I already said I would be fine with Watson sitting out a meaningless bowl game. And he already did the same as LF his freshman year.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
There are plenty of NFL bound guys playing in “meaningless” bowl games this year.
It seems pretty simple…
Some players care more about their school, teammates and coaches, while others care more about themselves.
The former will play in said meaningless game while the latter will not.
I guess my point is how do you determine what bowls are meaningless. Is it only playoffs or national championships? I am not sure where I stand on this issue. What if a player decides he does not want to play in a top tier bowl? Can you tell them they have to play, but the guys in the lower tier bowls do not? What if Watson said he was not playing for the Championship because the risk was not worth the reward to him? Seems like they are opening a can of worms that could come back to bite them. I personally think the number of bowl games needs to be cut way down it really does not mean much to go to a bowl these days.
quote:Birmingham Bowl?
Originally posted by ApickettI guess my point is how do you determine what bowls are meaningless.
“Don’t fear the vendors
Dreams can’t be bought”
if they are not playing to avoid injury…what different does the bowl game make?
but you asked a Clemson fan about the CU most valuable player, so of course he will answer accordingly.
quote:
Originally posted by Loonquote:Birmingham Bowl?
Originally posted by ApickettI guess my point is how do you determine what bowls are meaningless.
“Don’t fear the vendors
Dreams can’t be bought”
Yes I don’t think you should be bowl eligiible unless you have a winning record.
I didn’t realize Stanford or LSU was playing in the Natty. You want to have a discussions bout something completely unrelated to the topic. Sound like a Gamecock fan. I had no idea how much Clemson was in you guys heads.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
I thought the point was relavent. Quitting is quitting, no matter the bowl.
So just to clarify, who all do you think are in the wrong for not playing? LF, CM, or both?
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
[quote]Originally posted by Geronimo
I didn’t realize Stanford or LSU was playing in the Natty. You want to have a discussions bout something completely unrelated to the topic. Sound like a Gamecock fan. I had no idea how much Clemson was in you guys heads.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
[/quote
Take the chip off of your shoulder and try to stay on point. it is related we are talking about college football players sitting out of team games. There were some that suggested Clowney should just sit out his entire junior year and many people argued that it was the right thing to do, so don’t think it is too far fetched to think some kid would not sit out a meaningful game.
Pat Forde is on point here…
All that said, it’s an unfortunate collegiate conclusion for Fournette and McCaffrey. Their decisions can be defensible and lamentable at the same time. Those decisions come in conflict with a couple of long-held American sporting ideals: submerging self-interest in favor of what’s best for a team; and finishing what you started. We teach our kids those things from grade-school on – then they become disposable when dollars are involved.
The running backs are bailing on their teammates. And several of those teammates at both schools also are high-end NFL prospects who will suit up and play their bowl games. Are the pro careers of Fournette and McCaffrey more important than theirs? That’s the tacit message here.
Pat Forde, never heard of her.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
quote:
Originally posted by 7csI thought the point was relavent. Quitting is quitting, no matter the bowl.
What he said^^^^^
How many of you have actually negotiated or signed a college athletic scholarship? NCAA athletics is a business and these are business decisions. Nothing more, nothing less.
A meaningless bowl to me is anything outside of a top 15 ranking playing a top 15. A win in any of those will take you to a NC, or help secure a top 10 preason ranking to put the school next year on a solid start to make the playoffs in 2017.
Outside of those scenarios, I don’t see why either should feel obligated to suit up again if they don’t want to.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Why does the bowl game matter?
RBs expire quickly. Still pretty weak though.
First, Most, Biggest
quote:
Originally posted by Fishb8Why does the bowl game matter?
Exactly.
Your savior Lattimore supports them. Zeke retracted his statement after seeing they had been battling injuries. It’s also easy for Zeke to confirm he enjoyed his bowl experience. It was the Fiesta bowl, and that game was like an NFL preaseason game. Of course all those guys were going to suit up for a top 10 Fiesta matchup. These bowls have never meant anything but a trip for the players saying thanks for a good season. Since it is a gift to the players, they have the right to reject it.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
So you would be OK if DW sat out?
For the Sun Bowl or Citrus Bowl, for the third time YES.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115