The bowl season is set and so is the 4th edition of the College Football Playoff. In the end, the Crimson Tide get the controversial 4th seed over Ohio State as the committee just couldn’t overlook that 31-point loss to Iowa. Ultimately, this means Alabama lost their final game of the season, didn’t win their division or conference, and still got in. The Iron Bowl was kind of meaningless and they got an extra week of rest! Ohio State won their conference, had 3 better wins based on the final poll in comparison to the Tide, but the committee foregoes the opportunity to place a 2-loss team in the Big Dance for the very first time.
ROSE BOWL
#3 Georgia vs. #2 Oklahoma
SUGAR BOWL
#1 Clemson vs. #4 Alabama
The Dawgs and Sooners have never met before so that will add an extra dynamic to what should be a historic Rose Bowl. I believe I read this is only the second time in history that the Rose Bowl won’t be featuring a Big Ten or Pac-12 team which to me just shows how silly it was to include the “major” bowls in the playoff rotation. This game should be played in Norman, in my opinion.
Alabama and Clemson will meet for the third straight playoff, with each side claiming the last 2 national championships. They are also tied (3) with the most wins in playoff history. You’d have to think the winner here is favored in the title game. A win for Dabo Swinney would be something else, he’d move to 72-10 (.878%) over the last 6 years with the opportunity for back-to-back titles.
CITRUS BOWL
#14 Notre Dame vs. #17 LSU
The scuttlebutt had the Irish likely matching up against a Big 12 team in the Camping World Bowl, but no! Actually, it’s the same stadium. Yes, the Camping World Stadium hosts the Camping World Bowl, Cure Bowl, and Notre Dame’s post-season destination in the Citrus Bowl.
Count me as pretty bored with this matchup for a couple reasons. One, this is the 4th bowl meeting with LSU since 1997 and the 4th meeting in Notre Dame’s last 13 bowl games. Secondly, this has to be one of the least “name” LSU teams in recent history. Only running back Derrius Guice and linebacker Arden Key were pre-season first-team All-SEC picks and Guice (1,153 yards) wasn’t much of a star this year and Key missed 4 games with injuries–although he’s expected to suit up in Orlando.
My Favorite Bowl Games
ARMED FORCES BOWL
San Diego State vs. Army
The Black Knights still have Navy this weekend and if they can win that this bowl will be for a chance at a 10-win season. Somehow, Army won 10 games in 1996 but this would be only the second time in school history they hit that mark. The Aztecs with Rashaad Penny (2,027 rushing yards) are a fun team, too. This one kicks off the Christmas weekend Saturday coverage.
FOSTER FARMS BOWL
Arizona vs. Purdue
Assuming Jeff Brohm sticks around the Boilers are searching for their 7th win which would be their most victories in 5 years. That could lead to some nice off-season momentum. Also, speaking of off-season momentum quarterback Khalil Tate and his gaudy 10.1 rushing average are going to be gracing many a magazine next summer. Tune in and check him out.
OUTBACK BOWL
Michigan vs. South Carolina
The rematch!
It’s crazy that this is only Jim Harbaugh’s 7th season wrapping up at the FBS level and he’s lost at least 3 games in 6 of those seasons. A loss here would tie for the second most ever by a Harbaugh team, too. Obviously don’t forget we open the season next year with Michigan.
PEACH BOWL
#12 UCF vs. #7 Auburn
Scott Frost it technically coaching in this game although he’s turned over all of the prep in the coming weeks to his staff. So, that puts a damper on this matchup. The history suggest the plucky underdog losing its coach is going to come out really flat. However, we also have the ability of a seriously disinterested SEC team, too.
ALAMO BOWL
#13 Stanford vs. #15 TCU
These two teams met for a home-and-home in 2007-08 but that was before Stanford began their rise through the national ranks. The Cardinal lost both of those meetings, by the way. A loss here would be 5 on the season for Stanford which would tie for their most since 2009. A win for TCU could springboard them to the Big 12 favorite in a post-Baker Mayfield world.
ORANGE BOWL
#6 Wisconsin vs. #10 Miami
I’m sticking to my prediction that Miami ends the season with 3 straight losses. If so, it’ll be interesting to see how the off-season shapes up. It’ll still be the U’s “best” season in 14 years and yet just 1 game better than 2016 as a fringe Top 15-team. By the way, Wisconsin has never won 13 games in a season so this is a massive program achievement lined up for them despite the disappointment of not winning the Big Ten.
FIESTA BOWL
#11 Washington vs. #9 Penn State
Only the third-ever meeting (PSU won both) and the first in nearly 35 years. For me it feels like Penn State is going to be the far hungrier team. Posting back-to-back 11-win seasons would be a huge deal in Happy Valley. In any event the explosive PSU offense is a great matchup against Washington’s stingy defense.
COTTON BOWL
#8 USC vs. #5 Ohio State
Ohio State’s reward for failing to enter the playoffs is to play one of the country’s hottest and most talented teams! Congrats, guys! This is the first meeting between these blue-bloods in 7 years. Amazingly, the Trojans have won the last 7 meeting stretching back to 1975.
Is the 35 point victory over USC the best win by a ND football team in the last 20+ years? I think added ammunition might be that we likely kept them out of the playoffs with that effort.
2012 @ OU is up there too, but that was a much closer game where we pulled away late. Plus they got steamrolled by Manziel in their bowl game to finish 10-3.
