Just saw this announcement a few minutes ago. I thought it was a pretty brazen thing for previous stars like Christian McCaffrey did this a few years ago, but to see a QB decide to do this is, well, disturbing. I can't begin to imagine what the seniors on WV's team must be thinking. Granted this isn't a marquee bowl, which probably helps justify the decision. But still, this is a trend that think is only going to pickup more momentum, and I could see this spilling in to the regular season (e.g., had WVU lost a couple more earlier in the season, making their game against Oklahoma irrelevant, would he have skipped the Oklahoma game?)
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Pretty sure their LT is sitting out as well. I don't really have an issue with it. Bowl games don't mean a lot anymore. It's more about the extra practices and bowl perks for the players. I'm not complaining though, it's more college football and I'm going to enjoy watching it.
There is still room for special moments as well. I'll never forget being there for the Belk Bowl comeback. It was an ultimately meaningless game against a 7-5 team, but it gave us our first 10 win season since 2011 and a great experience.
Yes - their LT (Yodny Cajuste) is skipping as well.
How does one pronounce Yodny Cajuste?
Kevin
Stephen Strasburg pitched his entire final college season and the NCAA tournament even knowing he would be the no. 1 pick in the draft. Anthony Davis played 40 games and lead his team to the NCAA title, even knowing he'd be the no. 1 pick.
This only happens in college football, and it diminishes the sport in my opinion.
What are the odds of career derailing or ending injuries in those sports vs football?
seems high for a pitcher in baseball. The amount of money lost for an arm injury could be in the several to tens of millions.
Definitely higher for pitchers. Everyone else on a baseball field (except for the catcher) is just a statically-low freak accident away from suffering an injury severe enough to derail a career.
No data to back this up, but while the likelihood of injury for a pitcher might be higher than almost any other position in baseball, I imagine the chance of injury is significantly less than that of any player on the football field. Furthermore, football players are significantly more likely to suffer a career ending injury than a baseball player is.
Frankly, I have no problem with it.
Guy is going to get paid in the NFL. He is definitely not going to get paid for this bowl.
I certainly can't speak from experience, but I would not be surprised if most, of not all, teammates in a college locker room are totally fine with these decisions. They know the game.
I get it, I really do. I do. But I also don't like it for many reasons. Not my call, obviously, not my body, my career, it's also not my school and not my team and I still don't like it. I'm not against change, per se, but some change doesn't sit that well with me. I would call this a disturbing trend if it becomes one. If it was my school and my team, I believe I might even be mightily pissed about it. Back up QBs, however, will love it.
Hypothetical situation - JJ has a breakout senior year, looks the part of a first round draft pick, but VT doesn't make an NY6 bowl (unlikely, but roll with it). Would you rather JJ play a meaningless game, or would you rather get QP meaningful first team practices and game experiences?
Tell you what. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. All in all, I'd rather win the lottery since we're hypothesizing. Like I said, though, not my call.
And about the "meaningless" tag. If it is meaningless, why play it at all? It might not be so meaningless to thousands of fans, the coaches, students and your fellow players on the team. The sun rises, shines and sets for other folks too.
The playoff rendered all other games meaningless. Really, the only games that get any kind of airtime anymore are the playoff. Every other game is an afterthought. Even the Rose Bowl is essentially forgotten in the years it isn't in the playoff. I've heard very prominent people within the college football media circles (through articles and on the radio here in Raleigh) openly lament about what the playoff has done to the rest of the bowl season. It's almost like the playoff ripped the soul out of college football where we only care about the 4 teams and everyone else is just noise. It's almost why the last half the season felt boring nationally despite there being great games, because the playoff picture didn't really change.
At this point bowl season is just a bunch of exhibitions with decent payouts leading up to the games that matter. It's no surprise high profile players are opting out. We incentivised them to do it.
It was like that with the BCS. The only difference is that now there are three games that contribute to the national championship instead of one.
Yep. But even in the BCS the NCG was part of the BCS bowl package and since only 2 teams were invited, there was still hype around the rest. Heck, the BCS show announced all the big games including the championship. Now, it's all about the playoff. The playoff announcement is only about the playoff teams. The NY6 gets relegated to leaks and a bowl show hours later after all the hype has died down. It was bad before, and it's like they doubled down on the bad since.
