[JohnR34231]

IF Christian is injured, that's different. Of course, it's all a matter of degree. Aren't all players always "working through something"? If it were a conference championship, sure, he would fight through something minor. But he doesn't say he has an injury (he probably wouldn't want to broadcast that for NFL scouts). So we have to go with his statement alone. But we also have his statement from two weeks ago that he was committed to helping the team win their bowl game without distraction. What happened to that objective?

If anything, this decision undermines that goal as now there's a bunch of press on the topic, his teammates are probably distracted by the media (they're clearly engaged based on the tweets going around). In addition to removing himself as a resource, he may be doing harm with the sideshow this creates.

Well, if we lose the game, at least we will have an excuse. :)

[JohnR34231]

IF Christian is injured, that's different. Of course, it's all a matter of degree. Aren't all players always "working through something"? If it were a conference championship, sure, he would fight through something minor. But he doesn't say he has an injury (he probably wouldn't want to broadcast that for NFL scouts). So we have to go with his statement alone. But we also have his statement from two weeks ago that he was committed to helping the team win their bowl game without distraction. What happened to that objective?

If anything, this decision undermines that goal as now there's a bunch of press on the topic, his teammates are probably distracted by the media (they're clearly engaged based on the tweets going around). In addition to removing himself as a resource, he may be doing harm with the sideshow this creates.

Well, if we lose the game, at least we will have an excuse. :)

[JohnR34231]

IF Christian is injured, that's different. Of course, it's all a matter of degree. Aren't all players always "working through something"? If it were a conference championship, sure, he would fight through something minor. But he doesn't say he has an injury (he probably wouldn't want to broadcast that for NFL scouts). So we have to go with his statement alone. But we also have his statement from two weeks ago that he was committed to helping the team win their bowl game without distraction. What happened to that objective?

If anything, this decision undermines that goal as now there's a bunch of press on the topic, his teammates are probably distracted by the media (they're clearly engaged based on the tweets going around). In addition to removing himself as a resource, he may be doing harm with the sideshow this creates.

Well, if we lose the game, at least we will have an excuse. :)

[JohnR34231]

IF Christian is injured, that's different. Of course, it's all a matter of degree. Aren't all players always "working through something"? If it were a conference championship, sure, he would fight through something minor. But he doesn't say he has an injury (he probably wouldn't want to broadcast that for NFL scouts). So we have to go with his statement alone. But we also have his statement from two weeks ago that he was committed to helping the team win their bowl game without distraction. What happened to that objective?

If anything, this decision undermines that goal as now there's a bunch of press on the topic, his teammates are probably distracted by the media (they're clearly engaged based on the tweets going around). In addition to removing himself as a resource, he may be doing harm with the sideshow this creates.

Well, if we lose the game, at least we will have an excuse. :)

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

[82lsju]

This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....

[82lsju]

This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....

[82lsju]

This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....

[82lsju]

This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16307.msg183200#msg183200 date=1482250141]
[quote author=SUBuddha link=topic=16307.msg183182#msg183182 date=1482244764]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16307.msg183175#msg183175 date=1482238648]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=16307.msg183100#msg183100 date=1482193153]
Like others have said, there may be mitigating circumstances. What if, between December 7 and this morning, CMac felt a tweak or twinge that was an aftereffect of his midseason injury? Since we don't have all of the facts--and probably never will--I suppose that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

If and when there is such information I may think differently.  But he has stated that he is leaving his team before the end of the season to focus on the draft.  You are making assumptions and attempting to rationalize with zero basis in fact.  I take him at his word, I'm disappointed in him, and I criticize him for making a poor decision.
[/quote]

As anyone who follows you on twitter has seen you do consistently since it was announced.

I personally respect the kid for this. He is not quitting on his team, they have been universally supportive of him on social media. It was fun to watch him for three years, take what you got from it and remember you have not walked in his shoes.
[/quote]


You seem to be using the fact that a few Stanford players have issued public positive tweets as support for your position.  Can you conceive of a situation in which a Stanford player actually felt disappointment in their captain walking out on themand decided to ignite a sxxtstorm by tweeting their true feelings?  I can't.  Why?  Because by and large, they're team players.  All of them except one, anyway.
[/quote]

What the team says publicly and how they feel privately can be two very different things.  Still immensely respect him as a player and as I've stated previously I'm extremely thankful to have been able to watch him play live for much of his career.  I haven't walked in his shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't say I disappointed in what I think is a poor decision that leaves a sour taste in my mouth - and that of many others - as he leaves the program.