I’m reaching for positivity in a football season that’s felt over to me for a month. I may have missed the mark like a Wimbush screen pass.
Geaux Irish
Beat Tigers
Nah. 2013 over a Michigan State team that won 13 games, the Rose Bowl, and finished #3. They were unranked at the time and we had Tommy Rees but by the full-season standard, that’s the best team ND has beaten in a long, long while.
That was a solid win against probably the team with the better resume than OU or USC, but we only won by 4 points. I think a 35 point win over the #8 team is more impressive than a 4 point win over the #3 team.
Also given the general thoughts about the programs and talent (I realize we’re time traveling here), 2017 USC would likely be favored in a matchup against that 2013 MSU team.
Fair points. There’s definitely more talent on this USC team but I’d argue their resume is two wins over Stanford and not much else. Beating a full-strength Ohio State would probably put them over the top in my mind.
I am so with you! Makes me feel like getting to Antoine’s in downtown Nouvelle Orléans and inviting you for a classic French 75 or three (champagne and cognac base, invented by one of our WWI fighter aces) and disrespecting the Tigers some!
Yea not excited about LSU – though perhaps they are beatable. On the other hand, I am happy that we play on Jan. 1.
I’m happy for a Jan 1 date, too. LSU isn’t super exciting, but neither to me would OK St or Iowa St have been either. I feel like a possible win over an SEC team “means more” for whatever it’s worth.
Yes, Jan 1st way better. (1) That’s when bowls are supposed to be played; (2) I can watch it )on the 28th was flying back from Bombay). (3) Beating SEC has more cachet; and besides, it’s better exposure for us to those players down South that we want to recruit for our D-line (like Jerry T).
You mean Mumbai?
Agree with your comments Noise.
What takes you to Mumbai?
Bombay Boutique in South Bend just wasn’t authentic enough for him.
Hi you three: 1, yeah, I meant Mumbai; 2, one of my former students in Paris has invited me to his wedding south of Mumbai (three days, he says…!!); and 3, yeah, gotta be searching for more authenticity than that there boutique!
I can’t stand Alabama, but I didn’t feel too bad for OSU. My guess is the committee didn’t want to break norms for OSU, yet again, so they could get crushed by Clemson, yet again.
I actually found myself feeling bad for Auburn. Obviously they shouldn’t have lost to LSU, but it must hurt to crush your rival only to see them go to the playoff one week later when you lose the conference championship.
I’m happy it’s LSU instead of Okie St. Playing on New Year’s day “seems” a bigger deal than playing on the 26th or 28th.
I do like that trade off. LSU is an easier game too, IMO. I think Okie State would’ve ignited some fireworks on offense against us.
LSU has more program name cache than OK St. too. Even though we’ve done it before the match up puts us in a spot to win a nice ransom to end the season.
A ten win season with blow-out wins over USC and MSU plus a bowl win over an SEC team doesn’t sound like the worst thing that could happen to the program.
This is a match up of two teams whose name cache has far exceeded their on the field performance for quite a few years now.
Watching all the games over the weekend, I don’t think we’d fare well against any of the winners, including USC this time around. I think Scott Frost’s team would beat us too. Probably Wisconsin too.
Miami, on the other hand, looked like the same deer in the headlights that we did when we played them.
A winnable match up of two teams that have played for National Titles in the last decade on New Years Day. That’s the best way things could have worked out for us at the end of the year.
From what you said, I’m guessing not, but just to double-check: this is not your in-order ranking of the bowls, right? There’s no way our game is the third most interesting bowl game for a neutral viewer (I think that’s USC-Ohio State, unless a bunch of future pros sit out).
Playoffs, our game, then ranking all the others.
“…unless a bunch of future pros sit out”
I hadn’t considered this, just because it’s such a new thing; last year is the first year I can remember. I might be more interested in watching who opts out than watching the games.
I saw on twitter last night that Kelly in his comments yesterday said he talked to the captains and they were all unanimous about wanting to play, which would mean all of Adams, Nelson, McGlinchey, Tranquill and Morgan. I’m not really sure who else would bail, maybe St. Brown? Other than that not too many pro prospects in 2018 if all the captains do play.
..And, really, if I were them I’d make a business decision and not play. They were all on the field when Jaylon went down, cost himself 30 draft picks, millions of dollars plus so much pain and rehab.
BTW, how is Jaylon doing? Not much on the Cowboys in Paris except they are not doing so hot; but how is he ?
He’s OK. Still not 100%, but he’s coming along. Pro Football Focus just graded him as the best pass rushing LB in the league, but he’s having some issues in pass coverage and run support. He’s not en every-down player for them yet, but given that he had almost two years away from the game and a catastrophic knee injury, I think he’s fine.
Next year will be very interesting. With a full season under his belt, we should get a good idea of whether this is the new norm for him or if he still has improvement ahead.
He’s really started turning it around the last few weeks. He was really thrown into a tough situation at the beginning of the year. Hitchens started the season on IR so Jaylon was thrown into starters minutes and expected to immediately impact the team next to Sean Lee. Then when Hitch got healthy and could help give him breathers, Sean Lee went down and then Jaylon had to step in for the QB of the defense and our only real All-Pro defender. He wasnt mentally ready to be calling the defense like that and the team played horribly around him.
But after 10 weeks or so into his pro career, it seems like it’s finally starting to make sense for him. He’s been much more attacking, he’s covering receivers much better. There’s a play from last thursday where he made a hard break on a pass play and made a great hard tackle over the middle. I think by next season he’ll be back to GODBACKER mode.
