Jump to content

Teammates: Davis made decision to sit out


abw0004

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

I agree the decision was Davis' to make.   BUT.... what if a player decides not to play because he plans on a career using his hands as a musician or something?    What if Cam Newton decided he was NOT going to play in the NCG  because he had a date that night?   Extreme?  Yep,  but were do you draw the line?    How much does the future fate of a team change when players sit out?   

 

Lots of other good points in your post.

  

 

 

Where do we draw the line for what? Each of these young men are the ones responsible for their decision, and they will be the ones who have to confront the consequences. Your examples are completely incomparable, so I don't know what to say other than in each situation, the consequences will be in relation to the implications of the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 339
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, AUsince72 said:

Angel on my one shoulder:

"The point of college is to prepare you to succeed in adulthood and give you the tools to succeed in a career.  Well, Mission Accomplished.  He didn't need to play and risk his future."

Devil on my other shoulder: 

"He's there to play football and entertain me, D@%&IT!!!"

LOL.  The more I play devils advocate,  the more I am talking myself into this hair brained idea.

 

On a  higher level,  he is there to entertain you.  That is why the school gives him a scholly.  To play football,  to entertain fans,  for the school to make MONEY.  Without the fans being entertained there would be no football or  schollys.   We would lose a lot of other (unentertaining) sports that are held up by football revenue.  The good news is there would be no one leaving for the NFL.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Where do we draw the line for what? Each of these young men are the ones responsible for their decision, and they will be the ones who have to confront the consequences. Your examples are completely incomparable, so I don't know what to say other than in each situation, the consequences will be in relation to the implications of the decision.

Where do you draw the line between what is OK and what is not for missing games?  When does it become "selfish" to not play?  You can  pull next years scholly,  why not have to repay the year you leave the team hanging?   Yes, ,  each young man is responsible for making their decisions,  but that doesn't mean there should not be consequences.    It should not be a one way street. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for those who are opposed to Carlton's decision:

A few years ago Warren Buffet said he would give $1 billion to the person who filled out the perfect March Madness bracket. Between the time that was announced and the tournament started he was on an ESPN radio program and he said "if someone is lucky enough to get a perfect bracket all the way down to the championship game I would probably offer them a settlement of $500M before the tip-off".

Would you take this amount of $500M or would you "not quit" on your bet and try for the billion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quietmaninthecorner said:

Where do you draw the line between what is OK and what is not for missing games?   You can  pull next years scholly,  why not have to repay the year you leave the team hanging?   Yes, ,  each young man is responsible for making their decisions,  but that doesn't mean there should not be consequences.    It should not be a one way street. 

Dude, if Cam Newton sat out the NCG to go on a date, paying back his scholarship would be the least of his concerns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Barnacle said:

Dude, if Cam Newton sat out the NCG to go on a date, paying back his scholarship would be the least of his concerns. 

 

LMAO.    I was just trying to make  up an extreme scenario to enhance my point.   

I gotta get back to work.  Thanks for the entertainment all. :)

Just for the record I DO NOT think schools should  make players pay back scholly for sitting out.   I love Davis and wish him the best. I was just using him as an example as I played the devils advocate. 

 

WDE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I have a question for those who are opposed to Carlton's decision:

A few years ago Warren Buffet said he would give $1 billion to the person who filled out the perfect March Madness bracket. Between the time that was announced and the tournament started he was on an ESPN radio program and he said "if someone is lucky enough to get a perfect bracket all the way down to the championship game I would probably offer them a settlement of $500M before the tip-off".

Would you take this amount of $500M or would you "not quit" on your bet and try for the billion?

In this senario,  I would not have any contracts/ obligations /commitments/ scholarships  to anyone else to keep playing.  Me not playing will not have a big effectanyone else but me and my family.  If anything me not playing would help Buffet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

LMAO.    I was just trying to make  up an extreme scenario to enhance my point.   

I understand what you were doing. My point is that the deterrent will be how the NFL responds and not how the schools respond. 

Clearly, sitting out of these types of exhibitionesque bowl games has not impacted the players and their draft stock. If players begin to sit out of championship or playoff games, I do believe you would see a response from the NFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I understand what you were doing. My point is that the deterrent will be how the NFL responds and not how the schools respond. 

Clearly, sitting out of these types of exhibitionesque bowl games has not impacted the players and their draft stock. If players begin to sit out of championship or playoff games, I do believe you would see a response from the NFL. 

That  is what got me thinking about this earlier.  It doesn't hurt the players,  it doesn't hurt the NFL,  but it is  the school gets "punished".

