Leaving Before Bowl Games

Denver_Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
508
Reaction score
459
Points
63
While I understand that players want to get ready for the combine and the draft plus they don't want to risk injury, it just seems to me that they have a responsibility to their college team. I would be interested in other's thoughts.
 

I think this is already being discussed in at least one other thread. Mods - can we maybe move this over to one of those?
 

Students have very little freedom to make choices as far as their football career goes after they sign, and nobody in the CFB system is there to look out for the player's best interests without having a conflicting interest.

So don't be surprised when they finally get a chance to make a decision they make a good one for themselves and their future.

They don't owe the school or you or I anything. They spent more than enough time earning money for the coaches, schools, and entertaining us.
 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

but, if I was a college FB program, and I gave out full-ride, cost-of-attendance scholarships that are worth $30,000 to $40,000 a year, or more, I would expect something in return.

I see a scholarship as a contractual agreement. Other apparently think it's a one-way agreement, where the school has all of the obligations and liabilities, and the player is obligated to nothing. That's not a fair agreement in my book.
 





In my ideal world, NFL GM's would view this as selfish and skipping bowl games or quitting on your team midseason would tank you draft stock, just as much if not more than an actual injury and players would have more incentive to stay.

Obviously that's not going to happen but it'd be nice.
 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

but, if I was a college FB program, and I gave out full-ride, cost-of-attendance scholarships that are worth $30,000 to $40,000 a year, or more, I would expect something in return.

I see a scholarship as a contractual agreement. Other apparently think it's a one-way agreement, where the school has all of the obligations and liabilities, and the player is obligated to nothing. That's not a fair agreement in my book.


They make quite a bit of money. There is a reason why one side would like for it to be like a "contractual agreement" and the other side does not.
 



Case by case in a sense. However agents are going to get greedy and will push for them to leave the program. I totally support Greene's decision as he has not been healthy. Cashman's situation however is a bit different in that he is healthy and wish that he would play.
 
Last edited:


Case by case in a sense. However agents are going to get greedy and will push for them to leave the program. I totally support Greene's decision as he has not been healthy. Cashman's situation however is a bit different in that he is healthy and wish that he would play.

Cashman has a history of bad shoulders and has been wearing a brace every game. I don’t think we can make assumptions about his health. If he has a shot at a nice signing bonus and possibility of earning an (enormous) contract salary I think most would think twice. His shoulders may be bothering him more than we know.

I think there is a bit of a double standard going on here. I get that it isn’t ideal to jump ship before the last game but he has a path forward playing football. Most underclassmen and seniors are unlikely to have that option, or if they go UDFA route to make a game day squad. It’s always easy to play with other people’s money. Take the university, for instance. Furthermore, coaching staff routinely abandon their players and most don’t blink twice. Particularly PJ fans.



.
 
Last edited:




My thoughts are that the several other threads addressed this topic already.

Cool. So we'll never talk about anything we've covered.

We hate Iowa - CHECK
Who will be the QB next year - CHECK
Recruiting rankings - CHECK
Players not playing in bowls - CHECK

Anything else we should add? I'd hate to have you be forced to click into a thread only to post that it's redundant.
 

Cool. So we'll never talk about anything we've covered.
The point is that there are other threads on the same topic and still active. This is as common at gopherhole as personal insults and off-topic conversations.
 

One is about Cashman, one about Green and one in relationship to playoffs. Thought a general conversation was worthwhile.
 

No problem with players skipping bowl games. None. Offer me the chance of millions I would do the same thing
 

100% it’s a players’ right. And especially with the new red shirt rules it really doesn’t hurt the school in any way. It gives younger players a chance to play, it gives fans a glimpse of next years’ talent, it hypothetically helps draft stock if a player improves his measurables, which in turn is good for the school...
 

I wish Greene and Cashman all the best and I appreciate all the effort they’ve put into our program!
 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

but, if I was a college FB program, and I gave out full-ride, cost-of-attendance scholarships that are worth $30,000 to $40,000 a year, or more, I would expect something in return.

I see a scholarship as a contractual agreement. Other apparently think it's a one-way agreement, where the school has all of the obligations and liabilities, and the player is obligated to nothing. That's not a fair agreement in my book.

Say that to the kids that get “run off” by programs or “suggested they should transfer”. The institutions and coaches have the majority of the leverage in this relationship. The less than 1% of kids skipping bowls, while interesting debate, has negligible impact on college football.
 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

but, if I was a college FB program, and I gave out full-ride, cost-of-attendance scholarships that are worth $30,000 to $40,000 a year, or more, I would expect something in return.

I see a scholarship as a contractual agreement. Other apparently think it's a one-way agreement, where the school has all of the obligations and liabilities, and the player is obligated to nothing. That's not a fair agreement in my book.

So the current system isn’t fair to the <I>school</I>? That would be a new argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

100% it’s a players’ right. And especially with the new red shirt rules it really doesn’t hurt the school in any way. It gives younger players a chance to play, it gives fans a glimpse of next years’ talent, it hypothetically helps draft stock if a player improves his measurables, which in turn is good for the school...

I agree with your sentiment as long as you are not hung up on the result of the bowl game. Because when key players skip the bowl game it does hurt the school's chances of winning the game. For example, I would have expected Cashman to be a key player in terms of controlling Georgia Tech's run game. With him out of the mix it is going to make things much harder on the defense overall.

So if the bowl if viewed on par with an exhibition game then players skipping isn't a big deal and is understandable in this day and age where there is so much money sitting out there at the next level.
 

Say that to the kids that get “run off” by programs or “suggested they should transfer”. The institutions and coaches have the majority of the leverage in this relationship. The less than 1% of kids skipping bowls, while interesting debate, has negligible impact on college football.

Agreed. And don't forget, the schools make way more money off the players than the players get in free education, etc. Not even close. They owe the school nothing.

As a fan it's disappointing, but as a former boss of mine told me, "you have to look out for yourself or nobody will".

In the cases of Greene and Cashman it's probably a tougher decision because Bowl film could be beneficial as neither are locks to be drafted, but in both cases it sounds like they are either trying to get healthy or may even get minor surgeries, so it makes sense...
 




Top Bottom