[Phogge]

Stanford will never be Alabama but going from an occasional power to a consistent one brings on change.

[Phogge]

Stanford will never be Alabama but going from an occasional power to a consistent one brings on change.

[Phogge]

Stanford will never be Alabama but going from an occasional power to a consistent one brings on change.

[Phogge]

Stanford will never be Alabama but going from an occasional power to a consistent one brings on change.

[fullmetal]

So he was a fool to play against Rice? Clearly a meaningless game in your paradigm. And ןɐɔ, Oregon, OSU... Which games was he smart to play in this year?

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

Did I mention that the Sun Bowl is a fifth-tier bowl vs. UNC this year?  That's not a meaningful game in that a win does not result in a tangibly better outcome than a loss.  And I think CMac knows that Stanford is equipped to handle UNC without him--if Stanford plays like we know they're capable of playing.  I don't think he's completely leaving the team out to dry, but he is making their job a bit harder.

[fullmetal]

So he was a fool to play against Rice? Clearly a meaningless game in your paradigm. And ןɐɔ, Oregon, OSU... Which games was he smart to play in this year?

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

Did I mention that the Sun Bowl is a fifth-tier bowl vs. UNC this year?  That's not a meaningful game in that a win does not result in a tangibly better outcome than a loss.  And I think CMac knows that Stanford is equipped to handle UNC without him--if Stanford plays like we know they're capable of playing.  I don't think he's completely leaving the team out to dry, but he is making their job a bit harder.

[fullmetal]

So he was a fool to play against Rice? Clearly a meaningless game in your paradigm. And ןɐɔ, Oregon, OSU... Which games was he smart to play in this year?

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

Did I mention that the Sun Bowl is a fifth-tier bowl vs. UNC this year?  That's not a meaningful game in that a win does not result in a tangibly better outcome than a loss.  And I think CMac knows that Stanford is equipped to handle UNC without him--if Stanford plays like we know they're capable of playing.  I don't think he's completely leaving the team out to dry, but he is making their job a bit harder.

[fullmetal]

So he was a fool to play against Rice? Clearly a meaningless game in your paradigm. And ןɐɔ, Oregon, OSU... Which games was he smart to play in this year?

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

Did I mention that the Sun Bowl is a fifth-tier bowl vs. UNC this year?  That's not a meaningful game in that a win does not result in a tangibly better outcome than a loss.  And I think CMac knows that Stanford is equipped to handle UNC without him--if Stanford plays like we know they're capable of playing.  I don't think he's completely leaving the team out to dry, but he is making their job a bit harder.

[oldalum]

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance. 

[oldalum]

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance. 

[oldalum]

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance. 

[oldalum]

The bottom line is this: if you're all in for the player's individual decision (which is a very rational position), you necessarily must wholly discredit the notion/importance of "the team."  Don't you?

Individual interests conflict with team interests all the time, and the notion of being on a team is generally putting team interests before personal interests, but I don't think it's the all-or-none proposition encompassed in your use of the word "wholly." There is a whole range of things for which personal self-interest conflicts with team interest, and there necessarily has to be a whole series of individual judgments weighing their relative importance. There are always lines being drawn and decisions about where to draw the line. What if there's a big test the next day and a player needs to miss one practice to study--that might not hurt the team much but help the player a lot? What if the player will become ineligible to play if he doesn't get at least a B--that might tip the balance back? What if a player has had a concussion but the team needs him to play in a game: we don't seem to have a problem these days saying personal interest overrides team interest, but I can imagine football players decades ago saying "yeah you gotta play through it." So yes, while any one specific decision in the conflict has to go one way or another, I don't think the obligation of being on a team means one must always put the team's interests first. What we're seeing with the debate over CMac's decision is whether this is one of those exceptions or not, and the various factors being mentioned seem relevant. This seems like a relatively new topic and the line is continually being re-drawn.

I take a more favorable view of the Rose Bowl comments, which is not that playing in the Rose Bowl would mean more personal glory for CMac, but that the game would be much more important to the team and to the university and that might tip the balance. 

