[JohnR34231]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

If a player leaves early to go to the NFL and then wants to come back later and finish his degree is his scholarship still honored? I always assumed he had to pay 100% of it the way it is now.

[JohnR34231]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

If a player leaves early to go to the NFL and then wants to come back later and finish his degree is his scholarship still honored? I always assumed he had to pay 100% of it the way it is now.

[ColoradoTree]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

[ColoradoTree]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

[winflop]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

I agree that their admissions status and scholarship status are independent - an oversight on my part and likely due to the extreme frustration I have with what has happened both with Herbig and college football in general.

I think that if a scholarship athlete (in good standing as a student) breaches their scholarship agreement they should still be entitled to the rights of any admitted student. This could be a big delta between Stanford and many other schools because all of our scholarship athletes have to be admitted separately, whereas at many schools the admission is part of their scholarship so if they breach the agreement their admission can also be revoked. 

I don't know if scholarship athletes who leave early still get their education paid for if they come back - or if there's a limited timeframe after which it's not paid for, etc. But whatever those rights are, they should be forfeited if the athlete breaches their agreement.

[winflop]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Is stopping out no longer a thing?  It wasn't a big deal for athletes back in the early 2000s, at least, to take a quarter or two off and then come back without issue, to try and make the Olympics in their chosen sport. In my view, leaving early for a pro career in football is a difference of degree from that, not in kind. 

Of course, those athletes taking a quarter or two off to compete in high-level amateur sports retained eligibility, so they rightly didn't lose their scholarship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't football players who go pro and return to take classes have to pay full freight anyway, since they're no longer on (or eligible for) the Stanford team?  

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

I agree that their admissions status and scholarship status are independent - an oversight on my part and likely due to the extreme frustration I have with what has happened both with Herbig and college football in general.

I think that if a scholarship athlete (in good standing as a student) breaches their scholarship agreement they should still be entitled to the rights of any admitted student. This could be a big delta between Stanford and many other schools because all of our scholarship athletes have to be admitted separately, whereas at many schools the admission is part of their scholarship so if they breach the agreement their admission can also be revoked. 

I don't know if scholarship athletes who leave early still get their education paid for if they come back - or if there's a limited timeframe after which it's not paid for, etc. But whatever those rights are, they should be forfeited if the athlete breaches their agreement.

[ColoradoTree]

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

I've always viewed fifth years as a mutual option--we don't owe it to the student-athlete, and he doesn't owe it to us, but if both sides want a 5th year, great. 

I don't have any reservations about kids leaving after four years, even if they have a year left. That's their academic obligation to the school, and it's ours to them. 

I get queasy about kids leaving after three years, but to be honest, my feelings differ from kid to kid. With McCaffrey, it looked like he'd be a first-rounder, and there's value in striking while the iron's hot, so going there felt like the right call.  With Austin Hooper, it seemed like more of a gamble, and while that was a thin year for TEs generally in the draft, I wasn't sure he made the right call in going. (He went in Round 3 and was the second TE off the board, and he's been great for Atlanta, so I think he made the right call in the end.)  I thought Justin Reid leaving made sense, but I thought Meeks could have benefited from another year, and their respective draft slots and rookie performances have pretty much validated that.  Andrus Peat made the right financial choice by leaving, but he hasn't lived up to his draft slot so far, so perhaps another year at Stanford would have made his career more successful, at least initially. 

I've made my general point on skipping bowl games elsewhere here, so I won't repeat myself other than to say whether I care depends on the prestige of the bowl, whether you're still playing for a championship, your injury history, your likely draft slot, etc. With Christian, I got it. If you might go in the top half of the first round, it's not worth it. I didn't begrudge him that. (I was glad Solomon played that game, of course. But I wasn't mad at Christian.)  With Bryce, I'm glad he's not playing, because he's already probably damaged his financial future somewhat by returning to get his degree, he's dinged up now, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he got injured again playing in a mid-tier (at best) bowl game. 

