Today, in good for me, bad for thee

Mike Gundy is full of worry and sorrow about kids skipping bowl games to prepare for the NFL draft.

“It’s become very popular now,” OSU coach Mike Gundy said. “I hate to see that happen, but as I’ve said before, we live in a society today where things are considerably different than they ever have been before, and (if) young people feel that there’s a better opportunity for them somewhere else, then they’re gonna make that decision to move on, and so we do the same.

“The one thing that I am concerned about is the longevity of the bowls and the fact that I would hate for it to become so popular that bowls aren’t important anymore, because I think that’s a great reward for a team.”

Gundy thinks the trend will get worse, not better. Could a player whose team made the College Football Playoff skip the postseason to protect his future?

“You could have a team that’s in a championship and a guy not play, if somebody told him, ‘You could be worth this amount of money,’ and I’m guessing that players do it if they’re concerned about their durability to stay healthy for the spring, for the draft,” Gundy said.

“Like with Justice, we protected him as much as we could early in the season, and he got hurt in the latter part of the season and I would guess that he wants to make sure that he stays healthy so he can test and run and do all the different things for the draft.”

Let’s see…

  • Georgia Tech just hired a head coach who’s skipping his old team’s bowl game.
  • The remaining kids on Oklahoma State’s roster will still get their reward of playing in a bowl game.
  • Playoff expansion is a far bigger threat to bowl longevity than players skipping bowl games.
  • It’s okay for a coach to worry about a player’s health during the season, but not so much for that same player to worry about his health in preparation for the draft.

Coaches really can’t stand losing control over kids a second earlier than they have to.


Filed under College Football

22 responses to “Today, in good for me, bad for thee

  1. “I’m a man! I’m 51!”

    Guys like him are exactly why I call these guys glorified P.E. teachers.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Aladawg

    And then a player wants to transfer. His coach blacklists a set of schools for him to transfer to. Yep, coaches have become more egomaniacal as time moves on and it is more visible every day.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Randall Adams

    And let’s say Auburn fires CGM and offers him $9MM a year to leave and he does; what happens to the kids he recruits? Do they get a window to look around and transfer without having to sit out a year?


    That’s a simple rule change:

    Coach leaves – kid should be able to transfer anywhere the kid wants to except where that coach goes (prevents a coach from selling his roster with himself to another school).

    Coach is fired – kid should be able to transfer anywhere the kid wants to go.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Dave

    Other than the aspect of diminishing the importance of bowl games (which began long before the CFP came about anyway due to the sheer number of them), I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

    He understands why they choose not to play. Are you expecting him to actually like it?

    I’m sure all of Georgia’s players understand why Mel Tucker left when he did. Do you think they like it?


    • Get back to me when you hear Gundy complain about how coaches jumping around is spoiling college football.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dave

        Will do, right when you show me the quote of teammates of ‘Bowl-Skippers’ saying they’re totally fine with those guys choosing not to play with them.

        More importantly and less sarcastically, though, did someone ask Gundy about it, or did he just get on a pulpit to preach that he didn’t like it? If he just decided to come out and condemn it, then I more see your point. If asked, well, again, I really don’t know what you expect the guy to say.


        • Will do, right when you show me the quote of teammates of ‘Bowl-Skippers’ saying they’re totally fine with those guys choosing not to play with them.

          In both cases, it’s a business decision. A person has to do what’s best for himself.


  5. ATL Dawg

    Coaches should have to adhere to the same rules as the kids. If a coach leaves to go to another school, he has to sit out a year. And they shouldn’t be able to go to schools in the same conference or other rival schools. Also, their compensation should be limited/capped.

    Put these rules in place and maybe then I’ll start listening to what these assholes have to say.


    • Gurkha Dawg

      Very good point. Call me old fashioned but I believe in freedom and fairness. If Baker wants to sit out the Sugar Bowl, that’s his decision. It’s none of my business. Now if we had made the playoffs I would be very disappointed but it is still his life and his decision.


  6. Macallanlover

    Gundy is spot on in his assessment of uninjured player quitting on their teams and not playing in bowl games. The only part of your comments that I agree with are is the similarity of coaches who do the same. Wish the NCAA had a way to punish the coaches who voluntarily switch to other NCAA jobs before the year is out.

    I hope the new, off-season, professional league succeeds as a developmental league to a degree where athletes who prefer to go pro so badly they cannot wait 3-5 years will go straight to it out of HS. CFB would be better off without all the drama and disruption of people who do not appreciate the opportunity they are given under the current system. The benefits for D1 college football players on full scholarship are overly generous, but will never be enough to satisfy the ungrateful.

