[ChicagoCard]

I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

Nick Saban is no doubt a football savant but he's a hack when it comes to many of his publicly stated positions on things in which his own self-interest is plain to see.

[ChicagoCard]

I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

Nick Saban is no doubt a football savant but he's a hack when it comes to many of his publicly stated positions on things in which his own self-interest is plain to see.

[ChicagoCard]

I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

Nick Saban is no doubt a football savant but he's a hack when it comes to many of his publicly stated positions on things in which his own self-interest is plain to see.

[ChicagoCard]

I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

Nick Saban is no doubt a football savant but he's a hack when it comes to many of his publicly stated positions on things in which his own self-interest is plain to see.

[Goose]

Hi Mick, It seems we disagree on just about everything! Makes it interesting.

To your points:

And I don't think that CMac is a quitter.

By definition, he is a quitter.  He quit on his team, which has another game to play.  Ergo, CMAC = quitter.

We, no. This attempt at making one who quits a "quitter" by definition is incorrect, at least according to Wikipedia, the source of all truth. It defines a quitter as

"a person who gives up easily or does not have the courage or determination to finish a task." Now, you may feel CMac fits that definition, but just because he isn't playing, that, of itself is inadequate. You can argue he is a coward or easily discouraged, but I want to hear that argument before I agree with it.

He has always been a Player. I do know that choosing to not come back and support the team that you have dedicated the almost three most important years of your young life towards has to be emotionally very, very difficult.

IYSS.  True, no one wants to be labeled a quitter. 

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying you think it was easy to just walk away from your team and friends, not to mention all of us here on the board that want to see him play? And, yes, I am sure the negative comments about his choice and his character matter,  at least to some extent.

My personal gut tells me that CMac would follow his heart and play if his heart told him to do so.  I just think his heart is telling him that he has decided to go, so go now.

Fully agree on lack of heart.  Will be curious to see if NFL GMs and scouts feel the same.

I didn't say he lacked heart. I said his very present heart told him it was inappropriate to go out and play without being 100% committed. That is way different. As far as the GMs and scouts, I suspect they will let his game speak for itself, and not overthink why he didn't play in this Bowl. But I don't know, and I expect this will always be a guess.

It is not a matter of focus, it is a matter of commitment. He isn't any more, and he knows he isn't. He may have had some help in deciding this from a coaching staff that believes that "when you are gone, you are gone. Sometimes, if you are still eligible, you can come back. But you are in, or you are out. You can't be both. Next Man Up."

I wonder if it's the coaching staff or his family.  I would imagine the coaching staff would want him there, period, if for no other reason than team unity, presence, visual appeal, appeal to fans, appeal to recruits, etc.  Even if he just suited up and played 10 plays.

I think it's his parents, and a get-what-you-can-while-the-gettings-good attitude.

I am not sure his presence contributes to team unity at this point. They know he is going. Does BLove want to give up those 10 "for show" carries? The appeal to fans issue is real, for sure, but possibly not the coaching staff's problem. They may regard his "presence" as a distraction at this point, and want to use the game to prepare for 2017. We don't know, and they aren't saying. I would guess my take on it is as valid as yours, who knows? As far as his parents being the ones who "decided", I don't know. I would hope that at this point CMac is able to make his own decisions about his future. That said, there is a good argument that his decision not to play is the "correct" one. We are mostly discussing the why, not the what.

I just think that if Christian really felt he had it in him to play, he would have kept his mouth shut and played.

Unless he's injured, I disagree.  It's a bowl game against the #113 defense. 

I don't understand your point. I am saying he didn't feel could give an appropriate effort. That could be true no matter who the opponent is. Yes, we may not need his best, but if we don't, do we need him at all? I am saying he just wasn't willing to be part of a "cameo" appearance, no matter who we were playing.

I think if it were a pre-planned, calculated move entirely it would have happened at the same time he announced going pro, and it would certainly have had a better explanation than "prepare for the draft".

Totally agree.

I think that if Shaw had said "Christian, we really need you out there.", he would be playing.

I disagree with the premise.  I don't see Shaw saying "we really need you out there" to anyone.  That makes them bigger than the team.

Ok, I can see that point of view. Perhaps I should have had Shaw say "I really want you out there." One thing I will suggest though is that one of Shaw's virtues is that he either tells it like he thinks it is or is silent. I think that if he really felt he "needed" a player out there, he would say so. To the player, not to the team and not to the public. And, if he said it, it would be because he thought it was so. I agree this would be a very rare condition, and certainly not appropriate in this case. But do you think that if Shaw asked Christian to play ("I want you out there"), Christian would refuse? Probably completely academic, because I can't see Shaw asking under the present circumstances. My point was that the coaches are possibly quite OK with having no CMac for this game, and that they do have influence.

The old statement "Lead, follow or get out if the way" is in action here. As a Freshman, he followed. As a Sophomore and Junior, he lead. Now, he has decided to get out of the way. Good for him.

Again, true by definition.  Keep in mind, that third part of the cliche is almost entirely derogatory.

Possibly I interpret the cliche differently. Getting out of the way is clearly the third choice, but worse still is to do none of the above. To show up, play, and not give 100% can be worse than getting out of the way.

[Goose]

Hi Mick, It seems we disagree on just about everything! Makes it interesting.

To your points:

And I don't think that CMac is a quitter.

By definition, he is a quitter.  He quit on his team, which has another game to play.  Ergo, CMAC = quitter.

We, no. This attempt at making one who quits a "quitter" by definition is incorrect, at least according to Wikipedia, the source of all truth. It defines a quitter as

"a person who gives up easily or does not have the courage or determination to finish a task." Now, you may feel CMac fits that definition, but just because he isn't playing, that, of itself is inadequate. You can argue he is a coward or easily discouraged, but I want to hear that argument before I agree with it.

He has always been a Player. I do know that choosing to not come back and support the team that you have dedicated the almost three most important years of your young life towards has to be emotionally very, very difficult.

IYSS.  True, no one wants to be labeled a quitter. 

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying you think it was easy to just walk away from your team and friends, not to mention all of us here on the board that want to see him play? And, yes, I am sure the negative comments about his choice and his character matter,  at least to some extent.

My personal gut tells me that CMac would follow his heart and play if his heart told him to do so.  I just think his heart is telling him that he has decided to go, so go now.

Fully agree on lack of heart.  Will be curious to see if NFL GMs and scouts feel the same.

I didn't say he lacked heart. I said his very present heart told him it was inappropriate to go out and play without being 100% committed. That is way different. As far as the GMs and scouts, I suspect they will let his game speak for itself, and not overthink why he didn't play in this Bowl. But I don't know, and I expect this will always be a guess.

It is not a matter of focus, it is a matter of commitment. He isn't any more, and he knows he isn't. He may have had some help in deciding this from a coaching staff that believes that "when you are gone, you are gone. Sometimes, if you are still eligible, you can come back. But you are in, or you are out. You can't be both. Next Man Up."

I wonder if it's the coaching staff or his family.  I would imagine the coaching staff would want him there, period, if for no other reason than team unity, presence, visual appeal, appeal to fans, appeal to recruits, etc.  Even if he just suited up and played 10 plays.

I think it's his parents, and a get-what-you-can-while-the-gettings-good attitude.

I am not sure his presence contributes to team unity at this point. They know he is going. Does BLove want to give up those 10 "for show" carries? The appeal to fans issue is real, for sure, but possibly not the coaching staff's problem. They may regard his "presence" as a distraction at this point, and want to use the game to prepare for 2017. We don't know, and they aren't saying. I would guess my take on it is as valid as yours, who knows? As far as his parents being the ones who "decided", I don't know. I would hope that at this point CMac is able to make his own decisions about his future. That said, there is a good argument that his decision not to play is the "correct" one. We are mostly discussing the why, not the what.

I just think that if Christian really felt he had it in him to play, he would have kept his mouth shut and played.

Unless he's injured, I disagree.  It's a bowl game against the #113 defense. 

I don't understand your point. I am saying he didn't feel could give an appropriate effort. That could be true no matter who the opponent is. Yes, we may not need his best, but if we don't, do we need him at all? I am saying he just wasn't willing to be part of a "cameo" appearance, no matter who we were playing.

I think if it were a pre-planned, calculated move entirely it would have happened at the same time he announced going pro, and it would certainly have had a better explanation than "prepare for the draft".

Totally agree.

I think that if Shaw had said "Christian, we really need you out there.", he would be playing.

I disagree with the premise.  I don't see Shaw saying "we really need you out there" to anyone.  That makes them bigger than the team.

Ok, I can see that point of view. Perhaps I should have had Shaw say "I really want you out there." One thing I will suggest though is that one of Shaw's virtues is that he either tells it like he thinks it is or is silent. I think that if he really felt he "needed" a player out there, he would say so. To the player, not to the team and not to the public. And, if he said it, it would be because he thought it was so. I agree this would be a very rare condition, and certainly not appropriate in this case. But do you think that if Shaw asked Christian to play ("I want you out there"), Christian would refuse? Probably completely academic, because I can't see Shaw asking under the present circumstances. My point was that the coaches are possibly quite OK with having no CMac for this game, and that they do have influence.

The old statement "Lead, follow or get out if the way" is in action here. As a Freshman, he followed. As a Sophomore and Junior, he lead. Now, he has decided to get out of the way. Good for him.

Again, true by definition.  Keep in mind, that third part of the cliche is almost entirely derogatory.

Possibly I interpret the cliche differently. Getting out of the way is clearly the third choice, but worse still is to do none of the above. To show up, play, and not give 100% can be worse than getting out of the way.

[Goose]

Hi Mick, It seems we disagree on just about everything! Makes it interesting.

To your points:

And I don't think that CMac is a quitter.

By definition, he is a quitter.  He quit on his team, which has another game to play.  Ergo, CMAC = quitter.

We, no. This attempt at making one who quits a "quitter" by definition is incorrect, at least according to Wikipedia, the source of all truth. It defines a quitter as

"a person who gives up easily or does not have the courage or determination to finish a task." Now, you may feel CMac fits that definition, but just because he isn't playing, that, of itself is inadequate. You can argue he is a coward or easily discouraged, but I want to hear that argument before I agree with it.

He has always been a Player. I do know that choosing to not come back and support the team that you have dedicated the almost three most important years of your young life towards has to be emotionally very, very difficult.

IYSS.  True, no one wants to be labeled a quitter. 

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying you think it was easy to just walk away from your team and friends, not to mention all of us here on the board that want to see him play? And, yes, I am sure the negative comments about his choice and his character matter,  at least to some extent.

My personal gut tells me that CMac would follow his heart and play if his heart told him to do so.  I just think his heart is telling him that he has decided to go, so go now.

Fully agree on lack of heart.  Will be curious to see if NFL GMs and scouts feel the same.

I didn't say he lacked heart. I said his very present heart told him it was inappropriate to go out and play without being 100% committed. That is way different. As far as the GMs and scouts, I suspect they will let his game speak for itself, and not overthink why he didn't play in this Bowl. But I don't know, and I expect this will always be a guess.

It is not a matter of focus, it is a matter of commitment. He isn't any more, and he knows he isn't. He may have had some help in deciding this from a coaching staff that believes that "when you are gone, you are gone. Sometimes, if you are still eligible, you can come back. But you are in, or you are out. You can't be both. Next Man Up."

I wonder if it's the coaching staff or his family.  I would imagine the coaching staff would want him there, period, if for no other reason than team unity, presence, visual appeal, appeal to fans, appeal to recruits, etc.  Even if he just suited up and played 10 plays.

I think it's his parents, and a get-what-you-can-while-the-gettings-good attitude.

I am not sure his presence contributes to team unity at this point. They know he is going. Does BLove want to give up those 10 "for show" carries? The appeal to fans issue is real, for sure, but possibly not the coaching staff's problem. They may regard his "presence" as a distraction at this point, and want to use the game to prepare for 2017. We don't know, and they aren't saying. I would guess my take on it is as valid as yours, who knows? As far as his parents being the ones who "decided", I don't know. I would hope that at this point CMac is able to make his own decisions about his future. That said, there is a good argument that his decision not to play is the "correct" one. We are mostly discussing the why, not the what.

I just think that if Christian really felt he had it in him to play, he would have kept his mouth shut and played.

Unless he's injured, I disagree.  It's a bowl game against the #113 defense. 

I don't understand your point. I am saying he didn't feel could give an appropriate effort. That could be true no matter who the opponent is. Yes, we may not need his best, but if we don't, do we need him at all? I am saying he just wasn't willing to be part of a "cameo" appearance, no matter who we were playing.

I think if it were a pre-planned, calculated move entirely it would have happened at the same time he announced going pro, and it would certainly have had a better explanation than "prepare for the draft".

Totally agree.

I think that if Shaw had said "Christian, we really need you out there.", he would be playing.

I disagree with the premise.  I don't see Shaw saying "we really need you out there" to anyone.  That makes them bigger than the team.

Ok, I can see that point of view. Perhaps I should have had Shaw say "I really want you out there." One thing I will suggest though is that one of Shaw's virtues is that he either tells it like he thinks it is or is silent. I think that if he really felt he "needed" a player out there, he would say so. To the player, not to the team and not to the public. And, if he said it, it would be because he thought it was so. I agree this would be a very rare condition, and certainly not appropriate in this case. But do you think that if Shaw asked Christian to play ("I want you out there"), Christian would refuse? Probably completely academic, because I can't see Shaw asking under the present circumstances. My point was that the coaches are possibly quite OK with having no CMac for this game, and that they do have influence.

The old statement "Lead, follow or get out if the way" is in action here. As a Freshman, he followed. As a Sophomore and Junior, he lead. Now, he has decided to get out of the way. Good for him.

Again, true by definition.  Keep in mind, that third part of the cliche is almost entirely derogatory.

Possibly I interpret the cliche differently. Getting out of the way is clearly the third choice, but worse still is to do none of the above. To show up, play, and not give 100% can be worse than getting out of the way.

[Goose]

Hi Mick, It seems we disagree on just about everything! Makes it interesting.

To your points:

And I don't think that CMac is a quitter.

By definition, he is a quitter.  He quit on his team, which has another game to play.  Ergo, CMAC = quitter.

We, no. This attempt at making one who quits a "quitter" by definition is incorrect, at least according to Wikipedia, the source of all truth. It defines a quitter as

"a person who gives up easily or does not have the courage or determination to finish a task." Now, you may feel CMac fits that definition, but just because he isn't playing, that, of itself is inadequate. You can argue he is a coward or easily discouraged, but I want to hear that argument before I agree with it.

He has always been a Player. I do know that choosing to not come back and support the team that you have dedicated the almost three most important years of your young life towards has to be emotionally very, very difficult.

IYSS.  True, no one wants to be labeled a quitter. 

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying you think it was easy to just walk away from your team and friends, not to mention all of us here on the board that want to see him play? And, yes, I am sure the negative comments about his choice and his character matter,  at least to some extent.

My personal gut tells me that CMac would follow his heart and play if his heart told him to do so.  I just think his heart is telling him that he has decided to go, so go now.

Fully agree on lack of heart.  Will be curious to see if NFL GMs and scouts feel the same.

