To Bail Early Or Not?

[Daniel Seahorn]

Interns aren't normally contractually obligated to finish out a term. They are more like contractors, so whether it be a 6 month contract or whatever both sides can terminate the contract at will. IF a person did sign a contract (like in older days), then yes they are expected to finish out their contracts even if presented with a better offer.

A scholarship is a binding contract. An NFL contract is also a binding contract.

Would people feel the same way if a player decides to not play the last few games of an NFL season because it's a contract year and they don't want to risk injury?

These are adults that made commitments and signed contracts they should honor. It's a horrible precedent at all levels to make people think that commitments have since become "voluntary".

Actually a lot of these players were minors who required parental signatures on the original LOI, so no they weren't adults. Some are old enough to sign without consent, but majority aren't. And on top of that those contracts they've sign have been proven to be a loud of malarkey which is why I would advise any player to not sign it and just sign the financial aide agreement which binds the school to the player and not the other way around.

And I don't get comparing these decisions to those of guys already in the league, because it's a totally different ball game once you get there.

It's ridiculous we are getting so outraged over guys exercising what little leverage they have under NCAA rules.

 

[Captain Hookem]

It certainty is a business decision in regards to their FUTURE employer and it has been made quite clear that student-athletes aren't employees of colleges or universities. These kids came to play football and get an education and they've done both so they are well within their right to sit.

They've fulfilled their "obligations" to the university and have already declared they are leaving so they aren't required to play another down. In Fournette's case I know for sure he has been banged up all year long and has missed time due to injuries and I'm almost positive McCaffrey has missed time as well.

Again, lets not sit here and hold players to standards that we aren't holding the coaches and everyone else to.

Coaches sign a contract, and if they break that contract are sometimes required to pay penalties or forms of recompense. As we are all aware what happened with our former favorite OSU linecoach, worse can happen if a coach breaks his commitment.

Point being, we aren't holding anyone to a different standard. 

Also, I've already said that *if a player is nursing injuries* then there's no reason to play them in this game, or any other. It's a common practice to sit players until 100% healthy and avoid risk of further injury. However missing time in the past doesn't necessarily mean they are currently nursing any injuries. If that were the case then they would not have played in their last game, and normally the time before the bowls allows most non-serious injuries to fully heal. 

 

[Captain Hookem]

Actually a lot of these players were minors who required parental signatures on the original LOI, so no they weren't adults. Some are old enough to sign without consent, but majority aren't. And on top of that those contracts they've sign have been proven to be a loud of malarkey which is why I would advise any player to not sign it and just sign the financial aide agreement which binds the school to the player and not the other way around.

And I don't get comparing these decisions to those of guys already in the league, because it's a totally different ball game once you get there.

It's ridiculous we are getting so outraged over guys exercising what little leverage they have under NCAA rules.

They are adults now, making a decision as an adult to break a binding agreement. In a few weeks they'll sign NFL contracts as adults. They are old enough to know better and aren't exercising any leverage. They are quitting on their team. 

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

Coaches sign a contract, and if they break that contract are sometimes required to pay penalties or forms of recompense. As we are all aware what happened with our former favorite OSU linecoach, worse can happen if a coach breaks his commitment.

Point being, we aren't holding anyone to a different standard.

Sure they are have penalties, but nobody is sitting here taking shots at them and trying to tell them they should stay when they don't have to. People are calling these kids' character into question and everything and if you just go read some of things being spewed on social media.... yeah it's a totally different standard.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

They are adults now, making a decision as an adult to break a binding agreement. In a few weeks they'll sign NFL contracts as adults. They are old enough to know better and aren't exercising any leverage. They are quitting on their team.

My point has been proven. You just labeled them quitters lol.

I guarantee the kids in that locker room aren't making as big of a deal as every person outside of it right now.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

We are in no position to tell these kids how they need to proceed if they feel it's in the best interest of their future. They are assuming the risk therefore it's their decision. Not ours, not the Univeristy's, not the coaches, not the fans, or anyone on message boards.

Rant over.