I'm starting to think that the concept of a national champion in FBS football is kind of overrated. The powers that be will never go for a full 16 team playoff with AQs for conference championships, and FBS is so intertwined with the legacy of bowls. I think we should just go back to the pre-BCS/Bowl Alliance/Coalition format. All the big bowls are played around New Year's Eve, New Years Day with their traditional conference tie ins, and the polls vote a number 1 team the next day and declare them the mythical national champ. No more debate or bickering on who should "be in," just win your conference, win your bowl, and hope for the best.
The season was not boring because of the playoff. The season was boring because everybody knew in September that Clemson and Alabama are going to play each other for the 4th year in a row. If there were 10 teams clamoring for 4 playoff spots in week 10, that would not be boring.
It's like the NBA. They have 16 playoff spots, but for the last 3 years, the finals were a known quantity in December.
I think it could be argued that if we had AN ACTUAL playoff the season would still be exciting. With an actual playoff there's still a chance Georgia could have beaten Alabama in the SEC championship game and then Clemson v Bama wouldn't be a foregone conclusion.
Unfortunately the "playoff" is designed to generate money, not champions. The set up will enrich the rich and the sport will continue to become more and more boring over the next several years. Gear up for another 4 or 5 years of Clemson v Bama championship matches. And don't be so foolish to think that isn't by design.
The current system sucks ass for a team like UCF that virtually has no path to a championship. However, I would argue that a team like Virginia Tech has a better chance to win a championship with the old BCS or current structure than it would with an expanded playoff. It is hard to assemble a roster capable of plowing through multiple top 15 teams in consecutive games. I guess my point is that if the current system is by design, it might not be only the Bamas and Clemsons that are doing the designing.
You could make that argument. I'm not sure I agree. Currently a 9-3 VT team could conceivably win the ACC (becoming 10-3) and still be left out of the playoff altogether. In that scenario they don't even get a shot, regardless of whether they have the talent and depth to compete with consecutive top 10 teams. I would rather have the opportunity than not.
I also believe that parity would be good for college football and making the playoff more merit based and less resource based will actually do more to create that parity. As it is currently, teams with the most resources are rewarded with more resources. Cutting into that disparity would be good for the overall health of the game. One way to do it is to make the playoffs more merit based and less money based.
I never said the designing was done by Bama or Clemson. It's not. They are simply beneficiaries. The NCAA and associated bowls, where most of the money ends up, stand to gain by favoring the richest teams and enriching them further. That's why there is a committee in place to make sure the blue bloods get spots at the table. The playoff has never been about finding a champion. Ostensibly it is, but in reality it's just a scheme to appease the fans and generate more money for the big players.
I'm not sure if it was an intended or latent consequence, but you are absolutely right that the playoff has made everything around it less meaningful in its wake. It's forced so much of the attention on to itself that it became the singular focus. It's unfortunate for that to be the case for a league with 130 teams, about 110 of which will never have the recruiting to actually win the playoff.
There's too much talent/money discrepancy in college football for the only thing anyone cares about to be a national championship.
I haven't watched the championship game in a couple years, The championship is meaningless, the rest of the bowls are as good as they have been (minus players skipping them for the draft, but I understand that)
To me, the most important week in college football is rivalry week. Those are the games I look forward to, and the games that keep me on the edge of my seat. The second most important is championship week. New Year's is a distant third, and the CFP bowls are no more or less interesting than the other NY6 bowls.
Why? Each year around half of the championship games are lopsided. I'd go:
Non BCS/Alliance/Playoff bowls have always been meaningless... Until Frank Beamer loses one, then its the end of the world, a travesty, he never took them seriously, it hurts our recruiting, we fail to deliver on the big stage, yadda yadda, yadda. The contrast in opinion on Grier (Meh, go get paid) and Beamer losing a meaningless Chicken Bowl (game has past him by, I'm not paying for bowls anymore, we are a disgrace, we choke against big teams) is hilarious.