[FarmBoy]

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

[FarmBoy]

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

[FarmBoy]

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

[FarmBoy]

No, it was not clearly a meaningless game (such a dramatic characterization!).  The Rice game was played with two more weekends left in the season before bowl selections were announced.  Any number of situations could have happened to where Stanford could have been selected to a better bowl.  Until bowl selection, no one knew what was going to happen to the bowl matchups.  But I think CMac would have left for anything short of a NY6 bowl.

If your last statement is true, then those last 2-3 games were all meaningless to CMAC. THere was no way we were getting into a NY6 bowl with all of the Pac12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order. And if all he cared about was playing in a NY6 bowl game, then he should have quit the team and focused on the draft much earlier. Playing in those games was a foolish risk to his long term earning potential.

Either he was was stupid to play those meaningless games or he's a bad teammate for not playing one last meaningless game. I don't see a distinction.

[thunder_chik]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

[thunder_chik]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

[thunder_chik]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

[thunder_chik]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

[French Rage]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16303.msg183069#msg183069 date=1482184172]

Ezekiel Elliott‏ @EzekielElliott

All these young guys deciding to skip their bowl games 🤔.I would do anything to play one more time with my brothers in that scarlet and gray
9:01 AM · Dec 19, 2016

Elliott had a year of NCAA eligibility remaining when he entered the draft.  ::)
[/quote]

Didn't he also basically declare mid-season on Twitter after he had to go through the indignity of losing a game?

[French Rage]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16303.msg183069#msg183069 date=1482184172]

Ezekiel Elliott‏ @EzekielElliott

All these young guys deciding to skip their bowl games 🤔.I would do anything to play one more time with my brothers in that scarlet and gray
9:01 AM · Dec 19, 2016

Elliott had a year of NCAA eligibility remaining when he entered the draft.  ::)
[/quote]

Didn't he also basically declare mid-season on Twitter after he had to go through the indignity of losing a game?

[French Rage]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16303.msg183069#msg183069 date=1482184172]

Ezekiel Elliott‏ @EzekielElliott

All these young guys deciding to skip their bowl games 🤔.I would do anything to play one more time with my brothers in that scarlet and gray
9:01 AM · Dec 19, 2016

Elliott had a year of NCAA eligibility remaining when he entered the draft.  ::)
[/quote]

Didn't he also basically declare mid-season on Twitter after he had to go through the indignity of losing a game?

[French Rage]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16303.msg183069#msg183069 date=1482184172]

Ezekiel Elliott‏ @EzekielElliott

All these young guys deciding to skip their bowl games 🤔.I would do anything to play one more time with my brothers in that scarlet and gray
9:01 AM · Dec 19, 2016

Elliott had a year of NCAA eligibility remaining when he entered the draft.  ::)
[/quote]

Didn't he also basically declare mid-season on Twitter after he had to go through the indignity of losing a game?

[JohnR34231]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

[JohnR34231]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

[JohnR34231]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

[JohnR34231]

Wow, for those of us who have been Stanford fans since the 70s:  Who'd a thunk some of us would be grousing about a "meaningless" bowl game?  I'm just glad I get to see the team play once more before the end of 2016.  Go Cardinal! ;D

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183148#msg183148 date=1482208884]
[quote author=needle link=topic=16303.msg183106#msg183106 date=1482195412]
Enjoying the discussion (if not the circumstance).

4. I conclude that the Sun Bowl does not matter much to the players. There are many factors that go into this decision, some perhaps unrevealed at this time  but I believe one of them is the relative importance of the game. With no player backlash that I see, I think it's obvious that the team does not see this as that big of a game.

I conclude that the players and coaches think they can and should win without CMac. If that were not true, we would be hearing about it. Maybe this is hubris that offends the woofing gods, but it sure seems that this is so.[/quote]

I don't think the team winning has anything to do with it. It's just disrespectful to the seniors especially the ones who are likely done playing football.
[/quote]

I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us. I think there is an argument that to PLAY is equally if not more disrespectful. Once you have decided that you will not be back, taking playing time and practice reps from guys that will be back could be considered selfish. If everybody who played the position was hurt or just not adequate, things may be different, but that is not the case. Stanford is not being left in the lurch. Why not quit before the Rice game? Because in theory you have not decided you will not be back. If you have decided, you should tell the coach and let him decide if you should indeed continue to play. In this case, we don't know what the internal dynamics were. I assure you that if any significant number of players were not happy about the situation, it would have surfaced by now.
      Note that coaches who have accepted another job usually do not coach bowl games. This is considered normal. This situation is similar in my view.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183148#msg183148 date=1482208884]
[quote author=needle link=topic=16303.msg183106#msg183106 date=1482195412]
Enjoying the discussion (if not the circumstance).

4. I conclude that the Sun Bowl does not matter much to the players. There are many factors that go into this decision, some perhaps unrevealed at this time  but I believe one of them is the relative importance of the game. With no player backlash that I see, I think it's obvious that the team does not see this as that big of a game.

I conclude that the players and coaches think they can and should win without CMac. If that were not true, we would be hearing about it. Maybe this is hubris that offends the woofing gods, but it sure seems that this is so.[/quote]

I don't think the team winning has anything to do with it. It's just disrespectful to the seniors especially the ones who are likely done playing football.
[/quote]

I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us. I think there is an argument that to PLAY is equally if not more disrespectful. Once you have decided that you will not be back, taking playing time and practice reps from guys that will be back could be considered selfish. If everybody who played the position was hurt or just not adequate, things may be different, but that is not the case. Stanford is not being left in the lurch. Why not quit before the Rice game? Because in theory you have not decided you will not be back. If you have decided, you should tell the coach and let him decide if you should indeed continue to play. In this case, we don't know what the internal dynamics were. I assure you that if any significant number of players were not happy about the situation, it would have surfaced by now.
      Note that coaches who have accepted another job usually do not coach bowl games. This is considered normal. This situation is similar in my view.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183148#msg183148 date=1482208884]
[quote author=needle link=topic=16303.msg183106#msg183106 date=1482195412]
Enjoying the discussion (if not the circumstance).

4. I conclude that the Sun Bowl does not matter much to the players. There are many factors that go into this decision, some perhaps unrevealed at this time  but I believe one of them is the relative importance of the game. With no player backlash that I see, I think it's obvious that the team does not see this as that big of a game.

I conclude that the players and coaches think they can and should win without CMac. If that were not true, we would be hearing about it. Maybe this is hubris that offends the woofing gods, but it sure seems that this is so.[/quote]

I don't think the team winning has anything to do with it. It's just disrespectful to the seniors especially the ones who are likely done playing football.
[/quote]

I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us. I think there is an argument that to PLAY is equally if not more disrespectful. Once you have decided that you will not be back, taking playing time and practice reps from guys that will be back could be considered selfish. If everybody who played the position was hurt or just not adequate, things may be different, but that is not the case. Stanford is not being left in the lurch. Why not quit before the Rice game? Because in theory you have not decided you will not be back. If you have decided, you should tell the coach and let him decide if you should indeed continue to play. In this case, we don't know what the internal dynamics were. I assure you that if any significant number of players were not happy about the situation, it would have surfaced by now.
      Note that coaches who have accepted another job usually do not coach bowl games. This is considered normal. This situation is similar in my view.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16303.msg183148#msg183148 date=1482208884]
[quote author=needle link=topic=16303.msg183106#msg183106 date=1482195412]
Enjoying the discussion (if not the circumstance).

4. I conclude that the Sun Bowl does not matter much to the players. There are many factors that go into this decision, some perhaps unrevealed at this time  but I believe one of them is the relative importance of the game. With no player backlash that I see, I think it's obvious that the team does not see this as that big of a game.

I conclude that the players and coaches think they can and should win without CMac. If that were not true, we would be hearing about it. Maybe this is hubris that offends the woofing gods, but it sure seems that this is so.[/quote]

I don't think the team winning has anything to do with it. It's just disrespectful to the seniors especially the ones who are likely done playing football.
[/quote]

I think it is up to the players to decide if it is disrespectful or disappointing, not to us. I think there is an argument that to PLAY is equally if not more disrespectful. Once you have decided that you will not be back, taking playing time and practice reps from guys that will be back could be considered selfish. If everybody who played the position was hurt or just not adequate, things may be different, but that is not the case. Stanford is not being left in the lurch. Why not quit before the Rice game? Because in theory you have not decided you will not be back. If you have decided, you should tell the coach and let him decide if you should indeed continue to play. In this case, we don't know what the internal dynamics were. I assure you that if any significant number of players were not happy about the situation, it would have surfaced by now.
      Note that coaches who have accepted another job usually do not coach bowl games. This is considered normal. This situation is similar in my view.

[Farm93]

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

They are all less meaningful now.  The folks at ESPN will try to deny reality, but reality is very clear at this point. 
Back in that day most teams were rarely on TV during the regular season.  A bowl game was a real chance to showcase the school, the program, etc.
Back in the day very few teams actually got into bowl games.  Now teams with a 5-7 record, and a decent APR ;), will get into some bowl or other.
In many cases coaches jump ship prior to a bowl game to join their new programs.  That used to be rare, now it happens every season.  This is not really much different.

Football is a business.  CMAC left his unpaid internship early because he is likely set to get a sweet paid position with a different employer.  Coaches leave all of the time even though they have contracts and a salary.  Really hate that the unpaid students keep getting held to a different standard.

[Farm93]

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

They are all less meaningful now.  The folks at ESPN will try to deny reality, but reality is very clear at this point. 
Back in that day most teams were rarely on TV during the regular season.  A bowl game was a real chance to showcase the school, the program, etc.
Back in the day very few teams actually got into bowl games.  Now teams with a 5-7 record, and a decent APR ;), will get into some bowl or other.
In many cases coaches jump ship prior to a bowl game to join their new programs.  That used to be rare, now it happens every season.  This is not really much different.

Football is a business.  CMAC left his unpaid internship early because he is likely set to get a sweet paid position with a different employer.  Coaches leave all of the time even though they have contracts and a salary.  Really hate that the unpaid students keep getting held to a different standard.

[Farm93]

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

They are all less meaningful now.  The folks at ESPN will try to deny reality, but reality is very clear at this point. 
Back in that day most teams were rarely on TV during the regular season.  A bowl game was a real chance to showcase the school, the program, etc.
Back in the day very few teams actually got into bowl games.  Now teams with a 5-7 record, and a decent APR ;), will get into some bowl or other.
In many cases coaches jump ship prior to a bowl game to join their new programs.  That used to be rare, now it happens every season.  This is not really much different.

Football is a business.  CMAC left his unpaid internship early because he is likely set to get a sweet paid position with a different employer.  Coaches leave all of the time even though they have contracts and a salary.  Really hate that the unpaid students keep getting held to a different standard.

[Farm93]

Yeah, when Bill Walsh led us to the Sun Bowl in 1977 he was treated like a conquering hero. Now it is a "meaningless" game.
Interesting.

They are all less meaningful now.  The folks at ESPN will try to deny reality, but reality is very clear at this point. 
Back in that day most teams were rarely on TV during the regular season.  A bowl game was a real chance to showcase the school, the program, etc.
Back in the day very few teams actually got into bowl games.  Now teams with a 5-7 record, and a decent APR ;), will get into some bowl or other.
In many cases coaches jump ship prior to a bowl game to join their new programs.  That used to be rare, now it happens every season.  This is not really much different.

Football is a business.  CMAC left his unpaid internship early because he is likely set to get a sweet paid position with a different employer.  Coaches leave all of the time even though they have contracts and a salary.  Really hate that the unpaid students keep getting held to a different standard.

[teejers1]

Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Your characterization of what is/is not a meaningless game is also a reach.  Stanford finished 9-3 and is playing in its assigned bowl.  Given that you think it's meaningless, then I guess we all should just pack it in when Stanford hits 3 losses in any given season.  C'mon now . . . BTW, I'm 100% open to the argument that there are too many bowls and 10-20 should be eliminated (the Sun Bowl would NOT be in that discussion).

Finally, make no mistake: this will be McCaffrey's most lasting legacy to college football.  A healthy player (by all public accounts) bailing on his team's bowl game because it is "not worth it to him."  Fournette has been on the shelf and the concussed kid from Oklahoma may never have gained clearance to play.  But McCaffrey has played in the last 5 games (well, I might add) and has no injury that anyone publicly is aware of.  From here on out - and it's going to happen more and more - every time a healthy player bails on his team before the season is over because he deems it in his personal best interest to do so, the commentators will say "He's pulling a McCaffrey" or something akin to that.  Unfortunate, but true.

[teejers1]

Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Your characterization of what is/is not a meaningless game is also a reach.  Stanford finished 9-3 and is playing in its assigned bowl.  Given that you think it's meaningless, then I guess we all should just pack it in when Stanford hits 3 losses in any given season.  C'mon now . . . BTW, I'm 100% open to the argument that there are too many bowls and 10-20 should be eliminated (the Sun Bowl would NOT be in that discussion).

Finally, make no mistake: this will be McCaffrey's most lasting legacy to college football.  A healthy player (by all public accounts) bailing on his team's bowl game because it is "not worth it to him."  Fournette has been on the shelf and the concussed kid from Oklahoma may never have gained clearance to play.  But McCaffrey has played in the last 5 games (well, I might add) and has no injury that anyone publicly is aware of.  From here on out - and it's going to happen more and more - every time a healthy player bails on his team before the season is over because he deems it in his personal best interest to do so, the commentators will say "He's pulling a McCaffrey" or something akin to that.  Unfortunate, but true.

[teejers1]

Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Your characterization of what is/is not a meaningless game is also a reach.  Stanford finished 9-3 and is playing in its assigned bowl.  Given that you think it's meaningless, then I guess we all should just pack it in when Stanford hits 3 losses in any given season.  C'mon now . . . BTW, I'm 100% open to the argument that there are too many bowls and 10-20 should be eliminated (the Sun Bowl would NOT be in that discussion).

Finally, make no mistake: this will be McCaffrey's most lasting legacy to college football.  A healthy player (by all public accounts) bailing on his team's bowl game because it is "not worth it to him."  Fournette has been on the shelf and the concussed kid from Oklahoma may never have gained clearance to play.  But McCaffrey has played in the last 5 games (well, I might add) and has no injury that anyone publicly is aware of.  From here on out - and it's going to happen more and more - every time a healthy player bails on his team before the season is over because he deems it in his personal best interest to do so, the commentators will say "He's pulling a McCaffrey" or something akin to that.  Unfortunate, but true.

[teejers1]

Respectfully, fullmetal, I think you're way off base in believing that the team is fine with this decision.  They are good teammates so they are keeping their disgruntlement in-house, but really, it's hard to see how anyone who has played competitive team sports would not have a problem with this.  They might understand it - heck, I think most of us "get" the thinking behind Christian looking out for his own financial best interest - but like it or agree with it?  That is an entirely different matter.

Your characterization of what is/is not a meaningless game is also a reach.  Stanford finished 9-3 and is playing in its assigned bowl.  Given that you think it's meaningless, then I guess we all should just pack it in when Stanford hits 3 losses in any given season.  C'mon now . . . BTW, I'm 100% open to the argument that there are too many bowls and 10-20 should be eliminated (the Sun Bowl would NOT be in that discussion).

Finally, make no mistake: this will be McCaffrey's most lasting legacy to college football.  A healthy player (by all public accounts) bailing on his team's bowl game because it is "not worth it to him."  Fournette has been on the shelf and the concussed kid from Oklahoma may never have gained clearance to play.  But McCaffrey has played in the last 5 games (well, I might add) and has no injury that anyone publicly is aware of.  From here on out - and it's going to happen more and more - every time a healthy player bails on his team before the season is over because he deems it in his personal best interest to do so, the commentators will say "He's pulling a McCaffrey" or something akin to that.  Unfortunate, but true.