I'll be candid that Herbig's departure doesn't sit as well with me, even though my general principle would be to not begrudge him this. Bryce is getting his degree in addition to being injured, so he's done his part, as far as I'm concerned. But even comparing Herbig to other departing juniors, his case seems to be an outlier. Christian was a damn star, and I felt like it was a fair trade to not have his services in the Sun Bowl in exchange for ensuring a healthy walking billboard for Stanford football, you know?  His smile on draft night, and every touchdown Christian scores now, means a little residual value flowing back to the program. We knew Peat would go high. I thought Reid and Hooper would be 2nd round picks. (Not to mention that Peat, Reid, and Hooper all played in the bowl games their last years.) But I don't have that level of optimism for Herbig's draft status. So, the direct comparison is Christian. And, uh, Nate didn't do for this program what Christian did.

I guess, in the end, that skipping the bowl game is a privilege. It felt fair to me that Christian was afforded that privilege. It feels very right that Bryce is. It doesn't feel as right with Herbig.

[ColoradoTree]

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

I've always viewed fifth years as a mutual option--we don't owe it to the student-athlete, and he doesn't owe it to us, but if both sides want a 5th year, great. 

I don't have any reservations about kids leaving after four years, even if they have a year left. That's their academic obligation to the school, and it's ours to them. 

I get queasy about kids leaving after three years, but to be honest, my feelings differ from kid to kid. With McCaffrey, it looked like he'd be a first-rounder, and there's value in striking while the iron's hot, so going there felt like the right call.  With Austin Hooper, it seemed like more of a gamble, and while that was a thin year for TEs generally in the draft, I wasn't sure he made the right call in going. (He went in Round 3 and was the second TE off the board, and he's been great for Atlanta, so I think he made the right call in the end.)  I thought Justin Reid leaving made sense, but I thought Meeks could have benefited from another year, and their respective draft slots and rookie performances have pretty much validated that.  Andrus Peat made the right financial choice by leaving, but he hasn't lived up to his draft slot so far, so perhaps another year at Stanford would have made his career more successful, at least initially. 

I've made my general point on skipping bowl games elsewhere here, so I won't repeat myself other than to say whether I care depends on the prestige of the bowl, whether you're still playing for a championship, your injury history, your likely draft slot, etc. With Christian, I got it. If you might go in the top half of the first round, it's not worth it. I didn't begrudge him that. (I was glad Solomon played that game, of course. But I wasn't mad at Christian.)  With Bryce, I'm glad he's not playing, because he's already probably damaged his financial future somewhat by returning to get his degree, he's dinged up now, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he got injured again playing in a mid-tier (at best) bowl game. 

I'll be candid that Herbig's departure doesn't sit as well with me, even though my general principle would be to not begrudge him this. Bryce is getting his degree in addition to being injured, so he's done his part, as far as I'm concerned. But even comparing Herbig to other departing juniors, his case seems to be an outlier. Christian was a damn star, and I felt like it was a fair trade to not have his services in the Sun Bowl in exchange for ensuring a healthy walking billboard for Stanford football, you know?  His smile on draft night, and every touchdown Christian scores now, means a little residual value flowing back to the program. We knew Peat would go high. I thought Reid and Hooper would be 2nd round picks. (Not to mention that Peat, Reid, and Hooper all played in the bowl games their last years.) But I don't have that level of optimism for Herbig's draft status. So, the direct comparison is Christian. And, uh, Nate didn't do for this program what Christian did.

I guess, in the end, that skipping the bowl game is a privilege. It felt fair to me that Christian was afforded that privilege. It feels very right that Bryce is. It doesn't feel as right with Herbig.

[Hank 91]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

[Hank 91]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

[TinderForMidgets]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Bad idea. That would work if 100% of colleges agreed upon it or if there was a rule for it. Otherwise, it would hurt any college that attempted it. "Contact" makes them sound like actual laborers which hurt the student-athlete bullshit the NCAA preaches about it.