 

[Captain Hookem]

Sure they are have penalties, but nobody is sitting here taking shots at them and trying to tell them they should stay when they don't have to. People are calling these kids' character into question and everything and if you just go read some of things being spewed on social media.... yeah it's a totally different standard.

When a coach bails on program after program, then yes sometimes the character of coaches gets called into question also. However that becomes a decision for administrations whether they want to hand their program over to a migratory coach.  

In this case, it's not just the character of the athletes but the precedent that is set by turning a commitment into a voluntary decision. That *is* a question of character, and a malady that seems to inflict millenials more than the previous generations (which has honestly receded with every passing generation when you used to trust just a handshake). 

It's a complicated issue, but is a poor reflection on the player when they quit on their teammates in, what will be for many, the last time to ever play the game.

 

[Captain Hookem]

My point has been proven. You just labeled them quitters lol.

I guarantee the kids in that locker room aren't making as big of a deal as every person outside of it right now.

I'm not labeling them anything. It is an undeniable fact they are quitting on their team by choosing not to play.

What you choose to read into that is your own bias.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

When a coach bails on program after program, then yes sometimes the character of coaches gets called into question also. However that becomes a decision for administrations whether they want to hand their program over to a migratory coach.

In this case, it's not just the character of the athletes but the precedent that is set by turning a commitment into a voluntary decision. That *is* a question of character, and a malady that seems to inflict millenials more than the previous generations (which has honestly receded with every passing generation when you used to trust just a handshake).

It's a complicated issue, but is a poor reflection on the player when they quit on their teammates in, what will be for many, the last time to ever play the game.

If we are keeping it 100, coaches don't take the nearly as much heat as what the players get in situations like this.

Times have changed and I think as long as the players in that locker room are understanding and support him then it doesn't really matter what folks outside of it have to say.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

I'm not labeling them anything. It is an undeniable fact they are quitting on their team by choosing not to play.

What you choose to read into that is your own bias.

Sounds more like an opinion rather than an undeniable fact, but ok. 👌🏾

 

[Sirhornsalot]

If we are keeping it 100, coaches don't take the nearly as much heat as what the players get in situations like this.

Times have changed and I think as long as the players in that locker room are understanding and support him then it doesn't really matter what folks outside of it have to say.

How many situations like this have you observed in the past? These two are the only ones I can think of. So of course coaches have taken more heat.

On your second sentence, here we are arbitrarily deciding that these are full blown adults and should be in charge of making decisions for the team. Why have a coach then? Just let the locker room run itself. Have them take votes on what plays to call. Give the whole thing to them. Why not? You've got them making adult decisions when they aren't adults yet. At 25 I will still making stupid decisions because I simply didn't know better.

Times may have changed, but certainly not for the better.

You hear these players talk about "doing it for the team" or "I couldn't have done it without the team." . . . then suddenly, team means squat. Dropped like a hot potato.

Maybe the people in the locker room are too naive to see that for what it is. Maybe thats why we have adults in charge.

 

[tejasrulz]

 

[Captain Hookem]

Sounds more like an opinion rather than an undeniable fact, but ok. 👌ðŸ¾

Yet... I didn't hear you deny it. 

 

[Sirhornsalot]

It's ridiculous we are getting so outraged over guys exercising what little leverage they have under NCAA rules.

I don't think there's any outrage at all. We have one thread on this board where three people are engaged in the subject. In each case, I could care less about the school or the player. And I argue the point only because of the right and wrong.

Daniel, you have a decent argument. It's hard to sit here and deny it. When you compare Fournette's contribution to the team vs others, its pretty one-sided. So maybe that earns special consideration. Maybe?

Otherwise, I'd sit here and ask what if an OL decided to take a play off in order to preserve his draft status and suddenly Fournette's being carted off the field on the next play?

I don't know if there's a black and white answer here. I'm confident in my side of this issue. But I can't deny the wisdom on the other side, either. So this could well be a person by person thing, I don't know.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

How many situations like this have you observed in the past? These two are the only ones I can think of. So of course coaches have taken more heat.

