|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 22, 2016 8:55:42 GMT -6
And this is why I think this is a very interesting discussion. Some may say I crying the sky is falling, but I think this may very well be the start of trend (see, taking a knee during anthem) where anything that is not "a championship" is now considered meaningless. Team won't make the playoffs..quit and start playing round ball. Team can't compete for a title, don't go out for it. An interesting side note, about 4 1/2 years ago (when the CFP was first announced) I wrote into Beano Cook and Ivan Maisel's College football show asking them if they thought that having an "official" playoff tied with the bowls would lead to a diminished interest in any bowl game not involved in the playoff that year because the had been "officially" labeled meaningless. I wonder if that time has come. I would say that it has. That's clearly the message here, and even the message that people are communicating on this thread. You already see stuff like this happening at the HS level. "Team eliminated from playoffs? Welp, I gotta go to open gym, coach..." I understand McCaffrey and Fournette's decisions here. With a lot of money at stake, they don't want to get hurt. It makes sense. But where do you draw the line between "meaningful" and "meaningless" and how can you keep a team together when all the different individuals on it may disagree about where that line is drawn? What's to stop the guy who's a starter, but not looking at an NFL future OR a good job after college from deciding "Well, this game's meaningless and I might get hurt. I'm going to "opt out" so I can spend the holidays with my family and play video games." My prediction is that you see this attitude spread and grow to the point where regular season games become classified as "meaningless" and more teams who are struggling with low numbers wind up forfeiting the last few games of their season because of mass quitting. IMO, a man finishes what he starts. If you make a commitment, you stick around and follow through as long as you're able. That's one of the most fundamental lessons of team sports. You learn to follow through on a big commitment and sacrifice your own self-interest for the good of the team. I understand all the money at stake with these two men, but this sort of decision rips that ideal to shreds and it will filter down to other players and lower levels. I think there is a line. Stanford went through a rough patch in the middle of the season. McCaffery sat out at least 1 game with an injury. If he packed it in at that point of the season then I'd say there may be some character issues. The "market" will decide where the line is. When NFL teams pass on a player, that will be where the line is.
|
|
|
Post by breakerdog on Dec 22, 2016 9:17:28 GMT -6
It should be pointed out that both these guys are underclassmen. There are typically about 75-100 underclassmen declaring each year. (Last year there were 98 and only 62 got chosen, but that is a subject for another thread).
In theory, these underclassmen are people who are so elite at their jobs that they are able to outperform all others.
We aren't talking about a large selection of the population. If the 3rd string Jr defensive tackle from Tuskegee sits out a bowl game, it would be thought of as ridiculous. The only reason these two guys are on the radar is because they are the best human beings alive at running the football that are not currently employed by an NFL team.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Dec 22, 2016 9:32:53 GMT -6
It should be pointed out that both these guys are underclassmen. There are typically about 75-100 underclassmen declaring each year. (Last year there were 98 and only 62 got chosen, but that is a subject for another thread). In theory, these underclassmen are people who are so elite at their jobs that they are able to outperform all others. We aren't talking about a large selection of the population. If the 3rd string Jr defensive tackle from Tuskegee sits out a bowl game, it would be thought of as ridiculous. The only reason these two guys are on the radar is because they are the best human beings alive at running the football that are not currently employed by an NFL team. And no one would have known they possess this skill set if not for the opportunity that college football provided them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2016 9:38:09 GMT -6
I think there is a line. Stanford went through a rough patch in the middle of the season. McCaffery sat out at least 1 game with an injury. If he packed it in at that point of the season then I'd say there may be some character issues. The "market" will decide where the line is. When NFL teams pass on a player, that will be where the line is. Be wary of crediting the market for deciding an abstract concept such as this. The "market" values drug kingpins more than your grandmother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 9:38:48 GMT -6
To Saban's point: I have a book entitled BOWL GAMES: College Football's Greatest Tradition by Robert M. Ours published in 2004. Bowl games - with the accompanying parades, floats, pageantry - played around the holiday season and the fact that there was no D-IA playoff were what helped make Major College Football different or special. And that, to me, has always been one of the best things about major college football. Every single game mattered, yet teams didn't have to win the national championship for a season to be considered a success. Just making it to a bowl, especially a New Year's Day bowl, was a big deal when I was a kid. Then the glut of bowls started in the mid-90s and watered down the meaning of playing in one. Now the playoff makes them into "meaningless exhibition games."