Thanks both of you. Just got back from dinner and appreciate the insight. A heck of a young man.
In our game, at a minimum McGlinchey, Nelson, Guice, and Arden Key are all probably making not particularly wise decisions if they suit up. Hopefully they all get through the game unscathed and it’s just an example of bad process/good outcome.
I like the good old days when players played. Not so long ago, actually.
Hear me out on this: it could be unambiguously worth their while for everyone to play, provided they were given some sort of incentive (let’s call it “compensation” or “straight cash homie”) for doing so.
THEY WILL TAKE THEIR $100 DISNEY SPRINGS GIFT CARD AND LIKE IT.
T-Rex Cafe for DAYS!!!
If I was a pro GM I’d immediately remove from my draft list anyone who was perfectly healthy and chose to sit out their bowl game. I’d want players who play for the love of the game and the man next to them, not just for the cash. But then I come from the Popovich mindset that it’s more about the right person than the highest talent.
Would you still use your first round draft pick if that same player had a potentially career ending injury in an exhibition game?
To me it’s not that different from when the NFL benches their starters during the preseason. I don’t like it, but it’s the safe thing to do.
Exactly. The cost/benefit for a high pick is totally off for a relatively meaningless bowl game.
Also, it’s ironic to cite Popovich in a “darr you must play every chance you get to show you love your teammates and aren’t an individualistic glory boy!” attitude….When Pop was one of the innovators of benching his stars for entire games for strategic times during the regular season to be able to keep his guys fresh for the playoffs. This is no different, perhaps an even more obvious of a reason to think big picture and willingly sit.
Don’t we want the mentality of players and coaches to be different? If I recall correctly wasn’t part of the post-USC discussion did their players quit, or did their coaches pull them? If the former, the general consensus was of a negative opinion, in the case of the latter, a more supportive one.
Beyond general sentiments, personally I’m fine with a player sitting for a strategic/competitive advantage, not for a financial one. If a coach says I can improve our team’s success by sitting this player here, he’s trying to win to the best of his ability. It’s team success focused. If a player says I’m not going to play so I can get more money, it’s self focused. That’s the difference that bothers me.
One could quite reasonably argue that player no longer has an obligation to the team to play in a near-exhibition game of very questionable significance. If they want to play, that’s great, but let’s not pretend like they’re really letting their teammates down in a big spot here. I don’t think we heard about anybody on their teams resenting Fournette or McCaffrey for skipping Stanford and LSU’s (arguably meaningless) bowl games last year.
I’d have way more reservations in that regard if it were for a playoff game, but I don’t think there have been any rumblings about that for any playoff teams.
I fully agree. Further, if I were an NFL executive picking in the top-10, I would rather Quenton Nelson NOT play in the Citrus Bowl, to be honest. (Not that this is the biggest deal in the world, just all things considered). I’d rather the odds be better that he’s all in one piece for combine/workouts and ready for the draft, minicamp and OTA’s, rather than what happened to Jaylon happen there, and then I have one less potential target as a first round pick and starter from Day 1 off the board for an avoidable medical reason.
In that vein, for an NFL team, a player skipping the draft is looking out for the NFL team’s interests which probably is a plus, not a minus. Granted there’s a line to draw (like the rumors Clowney was going to sit out a full college season) and I can see how that would rub some the wrong way. If ND made the playoffs and a NFL’er wasn’t going to play, that’s a different story. This, however, is the Citrus Bowl.
No player that sits out a bowl game is looking out for a NFL team’s interests, they are looking out for their own interest and it happens to coincide with the NFL team’s interests.
I’m speaking neither of obligations, or teammates opinions. No player has an obligation ever to play. They’re free to walk away from the game any time they want. But that’s what a player who chooses to sit is doing: walking away from the game. I want a player I have to drag off the field. I want a player that gets eaten up inside that his teammates are out there fighting and the coach won’t let him be out there fighting with them. THAT’S the type of player I want.
Well, sure, but my point is that the guy really doesn’t have any more obligation at that point to play for his college team in the bowl game than his years-ago high school team in the state championship (in the hypothetical scenario that the high school state championship were being played on the same day), or his pee-wee team, or whatever. One might even reasonably argue that he owes more to his future NFL team at that point.
With respect, that just a silly argument. Totally nonsensical.
You’re either on the team or you’re not. In the end, it boils down to selfishness and abandonment of the brotherhood of the team.
In the Marines, guys didn’t get out of their last patrol because they were shortimers, they understood they were part of a team, a brotherhood. And they had a lot more to lose (life and limb) than the football player you describe.
Put another way, let’s say you’re recruiting a kid out of high school, and the kid says “ coach, I’d love to come to ND, but I won’t play in a game I consider meaningless, I just wanted to get that across upfront”.
I seriously doubt the Sabans, Meyers and Swinneys would take a kid with that attitude.
It seems that you’re missing the point, which is that, they needn’t consider themselves on the team any more. They don’t owe any more to the school, which, for guys who are going to go pro in sports, have extracted many multiples of value from that individual than what they’ve paid out in scholarships etc.
It’s not the same thing or even comparable to skipping a game in the middle of the season (which, btw, Jarron Jones totally did last year, and that was far, far worse to my mind than McCaffrey/Fournette – so apparently BK *does* recruit those guys).
