Players Skipping Bowl Games

Discussion in 'Football' started by Val1, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. Val1

    Val1 Member+

    Arsenal
    Mar 12, 2004
    MD's Eastern Shore
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    So, Stanford's McCaffrey is skipping his bowl game, joining LSU's Fournette in making the same decision. What's anyone's thoughts? Since I am almost offended by the prospect of 40 bowl games, over half of them played with mostly empty stadiums, and more than that with ridiculously titled names, I have to say I not only approve, but actually applaud their decisions. These bowl games are a travesty, and at least the players have enough guts to call it like it is.

    Bravo!
     
  2. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    I approve and applaud their decisions, as well. But not because of the number of bowl games taking place these days (which, I agree, has gotten way out of hand).
    We've often seen coaches leave schools that were due to play in bowl games to accept new po$ition$ with other schools after the regular season ends. They end up not coaching in upcoming bowl games. If coaches can get away with leaving schools for bigger paydays, then I see nothing wrong with "student athletes" who are viewed serious NFL prospects skipping bowl games to save themselves for the NFL combine/draft.

    Also, I personally used to love watching the New Years Day Bowl games and even some of the 'lesser' bowl games leading up to New Years Day, like the Holiday Bowl, for example. I'm going back to the days before the BSC series, when the national champs was decided via the coaches and media polls. I'd be switching back and forth between the Orange and Sugar Bowls every New Years night.
    I understand why most fans wanted to have a national championship game and get rid of the polls deciding the champion. But once the BSC series was agreed to, I lost interest in most bowl games and only looked forward to the national championship game and the Bowl games that featured #3 vs #4 and #5 vs #6.
    When the playoff format came into play a few years ago, I basically lost interest in just about every bowl game including the traditional New Years Day games (... apart from the Rose Bowl since I'm a Pac 10 12 fan). These days I simply watch the national championship game and might watch the semifinals.
    So players skipping out on non-playoff bowl games won't be missed by me since I don't watch those games anyway.
    Dare I say, I actually miss it when the polls decided the national champion. But I know I'm very much in the minority.
     
  3. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Even before the National Championship game and BCS generally only 2 of the Bowl games would have any implications on who won the national championship. Yet I would still watch those games that had no effect on who would win the title.

    So for me I have to say it is definitely the # of bowl games that turned me completely off (and the quality of the teams playing in them, but that's a direct consequence of having too many games). Having 16-18 bowl games played during holiday time made for a good system, even if I probably couldn't tell you who won the Aloha Bowl 5 days after I had watched it.
     
    AMBreakers and unclesox repped this.
  4. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This year was strange because of the day of the week, the NFL owns Sunday, so the traditional NYD games were spread out.

    I do miss waking up on NYD and watching the Rose Bowl Parade, eating some holiday leftovers and then getting into a day of big bowl games. I always thought if they simply left the entire bowl structure alone, had the semi-finals in NYD bowl games and the championship a week later that would be fine, but they couldn't keep the genie in the bottle.

    As for players not playing their bowl games, whatever. Follow their careers in the NFL and we will see what kind of people they are.
     
  5. AMBreakers

    AMBreakers Member

    Boston Breakers, Boston Univ. Women's Soccer, Norwich City, Charleston Battery
    Jun 21, 2010
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Boston Breakers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There’s no question there are too many bowl games. We can all agree on that. The earlier ones involving 6-6 teams or 7-5 teams from non-P5 conferences- those are indeed a travesty. But I do still think that winning one of the higher-tier non-CFP bowl games is meaningful. Just because a game cannot influence who wins the national championship doesn’t mean the game is meaningless. If you win a non-CFP NY6 bowl game, it means you earned the right to be there by having a highly successful season (though not doing quite enough to make the playoffs) and then beat another team with similar qualifications in the game itself, thus ending the season on a high note. Obviously everyone wants to make the playoff but the reality is only four teams can, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. Argue for 8 all you want- I personally wouldn’t want a system that most years would let multiple teams with two losses in. But that is a whole separate discussion.
     
  6. AMBreakers

    AMBreakers Member

    Boston Breakers, Boston Univ. Women's Soccer, Norwich City, Charleston Battery
    Jun 21, 2010
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Boston Breakers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are several benefits to playing that extra game instead of having the season just end (for the non-CFP teams.) One, as fans it gives us an extra week of football to enjoy, with matchups we don’t normally see at unique locations, rather than just the three playoff games. It’s hard to enjoy them these days when hardly any of the teams are at full strength, though. That’s for sure. A win in the bowl also gives a team momentum heading into next season (along with the extra practices), although that is of course irrelevant for players entering the draft. For them, it is more about ending their college careers on a high note and helping their team to a win in a game that does benefit their teammates who are returning next year.

    Is the risk of getting injured while playing in such a game and that affecting their draft status moving forward worth it? Well, if a meaningful game is defined as only one that could influence who becomes the nat’l champ, then no- but a late regular season game where both teams involved are not in playoff contention wouldn’t be either, and we don’t see players skipping those games even though you could just as easily get seriously injured in them.

    Yes- you could still make a case that the risk does outweigh the benefits and until the NCAA does something about it I suppose it is a player’s right to make that decision. But if their reasoning is that the game doesn’t mean anything, I don’t agree.
     

Share This Page