|
|
|
Post by gian3074 on Dec 22, 2016 10:45:25 GMT -6
It should be pointed out that both these guys are underclassmen. There are typically about 75-100 underclassmen declaring each year. (Last year there were 98 and only 62 got chosen, but that is a subject for another thread). In theory, these underclassmen are people who are so elite at their jobs that they are able to outperform all others. We aren't talking about a large selection of the population. If the 3rd string Jr defensive tackle from Tuskegee sits out a bowl game, it would be thought of as ridiculous. The only reason these two guys are on the radar is because they are the best human beings alive at running the football that are not currently employed by an NFL team. And no one would have known they possess this skill set if not for the opportunity that college football provided them. The NFL could also have a paid minor league like other sports do (MLB, NHL). Ironically the NFL prefers making athletes play for free at college and then complain about these college schemes don't prepare any of them for the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Dec 22, 2016 11:51:06 GMT -6
I think there is a line. Stanford went through a rough patch in the middle of the season. McCaffery sat out at least 1 game with an injury. If he packed it in at that point of the season then I'd say there may be some character issues. The "market" will decide where the line is. When NFL teams pass on a player, that will be where the line is. Be wary of crediting the market for deciding an abstract concept such as this. The "market" values drug kingpins more than your grandmother. In economic terms, spos21ram is exactly right. The "market" (in this case, the NFL Draft) will determine whether or not the value of McCaffrey or Fournette has been reduced by not playing in this game. Very simply, the market is simply the perceived value that consumers attach to some commodity. It is not a judgment on whether or not that value is a net positive or a net negative. It just simply "is".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2016 12:04:54 GMT -6
Be wary of crediting the market for deciding an abstract concept such as this. The "market" values drug kingpins more than your grandmother. In economic terms, spos21ram is exactly right. The "market" (in this case, the NFL Draft) will determine whether or not the value of McCaffrey or Fournette has been reduced by not playing in this game. Very simply, the market is simply the perceived value that consumers attach to some commodity. It is not a judgment on whether or not that value is a net positive or a net negative. It just simply "is". But there has never been any deep discussion about this affecting value. The vast majority of the discussion has been about the ethics or character of the decision. That is the abstract concept I refer to, and what everyone is discussing. I don't think anyone here, nor anywhere else are giving serious thought to the NFL's perception of these decisions.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Dec 22, 2016 12:08:42 GMT -6
In economic terms, spos21ram is exactly right. The "market" (in this case, the NFL Draft) will determine whether or not the value of McCaffrey or Fournette has been reduced by not playing in this game. Very simply, the market is simply the perceived value that consumers attach to some commodity. It is not a judgment on whether or not that value is a net positive or a net negative. It just simply "is". But there has never been any deep discussion about this affecting value. The vast majority of the discussion has been about the ethics or character of the decision. That's why I wanted to clarify what I understood spos21ram to be saying. I hope I did not put words in his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2016 12:29:48 GMT -6
But there has never been any deep discussion about this affecting value. The vast majority of the discussion has been about the ethics or character of the decision. That's why I wanted to clarify what I understood spos21ram to be saying. I hope I did not put words in his mouth. I understand that, but spos21ram posted his comment about the market when talking about the "line" defining meaningful and meaningless games.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 22, 2016 14:03:51 GMT -6
I like what Saban says, but I don't think that's the entirety of the issue. It's not that simple.
I think what he said is part of it.
