Yiu really don’t get it do you? You can’t compare the two. A top ten pick isn’t going to play in a bowl based on some “man code”. Plus, don patterson is playing a game of point vs counterpoint in a radio show where the audience has a bunch if diehards. What do you think his editorial is going to be? Fant missing ine completely meaningless bowl game for millions in the nfl is a no brainer and the only ones that can make that call are those in the same boat. Not the weekend warrior types you are referring to
Kirk Ferentz, Iowa Players Support Noah Fant’s Decision
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
Exactly, I and others have said this, let him run his routes from the edge or split out some, he should be good on jump balls.
What do you mean I dont get it? My post says right in it that I get top 10 guys get way more money. You act like every single top 10 guy skips bowl games.
As much as I don't like it, I completely understand Fant's decision. There is a lot of money at stake. How about a compromise? If a player chooses not to play in the bowl game, when they get their first NFL paycheck, they should make a donation to the University's general scholarship fund in an amount equal to his last year's scholarship... basically a refund of the scholarship the player chose not to honor.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Dumb
Why dumb? Completely voluntary. Alumni make donations to their alma mater all the time. NFL players shouldn't support their former schools financially?
The following is too long, don't read it. I just wanted to get some of my thoughts organized and out of my head so I can start focusing on other things.
I haven't really commented at all on this conversation because I feel it is much more nuanced than a discussion board could ever do justice to. However, something has been bothering me about this decision and I haven't quite been able to figure out how to articulate it. I think I might finally have it straightened out in my head, and I will try to explain myself below in 3 points.
My first point is that I think we are taking a flawed view of risk. @RobHowe brought up the case of Jaylon Smith, and how he lost about $30 million in guaranteed money on his first contract. However, he had an insurance policy for $9 million had he never been able to play at all. If someone like Ben Niemann last year, or Keegan Render or Ross Reynolds this year, gets hurt, no NFL team will take a chance on them with so many other options out there (the Drew Ott and Jake Duzey scenarios pretty much prove this). They do not have the current status to take out such a policy. So if Niemann gets hurt in the bowl game last year, he loses this year's $500,000 salary, as well as future years.
If Fant is projected 1st round, let's assume he could get a $5 million policy. Who is risking more, someone with a guaranteed $5 million but with a potential for $10-20 million, or someone with nothing guaranteed who could possibly earn a million or more (Niemann's likely NFL salary) if everything breaks right? From an absolute sense Fant is obviously risking more, but there is a much bigger functional difference between $0 and $1.5 million than between $5 million and $20 million.
Or what about someone with no draft status at all, such as a Dalton Ferguson? If he gets McKenzie Miltoned and suffers long-term disability without any insurance fallback, is not that a risk? But such an injury is incredibly unlikely you say. So is a bowl-game injury which affects draft status.
My second point relates to something @PCHawk brought up: if the Bowl game is too much of a risk, why play in the last few games? Fant had over 100 yards receiving at Indiana, probably his best game of the year. Why not pack it in there (NFL teams had seen what he had to offer) and protect himself? Many will argue there are 2 obvious reasons why he did not, but I think they are both flawed.
My third and final point is that there is a difference between the smart choice and the inspiring choice. The smart choice is to look at what you personally stand to lose, and to make the choice that puts your personal interests first. The right to make such a choice is absolutely fundamental and should never be taken away. But some don't prioritize what they stand to lose, instead they think about what they can do for others. If not for such people, we would not have firefighters, military personnel, etc.. To keep it within the realm of sports (none of these guys is sacrificing to the degree of a military service-person), it is why CJ Beathard insisted on playing in the 2nd half of a bowl game with dwindling prospects; he was putting himself at risk, but he wanted to give everything he had for the team.
Or think about it this way. Fant decides to skip the bowl game, and his teammates are cool with it. He sounds like a great young man, I am sure he is a great friend, they all understand and they wish the best for him. But what if he had instead told them, "I don't care about the risk, I love playing with you SOBs so much, there is no way I am going to miss my last chance to do so." Would his teammates have said, "I don't think that is smart, you need to reconsider." Not a chance. They would have said, "Hell yeah! I am going to ride or die with this MFer, let's go kick some SEC ass!"
To sum up this long, rambling mess, Fant's decision is logical and well within his rights. We can look back fondly on his Hawkeye career (or perhaps frustratingly as we think about potential misuse this season and think what might have been), and thank him for being part of the program. But what he is risking is not necessarily greater than what his teammates risk. While some may argue he had nothing to gain from playing in the bowl, that argument leads to a slippery slope of why compete at all once you are bankable. This not only flies in the face of all we believe about team sports, but it has a logical conclusion of the demise of college football. And while his choice may have been the smart one (i.e. "the Ruddock checkdown"), it was not the inspiring one (i.e "the CJ Beathard devil-may-care bomb"). If everyone only made decisions based upon their own personal interests, the concept of team would cease to exist.
