This was an interesting question raised on Mike and Mike this morning in regard to Jadeveon Clowney, but it could also apply to Teddy.

The basis and the assumption behind the question was that Clowney is an automatic top three (and probably number one) pick in the upcoming draft if he was permitted to come out this year. However, by rule, he cannot declare for the draft as he is not three years out of high school.

Greeny was saying that in the future, it is conceivable that a player of this caliber might decide not to play a third year of college, but instead sign with an agent and spend a year getting ready for the NFL. His point was that the player gains nothing by playing a third year in college, as he can't possibly improve his draft stock, and risks injury by taking the field as a college athlete and playing for nothing. Instead, the player could take a year away, not risk injury, sign with an agent, and train with elite NFL style trainers to be ready for his rookie year.

Personally, I see his point. Golic (as I think he is contractually obligated to) disagreed, saying that "football players play football", which I get but was hardly a nuanced position. Thus, what do you say? Is a guy like Clowney smart to play a third year when he likely can't benefit from the year on the field? You could extend this to Teddy as well, although his assured draft stock is probably not as solid as Clowney's.

That is a good point.

As soon as somebody acts on it, a rule change will come.

There was already a rebuttle to this last night.  Some general manager or someone important (cant remember the name) said teams will look at this as a huge negative to take a year off.  Not competitive, scared, not a team player and several other factors.  I'm not sure if this would work in a players favor.  Players wont play hurt quite as often maybe.

BigRedJ8680 wrote: This was an interesting question raised on Mike and Mike this morning in regard to Jadeveon Clowney, but it could also apply to Teddy.

The basis and the assumption behind the question was that Clowney is an automatic top three (and probably number one) pick in the upcoming draft if he was permitted to come out this year. However, by rule, he cannot declare for the draft as he is not three years out of high school.

Greeny was saying that in the future, it is conceivable that a player of this caliber might decide not to play a third year of college, but instead sign with an agent and spend a year getting ready for the NFL. His point was that the player gains nothing by playing a third year in college, as he can't possibly improve his draft stock, and risks injury by taking the field as a college athlete and playing for nothing. Instead, the player could take a year away, not risk injury, sign with an agent, and train with elite NFL style trainers to be ready for his rookie year.

Personally, I see his point. Golic (as I think he is contractually obligated to) disagreed, saying that "football players play football", which I get but was hardly a nuanced position. Thus, what do you say? Is a guy like Clowney smart to play a third year when he likely can't benefit from the year on the field? You could extend this to Teddy as well, although his assured draft stock is probably not as solid as Clowney's.

The pro game seriously wends its way further into galaxies of independent constellations - players - gracing us with their magnificent presences. We so lucky they decide to crap on the college that developed them to be as good as they became.

Nothing selfish there.

I'm not sure how an argument can be made that the kid would not be "a team player". None of the guys in the NFL play for free, but a good many of them are considered team players even though they draw a paycheck in return for their services. What would be different with a kid who decided that he wants to do the same thing, takes a year to prepare himself to be in the best possible shape to be part of the NFL, and hits the ground running on day one at NFL camp? Wouldn't that be the best possible scenario for an NFL team? What claim does a college team have to this kid, other than they gave him a scholarship to attend college? Not everyone wants to attend four years of college. The school, in Clowney and Teddy's case, certainly made more from their being in the program than they would have otherwise.

Maybe an argument could be made that a player is over concerned about his health if he skipped his third year, but at the same time, these kids often need the money to take care of their family and their own future. It's not a choice based on courage or on the field willingness to risk yourself, but a choice based on economics and probabilities. Think of a guy like Marcus Lattimore. He was a sure fire first round draft choice until he tore up both knees. Now he will at best be a fifth rounder, if he is drafted at all. Think of our very own Michael Bush. His draft status changed tremendously due to injury. Both of those probably lost money by playing a third year in college, money they can likely never recoup in total.