I'm with you, fish. It makes sense why they do it, and I get it, but it's silly to pretend something isn't lost. I suppose sports are a way to teach kids the values and virtues of the broader society's ethos, and it's worked: ultimately, everything is subordinate to capital.
At the end of the day, a bowl game is an exhibition game. I wouldn't want anyone to risk their career and earning potential for an exhibition.
When Beamer called non-conference games exhibitions, since they had no bearing on a conference title, people got pissed because the games were on the schedule (with paying fans).
When players quit mid-season when the team is out of contention for a conference title, much less the national title, people got pissed because there were still games on the schedule (with paying fans).
When UCF had not lost a game for two seasons but is not included in the playoffs, is their entire season an exhibition (with paying fans)?
It is really hard to determine the importance of any game and I presume each game is valued differently by each player, fan and coach.
It may well be that there are different people weighing in, and they have different opinions.
I'm assuming that's what you're saying. So it may be less that one person is inconsistent, and more that you've noticed differences of opinion.
I have noticed some level of consistency among those who are generally negative, and those who are generally positive, and they may switch positions on the details.
For example, there is a group of people who tend to make negative comments on the coaching, the recruiting, and donations, and a different group of people who tend to make positive comments in those areas. It could just be the way they see the world.
I agree. I think that some of that is due to perspective.
Everyone's experiences with VT football are not the same. Lots of people have been to the losses at home over the past 10 seasons; some went to games during to 10 win season streak; fewer started with games at Victory Stadium. Looking at user profile gives some insight into this.
Some people, VT football is the biggest thing of the week. For others, they are committed to other things and VT football is only supposed to be a distraction from the rest of the week.
Additionally, some are committed to the program emotionally, some are committed with financially and emotionally.
I'm just glad the players didn't quit on the team this year.
The bowl game and streaks were worth playing for, and tells us something about these players and the coaches. None of them gave up on this season, and they all had to put some effort in to get to a bowl.
I agree!
Most programs tank when there is a season like this. This did demonstrate mental fortitude and good leadership in the locker-room.
Why wait for a hypothetical? I'm in favor of QP getting meaningful game time against Cincy. The only thing we're really playing for at this point is a winning season, yeah I'd love to see that, but why not see what he can do with more than a random series in the middle of a game.
Because I can't imagine a scenario where JJ plays at a first round draft pick level, but we get left out of the NY6.
So basically, as you just said, is that there is no rational reason to dislike it. You just do.
No, I didn't say that. My rationale is obviously different from the players sitting out, is all. Just because I understand their rationale doesn't mean I agree with it or don't have my own, which I think are clear enough. "But what if I get hurt" would keep us all in the house. I think that athlete is letting his team, his school and fellow students, his coaches and fans down. If he thinks it's worth it, it isn't my call, but why should I need to agree or like his reasons?
These guys get one shot, and they have been, to this point in their career, used to make tons of people (who aren't them or their own families) tons of money. They don't owe anyone anything. I also think it's very contingent on the fans to realize this; you should WANT your team, your guys who have given a lot for you, for your school, to go get theirs. This idea that a 20 year old kid with one chance to make generational wealth for himself and his family should possibly forgo that for the sake of a system that gives zero shits about him is ridiculous. You don't like people leaving? Incentivize them not to. Don't blame the player because the system is fucked.
Football is entertainment and unfortunately there are people that view the players as just that and nothing more.
Just curious here, but what if WVU were playing in the Championship? The same rationale to quit to preserve the possible payday still applies, right? So does quitting before the end of the season as soon as you're convinced you'll be going pro, regardless of the importance of the remaining games. Where does it end?
Depends, does winning a national title up your draft stock, it might speak to intangibles etc. Or is that something you want to accomplish? Bosa shut it down after game 1 (yes he was injured).
I've know a couple people that quit college in the middle of a semester to go work full time. Should they have stayed in college?
Apples to oranges, quitting college to go to work vs quitting on your team, I'd say. But it doesn't matter anyway, I'm not saying anyone "should" do anything. I merely expressed my opinion and dislike for what I see as a disturbing trend. If money is the only rational basis upon which to make choices, then so be it. Those folks don't owe me a damn thing, we're just jawing on a message board bouncing ideas and opinions around, and while it may stick in some craws to have to acknowledge it, there is more than one opinion on the issue out there.