[TinderForMidgets]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Bad idea. That would work if 100% of colleges agreed upon it or if there was a rule for it. Otherwise, it would hurt any college that attempted it. "Contact" makes them sound like actual laborers which hurt the student-athlete bullshit the NCAA preaches about it.

[Redrum]

[quote="CTcard" pid='239017' dateline='1545369221']
That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

This...Well said!

[Redrum]

[quote="CTcard" pid='239017' dateline='1545369221']
That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I view their admissions status separately from their financial obligations. I agree that folks who leave early should have to pay their own way when they come back, and I'm pretty sure that's how it is now. But you should only have to get into Stanford once. They did that. They're part of the family now, and they get to come back and finish their degree whenever they want. We should also want them to finish their degree, not throw up a re-application roadblock, and not just for APR/graduation rate purposes. It's who we are. If a kid wants to take a leave of absence from the University to pursue a lucrative career, then more power to them; Stanford helped them get there, and we should be proud of that. But we are in the business of providing educations, and we should want every kid who leaves early to finish theirs.

This...Well said!

[stupac2]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[stupac2]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[Hank 91]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

This is probably what I'm remembering also. I was surprised that things like the NCCU situation were still happening. I seem to remember that five or six years ago a school hired a new women's basketball coach -- maybe in New Mexico or someplace -- and the new coach wanted to bring in her own recruits, so she revoked several existing scholarships. That led to a lot of national discussion, which may have triggered the Pac-12 change.

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[Hank 91]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

This is probably what I'm remembering also. I was surprised that things like the NCCU situation were still happening. I seem to remember that five or six years ago a school hired a new women's basketball coach -- maybe in New Mexico or someplace -- and the new coach wanted to bring in her own recruits, so she revoked several existing scholarships. That led to a lot of national discussion, which may have triggered the Pac-12 change.

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[TreesAndBirds]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[TreesAndBirds]

I kind of think this has changed recently, but for the longest time these "four-year scholarships" were actually renewable one-year scholarships. If that's still the case, there would be no breach of contract if a player chose not to renew his scholarship and instead left for the NFL. This happens the other way, from time to time.

Late add: Apparently this hasn't changed. Coaches can still revoke scholarships for performance reasons. Why should players, then, be criticized for leaving if they feel it's in their best interest?

https://theundefeated.com/features/nccu-...olarships/

I thought the Pac-12 had changed to 4-year scholarships, even if all of the NCAA didn't.

[BobK]

The Pac 12 did

[BobK]

The Pac 12 did

[winflop]

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

My frustration is that I think bowl games are part of the season and I believe players should finish the season before they prepare for the draft. It doesn't matter to me whether the player is leaving early for the draft, is graduating, or has exhausted eligibility.

I would rather see scholarships be a four-year commitment but even with what are effectively one-year scholarships my principle still applies. Unless you aren't healthy enough to play, finishing your season is part of your scholarship agreement.

Also, with Love and Irwin now playing in the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl 3 weeks after the Sun Bowl, it causes me to question whether they are too injured to play in the Sun Bowl. There could be explanations, but for Love to state that he's focusing on getting healthy and to then choose to play in a game before the draft doesn't seem to jive at face value.

Really wish there could be more honesty and integrity...

[winflop]

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

My frustration is that I think bowl games are part of the season and I believe players should finish the season before they prepare for the draft. It doesn't matter to me whether the player is leaving early for the draft, is graduating, or has exhausted eligibility.

I would rather see scholarships be a four-year commitment but even with what are effectively one-year scholarships my principle still applies. Unless you aren't healthy enough to play, finishing your season is part of your scholarship agreement.

Also, with Love and Irwin now playing in the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl 3 weeks after the Sun Bowl, it causes me to question whether they are too injured to play in the Sun Bowl. There could be explanations, but for Love to state that he's focusing on getting healthy and to then choose to play in a game before the draft doesn't seem to jive at face value.

