What do you think now about bowl opt-outs?

[BrentVU]

I am not a Matt Corral fan, but it did sicken me to see him hurt his leg in the Sugar Bowl. A player of his stature could easily have opted out and prepared for the NFL draft. He didn't. He wanted to see a great season through with his teammates; good for him. Then he gets hurt, and to top it off, Ole Miss loses the game badly. (Turns out, the Rebs didn't have much offense without him.)

Sounds like the injury is just a sprained ankle, but it could have been worse. It could have been the kind of injury that affects his earning potential in the pros.

So, just wondering, how are you guys feeling about players who opt out of bowl games? It didn't affect Vandy this year, but it could soon. Players are called upon to make sacrifices for the sake of team, and opting out flies in the face of that. On the other hand, you could say that some are just making smart business decisions, and that that seems to be the direction college football is going.

[commadore]

I am a traditionalist. I get sick to my stomach at players who opt out of anything. They made a commitment to the school, the coach, the team, and the individual players. Opting out is simply a betrayal of that commitment. If I am the coach and a player does that, he is immediately banned from the facilities, loses his scholarship for the second semester (if indeed he even cares), and will no longer be associated with the team. He is a selfish quitter.
Now some of you will say he could ruin a career over this. That is what insurance is all about. If you think that is a huge risk, beg, borrow, or steal the money to buy a $20-30 million policy. It can be done.

Fire away, guys.

[FayetteDore]

Players are called upon to make sacrifices for the sake of team, and opting out flies in the face of that. On the other hand, you could say that some are just making smart business decisions, and that that seems to be the direction college football is going.

I'm a traditionalist as well. I believe in collective sacrifice for the true greater good. But as the idiom goes, traditionalism in college football (at anything above D-2) is the train that has left the station. It's ALL about the money. It's why there are 44 bowl games and playoffs (even if you like bowls and playoffs). It's why a season is no longer 8 games. It's why conferences are constantly changing and expanding. It's why football coaches, including assistants, are paid more than chancellors and presidents. (How many coaches' contracts got them an extra $100k or $500k just for getting into a bowl, with six wins? Did I read that Heupel got an extra $100k just for getting to the MCB?) It's why we have NIL. It's why TV gets to set game times less than 2 weeks before the game. It's why college games run 4-5 hours (gotta get a dozen Bud Lite and ED commercials in those 3-minute timeouts!). It's why we have night games in late November and noon games on Labor Day. It's why (many) stadiums and playing fields and bowl games are named for corporations instead of the great head coach or the college benefactor or what the city or state hosting the bowl is known for. It's why we let ticket companies dictate what and how we can do with our tickets. We could all go on and on.

In this environment, I can't fault any player for skipping a bowl game that few will remember more than a year from now. It doesn't make me happy but I certainly can't fault them.

PS -- Just curious Commadore: Roughly how much would a $20-30 million insurance policy cost for a college football player?

[AuricGoldfinger]

My biggest problem with opt-outs is...where does it end?

I'm not usually a slippery slope guy, but I can't help but think we're close to a time when a star player opts out at midseason when he sees his team isn't going to play for a championship. Whenever I hear someone in the media argue in favor of players opting out, the rationale is always, "Well, these bowls are just exhibition games anyway." If I'm an Auburn Tiger, what's the difference between, say, the Independence Bowl and a late season game versus Georgia State?

[VUinFL]

They made a commitment to...the coach

I get what you're saying (though I wouldn't allow myself to get sick over the decision of a 19-21 year old that I don't know) but I wouldn't use the "commitment to the coach" as being a reason why they should play every game. I don't want to paint all coaches with this brush, but the majority would bail out of a bowl game in a second for a better job (including the coach that Corral plays for).

The fact is that everyone involved in bowl games is making money, in some cases millions upon millions (networks, analysts, the schools, coaches, the cities, the sponsors, etc.) but the only participants with legitimate risk are the players and they don't get a penny beyond their scholarship. It just does not make sense anymore to give these kids a hard time if they won't jeopardize the opportunity at a lucrative career for 3 hours of our entertainment. The fact is that we will watch anyway.

[Go Vandy!]

I can't blame them. They're taking a chance on losing millions of dollars. In fact, i thought Corral had done just that.

Traditionalists do not think player should be paid (they're getting a free college education), that they shouldn't be able to transfer without sitting out 10-12 years, that everything should go back to the 50s. I hate to tell them it never will.

[AirForceDore]

The traditionalist in me says they should play and cherish every minute of it. But with that said, putting myself in their shoes, I honestly don't know that I would suit up for a game for xyz corporation when I have millions on the line. I can sit here as a fan and say, hell yes I would suit up for Vandy, esp for a bowl game. However, if I am in their shoes, with who knows how many people in my ear telling me I am an idiot for playing in it, I honestly don't know what I would do.

[FayetteDore]

I can't blame them. They're taking a chance on losing millions of dollars. In fact, i thought Corral had done just that.

Traditionalists do not think player should be paid (they're getting a free college education), that they shouldn't be able to transfer without sitting out 10-12 years, that everything should go back to the 50s. I hate to tell them it never will.

If you're talking about my post, I KNOW that college football will never go back to the 50s, nor do I want it to (segregated teams, single-wing offenses, etc.). That's why I said I don't fault players for opting out, despite my traditionalist nature.

[VU1970]

Besides the money involved, I also see a connection between opt-outs and what the playoff system has done to the bowls (rendering them even more meaningless).