Why ia this disturbing though? If its disturbing you must find it fundamentally upsetting somehow as thats a fairly strong sentiment. So far we havent seen a player skip the natty so i dont think you need to get upset over a hypothetical.
I find it disturbing that my neighbor won't cut his damn grass, but we're still friendly and I'm not upset about it, just disturbed for the neighborhood. If I were upset, I'd use that word. I'm certainly not upset about a hypothetical, I was just curious where the lines, if any, might be drawn by others. I get that you want to argue, and I have played my part, but since it obviously upsets you fundamentally that I don't agree with you, I'll just quit right here and you can have your last word. Have at me.
As a fan, I feel that a player can and should do anything that better's their lives. This game of football, for some of them, is their entire life. I feel that they don't owe me anything and I have only ever seen support from the teammates of such players that decide to sit out.
How does this work for a school with a bowl game before final exams and a kid skips does he owe his scholarship money back to the Athletic Department?
Depends with the situation and what the aid contract stated when he signed it. Honestly, if I was the coach I would just say he is still with the team, which he probably is to train, and just not play him as that is his choice. I see zero issues with this.
None of these kids are staying with the teams, that's the whole point of them not playing to get a jump on NFL training, sign an agent and maybe not get hurt. But for most schools exams are done by time of game so technically many of them finish the semester. But some of these earlier games don't, since the athletic department had to pay the school for each kid attending doesn't a kid who gets a drop in a class hurt the teams APR and the kid if he ever wants to come back and finish his degree in the future?
I understand what you are saying, but a lower APR should be the last thing on the school's mind. The players that are leaving are generally expecting a top 3 round draft. The positive publicity of a player making it to the NFL outweighs what the APR means to the school.
No idea but I cant imagine any program risking the negative PR to try and enforce that. Nor should they.
My hot take is asking a question?
Was it even a question? I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
He is asking if a player decides to skip a bowl game, what happens if they don't take their final exams. WVU's final exams began last Wednesday and run through this week. Grier decided before that to not play the bowl game. If Grier skips his final exams and is suspended for the bowl game, it wouldn't matter anyway. I guess the incentive is to pass that semester, but I assume Grier already has his degree given how he's 23 years old.
I just want to know what school has exams that start after this weekend. That would be awfully late for college exams.
My last exam is tomorrow (Thursday). Ours didn't start till this week. Must be a WV thing.
My last exam isn't until the 18th.
He has his bachelors and was/is working towards as second degree currently.
If he's drafted
in the first roundhe can pay his scholarship back.Good decision. Dude has a big payday coming. This is what college football will get until *some* type of compensation is permitted for the guys that make these schools and conferences so much money.
I thought the free education and stipends were the compensation
Your statement suggests that the athletes value a free education and stipend the way that you or I would. I'd wager that at as many as half of FBS football players don't see much value in the free education that they are getting.
Yeah, this should be obvious by now. Those guys who are most deserving of monetary compensation are those heading to the league after 2 years... they're not there to graduate. They mostly want to play football
I would also wager that more than half are thankful for that free education when they don't end up in the league. It's only a very small percentage of FBS athletes that go on to play football (successfully) for a living. Those that don't are probably pretty glad that they're not facing tons of student loans or putting a bind on their parents/family.
Also agree, I certainly wouldn't ever want to see scholarships eliminated for men who valued that form of compensation. Just saying the compensation model is outdated and star players skipping bowl games is evidence of that. When there's no longer incentive for these guys to play, they won't, and I'm just saying I don't blame them for that.
I'm not against the skipping of the bowl, especially if its a probable 1st rounder.
I have friends who are 'Eers. They're OK with the skip too.
Not all college football players are equal and we need to stop viewing them as such. If a player is going to make millions in the nfl, he has a lot more at stake than your average player that is just happy to have a scholarship.
They'll be in the NFL an average of 3 years. Why shouldn't they value the education just as much?
Because you can go back and get your education (just like so many of us do without having multiple years if seven-digit paychecks in the interim).