Really wish there could be more honesty and integrity...

[Beeg_Dawg]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Contract?  And if there is a contract, how was it breached?

[Beeg_Dawg]

That seems at least a tad harsh. 

I agree it's harsh. I'm not saying wipe his Stanford existence from our memories and I'm also not saying he should be barred from returning. But I am saying that I think if someone breaches their contract with the University they shouldn't continue to receive the benefits of that contract. The right to return & finish is part of that. I think if he wants to finish his degree at Stanford he should re-apply and absolutely pay for 100% of it.

Contract?  And if there is a contract, how was it breached?

[Lsju98]

U

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

I've always viewed fifth years as a mutual option--we don't owe it to the student-athlete, and he doesn't owe it to us, but if both sides want a 5th year, great. 

I don't have any reservations about kids leaving after four years, even if they have a year left. That's their academic obligation to the school, and it's ours to them. 

I get queasy about kids leaving after three years, but to be honest, my feelings differ from kid to kid. With McCaffrey, it looked like he'd be a first-rounder, and there's value in striking while the iron's hot, so going there felt like the right call.  With Austin Hooper, it seemed like more of a gamble, and while that was a thin year for TEs generally in the draft, I wasn't sure he made the right call in going. (He went in Round 3 and was the second TE off the board, and he's been great for Atlanta, so I think he made the right call in the end.)  I thought Justin Reid leaving made sense, but I thought Meeks could have benefited from another year, and their respective draft slots and rookie performances have pretty much validated that.  Andrus Peat made the right financial choice by leaving, but he hasn't lived up to his draft slot so far, so perhaps another year at Stanford would have made his career more successful, at least initially. 

I've made my general point on skipping bowl games elsewhere here, so I won't repeat myself other than to say whether I care depends on the prestige of the bowl, whether you're still playing for a championship, your injury history, your likely draft slot, etc. With Christian, I got it. If you might go in the top half of the first round, it's not worth it. I didn't begrudge him that. (I was glad Solomon played that game, of course. But I wasn't mad at Christian.)  With Bryce, I'm glad he's not playing, because he's already probably damaged his financial future somewhat by returning to get his degree, he's dinged up now, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he got injured again playing in a mid-tier (at best) bowl game. 

I'll be candid that Herbig's departure doesn't sit as well with me, even though my general principle would be to not begrudge him this. Bryce is getting his degree in addition to being injured, so he's done his part, as far as I'm concerned. But even comparing Herbig to other departing juniors, his case seems to be an outlier. Christian was a damn star, and I felt like it was a fair trade to not have his services in the Sun Bowl in exchange for ensuring a healthy walking billboard for Stanford football, you know?  His smile on draft night, and every touchdown Christian scores now, means a little residual value flowing back to the program. We knew Peat would go high. I thought Reid and Hooper would be 2nd round picks. (Not to mention that Peat, Reid, and Hooper all played in the bowl games their last years.) But I don't have that level of optimism for Herbig's draft status. So, the direct comparison is Christian. And, uh, Nate didn't do for this program what Christian did.

I guess, in the end, that skipping the bowl game is a privilege. It felt fair to me that Christian was afforded that privilege. It feels very right that Bryce is. It doesn't feel as right with Herbig.

Andrus Peat is doing just fine in NO. Takes a couple years for an OL to find his place, and he’s done that.

[Lsju98]

U

winflop, is your concern primarily about kids skipping the bowl game, before they've exhausted eligibility, or before they've spent four years here?  

I've always viewed fifth years as a mutual option--we don't owe it to the student-athlete, and he doesn't owe it to us, but if both sides want a 5th year, great. 

I don't have any reservations about kids leaving after four years, even if they have a year left. That's their academic obligation to the school, and it's ours to them. 