I think we will see somebody do this very soon. Personally, I wouldn't blame them. The schools certainly look out for themselves, I wouldn't look down on a player for doing the same thing.

mdreyer wrote: There was already a rebuttle to this last night.  Some general manager or someone important (cant remember the name) said teams will look at this as a huge negative to take a year off.  Not competitive, scared, not a team player and several other factors.  I'm not sure if this would work in a players favor.  Players wont play hurt quite as often maybe.

BigRedJ8680 wrote: This was an interesting question raised on Mike and Mike this morning in regard to Jadeveon Clowney, but it could also apply to Teddy.

The basis and the assumption behind the question was that Clowney is an automatic top three (and probably number one) pick in the upcoming draft if he was permitted to come out this year. However, by rule, he cannot declare for the draft as he is not three years out of high school.

Greeny was saying that in the future, it is conceivable that a player of this caliber might decide not to play a third year of college, but instead sign with an agent and spend a year getting ready for the NFL. His point was that the player gains nothing by playing a third year in college, as he can't possibly improve his draft stock, and risks injury by taking the field as a college athlete and playing for nothing. Instead, the player could take a year away, not risk injury, sign with an agent, and train with elite NFL style trainers to be ready for his rookie year.

Personally, I see his point. Golic (as I think he is contractually obligated to) disagreed, saying that "football players play football", which I get but was hardly a nuanced position. Thus, what do you say? Is a guy like Clowney smart to play a third year when he likely can't benefit from the year on the field? You could extend this to Teddy as well, although his assured draft stock is probably not as solid as Clowney's.

Won't happen.

I mean, conceivably college hoops players would be far better off going to Europe, learning the game, making some scratch and developing in a more pressing and complete league for eventual drafting. Jeremy Tyler tried it and the Warriors actually still sort of like his upside right now.

Yes, colleges help develop players, but they also make a ton of money from these players. That is why they do it. After all, what is all of the conference realignment stuff about anyway? Money. Money that the players don't see. There are nearly as many posts on this board anymore about GORs, tier three television rights, network scheduling and bowl alignments as there are about actual football. Is it wrong to expect that a player will move to protect his interests, as there is no doubt that schools are doing this all the time with little interest in the player?

The relationship is symbiotic between school and player, but at present the colleges are taking much more away from it than the top level athletes are.

senore2006 wrote: The pro game seriously wends its way further into galaxies of independent constellations - players - gracing us with their magnificent presences. We so lucky they decide to crap on the college that developed them to be as good as they became.

Nothing selfish there.

BigRedJ8680 wrote: Yes, colleges help develop players, but they also make a ton of money from these players. That is why they do it. After all, what is all of the conference realignment stuff about anyway? Money. Money that the players don't see. There are nearly as many posts on this board anymore about GORs, tier three television rights, network scheduling and bowl alignments as there are about actual football. Is it wrong to expect that a player will move to protect his interests, as there is no doubt that schools are doing this all the time with little interest in the player?

The relationship is symbiotic between school and player, but at present the colleges are taking much more away from it than the top level athletes are.

senore2006 wrote: The pro game seriously wends its way further into galaxies of independent constellations - players - gracing us with their magnificent presences. We so lucky they decide to crap on the college that developed them to be as good as they became.

Nothing selfish there.

Oh hell, colleges are making BANK off free players, no doubt. But they invest huge money - the best ones - in facilities and coaching staffs, scouting, recruiting, pom poms and all the rest - so as to surround the players with the best possible routes to their futures. Bear in mind the always-overlooked college degrees which get awarded players who matriculate.

Devolving into selfishness rewards players for protecting themselves like precious investments. Turns out, they are just other humans like you and me - that must suck realizing that later. Without risk, little reward.

All a great player has to do is take out an insurance policy on themselves.  If they get hurt they get money.  It costs I am sure but nothing for a sure fire top 3 pick in the draft.

Kids dont play for free.  An education is worth much more than given credit.  Plus they get free coaching, free workouts and other things like being fed for free.  I hope they never go to a system where the players are paid any more than they already are paid.