Treating a potential star qb as an "average NFL player" is silly. Maybe he won't work out, but he's going to be a high first round pick, which is worth more than the average rookie contract, and the potential that he's shown is going to be hard to shake for scouts; barring catastrophic injury, Grier is going to play more than 3 years. The analysis you would do as a late round safety or whatever doesn't apply to him.
The idea that you would value a free education if you might be getting it at the risk of a multi-million dollar contract is ridiculous. Quit framing this like it's someone getting away with something. They've gotten what they've gotten for services rendered (and have definitely gotten short-changed, especially if you're someone like Grier).
They may not value the education, but they should value the opportunity to use that university as a stepping stone where they get to train with professional S&C staffs, get the nutrition program and game development for free at the cost of going to class. They get the chance to become celebrities and make millions by investing their time and commitment to the program. There are risks involved for sure. For them, it is the risk of injury rather than the risk of monetary loss like other industries.
As for Grier skipping the bowl, as a fan, it is a disappointment but I completely understand his choice and have no problem with it. If a player who was in the running for a championship decided not to play, that would be different to me. If Kyler Murray said he was not going to play in the playoffs to focus on baseball, I would view him differently because he is letting his team down from the chance at a championship.
I'm happy with his decision. As a Redskins fan, I want him 100% healthy for next season.
Lol you are "disturbed" that a 23 year old made a career choice? Get a grip man.
His WVU career began with a loss to VT and ended with a loss to Oklahoma, two teams that they haven't beaten in over a decade. This was the year they were supposed to make the playoffs, and they still lost 3 games, and it could have been 4 had Florence not gotten their NC State game cancelled. You hate to see it!
Hate to see that he didn't lose 4 games, or hate to see that he lost 3???
Hate that they didn't lose all 12 honestly.
Oh man. Anyone who bet on WVU already has got to be pissed hearing about this. As Grier goes, so do the mountaineers.
Not just the people who bet on them, but I would imagine a large swath of their fanbase is furious at him for wanting to keep himself healthy ahead of the draft. Never change, FWVU.
He needs to do what's best for him, but I was really looking forward to this game.
It's kind of sad for fans that he will have never played in a bowl game.
He's married and has a child.
Now just think about what happened to Alex Smith 2 weeks ago and he's fighting to keep his leg because of infection.
He made the right decision.
1000% He's got money in the bank.
Alex smith is a over a decade older and millions more in the bank
Point being, deviststing injuries can happen at anytime to any player.
What about the Milton kid from UCF or Christion Abercrombie?
If Grier or any VT player wants to lessen their risk of injury before going to the NFL, then they have my support.
If they do it by skipping a bowl game that does not have championship implications, I agree. If they do it during the season or in a playoff run, I wouldn't be able to support that.
I understand and I can appreciate his decision, and the rationale. It's just frustrating as a fan (in general, not for WVU) to see top-talent skip out on these because its fun to watch these games, even if there is no impact on the playoffs. That said, this is a meaningless for everyone except the die-hard WVU fans and Vegas, so there's no point in risking the injury before the draft.
If people are worried that this will become more prevalent and affect the quality of post-season NCAA football, they should be in favor of an expanded playoff. Players won't sit out if they are on a team with a shot to win a title. Plenty of coaches change jobs before their team's bowl game and it makes perfect sense that elite NFL prospects would skip the game if they aren't playing for anything of substantial value.
I don't think there a lot of people who aren't in favor of an expanded playoff to be honest. Just bureaucracy that's keeping it from happening.
All i can say is that it makes the bowl game versus Syracuse much more interesting. 😀
I think the fans should rebel over this and burn the town down.
Or maybe just the couches.
You know they aren't interested in making improvements to that place.
severely underrated comment right here
Who's to say that burning those ratty-asses 'Neer couches with moonshine and possum meat spilled on them isn't making an improvement?
So, just like after any other game, win or lose.
The NCAA allowed college football to become the NFL minor league. The chickens have finally come home to roost.
This take is silly. The dude is about to be a first round draft pick and about to financially secure him and his family for life.
