Christian McCaffrey skipping the Sun Bowl

[SeatownJay]

He's decided to join Leonard Fournette in skipping his team's bowl game to prep for the NFL draft. Personally I think this is the beginning of a terrible precedent where, unless the team is playing in a New Year's Six bowl game, the best players start skipping them to protect their NFL prospects.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/story ... i-sun-bowl

 

[Seahawkfan80]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SeatownJay]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.