12-28-2016, 02:36 PM
I haven't really felt compelled to weigh in before now because I haven't had anything really interesting to say until now. So my apologies if I'm repeating sentiments that have already been stated:
1. I think the McCaffrey debate ultimately comes down to the concept of "loyalty."
2. What is loyalty? To oversimplify, I'm sure, it's the assurance that if you have my back, I'll have yours.
3. It's stronger than that: it's the implication that I'll sacrifice to have your back. It's an obligation.
4. This can be clearly seen in the ultimate statement of loyalty in our culture: marriage. You know, for richer, for poorer, etc. To the dismay of cultural conservatives the commitment has been watered down since the sixties, as the loyalty isn't for life. But still it's for a pretty long time. You're committing future selves and future sacrifices for, perhaps, a decade or more, to mutual sacrifice. That's really something if you think about it.
4a. As should be obvious by now society doesn't really work without loyalty. Taxes are loyalty. Helping the elderly cross the street is loyalty. (What, do you think the little old lady or man is guaranteed to have your back down the line? Probably not. And it shouldn't matter.)
5. Yet we all know loyalty, while elastic, isn't rubber or gumby. It snaps. At a certain point your loyalty is so taken advantage of that it's overburdened. I suspect we've all had relationships that have demanded so much of us that it seems unfair to continue.
6. OK, here's the C-Mac part. I'm going to guess that virtually everyone who is fine with McCaffrey not going to the Sun Bowl also wants players to be paid; and virtually everyone who doesn't want players to be paid is disturbed by McCaffrey's decision.
7. In short, it's a debate as to *whether college football is a sport worthy of loyalty.* Are its terms fair to all participants?
8. This is why a lot of the debate that I've observed in the media focus on McCaffrey's Stanford teammates. Certainly if they feel McCaffrey's decision isn't a breach of their compact, that's very relevant information. The team is the foundation of, uh, team sports.
8a. But then again obviously it's not the only bond of loyalty. There's the coaches. (Though the typical point in this debate is that coaches are well-paid mercenaries: they're compensated well not to complain, and they skip around so freely that it's a bit hypocritical of them to care. On the other hand, this being Stanford is relevant: Shaw, while extremely well paid, could've made much much more money had that been his cardinal virtue. And I believe many of the other coaches have foregone more lucrative opportunities.)
8b. There's also the fans. To put it mildly Stanford fans are far from the most oppressed group, yet they've been asked to endure a few indignities for the, uh, team. (I mean this in the broadest sense of "enduring." So I include the Band, the softball situation, and so on.) College football fans generally have certainly had to put up with some bull over the years as well: ever-increasing ticket prices, and some desultory efforts to give them the best matchups in exchange. While it's not their bodies on the line, surely their disappointment doesn't count for zero.
9. Still I don't have a great conclusion here: how much loyalty does college football deserve, and how much should it change to earn the loyalty it desires?
1. I think the McCaffrey debate ultimately comes down to the concept of "loyalty."
2. What is loyalty? To oversimplify, I'm sure, it's the assurance that if you have my back, I'll have yours.
3. It's stronger than that: it's the implication that I'll sacrifice to have your back. It's an obligation.
4. This can be clearly seen in the ultimate statement of loyalty in our culture: marriage. You know, for richer, for poorer, etc. To the dismay of cultural conservatives the commitment has been watered down since the sixties, as the loyalty isn't for life. But still it's for a pretty long time. You're committing future selves and future sacrifices for, perhaps, a decade or more, to mutual sacrifice. That's really something if you think about it.
4a. As should be obvious by now society doesn't really work without loyalty. Taxes are loyalty. Helping the elderly cross the street is loyalty. (What, do you think the little old lady or man is guaranteed to have your back down the line? Probably not. And it shouldn't matter.)
5. Yet we all know loyalty, while elastic, isn't rubber or gumby. It snaps. At a certain point your loyalty is so taken advantage of that it's overburdened. I suspect we've all had relationships that have demanded so much of us that it seems unfair to continue.
6. OK, here's the C-Mac part. I'm going to guess that virtually everyone who is fine with McCaffrey not going to the Sun Bowl also wants players to be paid; and virtually everyone who doesn't want players to be paid is disturbed by McCaffrey's decision.
7. In short, it's a debate as to *whether college football is a sport worthy of loyalty.* Are its terms fair to all participants?
8. This is why a lot of the debate that I've observed in the media focus on McCaffrey's Stanford teammates. Certainly if they feel McCaffrey's decision isn't a breach of their compact, that's very relevant information. The team is the foundation of, uh, team sports.
8a. But then again obviously it's not the only bond of loyalty. There's the coaches. (Though the typical point in this debate is that coaches are well-paid mercenaries: they're compensated well not to complain, and they skip around so freely that it's a bit hypocritical of them to care. On the other hand, this being Stanford is relevant: Shaw, while extremely well paid, could've made much much more money had that been his cardinal virtue. And I believe many of the other coaches have foregone more lucrative opportunities.)
8b. There's also the fans. To put it mildly Stanford fans are far from the most oppressed group, yet they've been asked to endure a few indignities for the, uh, team. (I mean this in the broadest sense of "enduring." So I include the Band, the softball situation, and so on.) College football fans generally have certainly had to put up with some bull over the years as well: ever-increasing ticket prices, and some desultory efforts to give them the best matchups in exchange. While it's not their bodies on the line, surely their disappointment doesn't count for zero.
9. Still I don't have a great conclusion here: how much loyalty does college football deserve, and how much should it change to earn the loyalty it desires?