It's easy for fans on the outside to criticize him (and others who decide to do this, see Ed Oliver) but I think it is fair to say that if he were playing for VT or you were in his position, there wouldn't be as much or any criticism at all.
At the end of the day, these players need to do what's best for them and their families. And if that means not risking getting hurt in a total meaningless bowl game, then they should skip it.
NCAA already extorts these guys while they are in college. He owes nothing to them. Now your team/teammates, I get where you are coming from, but they all should know/respect his thinking process of skipping it.
Extending this line of thinking, no one owes anyone anything, if it doesn't directly benefit them.
Players who can't get the job done should be cut and have their scholarships pulled. Coaches should be threatened with being fired for any two-game losing streak. If your team isn't having a good year, fans should stop supporting them. Boosters should only donate to a program when the team goes to the playoffs.
Fortunately, most players, coaches, fans and boosters demonstrate something called loyalty. It's actually a pretty admirable quality to have, even in this day and age.
This is the most ass backwards logic I have ever seen. The guy made a decision for his family. I might be in the minority here, but if a decision benefits my family more than my coworkers, I'm going to choose my family 10 times out of 10. Your holier than thou attitude is nonsensical.
It's not nonsensical, your respective arguments are just starting from different premises. I'm not going to begrudge a player for trying to secure financial security for his family, but it's also fair to point out that when participation in sports is reduced to "business decisions" that players must make to individually maximize their propensity to earn money, something very close to the heart of why we even have sports is lost. To argue against this arrangement may be a bit like yelling at the ocean to stop to tide, but it isn't nonsensical.
That's fair. But I also think you have to remember that these are careers for the players. They aren't just here to entertain us and they have to look out for themselves as well. And they'll do that 99% of the time.
I think my main issue with that post was this not so subtle dig at Will Grier's character:
That just reeks of elitism and "back in the good days." All over a guy's decision not to play in a freaking bowl game. It's just unnecessary.
Although I completely get what you are saying - I think there are degrees to this. For example, a soldier may look at it differently. As might a healthcare worker. But yes, for most of us, our work will go on with or without us and few people would be impacted if we put ourselves / our families ahead of our work.
This happens routinely. Why do you think we have so much attrition?
This is shortsighted. Players who skip the bowl game are playing the long game; they are thinking of their long term career and financial livelihood. Similarly, hiring/firing decisions, fan support, and booster support does vary based on the long term trend of the program.
Depends who you are loyal to. Should a player be more loyal to his coach/team than his family? What about people who are loyal to a fault (such as Beamer and his old offensive staff)?
At the end of the day, I haven't seen any outrage from players or coaches over McCaffry, Grier, or others sitting out the bowl game. The only people who seem to be pissed about it are the fans, and IMHO, the players don't owe us anything.
So by meaningless bowl game I'm assuming anything short of the playoff is meaningless. By those standards he probably should have hung it up after the Iowa state loss and definitely after the ok st loss. Ricky Walker should have hung it up after the odu loss because all other games were meaningless right?
My point is; where's the line? College football prides itself on every game matters but it's the sport that actually very few games really matter in determining a national champ. Most teams are out after one loss. Osu didn't even make it in with only one loss. So why even play the rest of the season by your standards???
You play because it matters to you and your team and I'm sure there are a gm or two that take that into consideration.
Where I come from, I can respect someone who wants to skip a bowl game for the business side of things, especially if he is a lock to be drafted, even more so when they will be a higher draft pick.
Unfortunately, I think we are going in a direction where if the player's team isn't in the playoffs or maybe a New Year' 6 Bowl, then we will see more and more players skip their bowl game if they are projected to be drafted.
When I say meaningless, I should have said that is relative from one person to another. When I wrote it, I was speaking in the perspective of Will Grier. He is about to financially secure him (and whoever he else chooses) for the rest of his life. That's why I call his bowl game meaningless because he has nothing to gain (and everything to lose) as he is seen as a first or second round pick.
You bring up Ricky Walker... He will probably not be drafted (and if he does, maybe late rounds???) so I can see where the bowl game, an extra and last game to play with his team and coaches means something to him.
