[oldalum]

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?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance. 

[oldalum]

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?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance.