[Goose]

I have it on extremely good authority that team members think that his quitting is "nonsense".  I infer that they are publicly staying together so as not to create or inflame a distracting controversy.  And Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say that for what he did.  He isn't pleased either.

I don't have your sources, so I can't comment on that. I agree that Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say. He didn't say he supported the idea, and he didn't say he felt it was "an inexcusable action'. It could be because expressing either point of view would be divisive, and/or counter-productive, but it also could be that he is mildly disappointed but not enough to go public with it. That is what I think is the case, but that is reading tea leaves.

It isn't to us fans that he owes an allegiance, it's to his teammates.

Fully agree.

  They and the coaches have relied on his presence to create an offensive scheme, an individual game plan and individual plays.  And now at the 11th hour, in a game they hope to turn into a 10-3 season he backs out on his teammates.  Bad for his team and damaging for the Stanford brand of athletes who seldom leave early and certainly not during the course of their season.  The rationalization that it gives an opportunity to Love to get a headstart on the season is just a lame excuse for an inexcusable action.

Yes, he was integral to how the offense was structured. So was Toby, probably more so. The difference here, and I think it is a very important difference, is that there is another player that can step in and run that offense. CMac not playing may be damaging, but not near as damaging as it could have been if there was nobody else. So I see this as mildly damaging to our chances in the game. I do not see how his leaving damages the brand of Stanford athletics. Stanford athletes seldom leave early at least partly because few athletes in any program are ready after their Junior year. It is also true that a Stanford education probably keeps players at Stanford that maybe would leave other programs. I really wish CMac was staying to finish school, but I understand that in his position it would probably be foolish to do so. Doing the "smart" thing does not damage the brand. If he has decided to leave and not play next year, you have to argue that playing in the Sun Bowl anyway is "smart". I can't do that.
When one says "it damages the team", that brings giving Love a headstart into the discussion. That fact DOES, (IMHO) mitigate the damage to the team. Win or lose, the team will be more ready for next year. I could be persuaded that in fact the team is actually better off this way. But not if they lose. YMMV.

    That's definitely not why he's leaving.  It's ultimately about finances.

Agree. I do feel however that his choice includes the fact he doesn't feel he is really damaging their chances much. I could be wrong. He may have done it in any case, but I feel less that it is "inexcusable" if there is a clear way ahead.

I think the idea that the Sun Bowl isn't worth his playing for is a specious argument at best.  After the loss to U of W, the team was still playing for the best bowl they could get into, so the games WERE meaningful to them.  (And many of us were speculating about just which bowl game that was).  Like it or not, the Sun Bowl is the best one they could get, so to say it is meaningless just devalues that game and all the others they had to win to get there.

It is 

I agree, it is not meaningless. But it is also not the Rose Bowl. And the team should still be in good shape. So I agree CMac is doing what is best for him, but I don't agree it is "inexcusable". If he were leaving a team with no viable offense, I would. But he isn't. And I would like to think that figured into his actions.

[Goose]

I have it on extremely good authority that team members think that his quitting is "nonsense".  I infer that they are publicly staying together so as not to create or inflame a distracting controversy.  And Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say that for what he did.  He isn't pleased either.

I don't have your sources, so I can't comment on that. I agree that Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say. He didn't say he supported the idea, and he didn't say he felt it was "an inexcusable action'. It could be because expressing either point of view would be divisive, and/or counter-productive, but it also could be that he is mildly disappointed but not enough to go public with it. That is what I think is the case, but that is reading tea leaves.

It isn't to us fans that he owes an allegiance, it's to his teammates.

Fully agree.

  They and the coaches have relied on his presence to create an offensive scheme, an individual game plan and individual plays.  And now at the 11th hour, in a game they hope to turn into a 10-3 season he backs out on his teammates.  Bad for his team and damaging for the Stanford brand of athletes who seldom leave early and certainly not during the course of their season.  The rationalization that it gives an opportunity to Love to get a headstart on the season is just a lame excuse for an inexcusable action.

Yes, he was integral to how the offense was structured. So was Toby, probably more so. The difference here, and I think it is a very important difference, is that there is another player that can step in and run that offense. CMac not playing may be damaging, but not near as damaging as it could have been if there was nobody else. So I see this as mildly damaging to our chances in the game. I do not see how his leaving damages the brand of Stanford athletics. Stanford athletes seldom leave early at least partly because few athletes in any program are ready after their Junior year. It is also true that a Stanford education probably keeps players at Stanford that maybe would leave other programs. I really wish CMac was staying to finish school, but I understand that in his position it would probably be foolish to do so. Doing the "smart" thing does not damage the brand. If he has decided to leave and not play next year, you have to argue that playing in the Sun Bowl anyway is "smart". I can't do that.
When one says "it damages the team", that brings giving Love a headstart into the discussion. That fact DOES, (IMHO) mitigate the damage to the team. Win or lose, the team will be more ready for next year. I could be persuaded that in fact the team is actually better off this way. But not if they lose. YMMV.

    That's definitely not why he's leaving.  It's ultimately about finances.

Agree. I do feel however that his choice includes the fact he doesn't feel he is really damaging their chances much. I could be wrong. He may have done it in any case, but I feel less that it is "inexcusable" if there is a clear way ahead.

I think the idea that the Sun Bowl isn't worth his playing for is a specious argument at best.  After the loss to U of W, the team was still playing for the best bowl they could get into, so the games WERE meaningful to them.  (And many of us were speculating about just which bowl game that was).  Like it or not, the Sun Bowl is the best one they could get, so to say it is meaningless just devalues that game and all the others they had to win to get there.

It is 

I agree, it is not meaningless. But it is also not the Rose Bowl. And the team should still be in good shape. So I agree CMac is doing what is best for him, but I don't agree it is "inexcusable". If he were leaving a team with no viable offense, I would. But he isn't. And I would like to think that figured into his actions.

[Goose]

I have it on extremely good authority that team members think that his quitting is "nonsense".  I infer that they are publicly staying together so as not to create or inflame a distracting controversy.  And Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say that for what he did.  He isn't pleased either.

I don't have your sources, so I can't comment on that. I agree that Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say. He didn't say he supported the idea, and he didn't say he felt it was "an inexcusable action'. It could be because expressing either point of view would be divisive, and/or counter-productive, but it also could be that he is mildly disappointed but not enough to go public with it. That is what I think is the case, but that is reading tea leaves.

It isn't to us fans that he owes an allegiance, it's to his teammates.

Fully agree.

  They and the coaches have relied on his presence to create an offensive scheme, an individual game plan and individual plays.  And now at the 11th hour, in a game they hope to turn into a 10-3 season he backs out on his teammates.  Bad for his team and damaging for the Stanford brand of athletes who seldom leave early and certainly not during the course of their season.  The rationalization that it gives an opportunity to Love to get a headstart on the season is just a lame excuse for an inexcusable action.

Yes, he was integral to how the offense was structured. So was Toby, probably more so. The difference here, and I think it is a very important difference, is that there is another player that can step in and run that offense. CMac not playing may be damaging, but not near as damaging as it could have been if there was nobody else. So I see this as mildly damaging to our chances in the game. I do not see how his leaving damages the brand of Stanford athletics. Stanford athletes seldom leave early at least partly because few athletes in any program are ready after their Junior year. It is also true that a Stanford education probably keeps players at Stanford that maybe would leave other programs. I really wish CMac was staying to finish school, but I understand that in his position it would probably be foolish to do so. Doing the "smart" thing does not damage the brand. If he has decided to leave and not play next year, you have to argue that playing in the Sun Bowl anyway is "smart". I can't do that.
When one says "it damages the team", that brings giving Love a headstart into the discussion. That fact DOES, (IMHO) mitigate the damage to the team. Win or lose, the team will be more ready for next year. I could be persuaded that in fact the team is actually better off this way. But not if they lose. YMMV.

    That's definitely not why he's leaving.  It's ultimately about finances.

Agree. I do feel however that his choice includes the fact he doesn't feel he is really damaging their chances much. I could be wrong. He may have done it in any case, but I feel less that it is "inexcusable" if there is a clear way ahead.

I think the idea that the Sun Bowl isn't worth his playing for is a specious argument at best.  After the loss to U of W, the team was still playing for the best bowl they could get into, so the games WERE meaningful to them.  (And many of us were speculating about just which bowl game that was).  Like it or not, the Sun Bowl is the best one they could get, so to say it is meaningless just devalues that game and all the others they had to win to get there.

It is 

I agree, it is not meaningless. But it is also not the Rose Bowl. And the team should still be in good shape. So I agree CMac is doing what is best for him, but I don't agree it is "inexcusable". If he were leaving a team with no viable offense, I would. But he isn't. And I would like to think that figured into his actions.

[Goose]

I have it on extremely good authority that team members think that his quitting is "nonsense".  I infer that they are publicly staying together so as not to create or inflame a distracting controversy.  And Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say that for what he did.  He isn't pleased either.

I don't have your sources, so I can't comment on that. I agree that Coach Shaw's statement expresses more for what he didn't say. He didn't say he supported the idea, and he didn't say he felt it was "an inexcusable action'. It could be because expressing either point of view would be divisive, and/or counter-productive, but it also could be that he is mildly disappointed but not enough to go public with it. That is what I think is the case, but that is reading tea leaves.

It isn't to us fans that he owes an allegiance, it's to his teammates.

Fully agree.

  They and the coaches have relied on his presence to create an offensive scheme, an individual game plan and individual plays.  And now at the 11th hour, in a game they hope to turn into a 10-3 season he backs out on his teammates.  Bad for his team and damaging for the Stanford brand of athletes who seldom leave early and certainly not during the course of their season.  The rationalization that it gives an opportunity to Love to get a headstart on the season is just a lame excuse for an inexcusable action.

Yes, he was integral to how the offense was structured. So was Toby, probably more so. The difference here, and I think it is a very important difference, is that there is another player that can step in and run that offense. CMac not playing may be damaging, but not near as damaging as it could have been if there was nobody else. So I see this as mildly damaging to our chances in the game. I do not see how his leaving damages the brand of Stanford athletics. Stanford athletes seldom leave early at least partly because few athletes in any program are ready after their Junior year. It is also true that a Stanford education probably keeps players at Stanford that maybe would leave other programs. I really wish CMac was staying to finish school, but I understand that in his position it would probably be foolish to do so. Doing the "smart" thing does not damage the brand. If he has decided to leave and not play next year, you have to argue that playing in the Sun Bowl anyway is "smart". I can't do that.
When one says "it damages the team", that brings giving Love a headstart into the discussion. That fact DOES, (IMHO) mitigate the damage to the team. Win or lose, the team will be more ready for next year. I could be persuaded that in fact the team is actually better off this way. But not if they lose. YMMV.

    That's definitely not why he's leaving.  It's ultimately about finances.

Agree. I do feel however that his choice includes the fact he doesn't feel he is really damaging their chances much. I could be wrong. He may have done it in any case, but I feel less that it is "inexcusable" if there is a clear way ahead.

I think the idea that the Sun Bowl isn't worth his playing for is a specious argument at best.  After the loss to U of W, the team was still playing for the best bowl they could get into, so the games WERE meaningful to them.  (And many of us were speculating about just which bowl game that was).  Like it or not, the Sun Bowl is the best one they could get, so to say it is meaningless just devalues that game and all the others they had to win to get there.

It is 

I agree, it is not meaningless. But it is also not the Rose Bowl. And the team should still be in good shape. So I agree CMac is doing what is best for him, but I don't agree it is "inexcusable". If he were leaving a team with no viable offense, I would. But he isn't. And I would like to think that figured into his actions.

[Goose]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.

[Goose]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.

[Goose]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.

[Goose]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.

[Goose]

I believe that, absent extenuating circumstances, a player has a responsibility to finish the season, and I think that bowl games are part of the season.

I basically agree with this. However, I believe that skipping your senior year to play pro football qualifies as an extenuating circumstance. But I agree that this is debatable, as we are proving here.

  I think his first mistake was to declare for the draft before the game, even if he'd already made up his mind.  Just say "I'll announce my decision after the season's over."  In my mind that would have been the responsible thing to do.

That is what I would have expected as well. Therefore, when he didn't do that, I imagine there were reasons, not just a whim. It must have been eating at him in some way, or others were just driving him nuts asking. It also could be that it was just too hard to act like you still care when you don't. He may have just been completely done with Stanford football, no more in the tank, and wanted to move on. I don't know, but I remain convinced it was something, or he would have just kept his mouth shut and avoided the controversy. I also don't think he had decided not to play in the bowl at the same time he decided to skip next year. If he had, it would have made sense to say so at the same time and avoid two publicity hits. Her certainly wouldn't have said he was preparing to play when he already knew he would not.

I get that you and others disagree - so be it, let's agree to disagree.  But given the number of former players and fans who have come out and said that his decision bothers them, it's hard to say that the "damage is slight."  Also keep in mind that Shaw has not (to my knowledge) said he supports the decision.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I think that Shaw as been about as "even" in his statements as possible. He has neither supported or condemned the decision. I am not sure we can read anything into this. It could be he feels he has to be neutral for political reasons. He can't very well say "good idea" or the whole senior class might bolt, or at least question why they are playing. He can't very well say he is disappointed in CMac without alienating recruits that may see themselves doing the same. So I don't think we know what Shaw actually thinks beyond what he has said.
As far as the damage, we don't really know. If Stanford wins and Love has a great game, this will all be forgotten I think. If Stanford doesn't win, that will be a different story. As far as damaging Stanford's football reputation, I don't think it does. There are so many people on both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between (like me) that I don't see this as a problem. But we can agree to disagree about that too!

[Goose]

I believe that, absent extenuating circumstances, a player has a responsibility to finish the season, and I think that bowl games are part of the season.

I basically agree with this. However, I believe that skipping your senior year to play pro football qualifies as an extenuating circumstance. But I agree that this is debatable, as we are proving here.

  I think his first mistake was to declare for the draft before the game, even if he'd already made up his mind.  Just say "I'll announce my decision after the season's over."  In my mind that would have been the responsible thing to do.

That is what I would have expected as well. Therefore, when he didn't do that, I imagine there were reasons, not just a whim. It must have been eating at him in some way, or others were just driving him nuts asking. It also could be that it was just too hard to act like you still care when you don't. He may have just been completely done with Stanford football, no more in the tank, and wanted to move on. I don't know, but I remain convinced it was something, or he would have just kept his mouth shut and avoided the controversy. I also don't think he had decided not to play in the bowl at the same time he decided to skip next year. If he had, it would have made sense to say so at the same time and avoid two publicity hits. Her certainly wouldn't have said he was preparing to play when he already knew he would not.

I get that you and others disagree - so be it, let's agree to disagree.  But given the number of former players and fans who have come out and said that his decision bothers them, it's hard to say that the "damage is slight."  Also keep in mind that Shaw has not (to my knowledge) said he supports the decision.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I think that Shaw as been about as "even" in his statements as possible. He has neither supported or condemned the decision. I am not sure we can read anything into this. It could be he feels he has to be neutral for political reasons. He can't very well say "good idea" or the whole senior class might bolt, or at least question why they are playing. He can't very well say he is disappointed in CMac without alienating recruits that may see themselves doing the same. So I don't think we know what Shaw actually thinks beyond what he has said.
As far as the damage, we don't really know. If Stanford wins and Love has a great game, this will all be forgotten I think. If Stanford doesn't win, that will be a different story. As far as damaging Stanford's football reputation, I don't think it does. There are so many people on both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between (like me) that I don't see this as a problem. But we can agree to disagree about that too!

[Goose]

I believe that, absent extenuating circumstances, a player has a responsibility to finish the season, and I think that bowl games are part of the season.

I basically agree with this. However, I believe that skipping your senior year to play pro football qualifies as an extenuating circumstance. But I agree that this is debatable, as we are proving here.

  I think his first mistake was to declare for the draft before the game, even if he'd already made up his mind.  Just say "I'll announce my decision after the season's over."  In my mind that would have been the responsible thing to do.

That is what I would have expected as well. Therefore, when he didn't do that, I imagine there were reasons, not just a whim. It must have been eating at him in some way, or others were just driving him nuts asking. It also could be that it was just too hard to act like you still care when you don't. He may have just been completely done with Stanford football, no more in the tank, and wanted to move on. I don't know, but I remain convinced it was something, or he would have just kept his mouth shut and avoided the controversy. I also don't think he had decided not to play in the bowl at the same time he decided to skip next year. If he had, it would have made sense to say so at the same time and avoid two publicity hits. Her certainly wouldn't have said he was preparing to play when he already knew he would not.

I get that you and others disagree - so be it, let's agree to disagree.  But given the number of former players and fans who have come out and said that his decision bothers them, it's hard to say that the "damage is slight."  Also keep in mind that Shaw has not (to my knowledge) said he supports the decision.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I think that Shaw as been about as "even" in his statements as possible. He has neither supported or condemned the decision. I am not sure we can read anything into this. It could be he feels he has to be neutral for political reasons. He can't very well say "good idea" or the whole senior class might bolt, or at least question why they are playing. He can't very well say he is disappointed in CMac without alienating recruits that may see themselves doing the same. So I don't think we know what Shaw actually thinks beyond what he has said.
As far as the damage, we don't really know. If Stanford wins and Love has a great game, this will all be forgotten I think. If Stanford doesn't win, that will be a different story. As far as damaging Stanford's football reputation, I don't think it does. There are so many people on both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between (like me) that I don't see this as a problem. But we can agree to disagree about that too!

[Goose]

I believe that, absent extenuating circumstances, a player has a responsibility to finish the season, and I think that bowl games are part of the season.

I basically agree with this. However, I believe that skipping your senior year to play pro football qualifies as an extenuating circumstance. But I agree that this is debatable, as we are proving here.

  I think his first mistake was to declare for the draft before the game, even if he'd already made up his mind.  Just say "I'll announce my decision after the season's over."  In my mind that would have been the responsible thing to do.

That is what I would have expected as well. Therefore, when he didn't do that, I imagine there were reasons, not just a whim. It must have been eating at him in some way, or others were just driving him nuts asking. It also could be that it was just too hard to act like you still care when you don't. He may have just been completely done with Stanford football, no more in the tank, and wanted to move on. I don't know, but I remain convinced it was something, or he would have just kept his mouth shut and avoided the controversy. I also don't think he had decided not to play in the bowl at the same time he decided to skip next year. If he had, it would have made sense to say so at the same time and avoid two publicity hits. Her certainly wouldn't have said he was preparing to play when he already knew he would not.

I get that you and others disagree - so be it, let's agree to disagree.  But given the number of former players and fans who have come out and said that his decision bothers them, it's hard to say that the "damage is slight."  Also keep in mind that Shaw has not (to my knowledge) said he supports the decision.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I think that Shaw as been about as "even" in his statements as possible. He has neither supported or condemned the decision. I am not sure we can read anything into this. It could be he feels he has to be neutral for political reasons. He can't very well say "good idea" or the whole senior class might bolt, or at least question why they are playing. He can't very well say he is disappointed in CMac without alienating recruits that may see themselves doing the same. So I don't think we know what Shaw actually thinks beyond what he has said.
As far as the damage, we don't really know. If Stanford wins and Love has a great game, this will all be forgotten I think. If Stanford doesn't win, that will be a different story. As far as damaging Stanford's football reputation, I don't think it does. There are so many people on both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between (like me) that I don't see this as a problem. But we can agree to disagree about that too!

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16303.msg183652#msg183652 date=1482766408]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16303.msg183644#msg183644 date=1482736079]

But Goose, I am 100% convinced that he is NOT selflessly stepping aside to give his peers more reps.  That is delusional.

I don't see Goose making this claim anywhere in his post; he merely stated that the damage of McCaffrey not playing was minimal. Other players getting reps is a byproduct of his decision but nowhere did Goose list this as a motive.
[/quote]
Correct. I don't think he is doing this to help the team. He is doing this because he think it makes sense for him. I also think (perhaps incorrectly) that he evaluated the impact of his actions both on his image and on the team and decided that the negative effects were minimal, or at worst small enough to be morally acceptable to him. Some people do not agree, which is understandable. The more I look at it, the more I do.
[/quote]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in. 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

[FarmBoy]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

[FarmBoy]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

[FarmBoy]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

[FarmBoy]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.

[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.

[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.

[Goose]

If his decision is based on the risk of getting injured while performing his duties as a running back, and one accepts that there is such a risk, his not playing does not make that risk disappear, it simply transfers that risk to whomever now has to perform those duties.  Thus, CMAC is saying that, while he is not willing to assume that risk, he is fine with [presumably] Love now taking it on for all of those additional plays that Love will have to run in CMAC's absence.    In fact, with CMAC gone, the injury risk for Love probably increases, since he will presumably have to carry the ball more than he would have with CMAC playing, not only increasing the number of opportunities for injury, but also increasing the tiredness/wear and tear factor that could contribute to the severity of any injury. So there is that impact on the individual/teammate level.  Furthermore, on the team level, if an injury were to occur, rather than having CMAC, Love, and Scarlett available, the team now only has Love and Scarlett available -- on its face, that is a less favorable position to be in.

It is true that no CMac means more carries for Love and Scarlett, at least probably. More carries brings greater risk, that is for sure. I think both players would say that they consider getting the carries with the associated risk of injury to be superior to sitting on the bench. So it is probably more favorable to them. The TEAM may be more at risk, because it has one less good, ready, running back. That could matter, and we will see. However, they will be in that position next year too, baring a Freshman being ready to play. So if you want to condemn CMac on that basis, I would say you must not be very happy about him doing the same all next year. To me, that is a rational position. I just have trouble separating the Sun Bowl from all next year. If all next year is ok, why is this game different? 

And, looking at the longer term horizon, if the injury risk that he is presumably seeking to avoid is one that has hypothetical adverse career implications -- say, inability to play next season -- he is now transferring that risk to Love and to the team.  That is the flip side of the "this actually helps the team because it gives them a chance to preapre for next year" argument.  If you assume CMAC's decision is rational and justified because the risk of injury is real, how can you turn around and then assume that there is no risk [or even a lesser risk] of injury for the person replacing CMAC?

I don't assume that. I agree it increases the risk to the other backs. This is a disadvantage to the team, no question. But I see it as a small one, relatively speaking. CMac has one chance at the draft. The other backs have six months to heal and more seasons to play. They choose to accept that risk by playing. CMac chooses not to by not playing. He is in a special situation that makes his current health more important than normal. That may make his choice reasonable.

  Whatever play he would have been injured on will now result in injury to the person replacing him on that play, unless the game plan is changed such that the play never happens. 

Of course, if the game plan is altered so that this hypothetical play never occurs, then it is likely that the team's chances will be adversely impacted, because you are now designing/running an offense that is compensating for not having its best player.

This is real hypothetical, but I don't necessarily agree. Changing the game plan from "All CMac all the Time"  could in fact IMPROVE the teams chances. Many have argued that Stanford has become too one-dimensional. When you have the best all purpose player in the nation, you may do that. However, it can put you in a situation that you have no plan b. Last year, our "plan b" was pretty much run Hogan (Washington State). It worked fairly well. This year, we seemed to lack an alternative (for many reasons far too controversial for this thread!). Whatever the case, we need to figure out our plan for next year, because we don't have CMac. If we (OK, the coaches and the team) do a good job of this, we may be a better team sooner than later. If we don't, then we will be negatively impacted. How much, we shall see. I think this could make the Sun Bowl much more interesting.

Thus, the negative effects on his teammates [or, at least, some of them] and the team as a whole

Yes, I agree, there are some negatives and some positives. I tend to think the negatives are not as big as you seem to believe they are, but that makes the discussion interesting.

[Goose]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

I agree that having a 100% committed CMac playing would make it more likely we would win the Sun Bowl. I am not equally convinced that a not 100% committed CMac playing with an eye to not getting hurt would make it more likely. When you game plan for CMac and get CMac Lite, it may not work well. You may feel differently about this. For me, if he is not 100% in, we probably are better off with him out. Possibly he felt that way also.
Also, my point has always been that while our odds of winning have decreased with his absence, they don't decrease by a "large" amount. That said, we can still lose in either situation. I am sure that if we do lose, CMac will get some heat.

[Goose]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

I agree that having a 100% committed CMac playing would make it more likely we would win the Sun Bowl. I am not equally convinced that a not 100% committed CMac playing with an eye to not getting hurt would make it more likely. When you game plan for CMac and get CMac Lite, it may not work well. You may feel differently about this. For me, if he is not 100% in, we probably are better off with him out. Possibly he felt that way also.
Also, my point has always been that while our odds of winning have decreased with his absence, they don't decrease by a "large" amount. That said, we can still lose in either situation. I am sure that if we do lose, CMac will get some heat.

[Goose]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

I agree that having a 100% committed CMac playing would make it more likely we would win the Sun Bowl. I am not equally convinced that a not 100% committed CMac playing with an eye to not getting hurt would make it more likely. When you game plan for CMac and get CMac Lite, it may not work well. You may feel differently about this. For me, if he is not 100% in, we probably are better off with him out. Possibly he felt that way also.
Also, my point has always been that while our odds of winning have decreased with his absence, they don't decrease by a "large" amount. That said, we can still lose in either situation. I am sure that if we do lose, CMac will get some heat.

[Goose]

I chuckle at claims that CMac not playing will not damage our bowl chances. He's a once in a generation player (aren't we lucky to have had three of those the past 8 years?!?) Love is a good player, but it's a steep drop off from CMac to Love.

I agree that having a 100% committed CMac playing would make it more likely we would win the Sun Bowl. I am not equally convinced that a not 100% committed CMac playing with an eye to not getting hurt would make it more likely. When you game plan for CMac and get CMac Lite, it may not work well. You may feel differently about this. For me, if he is not 100% in, we probably are better off with him out. Possibly he felt that way also.
Also, my point has always been that while our odds of winning have decreased with his absence, they don't decrease by a "large" amount. That said, we can still lose in either situation. I am sure that if we do lose, CMac will get some heat.

[BurgXXIII]

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

An unfortunate side of this is that although CMAC, Love and Chryst shared 8 or so player years at Stanford, what could have been a very dynamic offensive group actually only shared the field for only a few dozen (score?) snaps.  Seems a little ridiculous.

[BurgXXIII]

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

An unfortunate side of this is that although CMAC, Love and Chryst shared 8 or so player years at Stanford, what could have been a very dynamic offensive group actually only shared the field for only a few dozen (score?) snaps.  Seems a little ridiculous.

[BurgXXIII]

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

An unfortunate side of this is that although CMAC, Love and Chryst shared 8 or so player years at Stanford, what could have been a very dynamic offensive group actually only shared the field for only a few dozen (score?) snaps.  Seems a little ridiculous.

[BurgXXIII]

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

An unfortunate side of this is that although CMAC, Love and Chryst shared 8 or so player years at Stanford, what could have been a very dynamic offensive group actually only shared the field for only a few dozen (score?) snaps.  Seems a little ridiculous.

[TreesAndBirds]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

[TreesAndBirds]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

[TreesAndBirds]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

[TreesAndBirds]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

[Goose]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

I agree  with both these thoughts. I think Shaw et al. may decide that running the same offense with BLove will work well enough because UNC has a weak run defense. OTOH Shaw has shown creativity in Bowl games that was not so obvious in the regular season. We may actually run the fullback. It could go either way, and therefore will be interesting. If we prevail, either approach should energize the team, showing themselves and everyone else that they are more than CM and the 10 dwarfs. OTOH, if we lose, it will send a message to both the coaches and players that more is required, which, while painful, may be useful. I think we will prevail, and I am looking forward to seeing exactly how.

[Goose]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

I agree  with both these thoughts. I think Shaw et al. may decide that running the same offense with BLove will work well enough because UNC has a weak run defense. OTOH Shaw has shown creativity in Bowl games that was not so obvious in the regular season. We may actually run the fullback. It could go either way, and therefore will be interesting. If we prevail, either approach should energize the team, showing themselves and everyone else that they are more than CM and the 10 dwarfs. OTOH, if we lose, it will send a message to both the coaches and players that more is required, which, while painful, may be useful. I think we will prevail, and I am looking forward to seeing exactly how.

[Goose]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

I agree  with both these thoughts. I think Shaw et al. may decide that running the same offense with BLove will work well enough because UNC has a weak run defense. OTOH Shaw has shown creativity in Bowl games that was not so obvious in the regular season. We may actually run the fullback. It could go either way, and therefore will be interesting. If we prevail, either approach should energize the team, showing themselves and everyone else that they are more than CM and the 10 dwarfs. OTOH, if we lose, it will send a message to both the coaches and players that more is required, which, while painful, may be useful. I think we will prevail, and I am looking forward to seeing exactly how.

[Goose]

Our chances of winning w/o CM are less, but if we win, the win will mean a lot more to have won against a quality opponent without him, especially for those guys who will be the core of the team next year.  The team has a lot more to prove now that CM isnt playing, and I think they will step up.

For me the fun part of the Sun Bowl is observing how Shaw and the coaching staff react to a curveball. Shaw is typically so controlled that even wins can become a little painful. Now we fans have the element of surprise.

I agree  with both these thoughts. I think Shaw et al. may decide that running the same offense with BLove will work well enough because UNC has a weak run defense. OTOH Shaw has shown creativity in Bowl games that was not so obvious in the regular season. We may actually run the fullback. It could go either way, and therefore will be interesting. If we prevail, either approach should energize the team, showing themselves and everyone else that they are more than CM and the 10 dwarfs. OTOH, if we lose, it will send a message to both the coaches and players that more is required, which, while painful, may be useful. I think we will prevail, and I am looking forward to seeing exactly how.