OSU was in it until the last week. If Oklahoma would have lost to Texas, OSU most likely would have made the playoffs as the 4th seed, so their games after the Purdue loss weren't meaningless as they lost early enough to make it but up to the top.
I can see your view point on GM's wanting a player to give it all they got til the end but I highly doubt they are going to look negatively on a guy who wants to skip a meaningless bowl game (imo) to stay healthy for the draft. If they had their eyes on a specific player and he gets hurt (minor or major), I am willing to bet that GM and going to be a little down that he incurred the injury in the bowl game which now makes their job harder on whether to take them or not.... Again, just my .02
I'm not blaming Will Grier for making a business decision, I'm just stating that most games are meaningless after the first three or four weeks of the season as it pertains to the national championship. I also wasn't saying that OSU didn't have a chance, I was saying if they didn't make it with one loss most other schools never will. There are only a handful of schools that will ever be considered after one loss. Hell, UCF has went undefeated TWO YEARS in a row and still can't sniff a shot.
I just used this thread to vent on how hypocritical college football is. "Every game matters" unless you play for UCF, or you lose your conference championship and your name is Alabama. How would you like to tell your kids high school team that even though they were region 3 champions they can't play for a state title because some people THINK there are two better teams in region 2?
Yea I understand most teams are out of the playoff race after a couple of weeks, especially with preseason ranking bias, but not always.
WV was still in the mix before they lost back to back games against Ok. St. and Oklahoma and may have been the #4 seed if they ran the table without those losses. Because of the back to back losses, they had no chance for playoffs (which I think he would play in and not skipped if it played out that way) and the bowl game against Syracuse is now IMO meaningless.
Again, its all relative from player to player, or my opinion to the next. Some first round projected picks want to play their last game to be with their boys one last time, and some other have money in their eyes and say fuck it.
I don't blame any player for either choice.
Interesting question. In general, college is a means for one to further their career. I think it's the same for college football players; college football is a way to get to the professional world. Just like college is for regular students. When a player feels that the next game will no longer improve (or may even be detrimental) to his professional, personal, or emotional success, I think that's the line. Same goes for regular students - no one would advise Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg to stay in school just so they could finish out a group project.
Anyways, this line is different for each player, and each player has to make this decision individually based on his circumstances.
I agree 100% with this. This is what I tried to say but didn't word it correctly.
Where is the line? Well, at the end of the day, the line is subjective for each player (and student how you brought up).
If schools were truly worried they should be allowed to set up some high dollar insurance for these guys. $10 million dollar policy anyone?
They have insurance policies, and players can supplement them to get them to some level - maybe not that high, but pretty high.
The problem is they don't - probably can't - cover diminished ability. For example, back in the 90s there was a UVa player that was expected to be drafted in the first round. Got hurt, I think it was a torn ACL. He recovered, so the policy didn't pay. But he dropped from a pretty sure 1st round pick to 7th, and ended up with 1 NFL season and 1 on IR. I think he was out of the pros in 3 years.
Depends on the policy some will protect agasint dropping rounds. Those are typically the surefire top 5 pick that are coming back for a senior season.
That was Anthony Poindexter and you are right about it being his ACL.
I'm ok with a player putting their future in front of a non-playoff bowl game. I am also ok if an NFL executive sees that as a red flag and drops the player down their board.
Especially if it means that player is available for my team to pick up.
If there was this high of a chance the Redskins may draft me, I'd want to play in this bowl game. It's a win-win:
1. I'd at least get to play in one more competitive football game before Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen ruin my career; AND
2. If I suffer a devastating injury, I'll never have to play for Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen.
Seriously though, I can't fault the guy. He has a family to support. Potentially losing your chance to make millions just to play Syracuse in a bowl game is silly. In the right system, Grier is going to be very successful in the League. If I wasn't a Redskins fan, I'd want him, but I can't hope for him in good faith. I like him too much to want him to suffer like this.
As a life long fan suffering through the last 25 years of Snyder, I must say... You are correct sir.
Grier has an opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars playing in the NFL. Even holding a clipboard will get him tens of millions over his career at the QB spot. He makes no money playing in college.