And, really, comparing playing college football to being in the Marines? Really? That’s an actual brotherhood, where, as you point out, failing to uphold the brotherhood can have life-or-death consequences. This is just a game.
And it’s a game where you can make money to play (and the operative verb is play, not work) the game. So it kind of makes sense to maximize your ability to do that.
I’m not missing the point at all. If it’s so honorable, tell the coach up front that’s your attitude when you’re being recruited and see if you get that scholarship.
You lose me at “more money.” I have a hard time looking down on a player who has worked his whole career for essentially no pay seeing little upside to playing in an exhibition game on the verge of making millions. We’re not talking about a millionaire holding out for more millions, we’re talking about someone on the verge of real money for the first time in their career facing the possibility of losing everything. Again, a NFL owner won’t draft someone in the first round if a serious injury occurs no matter how team-oriented they are.
Also, they’re also going to be playing in the NFL, right? It’s not like they’re only holding out for the money. They want a successful career in the NFL and want to be financially rewarded for it. An injury threatens both.
Personally, it makes the most sense for me when players take out insurance policies. But I don’t really know exactly how that works, and it may not make sense for everyone.
Bearing in mind these kids get full rides to a university degree, are treated like gods and coddled from at least their teens, playing a game they profess to love, I don’t buy the poor downtrodden no pay serf argument.
Anybody who succeeds in a career works hard, not just football players. Senior executives competing for the big bucks jobs don’t get to take a pass just because they might fail.
Notre Dame will get a check for $4.5 million from this bowl game and some random office worker in the athletic department will see more monetary benefit from that than a football player.
It’ll be $4.5 million even if a couple football players sit out, too.
Where did I call them poor downtrodden serfs? I’m stating the reality that football players do not get paid to play football until their first NFL contract is signed. College athletes receive many benefits, but these benefits are not the same as an actual salary.
The problem I have with this, though I understand the argument, is where does it end? If fear of injury costing me money causes me to sit out a “meaningless bowl game”, why not skip the last game of the season if I’m not playing for the championship, cause after all that last game of the season is no more “meaningful” than the lower tier bowl game you despise?
For that matter, why participate in the Temple or Miami Ohio games, as coach should be able to win without me, right, and that’s two less chances to get hurt?
Personally, I have no use for players who think like that. You can get severely injured in practice just as easily as in a game—- we’ve seen season ending injuries on simple roll ups recently.
Play football or go home, I say. Anything else smacks of snowflake, IMO.
The problem I have is with labeling players selfish.
Steve Elmer just up and leaves the game to take a job that probably isn’t paying all that much in the grand scheme. And he’s praised for being a student-athlete and all that.
But a player declines to participate in one bowl game, with possibly millions awaiting in the pros, and oh my god how can they be so selfish!???
That feels an awful lot like the fan’s being selfish to me.
So, players come to ND to play football, and in exchange they get an education and all of the trappings that come with the prestige of playing football for a major college team. They take the education, the coaching, and the brand if you will. And they reward that with refusing to play football? I bet this issue splits right along the line of whether or not you think football players should be paid or not.
Your last sentence could be true. Judging by several comments in this thread it does appear that some want the players to be pretty slavish to their college, or coaches, or teammates. Shut up and play! You “owe” that to someone. They should “reward” the school by playing.
I actually think that attitude is pretty anti ethical to the way ND does business and certainly it goes against the growing players rights movement.
Coaches go recruiting on the platform that players should use the school and don’t let the school use them just because they play football.
The thing is, who is most upset if someone skips a bowl game? It’s not coaches and teammates it’s you the fan. This is 100% fans being selfish and trying to label the players as such.
It’s one bowl game. Players skip entire seasons when they leave early! Some players skip 2 whole seasons! Once upon a time there was a stigma and controversy attached to that but most people realized that’s kind of dumb when these players have such short windows to make money in a violent sport.
The slippery slope arguments and doubling down on making the players even more beholden to their schools is entirely wrong in my opinion.
How is sitting for the sake of one’s own finances rather than helping a team win a bowl game NOT a selfish act? One can argue whether such an act is good/justified or not (there certainly are times where one should be selfish), but it fits the very definition of selfishness.
You’re asking me how a player doing something that could potentially help secure his family/wife/kids future IS a selfish act?
I think Scarponi means selfish is for one’s own good whereas Eric you point to taking care of one’s self and presumably a family as a self-less act.
Both can actually be true. A player sitting for the sake of finances is certainly doing something for himself and if it also includes others it can be construed as self-less (either way it could be the responsible thing to do).
Wait, so Jaylon doesn’t have enough money to support his wife and kids now? I wonder how the rest of us are getting by.
Seriously at times this conversation has implied that these players who might consider sitting (1st rounders) are risking falling into poverty from their current projected state of having just enough to live on. Let’s not kid ourselves, in the broad scheme of things they are risking being only crazy rich rather than obscenely rich.
*Speaking of Jaylon – maybe the person who has the most authority to speak on the subject – he did say he’d still play in the bowl if given the chance to do it over again.
Weird that you’d bring up Jaylon as that was a major bowl game and he played. It doesn’t really apply to anything being discussed.
Even still, if it were a lower tier bowl and he got hurt, well too bad Jaylon you lost maybe upwards of $100 million over your career in a sport you could be cut and have your career over tomorrow but it’s fine cause Scarponi says you are rich enough.
The lack of respect and caring for the players here is really surprising to me.
