused on CM, with a week to go.
But it is true that this will give us more insight into next year than a strategy and game that was dominated by CM.
Good luck to Mr. Love. It's a nice oppty for him.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - TreesAndBirds - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:02 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16303.msg183005#msg183005 date=1482172751]

If Stanford without CMAC can't beat UNC then 2017 could be a long season.
I don't agree with this premise at all. Christ will start the bowl game but we really don't know who our QB will be in 2017. Solomon Thomas may or may not return. Freshmen and Sophomores are capable of making major offseason progress but sometimes regress or get hurt. One or two highly recruited true freshmen may be immediate impact players or not. There is considerable upside or downside possible between December, 2016 and September, 2017 and no way to correctly prognosticate. Not to mention that NC is a good team and that anything can happen in a single game. I would hesitate to read much at all about 2017 based on our Sun Bowl performance.
[/quote]

And we were only 3 point favorites with CM. I havent seen the new odds yet.
And we now have to change our offensive strategy that was focused on CM, with a week to go.
But it is true that this will give us more insight into next year than a strategy and game that was dominated by CM.
Good luck to Mr. Love. It's a nice oppty for him.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Farm93 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (ןɐɔ?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

If this outright deception was true then what about all of those poor stakeholders and fans that were mislead then?  At least here, CMAC and Stanford are honest about CMAC's availability.  Are you implying here that Stanford University lied to the Pac-10 and the Sun Bowl back in the day?

Over the years it has become pretty clear that most NFL teams would put their players on the field for a Super Bowl.  Forget that, the Redskins put RGIII on the field with a major knee injury and they knew it was an unstable knee.  Almost got away with it too.

That NFL willingness to risk of further injury stuff is not really relevant here.  I will assume that CMAC, Shaw and Stanford University are well aware of the interest of other stakeholders and have agreed collectively that CMAC's best option is to not play and that no one else needs to know more about the full range of factors.  In many ways my Luck comparison is even more relevant, if I subscribe to Luck's undisclosed severity, as it supports the idea that Stanford has a legacy of minimal disclosure and often keeps the true nature of injuries quiet even if it appears to impact the reputation or integrity of the program.

FWIW - College Football has a bowl problem.  Bowl games are a tradition that the FBS can't leave, but it is not a tradition worth saving.  In the season many of these programs could pack a house with 60,000+ fans easily.  And in a neutral venue regular season game they could probably combine to get 80,000 or more.  Yet in these non-NY6 bowl games, the stadiums will have 30,000 "fans" and 40,000 empty seats.  ESPN loves getting content available across multiple days in the holiday window, but I always feel bad when some senior from a 6-6 team blows out his knee playing in something like the Kumho tire bowl.

But enough on this....I need to start streaming the next meaningless bowl game (the Miami Beach Bowl) on ESPN.  :)

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - Farm93 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 11:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Have posted my thoughts elsewhere and only comment here to make two adds:

1.  the person suggesting that Luck would have played in 2009 had the bowl been a bigger one than the Sun Bowl has no clue what he/she is talking about.  Luck's hand injury was significant, and it was known that he was out for the bowl game shortly after the last regular season game (ןɐɔ?).  Only Harbaugh's ridiculous position on injuries (i.e., outright deception whenever possible) even kept the notion that Luck might play alive.  He was never going to play . . . in any bowl.

If this outright deception was true then what about all of those poor stakeholders and fans that were mislead then?  At least here, CMAC and Stanford are honest about CMAC's availability.  Are you implying here that Stanford University lied to the Pac-10 and the Sun Bowl back in the day?

Over the years it has become pretty clear that most NFL teams would put their players on the field for a Super Bowl.  Forget that, the Redskins put RGIII on the field with a major knee injury and they knew it was an unstable knee.  Almost got away with it too.

That NFL willingness to risk of further injury stuff is not really relevant here.  I will assume that CMAC, Shaw and Stanford University are well aware of the interest of other stakeholders and have agreed collectively that CMAC's best option is to not play and that no one else needs to know more about the full range of factors.  In many ways my Luck comparison is even more relevant, if I subscribe to Luck's undisclosed severity, as it supports the idea that Stanford has a legacy of minimal disclosure and often keeps the true nature of injuries quiet even if it appears to impact the reputation or integrity of the program.

FWIW - College Football has a bowl problem.  Bowl games are a tradition that the FBS can't leave, but it is not a tradition worth saving.  In the season many of these programs could pack a house with 60,000+ fans easily.  And in a neutral venue regular season game they could probably combine to get 80,000 or more.  Yet in these non-NY6 bowl games, the stadiums will have 30,000 "fans" and 40,000 empty seats.  ESPN loves getting content available across multiple days in the holiday window, but I always feel bad when some senior from a 6-6 team blows out his knee playing in something like the Kumho tire bowl.

But enough on this....I need to start streaming the next meaningless bowl game (the Miami Beach Bowl) on ESPN.  :)

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:12 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:But it is true that this will give us more insight into next year than a strategy and game that was dominated by CM.
Good luck to Mr. Love. It's a nice oppty for him.
I agree with this, and certainly bowl games sometimes showcase players who will play a bigger role next year.

My disagreement was with the statement about losing the bowl game indicating that 2017 will be a long season; I don't think there is much correlation, even less now for the reasons that you cited. Either way I would not be surprised at all if Love has a big game, and expect a big season from next year as well.

Re: CMAC not playing in Sun Bowl?!? - DC 86 - 12-19-2016

(12-19-2016, 12:12 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:But it is true that this will give us more insight into next year than a strategy and game that was dominated by CM.
Good luck to Mr. Love. It's a nice oppty for him.
I agree with this, and certainly bowl games sometimes showcase players who will play a bigger role next year.

My disagreement was with the statement about losing the bowl game indicating that 2017 will be a long season; I don't think there is much correlation, even less now for the reasons that you cited. Either way I would not be surprised at all if Love has a big game, and expect a big season from next year as well.