To Bail Early Or Not?

[J.B. TexasEx]

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"

First of all, it's not a "contract" but a "grant in aid". 

A contract would make CFB players professional and the NCAA and its members simply won't have that. 

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

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?

Think I've made it quite clear that I don't view it as quitting on their team. The fact is small amount of these kids have things at stake that majority don't and that's the opportunity to play on Sundays. Outside of small portion of the bowl games, majority of them are free trips for teams and money grabs for the bowl and schools involved. Majority of these games nobody will be talking about in the next week or so.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

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"

There is no such language in those scholarship agreements. Schools aren't even obligated to accept bowl bids so why would players be obligated to play in them? Scholarship agreements basically say you need to make sure you are doing well enough both on and off the field to keep it or the university is capable of not renewing it after each year. Scholarships are still for the most part one year agreements that have to be signed a renewed each year unless the university has opted to do four year scholarships (that's another debate that has raged on recently).

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

First of all, it's not a "contract" but a "grant in aid".

A contract would make CFB players professional and the NCAA and its members simply won't have that.

^^^^^^

 

[shotime73]

I wish them all the very best. It's going to be an interesting draft

 

[Sirhornsalot]

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.

No, I have not graduated to the Twitter level yet. lol  I rely on others here who can post the tweets.

Well, who knows? Five years ago I didn't dream we'd be having this conversation now.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

 

[Captain Hookem]

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.

There are situations where players will sit out a game to fully heal something they could have played through. D'onta sat out UTEP to fully heal and be ready for tougher games later. Mostly players fight through (or even lie about injuries) in order to keep playing. 

Either way I didn't say that schools were always looking out for the good of the student-athlete. We know that's not always the case. All I said was that past this situation it's complicated and was trying to keep the thread from spawning sub-threads. 

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

No, I have not graduated to the Twitter level yet. lol I rely on others here who can post the tweets.

Well, who knows? Five years ago I didn't dream we'd be having this conversation now.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

You bet. And speaking of Twitter, Shock Linwood of Baylor announced he is skipping the bowl game too. Not on the same level as Fournette or McCaffrey, but that's the word.

 

[Captain Hookem]

Think I've made it quite clear that I don't view it as quitting on their team. The fact is small amount of these kids have things at stake that majority don't and that's the opportunity to play on Sundays. Outside of small portion of the bowl games, majority of them are free trips for teams and money grabs for the bowl and schools involved. Majority of these games nobody will be talking about in the next week or so.

That is avoiding the question and rationalizing. You obviously have a grief against how schools treat the players and using that as a justification for players making these types of decisions. The fact is two wrongs don't make a right, even if you wanted to go down that rabbit hole.

Overall, the players get a lot more out of the schools with free education, stipends, and all the goodies that go along with being a scholarship athlete than schools will (normally) ever get out of just one player.

Still, it comes down to individuals honoring commitments, not just to the school, but to their teammates and their coaches. When you don't do that you are in fact *quitting on them*.

You keep telling us it's not, but refuse to say what it actually is.  

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

That is avoiding the question and rationalizing. You obviously have a grief against how schools treat the players and using that as a justification for players making these types of decisions. The fact is two wrongs don't make a right, even if you wanted to go down that rabbit hole.

Overall, the players get a lot more out of the schools with free education, stipends, and all the goodies that go along with being a scholarship athlete than schools will (normally) ever get out of just one player.

Still, it comes down to individuals honoring commitments, not just to the school, but to their teammates and their coaches. When you don't do that you are in fact *quitting on them*.

You keep telling us it's not, but refuse to say what it actually is.

You can call it whatever you like. I've been on both sides as a player and a coach so I like to think I have a solid grasp on the system and how it works. I've never been a fan of how the system is setup for the players and that won't change until the system is modified.

As big of a business college sports and athletics are it is highly debatable that the players get more out of it than the schools, but that's also another argument for another day.

We just aren't going to agree on this not matter how much we go in circles.

 

[prosfromdover]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis everyone. Seems kids sign up, at least ostensibly, to win championships, and if there's one to win or get into position for, they ought to play. In this case, let them go if they feel they need to.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

At the risk of taking both sides of this argument, I should ask,  ..  . is there anyone here who can say Leonard Fournette hasn't given his share for LSU? And are there players on that "team" who have given 1/32nd of what Fournette has?

I can see it both ways. Still, it just doesn't "feel" right.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

You can call it whatever you like. I've been on both sides as a player and a coach so I like to think I have a solid grasp on the system and how it works. I've never been a fan of how the system is setup for the players and that won't change until the system is modified.

As big of a business college sports and athletics are it is highly debatable that the players get more out of it than the schools, but that's also another argument for another day.

We just aren't going to agree on this not matter how much we go in circles.

There is an ugly side to the athlete side. Doesn't involve all players, but does involve unequal treatment.

If you can run a 4.4 - 40, then you are treated differently than if you're say, a deep snapper.

One never has to piss test. The other takes six of them the first two weeks of the semester. Everyone and their dog knows why.

Success isn't always achieved within the rules and laws. Special exceptions are made for certain individuals. These are the same advanced type players who would end their career a week earlier than his team mates.

That's the experience of a player's dad.

 

[Rotty22]

First of all, it's not a "contract" but a "grant in aid". 

A contract would make CFB players professional and the NCAA and its members simply won't have that. 

ok even better.  when i saw the words "binding commitment", i wanted to make sure that there was or wasn't a legal document that have specifics about the players and the schools obligation.

without specifics then we are just talking moral obligation.

 

[Captain Hookem]

You can call it whatever you like. I've been on both sides as a player and a coach so I like to think I have a solid grasp on the system and how it works. I've never been a fan of how the system is setup for the players and that won't change until the system is modified.