I get queasy about kids leaving after three years, but to be honest, my feelings differ from kid to kid. With McCaffrey, it looked like he'd be a first-rounder, and there's value in striking while the iron's hot, so going there felt like the right call.  With Austin Hooper, it seemed like more of a gamble, and while that was a thin year for TEs generally in the draft, I wasn't sure he made the right call in going. (He went in Round 3 and was the second TE off the board, and he's been great for Atlanta, so I think he made the right call in the end.)  I thought Justin Reid leaving made sense, but I thought Meeks could have benefited from another year, and their respective draft slots and rookie performances have pretty much validated that.  Andrus Peat made the right financial choice by leaving, but he hasn't lived up to his draft slot so far, so perhaps another year at Stanford would have made his career more successful, at least initially. 

I've made my general point on skipping bowl games elsewhere here, so I won't repeat myself other than to say whether I care depends on the prestige of the bowl, whether you're still playing for a championship, your injury history, your likely draft slot, etc. With Christian, I got it. If you might go in the top half of the first round, it's not worth it. I didn't begrudge him that. (I was glad Solomon played that game, of course. But I wasn't mad at Christian.)  With Bryce, I'm glad he's not playing, because he's already probably damaged his financial future somewhat by returning to get his degree, he's dinged up now, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he got injured again playing in a mid-tier (at best) bowl game. 

I'll be candid that Herbig's departure doesn't sit as well with me, even though my general principle would be to not begrudge him this. Bryce is getting his degree in addition to being injured, so he's done his part, as far as I'm concerned. But even comparing Herbig to other departing juniors, his case seems to be an outlier. Christian was a damn star, and I felt like it was a fair trade to not have his services in the Sun Bowl in exchange for ensuring a healthy walking billboard for Stanford football, you know?  His smile on draft night, and every touchdown Christian scores now, means a little residual value flowing back to the program. We knew Peat would go high. I thought Reid and Hooper would be 2nd round picks. (Not to mention that Peat, Reid, and Hooper all played in the bowl games their last years.) But I don't have that level of optimism for Herbig's draft status. So, the direct comparison is Christian. And, uh, Nate didn't do for this program what Christian did.

I guess, in the end, that skipping the bowl game is a privilege. It felt fair to me that Christian was afforded that privilege. It feels very right that Bryce is. It doesn't feel as right with Herbig.

Andrus Peat is doing just fine in NO. Takes a couple years for an OL to find his place, and he’s done that.

[BostonCard]

JYeah, Peat is a starting guard for playoff bound New Orleans, and according to PFF, it’s the fourth highest rated line in the NFL.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pr...er-week-15

You really can’t consider Peat a bust; he’s probably in the second tier of Stanford players in the NFL, behind Luck, McCaffrey, Sherman, DeCastro, Ertz, Baldwin, and Reid.  He will have a productive career in the NFL barring injury.

BC

[BostonCard]

JYeah, Peat is a starting guard for playoff bound New Orleans, and according to PFF, it’s the fourth highest rated line in the NFL.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pr...er-week-15

You really can’t consider Peat a bust; he’s probably in the second tier of Stanford players in the NFL, behind Luck, McCaffrey, Sherman, DeCastro, Ertz, Baldwin, and Reid.  He will have a productive career in the NFL barring injury.

BC

[d4cohn]

In case we needed further evidence that just about any non-NY6/CFP bowl is essentially an exhibition game, the First Responder Bowl between Boston College and Boise State just got canceled (after a 2+ hour thunderstorm delay) midway through the first quarter with no makeup (game officially a no contest). 

https://twitter.com/FRBowl/status/1078022774097170439

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

For the record, I will be in El Paso for the game with my family.