I’m not sure where you’re getting “lack of respect and caring” from. No on is saying eff Jaylon, who cares If his life is good or not. We’re saying he should honor his end of the agreement. I don’t mean he has to slave his life to the university. (If he has a better opportunity, he should definitely take it. Just as folks switching jobs for better pay or benefits.) But while you’re working that job, you should perform that job to the best and fullest of your ability.
I think there is some truth to the universities exploit these kids for their own benefit. But that statement by itself, is not the complete truth. These kids are also exploiting the universities to some extent. They aren’t getting money directly, but they are getting access to opportunities, and preparation to take advantage of those opportunities. Just like when you start a career. You’re being used to an extent, and you’re probably underpaid. You’re also gaining skills and experience to further your career later on in life.
And I’m saying their end of the agreement doesn’t entail playing in a lower tier bowl when you have potentially life altering money on the line.
How or why could we possibly be that selfish? No one seems to understand this more than the players themselves. It’s just not fair to paint them in a bad light for doing something like that.
So is football/professional sports the only career that could be ended with a signfigant injury? I’m in my second career that has/had the potential to be ended by a significant injury. That doesn’t mean I pick and choose my level of participation based on those risks. I do my job. What makes these guys any different than any other person working at a job with a high physical risk?
Well we could start with they’re not actually workers playing college football.
I see them as just that. Workers, learning a trade, and getting paid with an education and enhancement of their skills.
Everyone paid fairly in your mind?
If you compare based on revenue alone, hell no. Moneys earned by the players for the university verses money’s invested into the players by the university is ridiculously unfair to the players.
But the issue is not that simple in my mind. These kids accept the deal going in. They’re young, but this issue has been around for a long time, so their not totally naive to it. I don’t see a need to revolutionize the system based on money alone. I also think that most of these kids have been treated like their special their entire lives. I don’t see how it’s fair to all of the other kids on campus that are struggling to get that vaunted education to not only give it to these athletes, but now we pay them on top of it? That doesn’t seem fair to me.
In my mind, the bigger issue is why these state and non-profit entities even need these ridiculous amounts of money. If you want to revolutionize the process, we should start there.
I tried not to make that political.
Many careers are risked by injury. However, I can’t think of many jobs that require a 5-7 year unpaid internship, are inherently dangerous, and injuries on the job that end your career are not uncommon.
That’s fair. Of course I can’t think of many that start you out as an instant millionaire either. I think the rewards are more than worth the risk. And if you want to talk about serious injuries, I have a bunch of friends whose lives are drastically changed forever from injuries on the job. They aren’t anywhere close to millionaires either.
I’m sorry to hear that. That sounds awful.
Everyone faces loss in their lives. Most of those guys have figured out a way to move forward. Actually, im amazed by most of their strength and resiliency. These were guys that I lived with for weeks and months at a time. We faced incredibly dangerous situations almost continuously. You would think you would know someone very well under those circumstances, but they just amaze me with their ability to persevere, adapt, and find new goals and purpose in life. It’s pretty humbling for me.
Weird that I would bring up Jaylon? He’s been brought up in the comments on playing or sitting multiple times already. My apologies if you personally don’t see his game as applying and I pulled him into my response to you. (Not sarcastic.)
I felt terrible when Jaylon went down. But not for his lost money. For the physical pain, for the emotional struggle of wondering if he’d be able to play the game he loved again. For the frustration that serious injuries bring. These were bigger losses. Money is not the highest good in the world, and those who make decisions based only on dollars will struggle to find happiness (a higher good). Jaylon will have enough money to be comfortable, and there’s no evidence that an extra 100 million will bring more happiness in his life (there are actually many studies that show happiness declines with more money after a certain point of wealth). So do I want players to have good lives, yes. Do I think losing $100 million (an interestingly high number to pick when you then also try to claim the career could be ended at any moment) while still earning millions reduces the goodness of their lives, no I legitimately don’t.
To be honest I don’t think you’re in a position to explain that Jaylon wouldn’t be happier or better off or whatever with a lot more money playing a dangerous sport.
If it was the Pinstripe Bowl and he didn’t play you would’ve called him selfish, right? Speaking of kidding ourselves you’d admit that, right? No talking out of both sides of your mouth you would’ve hammered him for the decision right?
Without injury Jaylon was top 5 pick-ish which would’ve brought him almost $20 million guaranteed with an additional $10 million from salary. If he lived up to his potential his 2nd contract for a linebacker would be conservatively for $70 million with $50 million guaranteed. He could’ve totaled $100 million with just 3 contracts for sure.
In debating this, aren’t we both claiming to have an opinion of what would be good for his life?
Where we differ is in a fundamental view of what’s worth pursuing in life. If the top player on my favorite team chooses to retire and never play again because of health risk, I support that decision. That’s a good “selfish” choice in my opinion. I see health as something worth pursuing.
If you were to offer me $100 mil, with the stipulation that I had to keep all of it, and couldn’t give any away to charity or those in need. I would refuse it. I legitimately think my life would be worse. If I’m reading your comments correctly you think it would make my life better.
I don’t think the core difference of opinion is on the football side of things or our desire for players to have a good life, it’s a fundamental difference in what we perceive constitutes a good life.
I think your philosophical debate is fine but you didn’t answer my question.
I’m not in a position to say what would make someone like Jaylon happy but if he chose to sit out a mid-tier bowl game because he believed it was the right decision for his health and future earnings in the NFL I’m totally okay with that.
End of story.
