[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.