I understand the logic behind sure-fire NFL draft picks not playing a second-tier bowl game, and to a degree I agree with them (I'd be more offended about "quitting on the team" if head coaches didn't routinely leave their teams in their rearview mirrors before a bowl because they got better jobs).

That said, two hypotheticals:

1. How would you feel about a top draft pick walking away from a 1-7 team to preserve their draft status? (I know the chances of that happening aren't high — if the player's that good, chances are they're better than 1-7, but work with me here)
2. How would you feel about an NFL player coming up on his free-agent season not playing for his team once they're eliminated from playoff contention? (understanding that players show up with "injuries" that end their season, but I mean someone actually saying "I'm not endangering my health to play out the string for a team I won't be on next season.")

(11-28-2017 09:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 06:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Good for them. They should be thinking of what is best for them. Everyone else does.

This, If you are a guaranteed lock top 15 pick, I wouldn't play.

I wouldn't play if I was guaranteed to be in the top 75. A third round pick might not make millions. But they do make 3 or 4 hundred thousand.

(11-28-2017 04:56 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't think it will become as common as many people are predicting. For the most part guys wants to go out and play with their teammates.

I'd split the difference and say it becomes more like NFL preseason games 1 or 4...guys go in for a series or two and that's it. That's what I think is more likely to happen this year with top talent, more than guys just not playing at all, though, I think this year will see an increase in that to last year.

You could very well be correct

(11-28-2017 08:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I understand the logic behind sure-fire NFL draft picks not playing a second-tier bowl game ...

Or a first-tier bowl game.

(11-28-2017 05:48 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 06:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Good for them. They should be thinking of what is best for them. Everyone else does.

Agreed. Every game not in the playoffs after the season is irrelevant and needless. The risk is wholly assumed by the players, who don't make a dime. And if they get hurt, stand to lose quite a bit of change from their future employers.

I agree...this stiffing of the bowls by pro-bound players only gets bigger and more common until kids get paid or the playoff expands.

I'm looking at two or three guys at Penn State right now who don't have much to play for at that school who are about to get taken care of quite well in the pros. I really hope Saquon sits it out (I still think he already checked out after the Ohio State game)...it's the kind of player on the right kind of team (just on the outside of the playoff, forcing the real conversation about how useless the next-best bowls are) to force a badly needed, if not overdue discussion and accountability check. And I would be extremely impressed if the coach urged him to do so and publicly supported and broadcasted that.

Coaches, players, and even boosters would all disagree with you IMO. Any game that is not a playoff game might be insignificant to you, but very valuable to the aforementioned people. Sometimes bowls pair up old rivals who hadn't played each other in years for whatever reason, and a bowl game can re-ignite the competitive juices again.

(11-28-2017 08:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  (understanding that players show up with "injuries" that end their season, but I mean someone actually saying "I'm not endangering my health to play out the string for a team I won't be on next season.")

Pro athletes can't say that because they are getting paid and can't say "I'm sitting out to avoid injury" or else their team will just stop paying them and might even try to claw back salary already paid. Although there are instances of pro teams holding an uninjured player out because they want to be able to trade him while healthy, or because the team is tanking to get better draft choices.

(11-28-2017 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I understand the logic behind sure-fire NFL draft picks not playing a second-tier bowl game ...

Or a first-tier bowl game.

After Jaylen Smith and Jake Butt...if it is not a CFP Game why risk millions to play in a meaningless exhibition game...heck Leonard Fournette sat out of the Citrus Bowl last year and still went Top 5 along with it is pretty much an open secret that Jabrill Peppers sat out of the Orange Bowl as well...could have played...The NFL understands...

(11-28-2017 09:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:56 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't think it will become as common as many people are predicting. For the most part guys wants to go out and play with their teammates.

I'd split the difference and say it becomes more like NFL preseason games 1 or 4...guys go in for a series or two and that's it. That's what I think is more likely to happen this year with top talent, more than guys just not playing at all, though, I think this year will see an increase in that to last year.

You could very well be correct

That is what I think is going to happen with QB Lamar Jackson...he will play maybe a quarter and then they will play QB Jawon Pass...he needs to reps for next season and many now have Jackson as a sure first high 1st Rounder.

(11-28-2017 08:26 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If a player is a top 10 first round pick, I understand sitting out. Otherwise, the bowl could help move the player up in the draft. One example, Chubb at NCSU will be a first round pick. I don't think he is in the top 10 yet so a bowl could help him but I would understand completely if sits out the NCSU bowl game.