I didn't say he lacked heart. I said his very present heart told him it was inappropriate to go out and play without being 100% committed. That is way different. As far as the GMs and scouts, I suspect they will let his game speak for itself, and not overthink why he didn't play in this Bowl. But I don't know, and I expect this will always be a guess.

It is not a matter of focus, it is a matter of commitment. He isn't any more, and he knows he isn't. He may have had some help in deciding this from a coaching staff that believes that "when you are gone, you are gone. Sometimes, if you are still eligible, you can come back. But you are in, or you are out. You can't be both. Next Man Up."

I wonder if it's the coaching staff or his family.  I would imagine the coaching staff would want him there, period, if for no other reason than team unity, presence, visual appeal, appeal to fans, appeal to recruits, etc.  Even if he just suited up and played 10 plays.

I think it's his parents, and a get-what-you-can-while-the-gettings-good attitude.

I am not sure his presence contributes to team unity at this point. They know he is going. Does BLove want to give up those 10 "for show" carries? The appeal to fans issue is real, for sure, but possibly not the coaching staff's problem. They may regard his "presence" as a distraction at this point, and want to use the game to prepare for 2017. We don't know, and they aren't saying. I would guess my take on it is as valid as yours, who knows? As far as his parents being the ones who "decided", I don't know. I would hope that at this point CMac is able to make his own decisions about his future. That said, there is a good argument that his decision not to play is the "correct" one. We are mostly discussing the why, not the what.

I just think that if Christian really felt he had it in him to play, he would have kept his mouth shut and played.

Unless he's injured, I disagree.  It's a bowl game against the #113 defense. 

I don't understand your point. I am saying he didn't feel could give an appropriate effort. That could be true no matter who the opponent is. Yes, we may not need his best, but if we don't, do we need him at all? I am saying he just wasn't willing to be part of a "cameo" appearance, no matter who we were playing.

I think if it were a pre-planned, calculated move entirely it would have happened at the same time he announced going pro, and it would certainly have had a better explanation than "prepare for the draft".

Totally agree.

I think that if Shaw had said "Christian, we really need you out there.", he would be playing.

I disagree with the premise.  I don't see Shaw saying "we really need you out there" to anyone.  That makes them bigger than the team.

Ok, I can see that point of view. Perhaps I should have had Shaw say "I really want you out there." One thing I will suggest though is that one of Shaw's virtues is that he either tells it like he thinks it is or is silent. I think that if he really felt he "needed" a player out there, he would say so. To the player, not to the team and not to the public. And, if he said it, it would be because he thought it was so. I agree this would be a very rare condition, and certainly not appropriate in this case. But do you think that if Shaw asked Christian to play ("I want you out there"), Christian would refuse? Probably completely academic, because I can't see Shaw asking under the present circumstances. My point was that the coaches are possibly quite OK with having no CMac for this game, and that they do have influence.

The old statement "Lead, follow or get out if the way" is in action here. As a Freshman, he followed. As a Sophomore and Junior, he lead. Now, he has decided to get out of the way. Good for him.

Again, true by definition.  Keep in mind, that third part of the cliche is almost entirely derogatory.

