12-28-2016, 11:59 AM
(12-28-2016, 11:16 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Goose, of course the coaches can apply those consequences. No one disputes that. I was more curious if people supporting a player opting out of a bowl game or even part of a season will be okay with players deciding they no longer want to play a game once it's out of hand. Do you think that is being a good teammate? Is it honorable? Does the self interest of the individual justify the weakness or challenges it places on the rest of the team?OK, Fair questions. Sure, I am ok with a player "opting out" of a game when it is out of hand, or any other time. BUT that player has no right to expect to ever play for that team again. Is it being a good teammate? Well if the game is out of hand, it doesn't hurt the team in that respect. However, football is a command society. The coach says "play", you play. You can't do that just when you think it benefits you. So, when/if you do that, you are no longer a teammate. Period. Is it honorable? Well, if it is a blowout, and you are ok with never playing again, I can't call it dishonorable. Stupid perhaps. However, in the case of CM its is not (yet) a blowout. It is a game that hasn't been started. If it were Toby back when he was all we had, I would call it borderline at best, probably dishonorable. In this case, CM isn't all we have. It is reasonable to expect that we win anyway. The game line certainly still reflects this, FWIW. Also, we did get plenty of notice (It wasn't quitting just before the game started), so I can't say it is dishonorable. I think it is possibly "extremely rational", i.e. one of those things you do because it is necessary, not because you want to. Or maybe CM is just "done" with Stanford football and really can't get excited about another game. Or maybe he feels he will be "playing scared". If he feels he can't go at 100%, it may in fact be more honorable to say so and opt out than to make everybody think (and plan as if) they are getting the real CM and they aren't. I don't know. He decided it was time to go. I can't generate any moral outrage to condemn him under these circumstances.
Does self-interest justify not playing? Under these circumstances, I think it explains it. I don't think it "justifies it". I think the decision not to play, for whatever reason, is justified only if you feel that you have done what you promised to your teammates and to the Coach. If you feel you have done that, it is all that can be asked. If your coach is really not ok with it, or your teammates are really not ok with it, you have to seriously question whether you have lived up to what you promised. I don't know what the real situation is. Some have said "the team is pissed". If they are, CM needs to be real sure about what he is doing. Nobody promised to play football forever. They won't let you. You CAN quit at any time. That is always true. You don't have to justify it. But you do have to live with it. I am going to answer the question by saying that I (me alone) think it is acceptable if CM feels he can't give 100% and that the team will be better off with BLove. If CM has become so risk averse (possibly for very rational reasons) that he can't play adequately (i.e. at all), then he shouldn't. And I think Shaw and the team understands this, perhaps reluctantly. MHO.