This piece needs a good editor, the 2nd and 3rd points are inter-related, and I am sure this could be cut down substantially. But I have wasted enough time, need to get to work.
I haven't really commented at all on this conversation because I feel it is much more nuanced than a discussion board could ever do justice to. However, something has been bothering me about this decision and I haven't quite been able to figure out how to articulate it. I think I might finally have it straightened out in my head, and I will try to explain myself below in 3 points.
My first point is that I think we are taking a flawed view of risk. @RobHowe brought up the case of Jaylon Smith, and how he lost about $30 million in guaranteed money on his first contract. However, he had an insurance policy for $9 million had he never been able to play at all. If someone like Ben Niemann last year, or Keegan Render or Ross Reynolds this year, gets hurt, no NFL team will take a chance on them with so many other options out there (the Drew Ott and Jake Duzey scenarios pretty much prove this). They do not have the current status to take out such a policy. So if Niemann gets hurt in the bowl game last year, he loses this year's $500,000 salary, as well as future years.
If Fant is projected 1st round, let's assume he could get a $5 million policy. Who is risking more, someone with a guaranteed $5 million but with a potential for $10-20 million, or someone with nothing guaranteed who could possibly earn a million or more (Niemann's likely NFL salary) if everything breaks right? From an absolute sense Fant is obviously risking more, but there is a much bigger functional difference between $0 and $1.5 million than between $5 million and $20 million.
Or what about someone with no draft status at all, such as a Dalton Ferguson? If he gets McKenzie Miltoned and suffers long-term disability without any insurance fallback, is not that a risk? But such an injury is incredibly unlikely you say. So is a bowl-game injury which affects draft status.
My second point relates to something @PCHawk brought up: if the Bowl game is too much of a risk, why play in the last few games? Fant had over 100 yards receiving at Indiana, probably his best game of the year. Why not pack it in there (NFL teams had seen what he had to offer) and protect himself? Many will argue there are 2 obvious reasons why he did not, but I think they are both flawed.
- The first argument will be that the Hawks still had something to play for at that point. But that argument is implying that the only thing meaningful about sports is winning championships, and hence everyone not winning championships is just wasting their time. That is an incredibly depressing view of sports, and not at all consistent with my experiences. I have been on teams that had lots of success and been on teams that struggled greatly. I got a ton from each experience.
- The second argument would be that bailing in the middle of the season would be held against a player because it would be seen as quitting on your team. But you cannot make that argument without also saying bailing on the bowl game is quitting on your team, it is just a difference of degrees (he is only quitting on the team 1/7th as much as if he had stopped after Indiana)
My third and final point is that there is a difference between the smart choice and the inspiring choice. The smart choice is to look at what you personally stand to lose, and to make the choice that puts your personal interests first. The right to make such a choice is absolutely fundamental and should never be taken away. But some don't prioritize what they stand to lose, instead they think about what they can do for others. If not for such people, we would not have firefighters, military personnel, etc.. To keep it within the realm of sports (none of these guys is sacrificing to the degree of a military service-person), it is why CJ Beathard insisted on playing in the 2nd half of a bowl game with dwindling prospects; he was putting himself at risk, but he wanted to give everything he had for the team.
Or think about it this way. Fant decides to skip the bowl game, and his teammates are cool with it. He sounds like a great young man, I am sure he is a great friend, they all understand and they wish the best for him. But what if he had instead told them, "I don't care about the risk, I love playing with you SOBs so much, there is no way I am going to miss my last chance to do so." Would his teammates have said, "I don't think that is smart, you need to reconsider." Not a chance. They would have said, "Hell yeah! I am going to ride or die with this MFer, let's go kick some SEC ass!"
To sum up this long, rambling mess, Fant's decision is logical and well within his rights. We can look back fondly on his Hawkeye career (or perhaps frustratingly as we think about potential misuse this season and think what might have been), and thank him for being part of the program. But what he is risking is not necessarily greater than what his teammates risk. While some may argue he had nothing to gain from playing in the bowl, that argument leads to a slippery slope of why compete at all once you are bankable. This not only flies in the face of all we believe about team sports, but it has a logical conclusion of the demise of college football. And while his choice may have been the smart one (i.e. "the Ruddock checkdown"), it was not the inspiring one (i.e "the CJ Beathard devil-may-care bomb"). If everyone only made decisions based upon their own personal interests, the concept of team would cease to exist.