He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by risking injury playing in effectively a meaningless bowl game. No GM is going to pass him for sitting out, and he's already considered one of the top 2 or 3 QBs that will be taken. Playing wasn't going to improve his stock, but getting injured would have ruined it. If you think this is going to hurt him, just watch how much money is thrown in the direction of Le'Veon Bell in free agency this year after he sat out all of this year to avoid injury. And then ask Earl Thomas if its worth it.
I am going to laugh hysterically if Bell doesn't get the deal he wants after losing out on a guaranteed 14 million. I am very disappointed with the decision that this year counted as a contract year even though he never showed up.
He's gonna get picked up by the Pats who will also get Sills, McDaniel will hold out on going anywhere and inherit the team from belichick and the dynasty will roll on.
I wish Mason Rudolph skipped last year's Camping World Bowl...
I respect why Will Grier made the decision he did because I had to make a very similar decision myself 9 years ago. My recreational basketball team, the MonStars, were scheduled to play Scott's Tots with not being last place in the league on the line. I was the team's 6th leading scorer averaging 2.4 ppg, so they needed me. However, I also knew that I wanted to play intramural dodgeball my freshman year at Tech. Also, the Caps had a 1:00 p.m. game (same time as the basketball game) on NBC that day against the Penguins and my buddy was having a watch party. Faced with a tremendous amount of peer pressure, I did was was right for me, ultimately choosing to watch the game and not risk getting injured before dodgeball season. Come the fall, I was in peak shape for dodgeball, sticking to a rigorous regiment of going to McComas 2 times a week and only eating Cinnabon and Chick-fil-A once a day. We lost every game, but I think it was rigged and am sticking with that. Looking back, it was the right call.
New gif....who dis?
anna sloan, not always that photogenic
Still qualified and
CanadianScottish ( I believe) makes it just that much better!FTMS
No one is always that photogenic
just sayin'...
I don't like it, but I completely agree with his decision.
But seriously... Just do it already! Let the superstars go from high school straight into the pros. Give kids that are coming to school to "play school," but happen to be good at sports the scholarships. This would also level the playing field in college sports and make all of them more competitive.
Let the superstars make their money. Let the talented kids that really want to get an education get it. Let anyone win a National Championship instead of the same handful of super teams.
At the end of the day, I'm going to support VT no matter what because I love my school and I love football.
I'm all for those who are actually developed enough to do so, but how many 18 year olds do you actually believe are capable of competing against those in the pros? Now if you're talking almost like a farm league in soccer where they can be paid a little bit to survive on while purely training for sports then sure.
That's very true and admittedly the best course. My sentiment remains though.
Oh hell no! You make too much sense. "Swrong wit chu?
Since this thread is full of unpopular opinions, I will add mine.
The underlying problem is the frequency of serious injury. Everyone who is concerned about this decision should be asking, "what can we do to make it less likely that participating in one game will end a player's career?"
Not accusing any player of anything here, but could this be a sort of legal way to throw a game? Say someone comes up to you and says he'll make it worth your while if you skip your bowl game under the guise of protecting yourself for the draft. You skip the game, your team loses, and you get a nice envelope of cash after you graduate. Nobody would know any better, right? It's not like you're even faking an injury or sliding at the one yard line when you have a clear path into the endzone. Sure a lot of people will be pissed, but just as many will be defending your right to protect your future.
Just when I thought this thread had finally played itself out and here you go with an interesting twist in the hypothetical miasma it had become. I'm a fan of detective and crime novels, and this would fit right in with the plots I love the most. I mean, what if someone really scary threatened your mom or sister with unmentionable harm? They wouldn't even have to bribe you, maybe just have a gorilla work you over a little, huh?
Wouldn't the betting line adjust with the time between now and the game?
depends on when the announcement comes and how many bets were placed leading up to it. A lot of betters will jump on an early line because they expect it to move unfavorably.
you can't throw a game you aren't playing in because you have no impact on its outcome
yes. However, if you removed Mike Vick from the 1999 team, how many of those games do you think they'd still win? Getting him to unexpectedly sit out a game would be a pretty surefire way to change the outcome of the game. Not all teams would function like this, but a good number would.