Possibly I interpret the cliche differently. Getting out of the way is clearly the third choice, but worse still is to do none of the above. To show up, play, and not give 100% can be worse than getting out of the way.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I saw a piece this morning, can't remember where (maybe Yahoo?). They were discussing players skipping bowl games with "NFC North scouts" and asking if it's a red flag to NFL personnel types. The anonymous scouts reached a consensus that it's a case by case basis, and in the cases of Fournette and McCaffrey (no character issues) personnel folks won't be alarmed. On the other hand, Baylor's Shock Linwood (previous character issues) and Oklahoma's Charles Walker (devastating concussion) will come under much more scrutiny.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I saw a piece this morning, can't remember where (maybe Yahoo?). They were discussing players skipping bowl games with "NFC North scouts" and asking if it's a red flag to NFL personnel types. The anonymous scouts reached a consensus that it's a case by case basis, and in the cases of Fournette and McCaffrey (no character issues) personnel folks won't be alarmed. On the other hand, Baylor's Shock Linwood (previous character issues) and Oklahoma's Charles Walker (devastating concussion) will come under much more scrutiny.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I saw a piece this morning, can't remember where (maybe Yahoo?). They were discussing players skipping bowl games with "NFC North scouts" and asking if it's a red flag to NFL personnel types. The anonymous scouts reached a consensus that it's a case by case basis, and in the cases of Fournette and McCaffrey (no character issues) personnel folks won't be alarmed. On the other hand, Baylor's Shock Linwood (previous character issues) and Oklahoma's Charles Walker (devastating concussion) will come under much more scrutiny.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I saw a piece this morning, can't remember where (maybe Yahoo?). They were discussing players skipping bowl games with "NFC North scouts" and asking if it's a red flag to NFL personnel types. The anonymous scouts reached a consensus that it's a case by case basis, and in the cases of Fournette and McCaffrey (no character issues) personnel folks won't be alarmed. On the other hand, Baylor's Shock Linwood (previous character issues) and Oklahoma's Charles Walker (devastating concussion) will come under much more scrutiny.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.

[BurgXXIII]

But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

[BurgXXIII]

But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

[BurgXXIII]

But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

[BurgXXIII]

But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

[jacketree]

If a word isn't in my Mom's 1961 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, it doesn't really matter.  Sorry Google.  (But googol is!!)

quitter, n. A disease of the feet of horses, asses, etc., affecting the cartilage of the foot, or the soft tissues just above the foot.

Er, wait....

quitter, n. One who quits or shirks; hence, a coward; a welsher.


Pretty sure closing up shop before all games are played defines quitting. Hence, one who quits is a quitter. Even if for a rational reason.

[jacketree]

If a word isn't in my Mom's 1961 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, it doesn't really matter.  Sorry Google.  (But googol is!!)

quitter, n. A disease of the feet of horses, asses, etc., affecting the cartilage of the foot, or the soft tissues just above the foot.

Er, wait....

quitter, n. One who quits or shirks; hence, a coward; a welsher.


Pretty sure closing up shop before all games are played defines quitting. Hence, one who quits is a quitter. Even if for a rational reason.

[jacketree]

If a word isn't in my Mom's 1961 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, it doesn't really matter.  Sorry Google.  (But googol is!!)

quitter, n. A disease of the feet of horses, asses, etc., affecting the cartilage of the foot, or the soft tissues just above the foot.

Er, wait....

quitter, n. One who quits or shirks; hence, a coward; a welsher.


Pretty sure closing up shop before all games are played defines quitting. Hence, one who quits is a quitter. Even if for a rational reason.

[jacketree]

If a word isn't in my Mom's 1961 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, it doesn't really matter.  Sorry Google.  (But googol is!!)

quitter, n. A disease of the feet of horses, asses, etc., affecting the cartilage of the foot, or the soft tissues just above the foot.

Er, wait....

quitter, n. One who quits or shirks; hence, a coward; a welsher.


Pretty sure closing up shop before all games are played defines quitting. Hence, one who quits is a quitter. Even if for a rational reason.

[jacketree]

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

Those players ran into the greatest 7-4 team of all time.  :P

The Goose is Loose!!!

[jacketree]

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

Those players ran into the greatest 7-4 team of all time.  :P

The Goose is Loose!!!

[jacketree]

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

Those players ran into the greatest 7-4 team of all time.  :P

The Goose is Loose!!!

[jacketree]

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?

Those players ran into the greatest 7-4 team of all time.  :P

The Goose is Loose!!!