I also think the overabundance of bowl games is part of it. The fact that so many bowl games exist devalues those games for teams like Stanford and LSU. If there were still only 12 bowl games, I think it's less likely that a kid would think any bowl was a meaningless game, even with a 4 team playoff. And I think it's the same with HS - when almost every team makes playoffs, it's pretty hard to keep the kids engaged on the teams that are eliminated.
And I think there is an element of how you set expectations for your program. If you're putting a major emphasis on some artificial construct like making the playoffs or even winning a national championship, then don't be surprised if you lose some kids once that goal can't be realized. I realize this isn't all about the coaches, it's also about the school and community, but it's the coach's job to figure that out. If you allow success/failure for a season to be determined before the end of the season, then you can't complain about losing kids at that point. You reap what you sow. Kids play for today - long term views are for adults, not kids.
So generally, where Saban blames "you" in that press conference, I'll expand that and blame his side of the table too. It's the coaches who ultimately dictate the priorities of the team and allow "meaningless" to enter the equation.
So, as usual, when something goes wrong with kids (of all ages) and sports, it's generally the adults around them who are to blame...
|
|
|
Post by 53 on Dec 22, 2016 18:11:05 GMT -6
I think there is a line. Stanford went through a rough patch in the middle of the season. McCaffery sat out at least 1 game with an injury. If he packed it in at that point of the season then I'd say there may be some character issues. The "market" will decide where the line is. When NFL teams pass on a player, that will be where the line is. Be wary of crediting the market for deciding an abstract concept such as this. The "market" values drug kingpins more than your grandmother. The market is just people, in this case it will be NFL executives. I think they'll be able to handle it quite well. I don't think people value drug kingpins, but the legal system makes them a necessary evil for those wanting drugs.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2016 18:57:50 GMT -6
Be wary of crediting the market for deciding an abstract concept such as this. The "market" values drug kingpins more than your grandmother. The market is just people, in this case it will be NFL executives. I think they'll be able to handle it quite well. I don't think people value drug kingpins, but the legal system makes them a necessary evil for those wanting drugs. My point was (again) not that these guys are making a poor financial decision. Nobody is debating that. My point was that the I disagree with the idea that "the market" (as originally mentioned in this thread) would be the correct instrument to measure what was being discussed--whether or not these games are "meaningless" I don't think NFL executives and their draft decisions in April are the right measuring device for that abstract term and complex question.
|
|
|
Post by 53 on Dec 22, 2016 19:42:04 GMT -6
The market is just people, in this case it will be NFL executives. I think they'll be able to handle it quite well. I don't think people value drug kingpins, but the legal system makes them a necessary evil for those wanting drugs. My point was (again) not that these guys are making a poor financial decision. Nobody is debating that. My point was that the I disagree with the idea that "the market" (as originally mentioned in this thread) would be the correct instrument to measure what was being discussed--whether or not these games are "meaningless" I don't think NFL executives and their draft decisions in April are the right measuring device for that abstract term and complex question. I'm strictly talking about the players and how it will effect them. I don't think it happens totally in a vacuum, so it will effect others. Coaches being the most obvious, and how the bowl effects their job security. I personally think that's something that the market has already taken care of in their buyouts.
|
|
|
Post by joris85 on Dec 23, 2016 4:28:22 GMT -6
Here is Saban's response, in case anyone wondered. (I didn't see it in the discussion as I scrolled through it.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 23, 2016 9:51:02 GMT -6
By market I was referring to their draft status, but I was also talking about ethics. I think it goes hand in hand. Everyone has their opinion on this, but who gets to judge and have the final answer? The NFL execs do because that's all that really matters. We can say how unethical it is until we are blue in the face, but until these players' slip in the draft, the NFL is telling the sports world it's not enethical....or not enough for them to think these guys have character issues.