Fair enough, question answering time:
EM:If it was the Pinstripe Bowl and he didn’t play you would’ve called him selfish, right?
Scarponi: Yes.
EM: Speaking of kidding ourselves you’d admit that, right?
Scarponi: Just did.
EM: No talking out of both sides of your mouth you would’ve hammered him for the decision right?
Scarponi: No. Now you’re putting words in my mouth and misunderstanding what I’m saying. Making a choice primarily for one’s own gain is by definition “selfish.” A selfish act is not necessarily a bad act. Retiring for health reasons is selfish. It’s also smart and something I support. If we disagree on the definition of selfish then we have a semantical problem that has to be fixed before questions or answers will make any sense.
Furthermore, I would not “hammer” someone for choosing to sit a bowl game to protect their draft stock. I understand the motives of the choice and can respect their right to make it. That doesn’t mean I have to think it’s the right choice.
Your turn: Do you believe that there are no objective things that can bring happiness? Is the human condition so fundamentally unique that no one can identify elements that lead to happiness for all people? Health, safety, nourishment, love of others, are these not things necessary for everyone’s happiness? If so, doesn’t this mean that we are, at some level, able to speak about what will make others happy?
Since you don’t like my “philosophical debate,” I don’t actually expect answers to the above, but I do have a question I would like to hear your answer to:
Would you hold the same opinion for a player who chose to sit out a national championship “because he believed it was the right decision for his health and future earnings in the NFL?”
Happiness comes in many forms.
If, for example, Jaylon were to sit out a bowl game to protect his stock we can safely assume money is a driving factor in that decision. I respect that decision.
Players won’t sit out a national title game because they actually matter and doing so would adversely affect their draft stock.
And that’s where we are right now, from me saying mid-tier bowls don’t really matter, to hypotheticals about players sitting out title games.
You do realize career-ending injuries are thing, right? Jaylon is an odd choice to pick because many of the NFL doctors from what I read felt he would never return. He was lucky to be drafted at all.
And even if it doesn’t end their career it’s not too hard to think of a few players that never were the same after injuries. Just off the top of my head I would make that claim for Jonas Gray, Malik Zaire, and Tarean Folston. Maybe none of them would have been first-rounders but none are going to ever make significant money playing football.
Wait hasn’t Pop pioneered not playing players during meaningless regular season games?
See my response to hooks orpik’s nearly identical comment above.
Is a bowl game meaningless, though? Maybe that’s the real debate. Pop sits starters during the regular season because it doesn’t matter where you finish as long as you’re in the top 3 at the end. That’s all Pop wants…home court for the first round. If you do better, great, if not no biggie. College bowl games are supposed to be what you’re aiming for through the season so why are you kicking those games?
ND doesn’t aim for the Citrus Bowl though, right?
We’re a tortured fan base so of course the difference between finishing 11th and 22nd might MEAN SOMETHING but in the big picture most bowl games are meaningless.
Maybe meaningless to the long term future of the team (or even the next year future), but there’s a dramatic difference for the players between the feeling of winning or losing their bowl game.
If what ND aims for (the playoffs) is the bar, then isn’t every game after a second loss in any season “meaningless?”
To a degree, yes.
I think this whole discussion derives from the dilemma of being a tormented Fighting Irish fan base.
It is true that we all embrace the goal of winning national championships (and yes, graduating all the players). But I submit there is a trap there which keeps us tormented (no Natty and we are a failure) and none other than Lou Holtz got this and took some measures to address it. Go read his book after the ’88 season, “The Fighting Spirit” (p 70):
“Our goals are:
1, win the national championship.
2, Be a top ten team.
3, Be a top 20 team.
4, Go to the bowl of our choice on Jan 1st.
5, Go to a bowl.
6, Have a winning season.
Those are our goals. We start at the bottom and cross them off one at a time.”
Honestly – if we all embraced that approach, could we not guard our uniqueness as a Notre Dame family (and this site is a shining part of that family spirit) and yet be less miserable? And not think that beating LSU on New Year’s Day is meaningless?
Yes!
Not to be too pedantic on your last two goals, but #5 & #6 definitely have to be switched.
I couldn’t give a crap if ND plays in the Pinstripe Bowl at 6-6. I couldn’t give slightly fewer craps if ND plays in the Pinstripe Bowl at 7-5.
To the extent that we’d be updating those goal lists: the “Jan. 1st” bowl doesn’t matter any more, either (other than it allows us fans to be more likely to watch it than some day game in December). This year, for example, the Citrus Bowl is clearly behind at least three games played before 1/1. Furthermore, even if one (probably correctly) views the Citrus Bowl as in the third tier of bowl games (after the playoffs/NY6), then that simply puts it around the same value/prestige as a few other non-1/1 games (I’d say Holiday Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Sun Bowl). The Outback Bowl, a 1/1 game, isn’t even in that third tier.
Perhaps there is a difference between percieved value, and perceived prestige. This gets to Eric’s question about why a Citrus Bowl (and presumably most if not almost all of the other bowls). I am not one who feels that finishing #1 is the only reason to be proud. In which case of the hundred or whatever teams that play FBS football, only one fan base gets to be happy? Heck, the Citrus Bowl used to be the Tangerine Bowl, it’s been around a while, and (OK OK I know about commercialization and $$$ making etc.) but one reason for bowls in the first place was to reward more than one team for having a good season, and give the fans an excuse to come south and party and enjoy supporting their team one more time. Which is why we went to the Rose Bowl in 1924. Too bad actually the fathers thought it was a big waste of time.