BigRedJ8680 wrote: Yes, colleges help develop players, but they also make a ton of money from these players. That is why they do it. After all, what is all of the conference realignment stuff about anyway? Money. Money that the players don't see. There are nearly as many posts on this board anymore about GORs, tier three television rights, network scheduling and bowl alignments as there are about actual football. Is it wrong to expect that a player will move to protect his interests, as there is no doubt that schools are doing this all the time with little interest in the player?

The relationship is symbiotic between school and player, but at present the colleges are taking much more away from it than the top level athletes are.

senore2006 wrote: The pro game seriously wends its way further into galaxies of independent constellations - players - gracing us with their magnificent presences. We so lucky they decide to crap on the college that developed them to be as good as they became.

Nothing selfish there.

Don't most players in this situation insure against injury?

I agree that the player would be selfish to leave early, but not necessarily in the derogatory sense of the word. The argument sort of comes down to how much responsibility does the player have toward the school and vice versa? Personally, I believe that if a guy like Teddy gives you the two years he just gave us, you can't blame him if he has to make a move to protect himself and his family. The decision he makes about himself and his future has the ability to potentially change the way he and his family live for generations. I have never had to make such a decision in my life, but if I ever had to make a choice between the long term financial well being of my family and that of some institution for whom I worked, it would not be hard to choose my family first.

As you say, not many kids will probably take this road. However, I would understand if they did.

senore2006 wrote:

BigRedJ8680 wrote: Yes, colleges help develop players, but they also make a ton of money from these players. That is why they do it. After all, what is all of the conference realignment stuff about anyway? Money. Money that the players don't see. There are nearly as many posts on this board anymore about GORs, tier three television rights, network scheduling and bowl alignments as there are about actual football. Is it wrong to expect that a player will move to protect his interests, as there is no doubt that schools are doing this all the time with little interest in the player?

The relationship is symbiotic between school and player, but at present the colleges are taking much more away from it than the top level athletes are.

senore2006 wrote: The pro game seriously wends its way further into galaxies of independent constellations - players - gracing us with their magnificent presences. We so lucky they decide to crap on the college that developed them to be as good as they became.

Nothing selfish there.

Oh hell, colleges are making BANK off free players, no doubt. But they invest huge money - the best ones - in facilities and coaching staffs, scouting, recruiting, pom poms and all the rest - so as to surround the players with the best possible routes to their futures. Bear in mind the always-overlooked college degrees which get awarded players who matriculate.

Devolving into selfishness rewards players for protecting themselves like precious investments. Turns out, they are just other humans like you and me - that must suck realizing that later. Without risk, little reward.

Yes, many do. However, I am not familiar with many who are able to insure to the level that they would be paid if drafted and able to sign a rookie contract. To my understanding, the difference could be millions of dollars. Over the course of a career in the NFL, the difference for a top QB could be hundreds of millions.

DemonSpawn wrote: Don't most players in this situation insure against injury?

BigRedJ8680 wrote: I agree that the player would be selfish to leave early, but not necessarily in the derogatory sense of the word. The argument sort of comes down to how much responsibility does the player have toward the school and vice versa? Personally, I believe that if a guy like Teddy gives you the two years he just gave us, you can't blame him if he has to make a move to protect himself and his family. The decision he makes about himself and his future has the ability to potentially change the way he and his family live for generations. I have never had to make such a decision in my life, but if I ever had to make a choice between the long term financial well being of my family and that of some institution for whom I worked, it would not be hard to choose my family first.

As you say, not many kids will probably take this road. However, I would understand if they did.

 

It depends on how much pressure there is on a kid to help his family. What if the family is managing quite fine?

Then maybe you have an Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning situation, where the kid has the luxury to stay a third or even a fourth year, if it suits them. It sort of illustrates my general point, which is that the choice should remain with the athlete to do what is best for himself in his particular situation.

senore2006 wrote:

BigRedJ8680 wrote: I agree that the player would be selfish to leave early, but not necessarily in the derogatory sense of the word. The argument sort of comes down to how much responsibility does the player have toward the school and vice versa? Personally, I believe that if a guy like Teddy gives you the two years he just gave us, you can't blame him if he has to make a move to protect himself and his family. The decision he makes about himself and his future has the ability to potentially change the way he and his family live for generations. I have never had to make such a decision in my life, but if I ever had to make a choice between the long term financial well being of my family and that of some institution for whom I worked, it would not be hard to choose my family first.