    From years of reading others here, my opinion is certainly a minority on this blog, but Gundy and I aren’t the only ones against what Greedy Williams is doing, and appreciative of the decision Deandre Baker made.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The only part of your comments that I agree with are is the similarity of coaches who do the same.

      The point of my post…


      • Macallanlover

        And I am saying they are both wrong. I feel your position is the players should be allowed to have free access to leave without restriction (based on more than this one post), and justifying it by the coaches’ actions. One wrong doesn’t make the other right. I am for both being restricted/punished, which I think is a point of difference, and why I made my comment. Perhaps you do not feel there is any way to restrict the coaches making these decisions, and there may not be a legal way to stop them from leaving, but I feel the NCAA can impose sanctions for them leaving and limit them going to another NCAA job either with financial fines and/or a “timeout period”.


        • Mac, it doesn’t matter what my position is because it’s against the law to restrict coaches. The NCAA tried doing what you suggest and got creamed in court.

          Besides, why should they be stuck with something you nor I would agree to in our own lives?


          • Macallanlover

            Perhaps because I feel the universities/NCAA can institute their own policies of what type of individuals they want representing them and entrusting their students with. They currently punish coaches with a “timeout” clause for breaking their arbitrary rules for recruiting and code of conduct violations. Many, including you, feel they should not hire certain individuals for past actions (Briles, Freeze, etc.). I agree, and put this type action in with those. I don’t need the law to tell me what I should abhor, or tolerate, in my hiring decisions.

            This type of subjective evaluation happens all the time in the open job marketplace, and it can easily be written in such a way as to what character issues can be considered for employment. Being a strong example for young, impressionable students should look at many factors. I understand they should not involve the gender, race, religious factors, etc., of the applicant, but being dependable, honest, ethical, and putting the interests of those who fall under their sphere of influence before themselves are not unreasonable in the “things to be considered” area. They were for me, whether mandated by official policy, or not. I had the responsibility of thousands in my corporate career, and personal judgement had to be involved in hiring, termination, and promotion decisions. What my management team learned, or knew about that individual, from recent, and prior actions, played a role. This is probably getting far from the original points but taking responsibility without waiting for some law, policy, or judge’s ruling is where I am. And it isn’t that different from what you have proposed about certain individuals who violate your own personal ethics. Maybe we just need people of higher character on the university campuses to be involved, we can probably agree on that.


            • Just to be clear, Mac, an individual school could do it — remember, Bielema used contract clauses to limit his assistant coaches — and an individual conference could, too. It’s when you talk about the NCAA as a whole that you run into problems.


    • BTW, Mac, I don’t think the new leagues are going to chase high schoolers. But I do think eventually they’ll start chasing college players after their first and second seasons. You think college football will be better off with that, too?


      • Macallanlover

        I agree, they aren’t likely to chase HS players, at least initially. That could change as things evolve, who knows at this point? I personally think that restriction could be challenged in court and struck down anyway. How do they contend basketball players are that much different, especially when viewed as a group?

        No, I don’t think CFB, as an athletic product, will be better off if the raids come as they did in basketball with one-and-done situations prevalent. Again, none of us know how this venture will go, how it will be received, how successful they will be in preparing players for the NFL, and how that makes young athletes regard them as a viable alternative. If I were an investor in one of these teams, and it contributed to the success/survival of the league I might be willing to support these early participation options.

        I have always said a developmental league that took the “pros only talent” guys could help CFB in some ways in the long run. I would prefer a lesser level of athleticism and more stability in the athletes, more real student-athletes, than the 5 star athletes who have no interest in the education, nor the school. That product would still be good, and competitive. I hope this variation of the alternative league succeeds greatly, I could use some decent quality football in the “dead period”, and regional teams are a good way to go.


        • smgattorneyGaskilldawg

          The NFL’s rule against drafting or signing players before their third year after high school has been challenged in court and upheld. See, Clarett, Maurice.
          The difference with NBA players and NFL players age floors is the collective bargaining agreements each league negotiated with the respective paleyers’ associations.


          • Macallanlover

            Thanks for the point about how the collective bargaining agreements impact this. I don’t think the courts are above making changes/interpretations of previous decisions. Current judges often feel it is within their scope of power to actually “rewrite” existing laws based on some narrow point of difference emphasized by one attorney, or another in different cases. I fail to see how a BB player’s rights to earn a living is different from a football players’. I am not endorsing HS players going straight to the pros versus college, just questioning the logic, and predicting we see it change.


  7. TN Dawg

    In fairness to Gundy, I’d say he has been offered a dozen opportunities to jump ship from OK State, but has remained loyal to his commitments there.

    Liked by 1 person