[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.