I also don't view Herbig's situation as any different than CMac, Andrus, Luck etc. My respect for Herbig's time in a Cardinal uniform is not contingent on how much the team won or lost during his three years, stats/awards he put up for us etc. I appreciate his contributions to our program over the last three years, and believe he should be welcomed back to campus to finish his degree if/when he decides the time is right to return to campus. Stanford is in the business of preparing its students (and student-athletes) for professional success in their endeavors. As such, Herbig leaving for the NFL, and potentially earning a 7-figure contract for him and his family, cannot be viewed as anything other than a fantastic success. Would my preference be for players to earn their degrees? Of course. But I am not going to say good riddance, or some of the other stuff that has been said about Herbig on this thread (like he should have to re-apply to Stanford), for him leaving early. Frankly, that wouldn't make us look good as a university, or as a fanbase.

[d4cohn]

In case we needed further evidence that just about any non-NY6/CFP bowl is essentially an exhibition game, the First Responder Bowl between Boston College and Boise State just got canceled (after a 2+ hour thunderstorm delay) midway through the first quarter with no makeup (game officially a no contest). 

https://twitter.com/FRBowl/status/1078022774097170439

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

For the record, I will be in El Paso for the game with my family.

I also don't view Herbig's situation as any different than CMac, Andrus, Luck etc. My respect for Herbig's time in a Cardinal uniform is not contingent on how much the team won or lost during his three years, stats/awards he put up for us etc. I appreciate his contributions to our program over the last three years, and believe he should be welcomed back to campus to finish his degree if/when he decides the time is right to return to campus. Stanford is in the business of preparing its students (and student-athletes) for professional success in their endeavors. As such, Herbig leaving for the NFL, and potentially earning a 7-figure contract for him and his family, cannot be viewed as anything other than a fantastic success. Would my preference be for players to earn their degrees? Of course. But I am not going to say good riddance, or some of the other stuff that has been said about Herbig on this thread (like he should have to re-apply to Stanford), for him leaving early. Frankly, that wouldn't make us look good as a university, or as a fanbase.

[winflop]

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

What a ridiculous comparison.

I'm not taking the same risks they are, but I'm also not receiving a $300,000+ education at one of the nation's premier universities in exchange for being a fan. I'm also not getting free airfare, hotel, meals, admission to the game, etc. Going to the Sun Bowl by myself would cost me about as much as my four season tickets + parking, maybe more.

[winflop]

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

What a ridiculous comparison.

I'm not taking the same risks they are, but I'm also not receiving a $300,000+ education at one of the nation's premier universities in exchange for being a fan. I'm also not getting free airfare, hotel, meals, admission to the game, etc. Going to the Sun Bowl by myself would cost me about as much as my four season tickets + parking, maybe more.

[d4cohn]

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

What a ridiculous comparison.

I'm not taking the same risks they are, but I'm also not receiving a $300,000+ education at one of the nation's premier universities in exchange for being a fan. I'm also not getting free airfare, hotel, meals, admission to the game, etc. Going to the Sun Bowl by myself would cost me about as much as my four season tickets + parking, maybe more.

The $300,000+ education was earned through early morning to late evening winter workouts, spring ball, summer practice (all while balancing a Stanford academic workload, when we as Stanford fans are likely focused on either other Stanford sports or other things in our lives), playing through aches and pains throughout the season (definitely in Love's case, but also probably in Herbig and others' cases too). The education was earned by being successful students in the classroom, making contributions to the team for 3-4 years athletically, and by being good citizens by not breaking team or other rules. 

I also feel, in terms of recruiting the next generation of great Stanford players, it is in the program's best interest to wish the players well, and not begrudge them for their decision, particularly when we are talking about an end-of-season non-conference game (not a rivalry or conference game) that, for the BC-Boise State bowl game, was canceled with no makeup midway through the first quarter. If that doesn't highlight the insignificance of these games in the grand scheme of things, I don't know what does.

Sure, there is a financial cost to attending these games. But there is a financial cost for Herbig, Love and Irwin (a cost that could even outweigh the combined four year scholarship amount in Love's case) in a potential drop on the draftboard, to say nothing of the health risks. IMO, the health of the players alone will always supersede all else, all day every day and twice on Sunday, to say nothing of the other considerations.

