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

Selfish and smart, IMHO. Guessing he might play if Stanford were in a real bowl game like the Rose Bowl.

my thought... wrote:

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

Others will pay him a ton of money that he didn't get, and earned, in college.

It's not a major bowl and has no playoff ramifications. Why play in a JV constellation game and risk millions?

The kid met his obligation.

If they were playing the rose bowl I bet he'd be playing.

His dad runs like Forrest Gump.

canspo wrote:

I agree with this. I understand the logic, but I think it ascribes too much risk to one game. Just because Jaylon Smith got injured doesn't mean there is a greater chance of McCaffrey getting hurt in this game than any other game.

Considering this is the only possible game in question at this point, it seems that his chances are much higher in this game than any other game.

It's smart and answers are all being given by those who are not putting a multi million dollar contract on the line and never will.

His decision is smart. Nothing he does on the field in the Sun bowl will improve his NFL prospects. Sitting out won't hurt them.

The catastrophic knee injury rate for running backs in college and the NFL is astronomical compared to anything he'll do in prep for the draft. They basically all go down eventually in less than about 150 games. He'd go from being a late first or second to a fifth round at best pick if it happened in this meaningless bowl. No one on here would advise their kid to take a 0.5-1% chance to lose $5M-10M with nothing to gain.

You are vastly overestimating the value of an education for a D1 football player. Their primary job is football at most major schools, and they tend to get steered into joke majors and classes. How many of the Stanford players are majoring in a STEM field?

Why should he have unending loyalty to Stanford anyway? You think they'll give him $5M if he blows out his knee playing for them? The school would bench him anyway if they were so concerned about his future.

The previous poster was correct about sitting out a year. Some spectacular underclass prospect is wisely going to do it at some point.

Christian McCaffrey is a Communication Major so unless he looks like Allison Stokke he ain't gettin no job on TV in L.A.

Stanford isn't paying him

The NFL will pay him

He should save his body

CTE is coming anyways

Smart because Stanford has made so much money off of him already an he hasn't gotten any of it other than his scholarship money. Plus he can train and be sure he wont get injured in the bowl game.

Would a gambling metaphor help? He's been sitting at the roulette table for 64 (?) collegiate games now and has already hit the jackpot. Sure, during every spin of the wheel, the risk was exactly the same as the last, and mathematically so, is the same for the final game. But, THIS IS WHEN YOU WALK OUT OF THE CASINO! Under your advice, he'd remain at the table a let his jackpot ride on one more spin, and even if it hits, he wins nothing but stands to lose it all! It's not a "limited" chance of injury dude. It happens in every game.

ESPN2 covered this quite well this morning. overwhelmingly on the players side.

The schools actually make out significantly better by having him be a higher draft choice than they do by winning a meaningless bowl game (in recruiting terms).

Again, I don't care about the school's side on this. (I do care about his teammates view on this, however)

How does an NFL coach view this?

Hopefully he collected his Sun Bowl swag bag on the way out the door!😄

canspo wrote:

By his logic, you really should bail on your team the moment you've established yourself as a first round draft pick.

Yes; that's exactly what you should do.

I would feel very differently if the NCAA were not a giant criminal antitrust conspiracy. In any other field, if you get together with your competitors and agree to suppress wages, you would go to jail.

The minor bowl games can be really preposterous. Earlier this week, Central Michigan was in a bowl (in Miami, I think). They are in at best a third tier conference and had a record of 6-6. When I tuned in briefly, they were losing to Tulsa 41-3. I mean, really.

Coaches leave for new jobs before bowl games all the time...And they're at least getting paid by the first team. Brian Kelly left an undefeated Cincinnati team right before the Sugar Bowl a few years back to start working at Notre Dame. Any university administrator that calls out these players for looking out for their own interests is a hypocrite.

my thought... wrote:

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

LOL

NFL doesn't really case

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??

First, depending on the program you are talking about these two scenarios don't necessarily ring true universally although the scenario with XC really only works at the Division III level.

Second, exploitation doesn't equate to money or lack thereof exploitation is a little more complex. There are terrible coaches and horrible people who are coaching Volleyball and XC athletes every day. Those athletes especially at the Div I level consistently have their scholarship dollars hung over their heads like the sword of Damocles with coaches who don't care about athlete health or know how to build teams or even train properly. Coaches exploit situations all the time. The bad, horrible, and terrible coaches do it for their own personal gain and there is enough smoke and fire out there for us to recognize this.

Third, The decision for him to play or not to play is his alone and no one else's. You can say he's quitting on his team, but the reality is he owes he teammates nothing. He's already given them enough in every other game he has played and the bottom line is a coach or a teammate there has to be this idea we can overcome this because that's what really good teams do.

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??

No. They are exploiting. However, Coleen Quigley was not allowed to model in college (more NCAA amateurism) as she had in high school, thus ruining her chance to be the next Mrs Tom Brady. Christian McCaffery was not allowed to endorse products whilst at college. Why don't you people address that NCAA shackling of NCAA superstars. And don't get me started (again) re Katy Ledecky.

At no point have I even broached pay-for-play. My beef is NCAA restrictions on endorsements, modeling, acting.

Thoughts??????