You'd think selection committees might think twice about re-inviting a team that shows up without most of its key players, but apparently not. The dollar makes them holler.

On the other hand, does anyone remember when Bear Bryant benched Joe Namath for the 1964 Sugar Bowl, after Joe broke some team rules? Steve Sloan led the Tide to a 12-7 win over Johnny Vaught's Ole Miss Rebels, who fumbled 11 times in the game, losing six of them.

[Johnmn555]

If you think it's ok to opt out of a bowl game, then why not opt out of the last game of the regular season, or the second half of the regular season, if a player's draft status seems safe?

[commadore]

If I am a pro owner, I am going to wonder that if you opted out of the, say, Sugar Bowl, then what is to keep you from opting out of the 16th game of the season because you are tired, or your shoulder is sore, even though I am paying you millions to play. If you do it once, ....

[LawoftheWest]

Wouldn't it be in a college's interest to purchase insurance on key players who might opt out of a bowl, with the players being beneficiaries if injured badly enough during the season or in a bowl game to stop them from being drafted? Or something along those lines.

Keep the key players happy so they do not opt out of bowl games. To me it sounds like money well spent. However, is it even legal? I understand that players can purchase that insurance, but it may be too expensive for some. Just a thought.

[vandy05]

If you think it's ok to opt out of a bowl game, then why not opt out of the last game of the regular season, or the second half of the regular season, if a player's draft status seems safe?

Some players should and perhaps will in the future. If your draft position is secure (there is always risk in thinking that), then you can move on.

[vandy05]

If I am a pro owner, I am going to wonder that if you opted out of the, say, Sugar Bowl, then what is to keep you from opting out of the 16th game of the season because you are tired, or your shoulder is sore, even though I am paying you millions to play. If you do it once, ....

Team owners and coaches want to know a player is completely focused on playing football. Opting out of college to protect your pro prospects is very different from not playing because "you're tired".

Additionally, one professional game has a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a team's season. One college bowl game does not have that disproportionate impact on the outcome of a college team's season.

[vandy05]

Wouldn't it be in a college's interest to purchase insurance on key players who might opt out of a bowl, with the players being beneficiaries if injured badly enough during the season or in a bowl game to stop them from being drafted? Or something along those lines.

Keep the key players happy so they do not opt out of bowl games. To me it sounds like money well spent. However, is it even legal? I understand that players can purchase that insurance, but it may be too expensive for some. Just a thought.

Colleges can do this and do this with some regularity. There is a provision for it. But the insurance might pay you $10M in case of catastrophic injury (can't play anymore) but its a little more tricky to insure one's draft status as a first round pick. That's a form of gambling that the insurance companies don't have much experience in and they don't like that risk. So you could get hurt (not catastrophically) and go from a second round pick to a sixth round pick and lose a lot of money. But no insurance is going to cover that. If you shatter your entire leg and can't play again, then you get paid out. Its a little more nuanced than that, but you get the drift.

Players can also get a loan to take out insurance if they really wanted to do that. Its a loan that is easy to repay if you're drafted or if your policy pays you out. I think the bowls should just start paying the big time players to play the game.

[cc11316]

This is awesome, people expressing some differing opinion without anyone seemingly getting their feelings hurt by those who don't agree with their viewpoint.

That having been said, I tend to side with the players more than the schools. To me, it's like siding with employees rather than the employers as they are the ones putting in the physical aspects of the job and taking the physical risks. The school's definitely have an important part in that they enable these athletes to participate in football while providing a free education along with food and boarding to many whom otherwise would not have the opportunity. But it's still more about the athlete so the favorable transfer rules, monetizing their NIL, decisions to play/not play, etc... seem okay because in the end it is in their best interest (not the schools).

[VandyPhile]

How many players did we have opt out of the UT game last year? Admittedly, last year was unique in several respects but will bowl game opting out start to intrude into the regular season?

[Versus75]

If I am a pro owner, I am going to wonder that if you opted out of the, say, Sugar Bowl, then what is to keep you from opting out of the 16th game of the season because you are tired, or your shoulder is sore....

Next thing you know, some star player is going to rip off his jersey and walk off the field rather than finish the game with his team.

[katmai]

Wouldn't it be in a college's interest to purchase insurance on key players who might opt out of a bowl, with the players being beneficiaries if injured badly enough during the season or in a bowl game to stop them from being drafted? Or something along those lines.

Keep the key players happy so they do not opt out of bowl games. To me it sounds like money well spent. However, is it even legal? I understand that players can purchase that insurance, but it may be too expensive for some. Just a thought.

Colleges can do this and do this with some regularity. There is a provision for it. But the insurance might pay you $10M in case of catastrophic injury (can't play anymore) but its a little more tricky to insure one's draft status as a first round pick. That's a form of gambling that the insurance companies don't have much experience in and they don't like that risk. So you could get hurt (not catastrophically) and go from a second round pick to a sixth round pick and lose a lot of money. But no insurance is going to cover that. If you shatter your entire leg and can't play again, then you get paid out. Its a little more nuanced than that, but you get the drift.

Players can also get a loan to take out insurance if they really wanted to do that. Its a loan that is easy to repay if you're drafted or if your policy pays you out. I think the bowls should just start paying the big time players to play the game.

A great example to remember about how tricky those insurance policies can be is that Hank Gathers' insurance policy did not pay out because it didn't cover death.

[geeznotagain]

I think the bowls should just start paying the big time players to play the game.