[d4cohn]

My feeling on Herbig, Irwin, Love et al is that I am not going to hold players to a standard that wouldn't also apply for the fans (i.e. if certain Stanford fans feel the Sun Bowl isn't a significant enough game to attend, then how can I get upset at the players, who would potentially be risking their health, future career prospects and earnings for them and their families, for not playing in that very game.)

What a ridiculous comparison.

I'm not taking the same risks they are, but I'm also not receiving a $300,000+ education at one of the nation's premier universities in exchange for being a fan. I'm also not getting free airfare, hotel, meals, admission to the game, etc. Going to the Sun Bowl by myself would cost me about as much as my four season tickets + parking, maybe more.

The $300,000+ education was earned through early morning to late evening winter workouts, spring ball, summer practice (all while balancing a Stanford academic workload, when we as Stanford fans are likely focused on either other Stanford sports or other things in our lives), playing through aches and pains throughout the season (definitely in Love's case, but also probably in Herbig and others' cases too). The education was earned by being successful students in the classroom, making contributions to the team for 3-4 years athletically, and by being good citizens by not breaking team or other rules. 

I also feel, in terms of recruiting the next generation of great Stanford players, it is in the program's best interest to wish the players well, and not begrudge them for their decision, particularly when we are talking about an end-of-season non-conference game (not a rivalry or conference game) that, for the BC-Boise State bowl game, was canceled with no makeup midway through the first quarter. If that doesn't highlight the insignificance of these games in the grand scheme of things, I don't know what does.

Sure, there is a financial cost to attending these games. But there is a financial cost for Herbig, Love and Irwin (a cost that could even outweigh the combined four year scholarship amount in Love's case) in a potential drop on the draftboard, to say nothing of the health risks. IMO, the health of the players alone will always supersede all else, all day every day and twice on Sunday, to say nothing of the other considerations.

[Phogge]

At this point IDGAF who plays. Time for backups to prove themselves and to continue the precious time you have left to be a teammate. The guys who bail for whatever reason except being hurt are no longer teammates.

[Phogge]

At this point IDGAF who plays. Time for backups to prove themselves and to continue the precious time you have left to be a teammate. The guys who bail for whatever reason except being hurt are no longer teammates.

[ColoradoTree]

FYI, I don't think Peat is a bust, or that he won't carve out a good career in the NFL. I meant more that he was drafted #13 overall to be a great offensive tackle, but he struggled in limited action at right tackle. Then they tried him at right guard, and when that didn't work, they tried him at left guard, and he has unquestionably done better there, and it seems like he's part of their future plans at that position. 

He's turned into a solid player there, and he was terrific last season, though I understand he hasn't been as good there this year (at one point this season, PFF had him as the lowest-rated guard in the league, though PFF is just one evaluator and that seems pretty harsh from the little I've seen of the Saints this year). I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't a solid NFL player--he is!--just that I'm not sure the Saints take him at #13 overall if they had a do-over, you know? That's more what I meant by "hasn't lived up to his draft slot."

[ColoradoTree]

FYI, I don't think Peat is a bust, or that he won't carve out a good career in the NFL. I meant more that he was drafted #13 overall to be a great offensive tackle, but he struggled in limited action at right tackle. Then they tried him at right guard, and when that didn't work, they tried him at left guard, and he has unquestionably done better there, and it seems like he's part of their future plans at that position. 

He's turned into a solid player there, and he was terrific last season, though I understand he hasn't been as good there this year (at one point this season, PFF had him as the lowest-rated guard in the league, though PFF is just one evaluator and that seems pretty harsh from the little I've seen of the Saints this year). I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't a solid NFL player--he is!--just that I'm not sure the Saints take him at #13 overall if they had a do-over, you know? That's more what I meant by "hasn't lived up to his draft slot."