I think the consensus of the posters on here are saying we would like to see them complete their season as a teammate, but hold nothing against them for what they're doing because of the various reasons already discussed in here.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2016 10:04:00 GMT -6
By market I was referring to their draft status, but I was also talking about ethics. I think it goes hand in hand. Everyone has their opinion on this, but who gets to judge and have the final answer? The NFL execs do because that's all that really matters. We can say how unethical it is until we are blue in the face, but until these players' slip in the draft, the NFL is telling the sportd world it's not enethical. I think the consensus of the posters on here are saying we would like to see them complete their season as a teammate, but hold nothing against them for what they're doing because of the various reasons already discussed in here. Again, I have to disagree that the NFL execs "are all that really matters" when it comes to the discussion being had here. Not about ethics, but about games being considered meaningless. Draft status has nothing to do with that in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 23, 2016 10:50:33 GMT -6
By market I was referring to their draft status, but I was also talking about ethics. I think it goes hand in hand. Everyone has their opinion on this, but who gets to judge and have the final answer? The NFL execs do because that's all that really matters. We can say how unethical it is until we are blue in the face, but until these players' slip in the draft, the NFL is telling the sportd world it's not enethical. I think the consensus of the posters on here are saying we would like to see them complete their season as a teammate, but hold nothing against them for what they're doing because of the various reasons already discussed in here. Again, I have to disagree that the NFL execs "are all that really matters" when it comes to the discussion being had here. Not about ethics, but about games being considered meaningless. Draft status has nothing to do with that in my opinion. Except to the players and coaches involved and some of their fans, they're pretty meaningless unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkey on Dec 23, 2016 10:51:14 GMT -6
So Christian McCaffrey and Leonard Fournette have decided to opt out of their bowl games to begin prep for the draft and avoid unnecessary injury risk. As coaches, what do you think about this? What kind of message, if any, does this send to HS players? I'm not for opting out, but he's been plagued with injuries this year. This might have influenced his decision as he is a team person and player.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkey on Dec 23, 2016 10:57:05 GMT -6
Jadeveon Clowney received a lot of advice to sit out his Junior season at South Carolina to avoid getting injured-ruining his top draft pick status and potentially losing millions of dollars, especially in light of what happened to Marcus Lattimore. He played as a Junior, and there was a lot of criticism of his effort, that he was "saving" himself for the NFL. Should he have sat the season out? How is Clooney doing at the pros coach? I don't watch pro ball till late in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2016 11:07:32 GMT -6
Again, I have to disagree that the NFL execs "are all that really matters" when it comes to the discussion being had here. Not about ethics, but about games being considered meaningless. Draft status has nothing to do with that in my opinion. Except to the players and coaches involved and some of their fans, they're pretty meaningless unfortunately. Not to get too "out there", but one could say that almost anything is "pretty meaningless".
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 23, 2016 11:12:56 GMT -6
Jadeveon Clowney received a lot of advice to sit out his Junior season at South Carolina to avoid getting injured-ruining his top draft pick status and potentially losing millions of dollars, especially in light of what happened to Marcus Lattimore. He played as a Junior, and there was a lot of criticism of his effort, that he was "saving" himself for the NFL. Should he have sat the season out? How is Clooney doing at the pros coach? I don't watch pro ball till late in the playoffs.
He made the Pro Bowl this year. His team is leading its division.
|
|
jaydub66
Sophomore Member
Varsity D-Line Coach
Posts: 223
|
Post by jaydub66 on Dec 23, 2016 11:26:25 GMT -6
On the college level, some kids have a lottery ticket. I can understand Fornette doing it because he has a kid and from a poor family. McCaffrey is from an NFL family so he has probably never wanted. His older brother played a full career at Duke, Christian has a lottery ticket too and I think being injured the past year played into why he made the move.
I don't blame these kids. They're making a choice for their future, they aren't shying away from the public knowing why they're doing it. They're going to get crap for it. They're going to be praised for it. The fact of the matter is somewhere in between the two.