As you say, not many kids will probably take this road. However, I would understand if they did.

 

It depends on how much pressure there is on a kid to help his family. What if the family is managing quite fine?

The last thing I want to do is to subsidize pure corruption. Players at the college level also exist in poverty - those who don't drive free SUV's from boosters. Extreme poverty, actually. I could see paying them as a plus - nothing huge - 4-5K a year, $400/month, maybe. Hell, maybe a bit more, but not enough to separate them from their peers.

I believe there are paths to get around college in most sports except football. The set up is too tight and rigid and there are virtually no alternatives for players. And the NCAA - or the colleges - definitely prefer it that way.

Taking a year away from competition just doesn't seem smart, developmentally. After all, you only get 12-13 games a year.

I am not really sure why any big time athlete that has a chance at a pro career would want to play in college. They should set up a club system like they have in Europe for soccer and basketball, where the best kids can go pro at the age of 14 or whenever they are ready, and then move up in levels as they develop.

The whole amateurism thing (in college, and now in high school too) has become a huge sham. And it really hurts me to say this because I love college sports, but the system is just outdated in our time. It's about shoe contracts, twitter followers, posses, runners, and eventual contracts. It's not about school pride, education, scholar athletes, etc, etc.

Slice it how you want but for me, a player plays...

DonPitinoistheMan wrote: I am not really sure why any big time athlete that has a chance at a pro career would want to play in college. They should set up a club system like they have in Europe for soccer and basketball, where the best kids can go pro at the age of 14 or whenever they are ready, and then move up in levels as they develop.

The whole amateurism thing (in college, and now in high school too) has become a huge sham. And it really hurts me to say this because I love college sports, but the system is just outdated in our time. It's about shoe contracts, twitter followers, posses, runners, and eventual contracts. It's not about school pride, education, scholar athletes, etc, etc.

Don, those exact same corruptions of the amateur spirit is exactly why it won't change. It is such a complex weave of interlocking interests, all predicated on Titanic Money. The investments alone - ESPN is a $40 Billion company - insure moral failure.

This entire argument that Mike and Mike were making is, purely, based on the position that the only thing of importance to the player would be going to the NFL.  While it is, obvious, that playing on the next level and making a huge salary is a high priority for any college player, some players such as Bridgewater are in a unique position to become a legend at the college level.  There is no way of knowing what matters most to Bridgewater without him stating it.  When Bridgewater got here I'm sure his goal was to become a more complete player, win games, play in big games, and to move on to the NFL.  Bridglewater, however, has been so successful in his first two years that it is conceivable he could break every record for his position at this university.  Personally, I would love to see Bridgewater make his mark here and leave this school as the best this school has ever known.  

Quite frankly, after watching him come in and orchestrate a win over our in-state rival in his first game with significant playing time his freshmen year, then to go on to be the first quarterback to lead our team to a win in Morgantown, and, finally, his leading our team to a share of the Big East title as a freshman was nothing short of remarkable.  Then he follows his freshmen year up by leading UofL to it's best start in school history.  Next, with a fractured wrist and a bum ankle he leads our team back from a two touchdown deficit on the road, against a team that is playing for a BCS bid, to clinch the schools second BCS bid.  In the schools second BCS bid and first Sugar Bowl, he helped to lead Louisville to the biggest upset in BCS bowl history.  Bridgewater has all the makings to be a legend here at UofL and I hope like hell becoming a legend here is as important to him as it is to me.  I want Bridgewater to own every record we have and see his jersey hanging in the stadium.

Buying insurance helps protect against an injury, but that's not the only way a player can lose by returning.

What if a player is projected as the number one pick, then comes back for his junior year and simply plays terribly? He could fall to the third round. Insurance doesn't cover something like that.