Do you think pro scouts are so clueless that they would be more impressed by a player's performance in a single exhibition game than by his performance over his whole career? And if a player is going to use such a game as a personal audition for scouts, instead of just performing within the context of the team, is that really good for the school in the long run?

Where Chubb goes in the draft will depend much more on the needs of the teams doing the drafting than by how he might perform in a December bowl game.

(11-29-2017 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:26 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If a player is a top 10 first round pick, I understand sitting out. Otherwise, the bowl could help move the player up in the draft. One example, Chubb at NCSU will be a first round pick. I don't think he is in the top 10 yet so a bowl could help him but I would understand completely if sits out the NCSU bowl game.

Do you think pro scouts are so clueless that they would be more impressed by a player's performance in a single exhibition game than by his performance over his whole career? And if a player is going to use such a game as a personal audition for scouts, instead of just performing within the context of the team, is that really good for the school in the long run?

Where Chubb goes in the draft will depend much more on the needs of the teams doing the drafting than by how he might perform in a December bowl game.

or even moreso what he does in either the combine or his pro days.

(11-28-2017 05:08 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  While I realize the chance of injury involved, they are still quitting on their teams. That said, I remember McGahee destroying his knee in his last game.

That was a BCS Championship game, FWIW...

(11-29-2017 02:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Coaches, players, and even boosters would all disagree with you IMO. Any game that is not a playoff game might be insignificant to you, but very valuable to the aforementioned people. Sometimes bowls pair up old rivals who hadn't played each other in years for whatever reason, and a bowl game can re-ignite the competitive juices again.

You can't say the first two, since coaches will bolt on their teams for new digs ahead of the games, and, obviously, we're having this conversation about kids sitting out. Now, to boosters, fans, and even the universities (you get the national spots you don't normally get), there's some value. But...who's down on the field? Just the first two?

Yeah, these games will matter to the players, but not all of them. It depends on what's at stake. But, if you think the majority of teams are composed of selfless, team-first guys...I'm not willing to take that bet.

I know these games have the potential of being good. Unfortunately, with the bowl tie-in's, that's not as sure a thing as it once was. We're stuck with a lot of crap around the holidays...a lot of background noise at bars, parties, and family functions. It isn't what it used to be, when, I agree, these games mattered.

(11-29-2017 11:36 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 02:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Coaches, players, and even boosters would all disagree with you IMO. Any game that is not a playoff game might be insignificant to you, but very valuable to the aforementioned people. Sometimes bowls pair up old rivals who hadn't played each other in years for whatever reason, and a bowl game can re-ignite the competitive juices again.

You can't say the first two, since coaches will bolt on their teams for new digs ahead of the games, and, obviously, we're having this conversation about kids sitting out. Now, to boosters, fans, and even the universities (you get the national spots you don't normally get), there's some value. But...who's down on the field? Just the first two?

Yeah, these games will matter to the players, but not all of them. It depends on what's at stake. But, if you think the majority of teams are composed of selfless, team-first guys...I'm not willing to take that bet.

I know these games have the potential of being good. Unfortunately, with the bowl tie-in's, that's not as sure a thing as it once was. We're stuck with a lot of crap around the holidays...a lot of background noise at bars, parties, and family functions. It isn't what it used to be, when, I agree, these games mattered.

I don't think it's the tie-ins that make for bad games. It's just the number of games. Cut it back to 20 or fewer and you won't have the problem. But obviously, that ship has sailed.

(11-30-2017 09:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't think it's the tie-ins that make for bad games. It's just the number of games. Cut it back to 20 or fewer and you won't have the problem. But obviously, that ship has sailed.

I think the two are one in the same. With so many, and how fastidious they can be with pecking order, you lose/lost choice. So, yeah, you might have some very intriguing match-up potential...biggest names and better bowls find each other...little is considered for what fans might want.

When I used to care about Penn State, pro Big Ten people used to say the bowls would be the place where some of the rivalries would be recouped. Well, BCS changed that, and for a good span of time, it was like Penn State only saw SEC teams. For those of us missing Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, BC, Miami, the SA's...too bad, because the Big Ten didn't really have the agreements with bowls to allow that to happen; then further insulted with how these arrangements allowed for "new" and "exciting" possibilities. Oh well.

The schools and coaches treat this totally as a business, so should the players.

