Do teams still let the guys who sit out the bowl game attend the game? Not transfer, but sit out for the NFL. Couldn't believe it when one of the first players who did it (can't remember, but I think it was someone from LSU) was at the bowl game, on the sideline, in street clothes, laughing it up with his boys. Wtf? You wanna sit? Fine, that's your right. But you ain't getting on that plane to the bowl game.
FSU starting QB bails on his team and enters the portal.
- Thread starter litespeedhuskerfan
- Start date
..and I wonder if it is all he will be remembered for now.
I'm just glad we "finally started paying players".... to, play.
Yet it didn't make em want to play, apparently.
Pretty sure one of the NIL rules is that the deals cannot be performance based.
I do wonder if it will make prospective new teams shy away from him a little? He bailed on FSU for the Orange Bowl, what's to make them think he won't bail on them for less?
I did watch a few of their games this year and enjoyed it... But it's hard to replace division 1 college football. I feel like a dinosaur these days pining for the old days.
That's why I would endorse an FCS-style 24-team playoff for FBS. No, the 9th through the 24th seeded teams rarely move past the second round, but the size of the playoff creates 23 "meaningful" games in the post-season, and that's not counting what will be nine conference championship games. It would greatly reduce and even eliminate the bowl system, but that's what's happening anyway.
And, yeah, as I suggested earlier, incentivize the players to show up and win every post-season game.
Yes, NIL absolutely should be conditioned on participating in the bowl games. I don't even see the need for any exceptions... if you love football, and you want your check, you play. It's that simple. I said when this "tradition" of skipping out on bowl games started becoming a thing that I would ban that specific player from any interactions with the program in the future, and I still stand by that. A bowl game isn't different than any other game, and it wasn't more than a decade ago that players - even high draft picks - recognized that.
That isn't performance based, it's a basic expectation that you show up to games.
No.
There is only one logical fix to this.
If you opt out you have to pay back your scholarship, 100%. Playing is literally the reason you have a scholarship.
You also lose access to training, injury, and facilities unless you pay for it.
Why this isnt the way it is is utter insanity.
Coaches have to act like they are ok with it for recruiting but trust me they hate it. Its horse shit and a terrible lesson for players.
Just wait all you 12 team playoff lovers: if the NCAAdoesnt crack down on this, players will opt out during the season when their team is eliminated from contention.
I cant understand a football player calling a football game “meaningless”, but if the friggin sugar bowl ismeaningless it only makes sense that your week 11 game as a three loss team is meaningless as well.
We’re succeeding in ruining cfb.
NcAa needs to crack down. Teams would love to but cant because it would be held against them in recruiting.
Pretty rotten teamwork to bail on his team mates. He could have left AFTER the bowl game.
More and more entitlement for players.
They are on the GRAVY train. Each player gets more than 100,000 a year all told.
If we’re gonna pay them cut all that out and make them pay for it. If they opt out they should have to pay it all back.
Players are simply following in coaches’ footsteps
They were the original opt outs long ago when they ‘bailed on their team’ for a new gig before the bowl game, and nobody here said a single cross word about it
They were the original opt outs long ago when they ‘bailed on their team’ for a new gig before the bowl game, and nobody here said a single cross word about it
It’ll star during the season, like i said above.
If the sugar bowl is meaningless, which HOLY FRIGGIN COW, then your week 11 game as a three loss team is meaningless.
They must crack down on this.
I cant believe football players or fans can call a major bowl game meaningless. Playing football is about playing football games…big ones like this especially.
So many scott frosts out there.
Wish we still had wild west bowl season.
I'm betting if you took a poll on this board and others, most would want the coach to finish the season. All of it, and that we don't love it when coaches bail. I do however see the difference...as I don't think college kids should have the same freedom(s) adults in theitlr 40's and beyond have. Society agrees to, which is why we have so many laws based on your age. I'm fine with collecting more freedoms as you age and earn it.
They should have the same rights.
But its a false comparison.
Coaches can also be and are fired mid season, players cannot.
Coaches are in their careers, players are not.
Even in the NFL, coaches bail at random times, players cannot opt out of games unless their organization tells them to.
Edited to clarify that I think its low of coaches to bail before bowl games, too. I was glad frost coached ucf in their bowl.
Those all sound like a lot of points in my favor for seeing the difference between coaches and players and therefore why I believe they should have different rights.
I think anyone should do what they want, whether I think it's good or not. However, schools are compensated when coaches leave, at least per the terms of their contract.
I agree with your overall sentiment I just think “rights” is too heavy a word. Age has nothing to do with it either.
They are in different situations altogether.
A great point made above about compensation, too.
They know their going to get their azzes kicked by Georgia and don’t want to compete.. a sign of our younger society that quit’s video games after being beat before it’s over…
We have a lot of laws based on age, so rights is a fair word IMO...but nothing i'd go to hand to hand combat over
Another thing a lot of people don't completely grasp IMO, is that a lot of these bowl games are money losers for the University due to the cost associated with them (Florida State - Georgia probably ain't one of them, but still a factor to consider in all this) So we have a school that is already paying for the players to attend their school and all the costs associated with that, and players now getting paid by outside business's, which means in some cases the player is now making money to play in said bowl when their school could be losing money on this deal, and players want to bail because they think it isn't worth their time to honor their commitment to play football in exchange for everything they've been given?
I understand this isn't going backwards at this point, so be it, I just think it's a step backwards and can easily argue teaching young people to honor their commitment has long term benefits they aren't always seeing when they make a decision for the short term.
all of those age-based laws kick in while one is college-aged or before.
16, 18, 21
I suppose unless you want to incorporate the public office gates
IN addition to those, social security collections, retirement benefits, and a lot of the kids moving around in CFB are under 21.
With all the Opt outs at FSU, the bowl game should have the right to drop them. Seriously. The players can do whatever they want but the bowl game and all the sponsors that put up the money, are freaking screwed. They should drop FSU and put Oregon in that game. No one wants to watch Liberty play.
I hadn't thought about that and I'm not sure how I feel about it....But I cannot help but wonder if it's going to lower the payouts that companies are willing to pay, to be associated with games that are not in the playoffs...
Could…but everything happening right now and money deals are based on what cfb used to be. It isnt that anymore, so we shall see if there are changes.
pretty much all contracts, from the top to the bottom. If you don’t want to get screwed, make sure there are proper contingencies in the contract. But as someone else hinted at, for the players, you start putting in too many terms, you risk losing them to another team. It’s why actually building a culture vs. promoting man-purses and fur coats will make a difference, the idea being that a solid player on a team that they care about won’t jump at the 1st chance another team comes calling.
I am no Ivy League president, but I think it has to be put into context, don’t you think?
If you pay a player $10k if they win a game, that is the dictionary definition of performance based pay. I believe that is what the poster is replying to.
People have always been able to murder if they want. There can be potential consequences if they are caught and/ or convicted. Similarly there can be potential consequences for leaving your team in a tough spot like this guy did. As someone mentioned, a potential consequence could be he isn't recruited as much after he left the former team in a tough spot. There could be other potential consequences as well.
This isn’t correct. Take a look at 2020 for the regular season.
So the heisman winner is afraid he’ll get his ass kicked by Wisconsin? So smooth …
I think coaches bailing is BS too btw, and there have been some people over the years who have raised that issue. I, for one, was A-okay with Frost staying for the bowl game at UCF. Sometimes separation is mutual though and best for both parties to move on ASAP.
Last edited:
Similar threads