 

EDIT:  How about this.... the NFL has to pay back the scholly money.     Since it is spit in the ocean for the NFL,  make them pay back all 3 or 4 years worth of scholly $.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do we know the kid was not sick at one point? does gus not have a policy that if you do not practice by a certain day of the week you do not play? the truth is there is not really enough info out there to say what happened 100 percent, thus gus sending him home two days before the game. i do not see all the hate. what about those players that makes personal choices to have fun putting their behavior above the good of the team. maybe it is board rules or popularity but why some get taken to the woodshed while others get a pass is beyond me. i wish we had beaten the crap outta ucf but i am not going to bang on anyone having to make that choice for themselves and their family. football is a violent sport and any player is pretty much one play away from receiving an injury that could cripple or maim them for life right? we have people in this country right this minute who are permanently disabled. do the universities they play for take care of them for life? look at terry beasely for gods sake. the man took so many hits to the head he was damaged for LIFE. and it is no small thing to say he stood by his teammates  when he was knocked out cold and had to be dragged off the field. as much as we love our football and as vocal as we can be about it it is still called a football game. some of you need to go look at concussions and other injuries that happen in football. it is absolutely awful. i would not wish any of the thing terry has gone through on anyone. nor would i wish anyone end up like chuckie mullins i believe his name was......from ol miss. i just think some of you do not care about football and our kids as much as you might care about wins and losses....and believe me there is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

In this senario,  I would not have any contracts/ obligations /commitments/ scholarships  to anyone else to keep playing.  Me not playing will not have a big anyone else but me and my family.  

I think the point tiger was making is people are naturally risk-adverse, and that type of risk at version typically controls peoples decision making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

I agree the decision was Davis' to make.   BUT.... what if a player decides not to play because he plans on a career using his hands as a musician or something?    What if Cam Newton decided he was NOT going to play in the NCG  because he had a date that night?   Extreme?  Yep,  but were do you draw the line?    How much does the future fate of a team change when players sit out?   

 

Lots of other good points in your post.

  

 

 

I'd sure like to meet THAT girl...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

 Semantics 

some call it slander as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

That  is what got me thinking about this earlier.  It doesn't hurt the players,  it doesn't hurt the NFL,  but it is  the school gets "punished".

That's one way to look at it. @McLoofus made a good rebuttal to this point earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

It is not just about the scholarship money,  it is also about the guy that didn't get the scholly.   

No, it's not. Auburn would take this deal 100 times out of a 100 and not think twice about that guy who didn't get the scholly. 

Quote

Although small,  loss of revenue from the perception that Auburn is now a 4 loss team,  fan unity is down from the loss,  coach support  would have been much higher with a win.   Chances of losing are pretty high when everyone on the team that may get in the NFL sits out.  This effects everything to some degree.  

Except only one guy sat out, and he has more to do with Auburn having only 4 losses than having gotten that 4th one. And don't go all butterfly effect on this. It's poor logic. 

Quote

There are a lot of guys that lay their body on the line for 3 or 4 seasons and still play in bowl games. 

Cool.

Quote

Some are a lot more valuable than Davis. 

Lol

Quote

 He is scared.  Scared he will get hurt.  Not saying I wouldn't do the same thing,  but it is true.  It is also not a shot at his manhood.  I am sure he is a tough guy,  but he left Auburn hanging because he was scared he was going to get hurt,  and not be able to play in the NFL.  That is a big deal,  but the guy has commitments.

IKR?! What kind of chickensh** sissy would wear a seatbelt?

Quote

If he is one of the primary reasons the other players got to the bowl game,  could you not say - sitting out was one of the primary reasons we lost the bowl?   

You could say that, but it would be a stupid thing to say. 

Quote

The  loss may not mean anything to some,  but it effected Auburn greatly.  We have fan unrest.  Coaches contracts being nit picked.  And no semblance of unity.  Winning the bowl game wouldn't have fixed all that,  but it would have given us a starting point.

Then I suppose we should prepare for a ton of posts from you outlining the 200 or so other things that contributed much more to an ultimately disappointing season for Auburn than Davis sitting that crap bowl game did.

Quote

Still just trying to stir things up around here.  It has been a little boring.

Then I'm going to need you to really commit. You might be going for edgy, but you're really just kinda repackaging a bunch of tired tropes that have been beaten to death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my two cents that I said on the speculation thread about Carlton Davis before the bowl game.  I look at it from a business perspective.  A school offers an athlete a contract, or an offer.  In this contract is if the player agrees to play for the university, the university will pay for two semesters of school.  To me, the contract is binding to both parties.  The university (Auburn in this case) held up their end of the deal in providing two semesters free of charge as well as living expenses.  The bowl game, or playoff games, are a part of the season, therefore the player should participate to hold up their end of the deal.  If a player is now allowed to back out of their contract when they choose, this could open up a can of worms where the university can start doing the same by pulling scholarships of underperforming players to make room for more players.  I certainly do not want this to ever happen.  If you make a commitment, on either side, hold up the commitment.

The NBA faced a similar issue last year with the star players sitting out games and the fans getting angry so a rule was enforced.  This could potentially happen here as well.  I completely understand why Carlton did what he did, but I do not agree with his decision.