For those who say the players should all play in bowl games, Jaylon Smith says hello.

(11-28-2017 08:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I understand the logic behind sure-fire NFL draft picks not playing a second-tier bowl game, and to a degree I agree with them (I'd be more offended about "quitting on the team" if head coaches didn't routinely leave their teams in their rearview mirrors before a bowl because they got better jobs).

That said, two hypotheticals:

1. How would you feel about a top draft pick walking away from a 1-7 team to preserve their draft status? (I know the chances of that happening aren't high — if the player's that good, chances are they're better than 1-7, but work with me here)
2. How would you feel about an NFL player coming up on his free-agent season not playing for his team once they're eliminated from playoff contention? (understanding that players show up with "injuries" that end their season, but I mean someone actually saying "I'm not endangering my health to play out the string for a team I won't be on next season.")

I'd say..."Its just business." (See your bolded text).

yeah if I was a lineman(either offensive or defensive)- and I was a 1st round pick- there's no chance in hell that I'd play in a non playoff bowl game(yes, to include NY6). Same with being a RB.

(11-29-2017 11:36 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I know these games have the potential of being good. Unfortunately, with the bowl tie-in's, that's not as sure a thing as it once was. We're stuck with a lot of crap around the holidays...a lot of background noise at bars, parties, and family functions. It isn't what it used to be, when, I agree, these games mattered.

"What it used to be" before every bowl had contracts with two conferences, was about a third as many bowls as there are now, and almost no bowl appearances for teams outside the power conferences.

Here's the entire bowl lineup from 40 years ago, the 1977 season. 13 bowls. Only 6 contracted bowl places (Pac-8 and Big Ten in Rose, SWC in Cotton, Big 8 in Orange, SEC in Sugar, WAC in Fiesta).

Cotton Bowl: Notre Dame 38, Texas 10
Orange Bowl: Arkansas 31, Oklahoma 6
Rose Bowl: Washington 27, Michigan 20
Sugar Bowl: Alabama 35, Ohio State 6
Bluebonnet Bowl: Southern California 47, Texas A&M 28
Peach Bowl: North Carolina State 24, Iowa State 14
Sun Bowl: Stanford 24, Louisiana State 14
Gator Bowl: Pittsburgh 34, Clemson 3
Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 42, Arizona State 30
Tangerine Bowl: Florida State 40, Texas Tech 17
Hall of Fame Classic: Maryland 17, Minnesota 7
Liberty Bowl: Nebraska 21, North Carolina 17
Independence Bowl: Louisiana Tech 24, Louisville 14

(11-28-2017 04:33 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't think it will become as common as many people are predicting. For the most part guys wants to go out and play with their teammates.

Rahrah collegiate spirit... oops, sorry about the the bad luck but at least you have your degree to fall back on...

(11-30-2017 12:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 11:36 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I know these games have the potential of being good. Unfortunately, with the bowl tie-in's, that's not as sure a thing as it once was. We're stuck with a lot of crap around the holidays...a lot of background noise at bars, parties, and family functions. It isn't what it used to be, when, I agree, these games mattered.

"What it used to be" before every bowl had contracts with two conferences, was about a third as many bowls as there are now, and almost no bowl appearances for teams outside the power conferences.

Here's the entire bowl lineup from 40 years ago, the 1977 season. 13 bowls. Only 6 contracted bowl places (Pac-8 and Big Ten in Rose, SWC in Cotton, Big 8 in Orange, SEC in Sugar, WAC in Fiesta).

Cotton Bowl: Notre Dame 38, Texas 10
Orange Bowl: Arkansas 31, Oklahoma 6
Rose Bowl: Washington 27, Michigan 20
Sugar Bowl: Alabama 35, Ohio State 6
Bluebonnet Bowl: Southern California 47, Texas A&M 28
Peach Bowl: North Carolina State 24, Iowa State 14
Sun Bowl: Stanford 24, Louisiana State 14
Gator Bowl: Pittsburgh 34, Clemson 3
Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 42, Arizona State 30
Tangerine Bowl: Florida State 40, Texas Tech 17
Hall of Fame Classic: Maryland 17, Minnesota 7
Liberty Bowl: Nebraska 21, North Carolina 17
Independence Bowl: Louisiana Tech 24, Louisville 14

I'll never understand why people want to go back to this (not saying you are). Why do people that our football fans complain about watching football? If you think there are too many bowl games, don't watch or don't go. The ratings prove people watch.