So I think this lines me up in a very tiny minority (hey I was against going to overtimes, I thought that ties had a place, so color me hopeless!)
Now, I am second to nobody in prizing national championships, having personally been at the winning of the last four (if you count being in East Lansing for the ’66 tie). Six if you count ’48 and ’49. mom and dad used to being us babies into the Stadium, but I must admit, I don’t remember those seasons.
But there really ought to be more in life!
Well put, Noise.
Yep.
Thank you, guys!
🙂 bear in mind Lou said all that back in 1988. The bowl eligibility business has changed; ditto for picking one’s own bowl. For me the idea stays the same. Prize accomplishments and keep ramping up, but don’t lose pride along the way. I did go to the Pinstripe Bowl (the one against Army) and I enjoyed it, and I was modestly but genuinely glad we won.
You went to the ’13 Pinstripe Bowl against Rutgers or the ’10 regular season game played against Army at Yankee Stadium?
Then why show up anyway? If it is meaningless, why do we even bother? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Kelly to sit EVERYONE except true freshmen and sophomores and depth guys? If it’s an exhibition only, why is Wimbush, ESB, Yoon, Nelson, McGlinchey, Smythe, Tillery, Morgan, Coney, name-your-starter even going on the trip? If we’re that fearful of injury for players, woulndt the program care more about the players it is going to field in spring ball and next season than the ones going to the NFL?
Why even hold a Citrus Bowl in the first place? That’s the dilemma I’m aiming at…why is the 14th most prestigious bowl game meaningful?
I don’t really care too much either way about players sitting but the bloated bowls have full ownership of creating a system where it makes sense for some guys to decline to participate.
The objective for fans is to watch their favorite team play one more time before the long football drought between seasons.
I don’t find a non championship bowl to be meaningless if I really enjoy watching my team, especially my favorite players, compete once more.
That’s where I am. Nobody has to watch the game if they find it boring, by the way.
In the end, when you look back at a full season, the overwhelming majority of games are meaningless in the sense many of you are using that descriptor.
I think players sitting out bowl games will be the beginning of the end of the entire bowl season. Who’s going to pay big money to watch second stringers play football?
I think in 5-10 years about half of the NFL-level prospects for whom the bowl would be their last game will be sitting out the non-NY6/playoff bowls, and the bowls will be just fine. Their labor costs are real low, still.
We shall see.
If the 10 best players on both teams sit, that’s different, but that’s far from what’s happening. Because as of now, everyone who is healthy is playing (or hasn’t announced they’re skipping it).
Anyone excited enough to go to Orlando to watch the Irish probably is going to go whether or not Adams and a couple linemen play or not. Either way, I don’t think an NFL-bound player risking millions of future earnings has any real obligation to keep the bowl season going, and I would support any individual who looks out for his own self-interests if he’s worked hard enough and his team/conference/NCAA/networks have profited enough off of his sweat equity
Totally agree – my possibly dire-sounding prediction would only mean 2 or 3 players max from any given team that isn’t in the playoff, and for most bowl teams will be 0 or 1 players. I don’t think it’s going to cripple the system.
People pay for the NFL preseason.
Also, bowls are already on the decline and have been so for years. 3 players a year sitting out won’t matter much.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/01/02/bowl-games-are-not-always-winners-for-schools/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/college-gridiron-365/os-bowl-attendance-down-around-5-in-201617-season-20170103-htmlstory.html
Anybody want to poke holes in this Dan Wetzel column? I find it pretty compelling – https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-make-college-football-playoff-even-better-032144320.html
I like most of if not all of that system.
As a college football fan, I’d love it. As a Notre Dame fan, its hard to argue with the current system that downplays conference champs in favor of total body of work to fill four spots. In an eight team playoff, we’d be fighting for one of two positions in a year like this. A good 11-1 season probably gets us in both, but at least with this playoff you’re only two wins away from a title.
Only thing I’d be afraid of is this P5 blue bloods shutting down tough OOC games if winning the Conference gets an auto-bid.
Wouldn’t that make it more likely to play a tough OOC game? It doesn’t matter if you lose and you don’t need to pay Eastern Washington $450k to show up at your stadium.
Nah, think it incentivizes doing as much as you can to gear up for conference play. Schedule lightly, keep your team healthy, and focus on your toughest 2-3 league games.
That’s what happened with the BCS when going undefeated was so enormously incentivized. This would be different but same outcomes. Some teams would want at least one good tune up but I could see many others taking their free wins and staying healthy.
For power 5 teams, I think this would be better than the BCS (but probably not the playoff) in that regard because of the at-large slots: you’d still have to not only win big games in conference but ideally a big non-con to get in. Probably the realistic normal composite body of work for a P5 at-large in that system would be an impressive non-conference win combined with two in-conference losses, or one in-conference loss and an excusable non-conference loss. Which requires scheduling somebody who can either give you an impressive win or excusable loss.
For the Group of 5 teams, though, this system would give incentives to playing the easiest schedule possible that isn’t utterly embarrassing, because the only way to make the playoff would be go undefeated.
G5 teams have to make it into some fairly high ranking in the committee rankings under the proposed system to get the undefeated bid, so it’s possible that the committee makes it clear they need significant OOC performance to get that ranking.