A similar situation, I am also for a rule that if a coach flips jobs after a recruit signs his LOI, the recruit should have the opportunity to cancel his LOI and open recruitment back up.  I understand you need to be committed to the school, but I also understand certain players do better under certain coaching styles.  And if the new coach has a completely different coaching philosophy than the previous coach, the player could potentially never accomplish what they could have.  This should also go both ways where here I am in favor of the recruit, not the coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compare the peach bow to a championship game is Ludacris.  If we were in the playoffs, CD would've been playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Quietmaninthecorner said:

LOL.  The more I play devils advocate,  the more I am talking myself into this hair brained idea.

 

On a  higher level,  he is there to entertain you.  That is why the school gives him a scholly.  To play football,  to entertain fans,  for the school to make MONEY.  Without the fans being entertained there would be no football or  schollys.   We would lose a lot of other (unentertaining) sports that are held up by football revenue.  The good news is there would be no one leaving for the NFL.  :)

If auburn didn’t have football, people who just go to basketball or baseball.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AUGoo said:

I'm with you and can't decide if I admire Gus for covering for his player or irritated that he didn't call a presser and let CD announce why he wasn't playing, thus keeping everything out in the open.

That's a very easy decision for me, I admire Gus for covering for his player. 

Keep in-house stuff in-house, it was no one's business why CD chose not to play, that's between the player and the coach. 

To be frankly honest, Gus & the entire team didn't need all that "noise" when they prepping for the bowl game.  Just imagine what the freaks in the media and message boards would have blown this out of proportion.  Look at the contents of this thread alone and it's a month after the fact! 

Gus absolutely did the right thing, and I wish CD's teammates would've kept this to themselves as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Freshman basketball tournament vs millions in the NFL...yep, Definitely apples to apples.

A team is a team, teammates are teammates and ducking out on them for a personal choice is a lousey thing to do, be it 9th grade basketball or the 7th game of the world series. Definitely apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davis' earning potential could have been greatly affected in a negative way had he played and the trade off was negligible improvement (likely none) in his draft stock if he did play. While we like to think of the team dynamic as the same as our high school teams this just isn't the case when there are millions upon millions of dollars being thrown around. Gus bailed on Arky State before their bowl game to prepare for his new job and he had already nailed down his multi-million dollar deal. Carlton bailed on AU before the bowl game so he could put himself in the best position for his next job.

I think there are many constants within the construct of a team that are prevalent at all levels of competition. However, I don't think this is one of them. These kids' goals here are not to be a part of a college football team. It's to make the big bucks at the next level. A fraction of 1% of athletes make it there. I can see how a kid being so close to this goal sees the value in sitting out as opposed to jeopardizing himself.

I also can see him not giving a flying french toast about what some message board posters think considering he's guaranteed to be a very rich man in a few months. He couldn't say that was the case if he was planning on playing vs UCF.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mikey said:

A team is a team, teammates are teammates and ducking out on them for a personal choice is a lousey thing to do, be it 9th grade basketball or the 7th game of the world series. Definitely apples to apples.

yea-k.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CD did in fact skip the Peach Bowl to reduce risk of injury, then I find it disappointing and disagree with his decision. For those ok with his decision, would you also be ok with the following decision?

2018 season...AU enters Iron Bowl week 9-2 with 2 really close conference loses...Alabama is 11-0...AU has as good a chance as anyone to beat them but no chance at a conference or national championship...JS has had a stellar season at quarterback and is garnering All-American accolades and a high draft grade. Two days before the Iron Bowl he announces he's not playing as he wishes to protect his NFL career.

I have a feeling that we as fans would be going out of our minds and feeling betrayed because of this decision. But, how would JS's decision differ from CD's decision? After all there are no conference or national championships to be won by Auburn and why risk injury this close to the draft.

Sounds as if his teammates weren't happy with his decision and I don't blame them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiger said:

Davis' earning potential could have been greatly affected in a negative way had he played and the trade off was negligible improvement (likely none) in his draft stock if he did play. While we like to think of the team dynamic as the same as our high school teams this just isn't the case when there are millions upon millions of dollars being thrown around. Gus bailed on Arky State before their bowl game to prepare for his new job and he had already nailed down his multi-million dollar deal. Carlton bailed on AU before the bowl game so he could put himself in the best position for his next job.

I think there are many constants within the construct of a team that are prevalent at all levels of competition. However, I don't think this is one of them. These kids' goals here are not to be a part of a college football team. It's to make the big bucks at the next level. A fraction of 1% of athletes make it there. I can see how a kid being so close to this goal sees the value in sitting out as opposed to jeopardizing himself.

I also can see him not giving a flying french toast about what some message board posters think considering he's guaranteed to be a very rich man in a few months. He couldn't say that was the case if he was planning on playing vs UCF.

Important point. Curious to hear a retort from some who are constantly rushing to Gus's defense while blaming everything on the players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...