As big of a business college sports and athletics are it is highly debatable that the players get more out of it than the schools, but that's also another argument for another day.

We just aren't going to agree on this not matter how much we go in circles.

True enough.... but before moving on completely let's ask a different question. Because there is a valid concern over the long term consequences of these individual decisions. 

Right now we are talking about one player per team deciding not to play. All of them RBs, obviously because of what happened last year. It's a gray area where arguments can be made on both sides.

So how many players on a team is it 'ok' to simply decide not to play? An argument can be made that any player who thinks they will be drafted should skip this 'most unimportant' bowl game. Maybe they aren't giving up the millions of a first round pick, but they could be giving up 3rd round money, or even an injury that prevents them from a chance at trying out just to make the league minimum.

Further, what about returning starters next year who don't want to risk injury and lose their starting position. That could also potentially cost them a higher draft pick down the road. Sound ridiculous now?... maybe. But so did the concept of someone sitting out a bowl game just a few years ago.

So what happens if so many players on a team decide to skip bowl games that it's mostly backups? Then the bowls *do* become meaningless and no longer make money. Not every program is flush with cash like Texas. Some schools depend on these bowls, and especially for smaller schools this will end up hurting a lot more student athletes than right now may be at risk. 

There's more at stake here than the draft status of a few RBs. 

 

[Growler]

I've read every word on this thread. Perhaps because I have no life. It hasn't changed my opinion at all. I still agree that it is their choice to make. They are free to make that choice but they are not immune to the consequences of that choice. Maybe it is financially smart to skip the bowl game. I think less of them as men for making that choice than those who choose team first. And that's my choice. And I still question whether this isn't a hint as to who is going to quit on teammates when things get tough, not make that catch going over the middle for fear of taking a hit etc. so there's the McAf's and Fournettes of the world, and then the D. Foremans of the world who still was running like the weight of his whole state was on his shoulders on carry 48 of a losing cause.

I'm not an NFL GM but if I were, I would have a ranking for toughness and heart to go along with speed and elusiveness etc. The guys that bailed slip down my board and I'd go a different direction in the First round where you can't afford to miss on a pick. Maybe look at them as a bargain later if they slip far enough. Fortunately for them, I'm not. And they obviously and perhaps rightfully give no crap about my opinion, especially if they don't care much about their teammates opinions on having the best chance to win a game.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I've read every word on this thread. Perhaps because I have no life. It hasn't changed my opinion at all. I still agree that it is their choice to make. They are free to make that choice but they are not immune to the consequences of that choice. Maybe it is financially smart to skip the bowl game. I think less of them as men for making that choice than those who choose team first. And that's my choice. And I still question whether this isn't a hint as to who is going to quit on teammates when things get tough, not make that catch going over the middle for fear of taking a hit etc. so there's the McAf's and Fournettes of the world, and then the D. Foremans of the world who still was running like the weight of his whole state was on his shoulders on carry 48 of a losing cause.

I'm not an NFL GM but if I were, I would have a ranking for toughness and heart to go along with speed and elusiveness etc. The guys that bailed slip down my board and I'd go a different direction in the First round where you can't afford to miss on a pick. Maybe look at them as a bargain later if they slip far enough. Fortunately for them, I'm not. And they obviously and perhaps rightfully give no crap about my opinion, especially if they don't care much about their teammates opinions on having the best chance to win a game.

 

[Rotty22]

I've read every word on this thread. Perhaps because I have no life. It hasn't changed my opinion at all. I still agree that it is their choice to make. They are free to make that choice but they are not immune to the consequences of that choice. Maybe it is financially smart to skip the bowl game. I think less of them as men for making that choice than those who choose team first. And that's my choice. And I still question whether this isn't a hint as to who is going to quit on teammates when things get tough, not make that catch going over the middle for fear of taking a hit etc. so there's the McAf's and Fournettes of the world, and then the D. Foremans of the world who still was running like the weight of his whole state was on his shoulders on carry 48 of a losing cause.

I'm not an NFL GM but if I were, I would have a ranking for toughness and heart to go along with speed and elusiveness etc. The guys that bailed slip down my board and I'd go a different direction in the First round where you can't afford to miss on a pick. Maybe look at them as a bargain later if they slip far enough. Fortunately for them, I'm not. And they obviously and perhaps rightfully give no crap about my opinion, especially if they don't care much about their teammates opinions on having the best chance to win a game.

are players that skip their senior year quitting on their team/teammates?  they are still eligible to play with their teammates but have elected not to.  the line is drawn in a different spot.

gms are more concerned about money and how they can make more for their organization.  they will look to draft the best player to fit their organization.  we can also say that a gm would respect the player that opted out of their senior season/bowl game, etc., because of the business decision that was made by the player.  the decision to skip football games does not diminish the body of work a player has compiled.

this subject has been plastered all over sports radio this past week.  it's funny to hear all of them talking about players in the nfl and how those players would no doubt "play one more game with their boys".  they made it past their amateur years and are now making money.  they were the lucky ones.

herman left his team before the bowl game.  is he a quitter?  will he quit on the team when times get tough?

i'm with you, nobody cares about my opinion either.  

 

[primal defense]

Still, it comes down to individuals honoring commitments, not just to the school, but to their teammates and their coaches. When you don't do that you are in fact *quitting on them*.

Your right Tom Herman quit on his team by not coaching UH in their bowl game and look what happened. He did the best for himself and took the UT job and didn't  stay and honor his commitment to coach UH in their bowl game which meant he let down his staff, his players and his school even though he was getting paid for the year.

I'm a forgiving guy and if Tom wins, I will forgive him.

 

[primal defense]

Bowls are about the bucks for everyone but the players.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/21/christian-mccaffrey-leonard-fournette-have-every-r/