Christian McCaffrey, Others Skipping Bowl Games

BigRedBuster said:
Gerry will be moving on to bigger and better things.
Click to expand...
Yes and the reason he isn't playing is the exact same as McCaffrey too. Stop being thick. Gerry didn't put himself in a position to even be available if he wanted to be. It's not the same.

And if Gerry is failing all of his classes so he doesn't have to play in the bowl game because he wants to focus on his future, he could do it the respectable way and tell his coaches and teammates he is moving on instead of just not making it possible for himself to play by not completing his academic responsibilities

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Enhance89 said:
I think Saban has a point, though. I know I don't care that much about the Huskers' bowl game this year. Part of that is because of the injuries and the players who will be sitting out, but part of it is because I have become more desensitized to bowl games since the playoffs started.

Bowl games have, to a degree, always been meaningless. However, I think I still viewed them as mini championships in and of themselves. Now, I look at them as crackers and cheese before the Thanksgiving meal. They may have always been like that but my perception of them has significantly changed.
Click to expand...
OK....I'm glad you admit this is how your views have changed.

Since I don't understand the thought process, please explain to me how a bowl game like the Music City Bowl would have meant more before the playoffs? If we were sitting here in 1993 before even the BCS was created, this bowl game still would have had absolutely no bearing on the National Championship.

Sometimes I think Husker fans get this feeling because back then, every bowl game we went to meant something because we were one of the top teams. Now, we aren't so the bowl game doesn't mean anything. But, in their minds, something changed in the bowl/playoff system to cause this where in reality, it was Husker football that changed.

If anything has changed in the bowl system to cause this, it's the fact that we have 152 bowl games (exaggeration). Back in the 80s, we had maybe 15-20 bowls. now we have over 40. Don't you think maybe that has played a much bigger part in more bowls being totally meaningless?
Click to expand...
The sheer amount of bowl games have contributed to the watering down of the post season, so I'm in agreement there. For example, I think some five-win teams are going bowling again this year and that's silly to me.

But, the playoffs just give me a different feel. It's challenging to explain. Perhaps it's simply the word 'playoff' itself and the ramifications typically associated with the word. It's all over the the advertising and marketing campaigns for this postseason. We see 'playoffs' everywhere with moderate mention of the bowl games, and I don't think that's the media's fault. I think that's what people are drawing their attention to now and want to see. I bet their analytics would show that more people are keying in on 'playoffs' now than they did the BCS title game.

I also think we've more clearly drawn a line in the sand saying that three games now matter way more than the rest, whereas in the past, I think you could key in on all the BCS games and even some non-BCS games (like the Cotton Bowl) as carrying a lot of weight.

I'm certainly not saying those games still don't carry weight now - they do. But, and I can only speak for myself, they matter significantly less to me now than before the playoffs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's not necessarily due to the playoffs. I mean, before we had the 5th game there were the four BCS bowls, and before we had the playoffs there was the 5th game.

Even before there was some difference comparatively in how I viewed bowls. After a season with a tough ending it would be a great opportunity to finish on a high (Clemson '08, 'Zona 09, Washington '10, Michigan '05, UCLA '15). After other seasons that were kind of in between anyway, like the Georgia game(s? See, I forget if it was one or two, even), or Auburn '06, or this year, it's not as much to look forward to.

So it's really -- for me -- always been exclusively about Nebraska. Whether there were 10 bowls or 40 doesn't matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
BigRedBuster said:
Enhance89 said:
I think Saban has a point, though. I know I don't care that much about the Huskers' bowl game this year. Part of that is because of the injuries and the players who will be sitting out, but part of it is because I have become more desensitized to bowl games since the playoffs started.

Bowl games have, to a degree, always been meaningless. However, I think I still viewed them as mini championships in and of themselves. Now, I look at them as crackers and cheese before the Thanksgiving meal. They may have always been like that but my perception of them has significantly changed.
Click to expand...
OK....I'm glad you admit this is how your views have changed.

Since I don't understand the thought process, please explain to me how a bowl game like the Music City Bowl would have meant more before the playoffs? If we were sitting here in 1993 before even the BCS was created, this bowl game still would have had absolutely no bearing on the National Championship.

Sometimes I think Husker fans get this feeling because back then, every bowl game we went to meant something because we were one of the top teams. Now, we aren't so the bowl game doesn't mean anything. But, in their minds, something changed in the bowl/playoff system to cause this where in reality, it was Husker football that changed.

If anything has changed in the bowl system to cause this, it's the fact that we have 152 bowl games (exaggeration). Back in the 80s, we had maybe 15-20 bowls. now we have over 40. Don't you think maybe that has played a much bigger part in more bowls being totally meaningless?
Click to expand...
The sheer amount of bowl games have contributed to the watering down of the post season, so I'm in agreement there. For example, I think some five-win teams are going bowling again this year and that's silly to me.

But, the playoffs just give me a different feel. It's challenging to explain. Perhaps it's simply the word 'playoff' itself and the ramifications typically associated with the word. It's all over the the advertising and marketing campaigns for this postseason. We see 'playoffs' everywhere with moderate mention of the bowl games, and I don't think that's the media's fault. I think that's what people are drawing their attention to now and want to see. I bet their analytics would show that more people are keying in on 'playoffs' now than they did the BCS title game.

I also think we've more clearly drawn a line in the sand saying that three games now matter way more than the rest, whereas in the past, I think you could key in on all the BCS games and even some non-BCS games (like the Cotton Bowl) as carrying a lot of weight.

I'm certainly not saying those games still don't carry weight now - they do. But, and I can only speak for myself, they matter significantly less to me now than before the playoffs.
Click to expand...
But, do you see how this line of thinking is illogical? Before the BCS, we had 3-4 games (in a good year) that meant anything for the NC. Those typically were your "New Year's Day Bowls". All others literally meant nothing.