I think Wiscy kind of proves that wouldnt work. Schedule lightly but you lose your conference and now you’re screwed. Im with CC, bigger paydays for better OOC games, you build your non-con resume if you DONT win the CCG but you can still get in with impressive wins OOC. Cupcakes wouldnt move any needles.
Presumably Wiscy would still get in with the 8 teams as an at-large if that were the rules this year.
That was the first thing I concluded. Why play any tough out of conference games when the only ones that matter are within the conference.
Do you think Bama opening the season against FSU had an impact on them getting in over TOSU? I know FSU sucked, but no one had any idea they would suck this bad at the beginning of the year.
Concur!
I actually thought Saban made a decent point (wait! keep reading! he really did!) that all P5 teams should play only P5 teams. That way there would be more cross-conference games and it would be easier to determine the strength of each conference against other conferences. That would result in it being easier to compare teams across conference and judge who are the best 4.
The idea isn’t bad, but then I feel like the Saban’s and Dabo’s of the world will just schedule Kansas and Illnois and Maryland and whatever other teams that hardly have “power” despite their conference. I wouldn’t see any problem with playing a AAC or Mountain West team (or…you know, an independent). Maybe step one for guys exactly like Saban would be that FCS games don’t count to an FBS record and at least get them playing a full schedule against D-1 programs and dropping the Mercer’s and Citadel’s from their schedule.
Yea that could happen. Though to be fair Saban said he couldn’t get another P5 team to schedule with him and as Gambit points out it would be an improvement to schedule those teams.
Besides, even if Alabama doesn’t not everyone can play the bottom teams from the other conferences because there are only so many games to go around at some point you will legitimately get more data points that matter to compare conferences. E.g. South Carolina vs. Iowa is helpful when the top teams of the conference play those teams (like OSU playing Iowa and Clemson playing S.C.). One game is never enough because odd things happen but when you have multiple instances of this kind of scheduling it evens out the “crazy things happen” element.
Saban is full of crap on not being able to get a P5 team to schedule with him. Alabama was scheduled to play Michigan State THIS YEAR and canceled it because God forbid they play a home and home when they can play pseudo-home games every year in Atlanta.
What Andy said… He can’t get another Power 5 to schedule him because he wants to do them as one-offs at a neutral site favorable to Bama. Georgia had no problem getting us on the schedule, Tennessee has done home-and-homes with UCLA recently, Ole Miss is in the middle of one with Cal, etc. It’s insanely disingenuous for him to claim, or even imply, that they scheduled Mercer (or Coastal Carolina, or the Citadel, or whatever shit team annually precedes the Iron Bowl) before Auburn because no decent team would sign on the dotted line.
Thanks guys. That makes sense. So then Saban’s own idea of mandating p5 teams would even strengthen their schedule.
What’s the reason for shutting out the AAC? The league has turned out a couple of legit (top 25) teams each year since the last realignment. Same-ish with the MWC. Let’s start with P5 teams not scheduling FCS teams anymore and go from there.
That system makes a lot of sense (probably why it won’t be implemented) but if it were…more evidence on why joining a conference would be a clearer path to a national championship, since it’s likely that 1-2 conferences will get multiple spots every year in the top 8. Doesn’t change much for Notre Dame, would have to go 11-1 at minimum to make the playoff..Meanwhile a Stanford team with 3 losses conceivably could have made this playoff had they been PAC champs, another advantage of conference affiliation- the chance for 2-3 losses and still the potential to win a conference. ND loses 2 games as an independent and they’re not making a 4, 6 or 8 team playoff.
Also, in execution I feel like this would morph into the P5 champs + next best 2 SEC teams + one extra random Big10/ACC/Cinderella as the top 8 every year. That’s basically what it was in this exercise. Granted, that’s probably the 8 best teams in the country (though the committee liked Wisconsin a lot more than most) but I get the feeling it would get real SEC heavy real fast in an 8 team environment and then the grumbling would shift to try and add even more.
After this year I’m in favor of something like this to shake up the conference championship games. Three of the games were rematches and about half the teams playing had little playoff shot.
On the other hand, this year would be a good argument against expansion. There were really only 3 worthy teams.
By my count, 10 of ND’s 12 opponents are in bowls – no M(OH) & UNC. That’s pretty good, right?
Didn’t quite pan out to merit top-12 consideration, but it was a heck of a resume and schedule this year..
Sounds like Willie Taggart is going to go to FSU, which is a pretty good hire for them IMO. Anybody think that Oregon will make a run at BK? I’m guessing… no interest.
Update: fake news – https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/937747432997351436
Are you talkin’ ’bout the ‘Noles?
I just hope Braden Lenzy has some interest!
This could be very bad news for the opener next year – https://n.rivals.com/news/take-two-shea-patterson-to-michigan-
I’d hold off on the sky falling until he’s eligible and actually transfers but it would be an interesting development. I didn’t watch him much but his game log has some wild swings between very good and multiple INTs. Maybe on the road with a new team it would be the latter, being as his stats were pretty awful against non-cupcakes (South Alabama, UT Martin, Vandy he was 13 TD, 1 INT….Bama, California, LSU, Auburn he was 4 TD, 8 INT)
I watched him a good bit (because I play college fantasy… yes, yes, that’s pathetic), and he’s very talented. Looks like a somewhat lesser Manziel (college version). His o-line gave him very little help against solid defensive fronts.
If Van Jefferson transfers he’s pretty solid too (though Patterson much more concerning). Don’t know about the safety, but apparently he was a top-100 ‘croot.