This is NOT Sammy Sosa walking out on the Cubs on the last day of the season (and it turns out his career) because he wasn't going to be in the lineup.  But that doesn't make it a good thing.
[/quote]

This is much more strange than what Sosa did. Sosa quit because he felt he was being disrespected. Christian is quitting to start individual draft prep, the same individual draft prep as every other player but he wants to start a couple weeks early.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16307.msg183200#msg183200 date=1482250141]
[quote author=SUBuddha link=topic=16307.msg183182#msg183182 date=1482244764]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16307.msg183175#msg183175 date=1482238648]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=16307.msg183100#msg183100 date=1482193153]
Like others have said, there may be mitigating circumstances. What if, between December 7 and this morning, CMac felt a tweak or twinge that was an aftereffect of his midseason injury? Since we don't have all of the facts--and probably never will--I suppose that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

If and when there is such information I may think differently.  But he has stated that he is leaving his team before the end of the season to focus on the draft.  You are making assumptions and attempting to rationalize with zero basis in fact.  I take him at his word, I'm disappointed in him, and I criticize him for making a poor decision.
[/quote]

As anyone who follows you on twitter has seen you do consistently since it was announced.

I personally respect the kid for this. He is not quitting on his team, they have been universally supportive of him on social media. It was fun to watch him for three years, take what you got from it and remember you have not walked in his shoes.
[/quote]


You seem to be using the fact that a few Stanford players have issued public positive tweets as support for your position.  Can you conceive of a situation in which a Stanford player actually felt disappointment in their captain walking out on themand decided to ignite a sxxtstorm by tweeting their true feelings?  I can't.  Why?  Because by and large, they're team players.  All of them except one, anyway.
[/quote]

What the team says publicly and how they feel privately can be two very different things.  Still immensely respect him as a player and as I've stated previously I'm extremely thankful to have been able to watch him play live for much of his career.  I haven't walked in his shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't say I disappointed in what I think is a poor decision that leaves a sour taste in my mouth - and that of many others - as he leaves the program.

This is NOT Sammy Sosa walking out on the Cubs on the last day of the season (and it turns out his career) because he wasn't going to be in the lineup.  But that doesn't make it a good thing.
[/quote]

This is much more strange than what Sosa did. Sosa quit because he felt he was being disrespected. Christian is quitting to start individual draft prep, the same individual draft prep as every other player but he wants to start a couple weeks early.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16307.msg183200#msg183200 date=1482250141]
[quote author=SUBuddha link=topic=16307.msg183182#msg183182 date=1482244764]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16307.msg183175#msg183175 date=1482238648]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=16307.msg183100#msg183100 date=1482193153]
Like others have said, there may be mitigating circumstances. What if, between December 7 and this morning, CMac felt a tweak or twinge that was an aftereffect of his midseason injury? Since we don't have all of the facts--and probably never will--I suppose that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

If and when there is such information I may think differently.  But he has stated that he is leaving his team before the end of the season to focus on the draft.  You are making assumptions and attempting to rationalize with zero basis in fact.  I take him at his word, I'm disappointed in him, and I criticize him for making a poor decision.
[/quote]

As anyone who follows you on twitter has seen you do consistently since it was announced.

I personally respect the kid for this. He is not quitting on his team, they have been universally supportive of him on social media. It was fun to watch him for three years, take what you got from it and remember you have not walked in his shoes.
[/quote]


You seem to be using the fact that a few Stanford players have issued public positive tweets as support for your position.  Can you conceive of a situation in which a Stanford player actually felt disappointment in their captain walking out on themand decided to ignite a sxxtstorm by tweeting their true feelings?  I can't.  Why?  Because by and large, they're team players.  All of them except one, anyway.
[/quote]

What the team says publicly and how they feel privately can be two very different things.  Still immensely respect him as a player and as I've stated previously I'm extremely thankful to have been able to watch him play live for much of his career.  I haven't walked in his shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't say I disappointed in what I think is a poor decision that leaves a sour taste in my mouth - and that of many others - as he leaves the program.

This is NOT Sammy Sosa walking out on the Cubs on the last day of the season (and it turns out his career) because he wasn't going to be in the lineup.  But that doesn't make it a good thing.
[/quote]

This is much more strange than what Sosa did. Sosa quit because he felt he was being disrespected. Christian is quitting to start individual draft prep, the same individual draft prep as every other player but he wants to start a couple weeks early.

[AthleticsDynasty]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16307.msg183200#msg183200 date=1482250141]
[quote author=SUBuddha link=topic=16307.msg183182#msg183182 date=1482244764]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16307.msg183175#msg183175 date=1482238648]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=16307.msg183100#msg183100 date=1482193153]
Like others have said, there may be mitigating circumstances. What if, between December 7 and this morning, CMac felt a tweak or twinge that was an aftereffect of his midseason injury? Since we don't have all of the facts--and probably never will--I suppose that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

If and when there is such information I may think differently.  But he has stated that he is leaving his team before the end of the season to focus on the draft.  You are making assumptions and attempting to rationalize with zero basis in fact.  I take him at his word, I'm disappointed in him, and I criticize him for making a poor decision.
[/quote]

As anyone who follows you on twitter has seen you do consistently since it was announced.

