Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It wasn't an analogy. That's your choice of how to described my comment - that they are the same kind of selfish. Shit, Frieder WANTED TO COACH MICHIGAN and he was told to go packing. Not even close to an analogy. Good Lord man.


You responded to my comment with this:

"Bo was miserably hyper-judgmental. Of course he'd make that mistake."


To which I responded:

Don't confuse "mistake" with old-school. Was it a "mistake" to tell Frieder to pack his things?



You can choose to make this an analogy if you like. My post was simply in reference to how Bo Schembechler would respond to anyone not wanting to be on "the team" with him.


My point still stands. Sitting out a game is selfish.

I think it is the "loaded" word selfish is the issue. I think a better word would be acting in self-interest. I know semantics, but still I think valid. And who can blame a kid for acting in their own self-interest particularly when there are potential life altering things involved. 

then they will need additional bowl check
or they will sit out waiting for the big money
money makes everything worse, not better
let the kids that love the game play
the kids that love the money can do something else - like sit out

The don't need a salary. They just need the NCAA to say "you are allowed to collect money on your own in any legal way just like every other American."
Do that and the incentive to sit is significantly diminished. Right now these pre-draft players take on all the financial risk for zero of the financial benefit.
The bowl season is quite different if you change that ratio so zero can stop being in their denominator. And it won't require salary or "an extra bowl check." It's realistic that anything the pre-draft players are worth they will get with minimal effort. 
And if any of them want more than their market value, we can have a thread like this one except with every single poster opposing the player.

While I don't disagree with allowing them to do that necessarily, I don't think it does anything to change this.

I don't vigorously disagree but still do somewhat. Because that kind of CFB economy shifts the equation. At present this is their equation:
By playing:

• Maybe I will lose out on millions or 

By sitting out:

• *Certainly* I have already made zero dollars and will again make zero dollars.

Re: "making zero dollars in the bowl" you could argue I'm glossing over the sort of revenue structure that would keep a player incentivized after the regular season. That's mostly because I've been restraining myself from too much imagination here.
Still, I guess these would be my responses:
(a) it still would matter that the players would by this date have accrued, even if modest, some career income (a "cushion")
(b) the player's market value on campus drops to zero and so would December through April income if he chooses to stop playing for the people who love that campus.

Well what about the Senior Bowl?  Why not skip that, too?  Might get hurt.  

true, if Noah Fant is going to sit out the bowl game, why not also sit out the final big ten game vs Nebraska?

the only thing they were playing for that day was a better bowl game

Well what about the Senior Bowl?  Why not skip that, too?  Might get hurt.  

That's why no one plays in that game unless they feel they are being severely undervalued by scouts and need one last opportunity to show out.
It should be enough to say that game doesn't matter but it also shouldn't be affected here. It's completely insulated from the motivations that see high draft picks sit out bowls.

I think you're underestimating the power of an extra $5-10K guaranteed versus a 1/1000 chance at losing millions.
Especially if we need to eat and pay December rent: It's in our nature to take that bet.
As for the line and next step: there probably is no line (except for those on the verge of graduating) and the next steps are obvious. But they can be opposed. I argue that market value economics can even oppose most bowl sit-outs and that it'd do even better to prevent season sit-outs.

I don't get why they can't have both.  Just because they got $10k why are they suddenly willing to risk millions for no gain, with no downside to missing?  Unless it's some local car dealer/booster who doesn't so much want to have the kid as a pitchman, but as a way to pay a player, and makes the endorsement deal contingent on that.  But I can't see those being the types of arrangements