Then, we went to the BCS where there were 4 BCS bowls. Again, the rest meant nothing.

Then we went to BCS with one being the championship game. Again, only 4 bowls mattered and really, only one did. Everything else had no bearing on the NC.

NOW...we have 3 games that are the play offs. Nothing else matters for the NC.

Meanwhile, we have gone from 15 bowls to over 40. Before, we had 30 teams that went to a bowl game, now we have over 80. (way over half the tams now go to a bowl game.)

Now....in summary, we have gone from 3-4 games meaning something in the 80s to 3 games meaning something now.

I don't think the make up of those 3-4 games matters that much. But, it's an easy scape goat.

In other words, in the 80s, 26% of the games meant something. Now, 7% of the games mean something. It's not the fact that the games at the top end changed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Enhance89 said:
BigRedBuster said:
Enhance89 said:
I think Saban has a point, though. I know I don't care that much about the Huskers' bowl game this year. Part of that is because of the injuries and the players who will be sitting out, but part of it is because I have become more desensitized to bowl games since the playoffs started.

Bowl games have, to a degree, always been meaningless. However, I think I still viewed them as mini championships in and of themselves. Now, I look at them as crackers and cheese before the Thanksgiving meal. They may have always been like that but my perception of them has significantly changed.
Click to expand...
OK....I'm glad you admit this is how your views have changed.

Since I don't understand the thought process, please explain to me how a bowl game like the Music City Bowl would have meant more before the playoffs? If we were sitting here in 1993 before even the BCS was created, this bowl game still would have had absolutely no bearing on the National Championship.

Sometimes I think Husker fans get this feeling because back then, every bowl game we went to meant something because we were one of the top teams. Now, we aren't so the bowl game doesn't mean anything. But, in their minds, something changed in the bowl/playoff system to cause this where in reality, it was Husker football that changed.

If anything has changed in the bowl system to cause this, it's the fact that we have 152 bowl games (exaggeration). Back in the 80s, we had maybe 15-20 bowls. now we have over 40. Don't you think maybe that has played a much bigger part in more bowls being totally meaningless?
Click to expand...
The sheer amount of bowl games have contributed to the watering down of the post season, so I'm in agreement there. For example, I think some five-win teams are going bowling again this year and that's silly to me.

But, the playoffs just give me a different feel. It's challenging to explain. Perhaps it's simply the word 'playoff' itself and the ramifications typically associated with the word. It's all over the the advertising and marketing campaigns for this postseason. We see 'playoffs' everywhere with moderate mention of the bowl games, and I don't think that's the media's fault. I think that's what people are drawing their attention to now and want to see. I bet their analytics would show that more people are keying in on 'playoffs' now than they did the BCS title game.

I also think we've more clearly drawn a line in the sand saying that three games now matter way more than the rest, whereas in the past, I think you could key in on all the BCS games and even some non-BCS games (like the Cotton Bowl) as carrying a lot of weight.

I'm certainly not saying those games still don't carry weight now - they do. But, and I can only speak for myself, they matter significantly less to me now than before the playoffs.
Click to expand...
But, do you see how this line of thinking is illogical? Before the BCS, we had 3-4 games (in a good year) that meant anything for the NC. Those typically were your "New Year's Day Bowls". All others literally meant nothing.

Then, we went to the BCS where there were 4 BCS bowls. Again, the rest meant nothing.

Then we went to BCS with one being the championship game. Again, only 4 bowls mattered and really, only one did. Everything else had no bearing on the NC.

NOW...we have 3 games that are the play offs. Nothing else matters for the NC.

Meanwhile, we have gone from 15 bowls to over 40. Before, we had 30 teams that went to a bowl game, now we have over 80. (way over half the tams now go to a bowl game.)

Now....in summary, we have gone from 3-4 games meaning something in the 80s to 3 games meaning something now.

I don't think the make up of those 3-4 games matters that much. But, it's an easy scape goat.

In other words, in the 80s, 26% of the games meant something. Now, 7% of the games mean something. It's not the fact that the games at the top end changed.
Click to expand...
It's logical if it's what you know, which is why I don't think we see eye to eye.

I'm 27 - born in 1989. I didn't start really paying attention to football until the BCS era. I "cared" about the Huskers, the titles and all that in the mid 90's, but I spent way more time driving Hot Wheels across rugs and countertops than I did watching or caring about football. So, I don't really have a point of reference for "before the BCS."

If I may supply an analogy, if you asked most 13-year-olds which actor comes to mind when you say James Bond, they'd probably answer Daniel Craig. If you ask my dad he'll say Sean Connery. Neither of them are wrong - they've just experienced different things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, Pierce Brosnan usually pops into my mind first.

In my defense, I think Sean Connery is the best Bond. However, Goldeneye produced by far and away the best video game.

 
Nobody even touches the coolness of this guy.

James-Bond-Exhibition-Sean-Connery.jpg


 
hey, I will apologize up front for not having in the correct room....but honestly, what are some thoughts on players (fournette, mccaffrey) not playing in bowl games? Saban had interesting take on it.

Again, if not correct forum feel free to move.

Mod Edit: Merged threads

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on the circumstance...

But, mostly...I do not have a problem with a senior (or junior who is declaring for the NFL draft) skipping his team's bowl game.

The focus seems to be on Baylor's RB...

So...let's use that as an example...

Baylor is 6-6 and playing Boise State...

What does a Baylor RB, who has dreams of playing in the NFL, have to gain from playing a nothing bowl against Boise State?

Conversely, Stanford's Christian McCaffery ha also opted to not play in the bowl game.

To me, this is young men weighing their future gains against the reality of playing one more college game.

In summary, I have no issues with this.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top