Oso planning to go pro
Difference is playing in the Pro Bowl is worth a minimum $39K (and $67K if your team wins).Decent reward for a free trip and half-a--ing your way through a football game.
All games are exhibition games as amateurs...ban them all...the entire seasons. This must not stand
Dribble. I doubt you even know what you're blathering about there.
Exhibition games = no comp for college players.Regular season games = no comp for college players.Thus, all games the same conditions of payment exist. A player can be hurt in a bowl game or in a game against St Mary’s of the poor or Alabama....all exist.We should just not have them play in any games. Right? To use the logic here, why should MU players play against Grambling if some here say they shouldn’t play in a NIT game? Why should a football player play in a preseason game any more?
Unfortunately, half-arsing can lead to injury, just as "whole-arsing" can. I'm gonna date myself here, but I remember when the best safety in the NFL at the time, the Dolphins' Dick Anderson, blew out his knee in the Pro Bowl. (I was a big Dolphins fan back then.) He was never the same again.This article mentions that injury, and talks in general about the Pro Bowl. It's a half-arse game, but you can't play a football game without some violence. And violence leads to injury: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/fl-xpm-2010-01-26-fl-hyde-pro-bowl-0127-20100126-story.htmlDribble. I doubt you even know what you're blathering about there.
Unfortunately, half-arsing can lead to injury, just as "whole-arsing" can.
don't forget Robert Edwards who ripped up his knee and ended his NFL career at the Pro Bowl flag football game on the beach. He almost had his lower leg amputated from it.
I'm not arguing for or against the Pro Bowl (it's dumb and useless, IM0), just pointing out that there is financial incentive for participating, unlike in college bowl games.The fact that Dick Anderson (early 70s) and Robert Edwards (1999) are the only notable pro bowl injuries you guys can offer in the nearly 70 years of the event- and Edwards wasn't even in the game itself - illustrates exactly how infinitesimal the risk of serious injury is. I have no issue with any player who decided to skip the Pro Bowl to avoid that risk, but let's not pretend the Pro Bowl is as dangerous as a real NFL game.
More dribble.
Accept you know logically it is correct. Why are MU BBall players playing against Grambling in December but some of our fans here saying not worth risk to play against Canisius in the NIT? Only difference is the time of year it is played.
It's a silly hypothetical, but sure I'll play along because it's just so much fun dealing with an irritant who will argue for the sake of arguing about any subject.If a Marquette player is a pro prospect, and he decides to not play against Canisius -- or any other team -- in the NIT, I, for one, will not think lesser of him at all.Why should that same pro prospect play in regular-season games against Grambling or any other opponent? Because he needs to show NBA scouts what he can do. But if he already had demonstrated enough to clinch his financial well-being ... well, let's just say I have no problem with James Wiseman pulling the plug on his college experience. And had Zion decided not to return last season, even with an NCAA title on the line, I would have applauded his decision.Athletes have very finite careers. They are not earning a dime for playing college sports. They need to protect their main asset -- their athletic ability.
Yup, they need to protect those finite careers with the time they have....they should be load managing themselves apparently. I'm just pointing out the illogical consistency of your claim. I prefer they play in every game, but if you start picking and choosing which games to play in then you might as well not play in any of the games that are against lowly opponents. You think a NBA scout is going to care more about what they did against Grambling than what they did against Villanova? Of course not, so that argument of yours is ridiculous. Don't want to play in a bowl game...fine...then you shouldn't be playing against cupcakes in the beginning of the year either. Guess what the real difference is...POWER. At the beginning of the year the coach can sit your arse down if you don't want to play. At the end of the season they cannot. That's the difference.
Saturday, December, 28thCamping World Bowl : Iowa State vs. Notre Dame 11:00 am ABC Cotton Bowl : Memphis vs. Penn State 11:00 am ESPN CFP Semifinal - Peach Bowl : LSU vs. Oklahoma 3:00 pm ESPN CFP Semifinal - Fiesta Bowl : Clemson vs. Ohio State 7:00 pm ESPN
Finally, two bowl games I'll spend a few minutes watching!
Thanks for keep on pointing out what you watch.
Yeah, sorry. Just happy to have a couple games worth watching. I won't bother y'all again.
Hopefully, your minutes have stopped. What a performance by LSU. Oklahoma players still talking trash after nearly every play too....
Yup, they need to protect those finite careers with the time they have....they should be load managing themselves apparently. I'm just pointing out the illogical consistency of your claim. I prefer they play in every game, but if you start picking and choosing which games to play in then you might as well not play in any of the games that are against lowly opponents. You think a NBA scout is going to care more about what they did against Grambling than what they did against Villanova? Of course not, so that argument of yours is ridiculous. then you shouldn't be playing against cupcakes in the beginning of the year either.
Yeah, I'm at the point where I'm in another room, and I walk in to watch the replay every time I hear, "Touchdown, LSU!"I was glad Bama didn't make the playoffs, but they wouldn't have gone out like this, methinks.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/game?gameId=401032087
So, assuming Koby is healthy enough to play on Wednesday, was he wise to sit out today?