[Mick]

In the world of big-time college football, there are many intersecting influences.  But they all revolve around the player.  The paradox is that the player has almost no influence.  They are expected to participate as fully as their ability and hard work and inclination or desire will take them.  They are expected to listen to their coaches, to support their teammates, to immerse themselves in preparation, to entertain the fans, to help move product, to comport themselves in line with their University's collective behavioral expectations. 

So all of those groups depend upon and benefit from the player's full participation.  And what's in it for the player is the chance to play for a team, to receive a free education, in the majority of instances they are admitted to a University that they couldn't hope to qualify for without their football skills, the opportunity to learn from the best coaches, and ultimately the chance at the brass ring, the NFL.

To say that Christian owes the fans nothing is asinine.  Without fans, none of the above is possible.  But because the players are so divorced from the fan experience, they feel that they owe fans nothing.  In fact, even some fans feel the players owe the fans nothing, despite the fact that fan support funds the entire engine described above.

How would I feel?  As a coach, it depends on the team.  On a team like Stanford, McCaffrey forced the decision, so his coaches and teammates have to force unity.  If I were the coach, I'd be more than a little nervous.  You've got a star player who won't play.  Forget about missing the final year of eligibility, you're talking about games.  If enough of those players bail, your team gets real mediocre real quick.  It destroys team unity.  Football is the very ultimate in team sports.  I've played football with guys I absolutely despise, but on the field and in the locker room, I supported them and they supported me.  Period.  But if I unilaterally departed -- well, that's quitting.  And we know that a large number of coaches use that term "quitter" as the ultimate pejorative.  If that was my teammate, I would feel betrayed, and I don't think that's too strong a word for an in-season give-up.

The NFL doesn't really care.  They want committed, predictable players who play.  Easy enough to weed out those whose commitments are iffy.  The vendors don't care, they'll market the next player.  No vendor cares if Manziel or McCaffrey pulls themselves out of the market.

Ultimately, the players have influence at two critical times; when they decide which college and coaching staff they'll commit to, and when they conclude that commitment in favor of their postcollegiate career.  I won't be surprised to see more football players depart early.  It will definitely impact recruiting.

[Mick]

In the world of big-time college football, there are many intersecting influences.  But they all revolve around the player.  The paradox is that the player has almost no influence.  They are expected to participate as fully as their ability and hard work and inclination or desire will take them.  They are expected to listen to their coaches, to support their teammates, to immerse themselves in preparation, to entertain the fans, to help move product, to comport themselves in line with their University's collective behavioral expectations. 

So all of those groups depend upon and benefit from the player's full participation.  And what's in it for the player is the chance to play for a team, to receive a free education, in the majority of instances they are admitted to a University that they couldn't hope to qualify for without their football skills, the opportunity to learn from the best coaches, and ultimately the chance at the brass ring, the NFL.

To say that Christian owes the fans nothing is asinine.  Without fans, none of the above is possible.  But because the players are so divorced from the fan experience, they feel that they owe fans nothing.  In fact, even some fans feel the players owe the fans nothing, despite the fact that fan support funds the entire engine described above.

How would I feel?  As a coach, it depends on the team.  On a team like Stanford, McCaffrey forced the decision, so his coaches and teammates have to force unity.  If I were the coach, I'd be more than a little nervous.  You've got a star player who won't play.  Forget about missing the final year of eligibility, you're talking about games.  If enough of those players bail, your team gets real mediocre real quick.  It destroys team unity.  Football is the very ultimate in team sports.  I've played football with guys I absolutely despise, but on the field and in the locker room, I supported them and they supported me.  Period.  But if I unilaterally departed -- well, that's quitting.  And we know that a large number of coaches use that term "quitter" as the ultimate pejorative.  If that was my teammate, I would feel betrayed, and I don't think that's too strong a word for an in-season give-up.

The NFL doesn't really care.  They want committed, predictable players who play.  Easy enough to weed out those whose commitments are iffy.  The vendors don't care, they'll market the next player.  No vendor cares if Manziel or McCaffrey pulls themselves out of the market.

Ultimately, the players have influence at two critical times; when they decide which college and coaching staff they'll commit to, and when they conclude that commitment in favor of their postcollegiate career.  I won't be surprised to see more football players depart early.  It will definitely impact recruiting.