Selfish or Smart? Stanford RB says he won't play in Bowl game - wants to get ready for NFL draft

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The university has been raking in money off of him for at least the last two years.

You can buy an "officially licensed" Christian McCaffrey Stanford jersey online:

It's fine for him to look out for himself and make whatever decision he decides is in his best interest.

Just because they've been selling jersey's with his name on it doesn't mean they are raking it in off of him. Do you think they've sold anywhere close to even $10,000 worth of jerseys with his name on it?

Personally, I think the idea of figuring out a $$ value is stupid but I'll take your bait. I think the right quesiton to ask would be, "How much would he make if he playing minor league football for the last two years?" Actually, it might be very similar to what his scholarship is worth. The average CFL salaary is 89k per year.

But remember, the benchwarmer on Stanford gets the same salary.

I've never understood why people complaining about the 'exploitation' of college athletes don't realize that while the Ezekiel Elliotts of the world are underpaid, there are plenty of third string linemen, cross country runners and women's volleyball players that are overpaid.

It amazes me that same people who constantly complain that in the everday world that CEOs make too much and the average worker make too little, want to upend a largely socialistic way of 'paying' college athletes and go to a CEO/star-type system.

Track Fanny wrote:

smart. college athletes are already exploited enough, at the risk of injury and foregone income, scholarships aside.

So the women's volleyball player or men's xc runner who bring in zero revenue are exploited?? Really??

rojo wrote:

Track Fanny wrote:

smart. college athletes are already exploited enough, at the risk of injury and foregone income, scholarships aside.

So the women's volleyball player or men's xc runner who bring in zero revenue are exploited?? Really??

You're the only one on this thread talking about non-revenue sports. This is a discussion about a football player.

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

Anyway, the point is that the university is exploiting athletes, bringing in many, many times the amount of "compensation" they pay out. Athletes agree to this, because they hope to use that platform to get better opportunities.

At this point McCaffrey has maximized his potential earnings and has only downside risk.

It is a business, for both sides. The University wants to maximize money (and wins). The athlete wants to maximize exposure and future earnings.

As long as those interests align, everybody is happy. When those interests no longer align, one or both of those parties are going to be unhappy.

Oklahoma continued to allow Joe Mixon to compete because they wanted to maximize money and wins. If they didn't, somebody else would have.

There are not moral principles at stake here.

If it was one of the bigger bowl games, it would be objectionable. This isn't particularly objectionable.

Born in the 856 wrote:

Initially, I was against McCaffrey's decision. Now, I changed my tune. Last year, Notre Dame had a first round NFL talent at LB, his name was Jaylon Smith. NFL scouts had him as a top 5 pick, unfortunately he tore his knee up (acl, lcl, plus nerve damage) in the Fiesta Bowl. He lost about $19M and he is still sidelined and has yet to see the the practice field after the Dallas Cowboys drafted him in the 2nd round.

Smith may never play football again. Bowl games today are meaningless, if they are NOT part of the College Football Playoff.

McCaffrey is smart and doesn't want to suffer a career ending injury in a meaningless game before the draft. Good for him.

But there's nothing about a bowl game which makes a career ending injury any more or less likely to happen than any other game does. If you've established yourself as a potential first round pick by midseason and don't want to risk injury, why wait for a bowl to quit? Why not skip the 12th game, or the 11th, or the 8th?

Bingo!

Loper wrote:

The correct answer is selfish and smart.

+1

I was going to post this same sentiment but you beat me to it.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

I may be the only person here who has been to the Sun Bowl.

He's not missing much.

This is a solidly B- tier bowl. I'm sure his teammates don't care.

If we are going to FORCE these kids to risk their careers by playing in college for three years, look for this to become the norm. Minimize the risk.

my thought... wrote:

It reflects poorly on his character. Some NFL teams care about that.

Not at all. Just shows he's intelligent about his future profession. Very likely his coach supported his decision to go pro and that includes not playing a meaningless bowl game -- which is a private enterprise designed to make money. Stanford has made money off him as well, far more than the athletic scholarship value. Why should McCaffrey be last in line to profit off his talents? I doubt very much any NFL team, including those interested in "character" would draft McCaffrey as high, or at all, if he blew out a knee in a bowl game.

my thought... wrote:

It reflects poorly on his character. Some NFL teams care about that.

