[Goose]

[quote author=oman link=topic=16303.msg183635#msg183635 date=1482713106]
It would be hard to rationalize if he was just quitting the game.  Since he is planning to play many years on Sundays, it's not hard to rationalize at all.

I agree.  He chose his personal interests ahead of those of the program/team/fans and the more I think about it the more frustrated I get about the decision and the more disappointed I get in him
[/quote]
I think I understand your point of view. However, implicit in your point of view are 2 assumptions that I think can be questioned. The first assumption is that a player has an obligation of some kind to the fans, and the second assumption is that CMac's choice to not play damages the program and the team in some way.
My personal belief is that he owes the fans nothing. Any joy we get from watching him perform is his free gift to us, and he can stop doing it at any time he wishes, for any reason or no reason. He never signed any agreement with me that he would play in all bowl games. All we can ask of a player is that if he plays, he does his best. If he chooses not to play, it may be an issue to his teammates and/or the program with whom he has some agreements, but not to us fans. You may not agree.
As far as his non-participation damaging the program or his teammates, it is not at all clear to me that it does in any material way. If it were Toby Gerhart deciding not to play in the Sun Bowl in 2009, yes, that would have materially damaged the team. There really was no one else that could replace him. However, B. Love can do a very good job in that role. In fact, I am almost certain that there are players on the team, particularly younger ones, that are of the opinion that if CMac isn't going to play next year, it is better that he get out of the way now and let the new guys get ready. I am pretty sure that is how I would feel, especially if I were Mr. Love. So yes, I can see situations where having CMac would be better, but I can also see how it would be worse. I note that many times people on this board have felt that Shaw relied on CMac too much, to the detriment of the offense. Be that as it may, it will not be a problem in El Paso. On the whole, I can see the argument that him not playing could hurt the program and the team, but the expected value of the damage is slight. Therefore, I can't generate any moral outrage about his decision. It is better for him and not very damaging to his teammates and the program.

[Goose]

[quote author=oman link=topic=16303.msg183635#msg183635 date=1482713106]
It would be hard to rationalize if he was just quitting the game.  Since he is planning to play many years on Sundays, it's not hard to rationalize at all.

I agree.  He chose his personal interests ahead of those of the program/team/fans and the more I think about it the more frustrated I get about the decision and the more disappointed I get in him
[/quote]
I think I understand your point of view. However, implicit in your point of view are 2 assumptions that I think can be questioned. The first assumption is that a player has an obligation of some kind to the fans, and the second assumption is that CMac's choice to not play damages the program and the team in some way.
My personal belief is that he owes the fans nothing. Any joy we get from watching him perform is his free gift to us, and he can stop doing it at any time he wishes, for any reason or no reason. He never signed any agreement with me that he would play in all bowl games. All we can ask of a player is that if he plays, he does his best. If he chooses not to play, it may be an issue to his teammates and/or the program with whom he has some agreements, but not to us fans. You may not agree.
As far as his non-participation damaging the program or his teammates, it is not at all clear to me that it does in any material way. If it were Toby Gerhart deciding not to play in the Sun Bowl in 2009, yes, that would have materially damaged the team. There really was no one else that could replace him. However, B. Love can do a very good job in that role. In fact, I am almost certain that there are players on the team, particularly younger ones, that are of the opinion that if CMac isn't going to play next year, it is better that he get out of the way now and let the new guys get ready. I am pretty sure that is how I would feel, especially if I were Mr. Love. So yes, I can see situations where having CMac would be better, but I can also see how it would be worse. I note that many times people on this board have felt that Shaw relied on CMac too much, to the detriment of the offense. Be that as it may, it will not be a problem in El Paso. On the whole, I can see the argument that him not playing could hurt the program and the team, but the expected value of the damage is slight. Therefore, I can't generate any moral outrage about his decision. It is better for him and not very damaging to his teammates and the program.