Christian McCaffrey skipping the Sun Bowl

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,207
Reaction score
615
So he is going off of his resume at Stanford and not gonna finish to go off of the bowl game. Sounds like a Loser that has his own interests at heart above the team's. That aughta make him some brownie points in the draft.

Great point at the New Year's 6. If they would chop down the everyone gets a trophy for participation bowl, then these games would have more meaning. Of course that may be the point of all the games too. Maybe they are trying to showcase a lot more recruits for the nfl so they can have a lot more UDFAs making it big. I suppose it all comes down to what is being taught in economics. I dunno...
 

JSeahawks

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
24,093
Reaction score
1
Location
Milwaukie, Oregon
It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.
 

kobebryant

New member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,511
Reaction score
1
Smart. Unless your team is still in contention for the national championship I see no problem with it.

Too bad Jaylon Smith didn't do it last year.
 

CPHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
4,853
Reaction score
921
JSeahawks":3eplxyh9 said:
It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.


Good thing here though, Stanford has no fans. I've got to say though, if I was his teammate I'd be pissed. We've seen how bad they are without CM, and if they lose its really on him being selfish.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
JSeahawks":1tiy68or said:
It sucks for the fans but I have absolutely no problem with it. Its the smart move. No need to risk yourself in an exhibition game.

Exactly. Sucks but it would be a real shame to end your career before it starts playing in a game that only exists to make someone else money.
 
OP
OP
SeatownJay

SeatownJay

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
6
Location
Hagerstown, MD
From a fan's perspective I don't like it. The only reason to watch Stanford is to see what CM might do next. As it is, mortgage your house and bet it all on North Carolina in the Sun Bowl because Stanford without CM is trash.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
I don't like it, but I understand it.

This new trend just proves further that college sports has jumped the shark and no longer means what it used to mean...................playing for the love of the game, sportsmanship, the pageantry and excitement of going to a bowl and all that brings for each team.

Now it's one cold hearted question and one cold hearted question only, are you in the Championship bracket? No?..........then who cares I'm out.
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
2,467
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Stanford has made enough money off of McCaffrey already, there's not much upside for him to play (having 'Sun Bowl Champion' on his resume isn't going improve his draft stock any) and he stands to lose a LOT if he gets hurt, or even if he has an uncharacteristically poor game. I don't blame him, and hope others follow suit. These players owe the NCAA nothing.
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,114
Reaction score
2,371
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
fenderbender123":7kjn4m6q said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,114
Reaction score
2,371
Sgt. Largent":33yy1xah said:
fenderbender123":33yy1xah said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
2,467
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Sgt. Largent":3b6xbz05 said:
fenderbender123":3b6xbz05 said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Agreed. How cool is it that Eastern Michigan gets to play in the Bahamas Bowl? That's a huge deal for that school, and there are other similar stories.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,645
Location
Sammamish, WA
fenderbender123":3gc29334 said:
Sgt. Largent":3gc29334 said:
fenderbender123":3gc29334 said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.

Doing this will cause schools to start creating powder puff schedules. This is already an issue now, but creating win minimums would make the matter much more worse rather than solve it. You'll see a lot more games scheduled in against the Portland State's, Cal-Poly's of the world rather than the bigger schools. That's the effect of having a win minimum. Eliminating the lower class bowl games will in itself solve the wins issue. Teams with a losing record would be left out as they should be. Maybe they should re-assign some of the bowl games to FCS or lower divisions. There's no reason to have as many D1 FBS bowls as they do now.
 

JSeahawks

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
24,093
Reaction score
1
Location
Milwaukie, Oregon
The most important thing about making a bowl game (unless its one of the playoffs game), is the extra 3 weeks of practice you get going into next season. The Sun Bowl is meaninless, but the experience it gives a guy like Bryce Love, who will be McCaffrey's replacement nexzt year can be signifigant.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
fenderbender123":1mvrwenl said:
Sgt. Largent":1mvrwenl said:
fenderbender123":1mvrwenl said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.

I don't see anything being diminished. We all know what teams are in the important bowls.

The rest are a mechanism for college football and sponsors to rewards players, fans and schools socially and financially.

btw, there is an unspoken mason dixon line for wins, and it's 6, so 7 is going to make a huge difference?
 

Attyla the Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
47
Smart move.

This is going to be totally commonplace in a couple of years. At least as it relates to top tier talent.

There is absolutely no value for either of these two players to playing in a final bowl game.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,956
Reaction score
1,594
fenderbender123":3vxebllj said:
Sgt. Largent":3vxebllj said:
fenderbender123":3vxebllj said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.
Nice post Fender..
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,114
Reaction score
2,371
hawkfan68":3o0qyybq said:
fenderbender123":3o0qyybq said:
Sgt. Largent":3o0qyybq said:
fenderbender123":3o0qyybq said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.

Doing this will cause schools to start creating powder puff schedules. This is already an issue now, but creating win minimums would make the matter much more worse rather than solve it. You'll see a lot more games scheduled in against the Portland State's, Cal-Poly's of the world rather than the bigger schools. That's the effect of having a win minimum. Eliminating the lower class bowl games will in itself solve the wins issue. Teams with a losing record would be left out as they should be. Maybe they should re-assign some of the bowl games to FCS or lower divisions. There's no reason to have as many D1 FBS bowls as they do now.

Or maybe they could just invite the top 30 ranked teams to a bowl game.
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,114
Reaction score
2,371
Sgt. Largent":183xvtop said:
fenderbender123":183xvtop said:
Sgt. Largent":183xvtop said:
fenderbender123":183xvtop said:
This is good. We want the ratings on lower tier bowl games to be hurt by this, so that maybe they will start getting rid of them so that the bowl games that do get played will actually have more meaning.

Why is more football a bad thing?

I don't necessarily love me some Motel 6 Cactus Bowl or Camping World Independence Bowl, but it's more football.......and it's fun for the kids who get to travel and have a fun week in a different city.

Diminishing returns. I'm not saying we should only have a few bowl games, but when every .500 team plus some teams with losing records get to play in a bowl game, it kind of takes the meaning out of earning one and playing in it. If we made 7 wins the minimum (but not a guarantee), it would make what bowl games that do exist better.

I don't see anything being diminished. We all know what teams are in the important bowls.

The rest are a mechanism for college football and sponsors to rewards players, fans and schools socially and financially.

btw, there is an unspoken mason dixon line for wins, and it's 6, so 7 is going to make a huge difference?

It will make an 8.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% difference.
 
Top