Character does count. Every year you see college players who have drug/alcohol/or domestic abuse problems slide down the draft charts. This does fall into that category.

NFL teams care more about what you can do for them today. Not what you can do after 12 months of rehab.

rojo wrote:

Just because they've been selling jersey's with his name on it doesn't mean they are raking it in off of him. Do you think they've sold anywhere close to even $10,000 worth of jerseys with his name on it?

Amazing. You misuse the apostrophe in one use of jerseys and then correctly leave it off in the next. Please don't tell me anything about college until you've passed a sixth grade English class.

Here's a helpful hint: use an apostrophe for contraction or possession, not pluralization. Just because a word ends in an s doesn't mean it needs an apostrophe.

Character, in the NFL? LOLTeams are worried about winning games. Having all of the character in the world will not get an individual drafted. NFL teams are concerned about the potential of an individual to help win games. It is amazing how many things can be swept under the rug when someone is putting points on the board; however, "character" comes up when an athlete is not a star performer and has a domestic violence charge. At best, character is icing on the cake.

my thought... wrote:

It reflects poorly on his character. Some NFL teams care about that.

their choice wrote:

my thought... wrote:

It reflects poorly on his character. Some NFL teams care about that.

How quickly do you think the school/team would drop him (or any other player) if they thought he might cost them millions of dollars?

The schools are the ones who chose to make college football a business. The foreseeable end result of that decision is that players treat it as a business too.

Good answer

I don't know if would want to draft a player who skips a season ending game that is important to his team if he is healthy.

Physical ability isn't the only criteria considered when drafting a player.

Is he going to step out of bounds or is he going to go for the first down?

Is he going to play the second half after getting a stinger or is he going to nurse his injury?

If there is an equal talent I'm going to pick the guy that wants to play.

The move could cost him money.

Rojo-

Why didn't you start this thread when the head coaches were baiing on their teams in search of the big payout? I bet at some point in the season all those coaches were spraying spittle in kids faces and had snot flying everywhere preaching about team, and loyalty, and dedication to the program. Then one phone call and it's adios, good luck, have a great season, see you on the flipside.

I'm a Stanford alumnus and diehard fan of the school's sports programs, including football, and I don't mind a bit. To me this decision is more a reflection of the inconsequential value of the Sun Bowl than anything else. I can't imagine Christian would have skipped the Rose Bowl or BCS playoff game. That, and in my advancing age and hopefully maturity (plus all the relevant news on this), I've come to appreciate in a way I didn't when I was young how brutal football is. Sure, he has some insurance, but I totally understand the decision and yet even ten years ago probably would have been furious at his "selfishness." Similarly, like many fans I always seemed to side with the owners during pro sports work stoppages, but now, especially in football, I think the players deserve every last dollar they can get.I quoted Star's post only because there's zero reason to question Christian's toughness and drive on the field. Sorry, but that's just dumb. A decision to skip a minor bowl game has nothing to do with his performance on the field, especially when he's proved over and over again how tough he is.

Star wrote:

I don't know if would want to draft a player who skips a season ending game that is important to his team if he is healthy.

Physical ability isn't the only criteria considered when drafting a player.

Is he going to step out of bounds or is he going to go for the first down?

Is he going to play the second half after getting a stinger or is he going to nurse his injury?

If there is an equal talent I'm going to pick the guy that wants to play.

The move could cost him money.

I will say that I don't follow college football and I am an NFL fan.

If this doesn't affect his NFL draft ranking I don't care too much.

I think the NCAA exploits the players.

I still thinking skipping a game may play in some coaches minds.

I want someone who plays for the love of the game more than the love of money.

Bowl games, while fun to watch, basically only exist as a money-maker for the schools. God forbid an actual athlete considers his financials as well!!! Only the old guys in the athletic departments or the donors trying to relive their glory days can do that.