I personally respect the kid for this. He is not quitting on his team, they have been universally supportive of him on social media. It was fun to watch him for three years, take what you got from it and remember you have not walked in his shoes.
[/quote]


You seem to be using the fact that a few Stanford players have issued public positive tweets as support for your position.  Can you conceive of a situation in which a Stanford player actually felt disappointment in their captain walking out on themand decided to ignite a sxxtstorm by tweeting their true feelings?  I can't.  Why?  Because by and large, they're team players.  All of them except one, anyway.
[/quote]

What the team says publicly and how they feel privately can be two very different things.  Still immensely respect him as a player and as I've stated previously I'm extremely thankful to have been able to watch him play live for much of his career.  I haven't walked in his shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't say I disappointed in what I think is a poor decision that leaves a sour taste in my mouth - and that of many others - as he leaves the program.

This is NOT Sammy Sosa walking out on the Cubs on the last day of the season (and it turns out his career) because he wasn't going to be in the lineup.  But that doesn't make it a good thing.
[/quote]

This is much more strange than what Sosa did. Sosa quit because he felt he was being disrespected. Christian is quitting to start individual draft prep, the same individual draft prep as every other player but he wants to start a couple weeks early.

[JohnR34231]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

Well, when one of the all time Stanford greats does what no other Cardinal football player has ever done, i.e. bail on the team before its bowl game, it is understandably going to preoccupy us for some time. Also, it's the dead period in recruiting, and the bowl game is still ten days away.

If anyone has access to the practices and has anything to report, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested.

[JohnR34231]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

Well, when one of the all time Stanford greats does what no other Cardinal football player has ever done, i.e. bail on the team before its bowl game, it is understandably going to preoccupy us for some time. Also, it's the dead period in recruiting, and the bowl game is still ten days away.

If anyone has access to the practices and has anything to report, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested.

[JohnR34231]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

Well, when one of the all time Stanford greats does what no other Cardinal football player has ever done, i.e. bail on the team before its bowl game, it is understandably going to preoccupy us for some time. Also, it's the dead period in recruiting, and the bowl game is still ten days away.

If anyone has access to the practices and has anything to report, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested.

[JohnR34231]

Why are so many people here so much more interested in discussing the decisions other people make, than the team you root for?

There is virtually zero discussion about the Sun Bowl on this site (providing great fodder for those of us who think the game is a meaningless exhibition), and I haven't seen any discussion about bowl practices.  Usually the frosh class gets a lot of reps now and we hear word about who is developing and making a name for himself after a season of learning systems, etc. 

Sure, discuss the CMac decision, but what about other Stanford football topics that are quite germane at this time of year?

Well, when one of the all time Stanford greats does what no other Cardinal football player has ever done, i.e. bail on the team before its bowl game, it is understandably going to preoccupy us for some time. Also, it's the dead period in recruiting, and the bowl game is still ten days away.

If anyone has access to the practices and has anything to report, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested.

[teejers1]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

[teejers1]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

[teejers1]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

[teejers1]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

[donkey687]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

Stanford makes chump change from the Sun Bowl. They won't net much at all after expenses and conference sharing.  CMac's and all the players bowl schwag, plane tickets, hotel rooms and entertainment would be a decent percentage of what Stanford nets in profit on the Sun Bowl.  CMac has certainly helped Stanford sell tickets and improve television ratings which benefits the school and funds many non-revenue Olympic sports at Stanford, but Stanford has also done a lot to build the CMac brand. The amount that the athletic department spends on PR, social media, video production, training facilities, trainers and coaches is not trivial and benefits the players and their ability to land a job in the NFL and future marketing endorsements.

[donkey687]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

Stanford makes chump change from the Sun Bowl. They won't net much at all after expenses and conference sharing.  CMac's and all the players bowl schwag, plane tickets, hotel rooms and entertainment would be a decent percentage of what Stanford nets in profit on the Sun Bowl.  CMac has certainly helped Stanford sell tickets and improve television ratings which benefits the school and funds many non-revenue Olympic sports at Stanford, but Stanford has also done a lot to build the CMac brand. The amount that the athletic department spends on PR, social media, video production, training facilities, trainers and coaches is not trivial and benefits the players and their ability to land a job in the NFL and future marketing endorsements.

