As one of my cousins who is a high school coach in Florida emailed me after the APP Camellia Bowl win - "Great game, great win by App State, and I will tell you I really like watching those kind of bowl games because it really means something to both teams" --- he is so right - my question is regarding the big P5 schools who don't make the top tier bowl games and top players skipping the game - already Fournette and McCaffrey have said they won't play - Do you see this becoming more of a problem???
Of course, I really don't care - I love the way our coaches, team and fans get psyched for our game !!!

Mark Schlabach from ESPN said that the situation with McCaffrey and Fournette not playing is the beginning of the end of the current bowl system. Maybe a bit of hyperbole on his part, but it does signal a change in the way players look at the lesser bowls.

Others have wondered if it will trickle down to high school football with kids playing on teams with no playoff aspirations deciding not to risk the loss of scholarship offers.

I wonder if these players would be doing this if their team was in the playoffs playing for a championship. Kind of helps make the argument for a restructuring of our current bowl system and an extended playoff system.

It's already a problem at the high school level and even in other sports. My daughter swims year round and Varsity for her high school. If there is a year round meet on a given weekend, the year round coach forbids them from swimming in their high school meets during the week. To me, HS is more important, but hey, who am I?

sixtoes9134 wrote:It's already a problem at the high school level and even in other sports. My daughter swims year round and Varsity for her high school. If there is a year round meet on a given weekend, the year round coach forbids them from swimming in their high school meets during the week. To me, HS is more important, but hey, who am I?

My daughter played soccer in high school (and eventually in college) and travel soccer as well. Fortunately, she was able to do both because in VA HS soccer is in the Spring. But, there was no doubt that those aspiring to garner a college scholarship, club soccer was the vehicle not HS. For most sports not called football that is often the case. It is unfortunate but it is the reality of our time.

I'm hoping it does lead to a few changes that limit the number of tie-ins the P5 schools have. If they were limited to 4 or 5 each, and the minimum number of wins was upped to 7 we wouldn't need so many bowls. That would make it a reward again for good teams and these P5 snobs that don't really care can sit at home.

I personally think that the way the NFL draft goes will play a huge roll in how other stars will handle this in the future. I realize that this is my opinion and I understand how the NFL works, but if I were an owner or GM, I would drop McCaffrey and Fournette down my board. These are selfish moves and tell me that they are not team guys. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be drafted but I think this speaks volumes to character and I can see this moving them down draft boards which could cost them quite a bit in terms of contract money and signing bonuses.

94 - I think most of us feel as you - however, if a guy can play even if he has a criminal record, most will draft him anyway ---

I tend to agree with Schlabach, I can see this as a beginning of the end to the current bowl system. Many of these 6-6 versus 6-6 match ups for the P5 teams are little better than consolation games, and boarder on the "everyone gets a trophy" abomination.

I don't like the whole conference tie in concept to begin with. The Rose Bowl ceased to be the "granddaddy of them all" once it became limited to a PAC12/B1G only match-up. Ultimately, McCaffery, Fournette, and possibly Trabinsky sitting out of their bowls, just shows that these bowls really don't mean that much to the players. It's an indication that these bowls mean less than the regular season. I mean you didn't see these guys sitting out of regular season games once their teams were eliminated from a berth in the conference championship game did you?

However, does an 8 team play-off help this situation? Maybe not. Would LSU, Stanford or UNC-CHeat have made an 8 team playoff this year? Probably not, so I'm guessing these guys would've sat out if they were headed to a bowl anyway.

Here's a crazy idea. What if the bowls were power seeded regardless of conference or P5/G5 status? With an 8 team playoff, you'd have 6 bowls + the Natty dedicated to that effort. The 7th bowl then pits the 9th and 10th best team in the nation (or the 9th and the next highest team not of the same conference), and the 8th is the 11th and 12th, and so forth and so on. Yeah there's issues with this, the lower in the rankings the less interesting on a national scale, but at least every match up should be a relatively close one and make for good games . . .