On your second sentence, here we are arbitrarily deciding that these are full blown adults and should be in charge of making decisions for the team. Why have a coach then? Just let the locker room run itself. Have them take votes on what plays to call. Give the whole thing to them. Why not? You've got them making adult decisions when they aren't adults yet. At 25 I will still making stupid decisions because I simply didn't know better.

Times may have changed, but certainly not for the better.

You hear these players talk about "doing it for the team" or "I couldn't have done it without the team." . . . then suddenly, team means squat. Dropped like a hot potato.

Maybe the people in the locker room are too naive to see that for what it is. Maybe thats why we have adults in charge.

We haven't observed it in the past, but we've seen in other instances where athletes take a lot of heat for transferring out early and on top of that their destinations are heavily restricted to the point of silliness by the school.
On the second part... I'm saying that if teammates and coaches support his decision and hold no I'll will against him then who is anyone else to sit here and take shots at them? It impacts them more than anyone else, so if they aren't in an uproar over it then why are we?

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

Yet... I didn't hear you deny it.

You don't see my calling them quitters and we've disagreed throughout this entire exchange so it was implied. I've been on both sides of coin in this situation so I will restate that I absolutely have no problem with players making these kinds of choices and I won't think any different of them.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

I don't think there's any outrage at all. We have one thread on this board where three people are engaged in the subject. In each case, I could care less about the school or the player. And I argue the point only because of the right and wrong.

Daniel, you have a decent argument. It's hard to sit here and deny it. When you compare Fournette's contribution to the team vs others, its pretty one-sided. So maybe that earns special consideration. Maybe?

Otherwise, I'd sit here and ask what if an OL decided to take a play off in order to preserve his draft status and suddenly Fournette's being carted off the field on the next play?

I don't know if there's a black and white answer here. I'm confident in my side of this issue. But I can't deny the wisdom on the other side, either. So this could well be a person by person thing, I don't know.

Don't know if you are a Twitter guy, but there is a lot of it on social media and it's a huge topic right now among the talking heads.

On the latter part of that... I don't think you are going to see someone make a decision of this magnitude in the middle of a game, but I could be missing the sarcasm. It's obviously something that won't come easily as far as decision making and who knows maybe it won't become a wide spread thing.

 

[Captain Hookem]

You don't see my calling them quitters and we've disagreed throughout this entire exchange so it was implied. I've been on both sides of coin in this situation so I will restate that I absolutely have no problem with players making these kinds of choices and I won't think any different of them.

I didn't call them "quitters". You put those words, and that label, into my comments. Calling someone a quitter implies far more than what we are talking about here. Good people can make a bad judgement calls.

But still, you don't think they are quitting on the team? So let's examine that...

Most teams before the season have two primary goals: 1) Win the conference, 2) Win a bowl game. (A lot of people reverse those in importance, but that's a discussion for another time.)

Either way, both of these are important because success has a positive future impact on the team, and the players on that team. So the bowl game is either the most important or second most important game of the year (assuming they aren't playing for a national title). 

Given that, if you don't think choosing to not play in one of the two most important games of the year is *not* quitting on the team - Then what exactly is it?

 

[hookemhorb]

... Also, I've already said that *if a player is nursing injuries* then there's no reason to play them in this game, or any other. It's a common practice to sit players until 100% healthy and avoid risk of further injury. ...

This seems kind of naïve. Players play hurt or with injuries. Have you every seen a player with a cast on his arm or wearing a flak jacket? Only recently has there been a concussion protocol.

To use a blanket statement that schools are looking out for the good of a student-athlete is incorrect. Perhaps some schools do, but I can guarantee that some don't. There is too much money involved to do something for the "good" of an athlete.

 

[Rotty22]

All of the other arguments about playing for your team have been made. However going the "business decision" argument is equally vapid and a slippery slope for future "decisions". When you obligate yourself to play football for a school then that is a binding commitment. 

Unless these guys are truly injured in some way and risk further injury, they should play and fulfill their obligations. 

first, i have no problem with them sitting out.  it's their decision.

i have no idea what a "scholarship contract" states.  does it specifically state "play all football games including the bowl game".  if so, then they would be obligated to play.  if it doesn't and is vague, then i would say, no they are not obligated.

perhaps someone can enlighten me on the contents of the "contract"