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183476#msg183476 date=1482454335]
But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?
[/quote]

I don't know about the players, but I sure hope the COACHES [at least, this Head Coach] are taking the Sun Bowl a whole lot more seriously than that Head Coach took the Seattle Bowl...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183476#msg183476 date=1482454335]
But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?
[/quote]

I don't know about the players, but I sure hope the COACHES [at least, this Head Coach] are taking the Sun Bowl a whole lot more seriously than that Head Coach took the Seattle Bowl...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183476#msg183476 date=1482454335]
But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?
[/quote]

I don't know about the players, but I sure hope the COACHES [at least, this Head Coach] are taking the Sun Bowl a whole lot more seriously than that Head Coach took the Seattle Bowl...

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183476#msg183476 date=1482454335]
But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl ...

The thread is substantially too convoluted for me to render an opinion, but I was at that Seattle Bowl game and it was a disaster all the way around. So are you saying the players took the game really seriously or not seriously at all?
[/quote]

I don't know about the players, but I sure hope the COACHES [at least, this Head Coach] are taking the Sun Bowl a whole lot more seriously than that Head Coach took the Seattle Bowl...

[admin]

[quote author=eric link=topic=16303.msg183216#msg183216 date=1482253444]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.
[/quote]

I had that growing up, as well, except we almost always forgot to open the can and bring it out. I was surprised to learn how easy it is to make cranberry sauce from scratch.

[admin]

[quote author=eric link=topic=16303.msg183216#msg183216 date=1482253444]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.
[/quote]

I had that growing up, as well, except we almost always forgot to open the can and bring it out. I was surprised to learn how easy it is to make cranberry sauce from scratch.

[admin]

[quote author=eric link=topic=16303.msg183216#msg183216 date=1482253444]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.
[/quote]

I had that growing up, as well, except we almost always forgot to open the can and bring it out. I was surprised to learn how easy it is to make cranberry sauce from scratch.

[admin]

[quote author=eric link=topic=16303.msg183216#msg183216 date=1482253444]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=16303.msg183197#msg183197 date=1482249759]
This feels like someone stole the cranberry sauce at Christmas dinner.  :-[  I understand his decision.  He's smart and rational.  Good luck CMAC.  Thanks for the memories.

ah, the cranberry sauce from my youth, wish someone had stolen it.....


[/quote]

That is the stuff of nightmares. The sole reason I learned to make it from scratch.
[/quote]

I had that growing up, as well, except we almost always forgot to open the can and bring it out. I was surprised to learn how easy it is to make cranberry sauce from scratch.

[winflop]

I see this as a natural evolution of the increasing trend of coaches bailing on their teams before bowl games for another job (promotion).  Players look at this and say "if they can do it why can't we?"

NCAA probably can't stop a college coach from leaving for the pros (although that RARELY happens since the pro season extends past almost every bowl game), but they can stop coaches from leaving before bowl games for other college jobs.  Maybe they should?

[winflop]

I see this as a natural evolution of the increasing trend of coaches bailing on their teams before bowl games for another job (promotion).  Players look at this and say "if they can do it why can't we?"

NCAA probably can't stop a college coach from leaving for the pros (although that RARELY happens since the pro season extends past almost every bowl game), but they can stop coaches from leaving before bowl games for other college jobs.  Maybe they should?

[winflop]

I see this as a natural evolution of the increasing trend of coaches bailing on their teams before bowl games for another job (promotion).  Players look at this and say "if they can do it why can't we?"

NCAA probably can't stop a college coach from leaving for the pros (although that RARELY happens since the pro season extends past almost every bowl game), but they can stop coaches from leaving before bowl games for other college jobs.  Maybe they should?

[winflop]

I see this as a natural evolution of the increasing trend of coaches bailing on their teams before bowl games for another job (promotion).  Players look at this and say "if they can do it why can't we?"

NCAA probably can't stop a college coach from leaving for the pros (although that RARELY happens since the pro season extends past almost every bowl game), but they can stop coaches from leaving before bowl games for other college jobs.  Maybe they should?