[donkey687]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

Stanford makes chump change from the Sun Bowl. They won't net much at all after expenses and conference sharing.  CMac's and all the players bowl schwag, plane tickets, hotel rooms and entertainment would be a decent percentage of what Stanford nets in profit on the Sun Bowl.  CMac has certainly helped Stanford sell tickets and improve television ratings which benefits the school and funds many non-revenue Olympic sports at Stanford, but Stanford has also done a lot to build the CMac brand. The amount that the athletic department spends on PR, social media, video production, training facilities, trainers and coaches is not trivial and benefits the players and their ability to land a job in the NFL and future marketing endorsements.

[donkey687]

Does anyone happen to know off the top of their head what percentage of Stanford's potential Sun Bowl payout Christian would have been entitled to receive? Rhetorical question, really.

Stanford makes chump change from the Sun Bowl. They won't net much at all after expenses and conference sharing.  CMac's and all the players bowl schwag, plane tickets, hotel rooms and entertainment would be a decent percentage of what Stanford nets in profit on the Sun Bowl.  CMac has certainly helped Stanford sell tickets and improve television ratings which benefits the school and funds many non-revenue Olympic sports at Stanford, but Stanford has also done a lot to build the CMac brand. The amount that the athletic department spends on PR, social media, video production, training facilities, trainers and coaches is not trivial and benefits the players and their ability to land a job in the NFL and future marketing endorsements.

[JohnR34231]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

Good points. I'm sure most people would agree that when a player accepts a scholarship to play football at a university, he creates some obligations to the program that override what he may consider to be his personal best interests. No doubt reasonable people can differ on where one leaves off and the other begins. I don't recall how much these obligations are documented in the LOI the person signs, but if they are not maybe they should be.

[JohnR34231]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

Good points. I'm sure most people would agree that when a player accepts a scholarship to play football at a university, he creates some obligations to the program that override what he may consider to be his personal best interests. No doubt reasonable people can differ on where one leaves off and the other begins. I don't recall how much these obligations are documented in the LOI the person signs, but if they are not maybe they should be.

[JohnR34231]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

Good points. I'm sure most people would agree that when a player accepts a scholarship to play football at a university, he creates some obligations to the program that override what he may consider to be his personal best interests. No doubt reasonable people can differ on where one leaves off and the other begins. I don't recall how much these obligations are documented in the LOI the person signs, but if they are not maybe they should be.

[JohnR34231]

Omnibus thread comments:

Everyone understands CMac's decision.  Everyone gets why he decided to bail on the Sun Bowl.
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.

But forget all that. I'm interested in the principle that animates those who refuse to criticize CMac's decision, or say they have no problem with it.  I am firmly in the camp of "the player" when it comes to pro sports, especially in football, where they generally get royally screwed.  But having said that, I'm not sure everyone supporting CMac has any overriding principle, unless you're willing to say (as VFRing did) that "I would support a player bailing on football whenever he thinks that's the best decision for him personally."  Okay.  Fair enough.  That's reasonable (and I think we may see it more and more).

But why should that principle be restricted to college players winding down on college career before a run in the NFL?  Why shouldn't it apply to the EE major who thinks prepping and playing in the Sun Bowl just isn't in my long-term best interest?  And if the poster who said there are lots of team members who would rather rest and sit this out, then why shouldn't all of them do that?  And why restrict it to bowl games?  What id a player says:  you know, I've got a paper due next week, and it's not in my best interests to prep and play in Saturday's game?  You get the drift.  Does being on a team have no meaning/obligation that folks are willing to criticize?  Or should the player's "personal interests" always dictate what the rest of us should think/believe.

And as another poster noted, why limit this to college.  What about the HS player who doesn't want to risk injury and losing that scholie?  Should he sit out game(s) on that calculus?  It's hard to say "no" if you are 'all in" on CMac's decision.  What about the Club Soccer player eyeing a scholie?

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

P.S.  Those saying "If it were the Rose Bowl, I'm sure CMac would make a different decision" are actually making him look WORSE in my opinion because then then the equation is:  the glory of the Rose Bowl makes me willing to be a good teammate and play; the lesser glory of the Sun Bowl does not.  That strikes me as a particularly bad/self-centered look.

P.P.S.  As I've said all along, the NFL should be forced to form a D-League as in hoops.  That might alleviate (to some extent) this situation.  Also, make the rookie contracts 2 years, max, and you further alleviate the problem.  The latter is one of the biggest abuses in the NFL CBA.

Good points. I'm sure most people would agree that when a player accepts a scholarship to play football at a university, he creates some obligations to the program that override what he may consider to be his personal best interests. No doubt reasonable people can differ on where one leaves off and the other begins. I don't recall how much these obligations are documented in the LOI the person signs, but if they are not maybe they should be.