If you're a RB, you're way more likely to get injured. If you're a stud, freak and know you're going top 10, top 20, etc. I get it....I feel this would lead to guys who are marginal talent sitting out to not hurt their stock when you might have a Greg Little type bowl game for North Carolina and jump up 2 or 3 rounds than you should have been drafted.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 23, 2016 14:51:21 GMT -6
Except to the players and coaches involved and some of their fans, they're pretty meaningless unfortunately. Not to get too "out there", but one could say that almost anything is "pretty meaningless". No, I understand that point. You can also use the attendance of these bowls games to measure importance or meaningless. Could argue the fans set that market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 16:49:23 GMT -6
How is Clooney doing at the pros coach? I don't watch pro ball till late in the playoffs.
He made the Pro Bowl this year. His team is leading its division.
I'm surprised he made it. His 5 sacks and 49 tackles through 13 games isn't all that impressive on paper (barely better than the 4.5 and 40 he had last season, when he was labeled a bust) and the Pro Bowl is usually just about who has the best stats unless you're a 10+ year veteran OL with a great reputation. I guess he's been more disruptive on the field than what shows up on the stat sheet, though. I haven't gotten to see him play much this year.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Dec 23, 2016 17:50:40 GMT -6
By market I was referring to their draft status, but I was also talking about ethics. I think it goes hand in hand. Everyone has their opinion on this, but who gets to judge and have the final answer? The NFL execs do because that's all that really matters. We can say how unethical it is until we are blue in the face, but until these players' slip in the draft, the NFL is telling the sports world it's not enethical....or not enough for them to think these guys have character issues. I think the consensus of the posters on here are saying we would like to see them complete their season as a teammate, but hold nothing against them for what they're doing because of the various reasons already discussed in here. That same market will probably still draft a guy like Mixon from Oklahoma for something way more unethical (that market looked the other way for guys like Hardy). Maybe they let him slide out of the draft, but someone probably gives him a shot because they are after guys that can play.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2016 18:20:47 GMT -6
By market I was referring to their draft status, but I was also talking about ethics. I think it goes hand in hand. Everyone has their opinion on this, but who gets to judge and have the final answer? The NFL execs do because that's all that really matters. We can say how unethical it is until we are blue in the face, but until these players' slip in the draft, the NFL is telling the sports world it's not enethical....or not enough for them to think these guys have character issues. I think the consensus of the posters on here are saying we would like to see them complete their season as a teammate, but hold nothing against them for what they're doing because of the various reasons already discussed in here. That same market will probably still draft a guy like Mixon from Oklahoma for something way more unethical (that market looked the other way for guys like Hardy). Maybe they let him slide out of the draft, but someone probably gives him a shot because they are after guys that can play. I am not sure I would say what he did was "way more" unethical. A second concussion in the same season might have caused him to pack it in.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 23, 2016 19:17:36 GMT -6
That same market will probably still draft a guy like Mixon from Oklahoma for something way more unethical (that market looked the other way for guys like Hardy). Maybe they let him slide out of the draft, but someone probably gives him a shot because they are after guys that can play. I am not sure I would say what he did was "way more" unethical. A second concussion in the same season might have caused him to pack it in. I don't think he's talking about the DT who quit, he's talking about the RB who punched a female student. I'm guessing based on your response you meant the DT.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Dec 23, 2016 20:05:51 GMT -6
I am not sure I would say what he did was "way more" unethical. A second concussion in the same season might have caused him to pack it in. I don't think he's talking about the DT who quit, he's talking about the RB who punched a female student. I'm guessing based on your response you meant the DT. Yeah. The dead beat RB that broke a woman's face & knocked her out.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2016 22:00:29 GMT -6
I am not sure I would say what he did was "way more" unethical. A second concussion in the same season might have caused him to pack it in. I don't think he's talking about the DT who quit, he's talking about the RB who punched a female student. I'm guessing based on your response you meant the DT. Ah, thank you for the correction. Yes.. the RB punching would definitely be on a much different level. It is a heinous act. I apologize for the confusion.
|
|