Hasn't the Rose Bowl been a PAC 8 , 10 ,12 -Big Ten matchup since ..the Civil War?

Well Duke hosted the Rose Bowl in Durham as an ACC team in 1942, so at least in 1942 it wasn't just PAC##/B1G . . .

Duke was actually in the SoCon back then.

I'm old school here so if this is archaic it's only because it is. Those two choosing to not play in their school's team's bowl game is a slap in the face to their team mates, coaches, boosters, and university. It wreaks of selfish pride. If I were their coach and had the power to do it I'd immediately remove their scholarship and ban them from all team functions and the use of any facilities. If they're that worried about the coin then take out an insurance policy and go to the local gym, hire a personal trainer, and get ready for the league.

Is it obvious that I don't like this trend?

AppinVA wrote:Duke was actually in the SoCon back then.

And the game was moved to the east coast due to the fear of a Japanese invasion of the west coast. The Battle of Midway was 6 months in the future so the possibility was in everyone's mind.

Stonewall wrote:Hasn't the Rose Bowl been a PAC 8 , 10 ,12 -Big Ten matchup since ..the Civil War?

Exactly. Well, post-WWII to be exact, but to say that tie-in established back in the '40s hurt the Rose Bowl's prestige is pretty strange. It was the last big obstacle to a 1 vs. 2 title game, though.

"I'm old school here so if this is archaic it's only because it is. Those two choosing to not play in their school's team's bowl game is a slap in the face to their team mates, coaches, boosters, and university. It wreaks of selfish pride. If I were their coach and had the power to do it I'd immediately remove their scholarship and ban them from all team functions and the use of any facilities. If they're that worried about the coin then take out an insurance policy and go to the local gym, hire a personal trainer, and get ready for the league. "


So. let me understand - a kid gives everything he has to you, the coach, the university and his team for 3-4 years and now in a meaningless game he decides not to play - even though he has played hurt many times - you are essentially going to kick him off the team?
p.s. - I am most likely more Old-school than you

WVAPPeer wrote:94 - I think most of us feel as you - however, if a guy can play even if he has a criminal record, most will draft him anyway ---

I don't disagree with you and I didn't mean to insinuate that they wouldn't get drafted. But if a guy falls from say a 6th pick to the 20th, that is a big disparity in money lost.

Removing their scholarship and kicking them off the team is a rather hollow posture since these kids are likely not going to class after this semester anyway.

WVAPPeer wrote:Those two choosing to not play in their school's team's bowl game is a slap in the face to their team mates, coaches, boosters, and university. It wreaks of selfish pride. If I were their coach and had the power to do it I'd immediately remove their scholarship and ban them from all team functions and the use of any facilities. "

So. let me understand - a kid gives everything he has to you, the coach, the university and his team for 3-4 years and now in a meaningless game he decides not to play - even though he has played hurt many times - you are essentially going to kick him off the team?

Interesting points..
I can see the point regarding the fact that the players have already made significant sacrifices on behalf of the university. Others (university, coaches) have profited and, while they have gotten an education, they do have their future financial security to consider.

We seem very far off from this at our level, but what if..

What if Marcus Cox was a nationally ranked pro prospect who was grateful for being healthy following a serious mid-season injury and did not want to risk injury that might hurt his showing in the NFL combine or might decrease how high he was drafted and his eventual payday. However, what if the bowl game was against a strong opponent and the bowl was still meaningful to App as a program due to the opportunity to increase our national profile, potentially earn a top 25 ranking, and serve as a platform for other players (and our coaches?) to receive national recognition.
In other words, what if the bowl game MATTERED to a lot of people (other players, the university, coaches, fans), but not so much to an individual player?

I think what causes concern for some is the fact that players generally do not have the latitude to pull themselves from games - that is done by teams with concerns about health/safety. In the case of Fournette and McCaffrey, I assume that the teams agreed with their decisions. What if the teams did not agree? Would that matter? Would there be anything that they could do? At the very least, there might be more pressure exerted by teammates and coaches to change someone's mind.