[Goose]

I'll respectfully disagree.  UNC was never a competitor of Stanford's for McCaffrey's services, and could never be a competitor for McCaffrey's services.  The competitor I'm referring to is the NFL.  McCaffrey quit, specifically and in his own words, to prepare for the NFL.  So we lose his services, both next year and the remainder of this year, to the NFL.

And the deeper part of the story is not the identity of his ultimate employer.  The deeper meaning is that he prepared with the team, was taught and raised (professionally speaking) by team members, with the expectation that he would remain a key part of the team, then quit near the eve of a final competition.

I think this really gets to the root of the issue. It isn't about players getting paid or not. It is about what can the team and coaches expect from each other (loyalty) based on their common social contract. I think it always has been true that "leaving your team in the lurch" was not acceptable. However, we all know of players who have quit football for personal or medical reasons. I think that "modern" players do not expect unconditional loyalty from their teammates. They know you may leave because you want to go on a mission, prepare for the MCATs, retire from football, have had "too many" concussions, etc. Fans also accept these choices, especially when they are made between seasons. While I think that "near the eve" of the competition is a bit of an exaggeration, I understand the point. I don't think the team feels they are "being left in the lurch" because I think they feel they have adequate replacements. I think they would feel lots different if they had nobody decent to play running back. So I think they don't feel CM is breaking the social contract, even though he is quitting to play pro ball. 

[Goose]

I'll respectfully disagree.  UNC was never a competitor of Stanford's for McCaffrey's services, and could never be a competitor for McCaffrey's services.  The competitor I'm referring to is the NFL.  McCaffrey quit, specifically and in his own words, to prepare for the NFL.  So we lose his services, both next year and the remainder of this year, to the NFL.

And the deeper part of the story is not the identity of his ultimate employer.  The deeper meaning is that he prepared with the team, was taught and raised (professionally speaking) by team members, with the expectation that he would remain a key part of the team, then quit near the eve of a final competition.

I think this really gets to the root of the issue. It isn't about players getting paid or not. It is about what can the team and coaches expect from each other (loyalty) based on their common social contract. I think it always has been true that "leaving your team in the lurch" was not acceptable. However, we all know of players who have quit football for personal or medical reasons. I think that "modern" players do not expect unconditional loyalty from their teammates. They know you may leave because you want to go on a mission, prepare for the MCATs, retire from football, have had "too many" concussions, etc. Fans also accept these choices, especially when they are made between seasons. While I think that "near the eve" of the competition is a bit of an exaggeration, I understand the point. I don't think the team feels they are "being left in the lurch" because I think they feel they have adequate replacements. I think they would feel lots different if they had nobody decent to play running back. So I think they don't feel CM is breaking the social contract, even though he is quitting to play pro ball.