This piece needs a good editor, the 2nd and 3rd points are inter-related, and I am sure this could be cut down substantially. But I have wasted enough time, need to get to work.
Well put. You articulate what I cannot.
so dumb
Why?
I don't understand why many on this board think it's "dumb" that some of us have an instinct of uneasiness about someone not finishing a commitment to a team. I conceded that I understand Fant's decision, but it makes me uncomfortable. I was taught that if you make a commitment, you see it through. In this case, Fant (or any other player in his position) made a commitment to play for Iowa this season in exchange for a scholarship (it's really a contract). The season's not over.
Nice job. Very good point on a guy like Ott actually having "more" to lose than a guy like Fant. Also true that while his teammates understand and support his decision, they would be way more supportive of him staying.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I saw the scholarship for my buddy's daughter who played soccer at a Big Ten school. It was definitely a contract. The sad thing is, a lot of schools treat it as an annual option contract. Crean did it in hoops. A lot of SEC schools that aren't putting 5+ underclassmen a year into the draft mysteriously always have about 25 spots a year with only 85 scholarships. To me, that's the bigger issue than paying kids. I get the schools not being able to pay kids due to the financial implications when the payment requirement spills over to women's sports due to Title IX compliance, but I really dislike the constant churn of guys who are high recruits who don't pan out or develop. Iowa is not one of those programs, but there are a lot of them. Doerring is a good example. The guy was a high recruit, got mono as a freshman and just never really blossomed, but he got his education. Had he committed to Auburn or LSU and come down with mono, there's a really good chance he wouldn't have been able to stick around. So to me, yeah, you don't get paid cash, but you should absolutely get an education and the school's scholarship should essentially be an insured scholarship that they honor.
Again, Iowa is NOT one of those programs, but I don't think a guy like Fant should have any obligation to pay the school back. All that will happen is guys in that position will claim to have a "nagging injury" and use that as an excuse to avoid the bowl game. Involuntary servitude is illegal and you can't force them to play. On the financial side, there are far more worthy charitable institutions out there than schools. Even if I had hit the $1.6 billion PowerBall, I wouldn't have given Iowa a nickel. Those organizations have insane amounts of money and now enrich a litany of presidents, provosts, deans, directors, coaches, etc. who have very little real world experience but who have created insane institutional bloat for their own personal benefit. Fant made that school plenty of money. Kid has paid his dues for the scholarship.
Chose not to honor? Are you serious?? Lol!! Schools all over the country pull scholarships annually so there are no 4 yr guarantees. Go ask the minor sports like baseball and many others about that where it is most definitely yr to yr. You do realize iowa doesn’t lose the scholarship...right? They simply sign someone else!
I'm not talking about 4 year scholarships or suggesting that Fant should have to play for 4 years. Where did you get that idea. I understand that the scholarships are year to year. I'm talking about the scholarship for this season. This season is not over. Of course Iowa will sign someone else NEXT YEAR! I'm just saying that to honor the commitment under the scholarship/contract for this year, wait until after the football season is over to leave the program. At that point you've fulfilled your obligation under the annual scholarship. What a world we live in where the mere suggestion that someone should fulfill a commitment, let alone a contractual obligation, is ridiculed as "dumb", LOLed, or dismissed off hand.
And I would say the say thing about the coaches. A coach that leaves the program before the bowl game to take another job is not a coach I would want my kid to play for. You can't lead very well by example if you set a poor example. If that costs the coach an opportunity for his dream job, so be it. Doing the right thing hurts sometimes, but it's still the right thing.
Ree4
Well-Known Member
What about all of the examples where players didn't get injured and lose money, have any increased their draft stock by having a good bowl game (this probably can't be measured). Seems like a very small percentage of players that have had issues, granted they are huge.
I perfectly understand the decision and I think Fant's combine numbers will be more impactful for his draft status (they are so rare) than his on-field play would be, which is where this is the right decision for him.
Ree4
Well-Known Member
Perfect.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Yeah, memories are important, which is why a guy nearing the NFL might not want to put his melon on the line in a meaningless exhibition game. You look at the guys who have retired from concussions and know that you are signing up to make a living catching footballs over the middle of the defense, it's probably wise to save those concussions for your pro career.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
But, to the point made--very well, I might add--by CP87, why not just stop playing the second your team is eliminated from winning the division/league? If it was so crucial, why didn't NF just stop after the NW loss?
CTE is not related to # of concussions; it is most strongly related to # of total years playing tackle football. So yes, each game adds risk, but adding years is what really adds risk.
People keep throwing out "meaningless" as if it is a fact. If it is meaningless, why are Hockenson, Render, and Reynolds all playing this year (they all have NFL careers to risk)? Why did Niemann, Wadley, Jewel, Jackson, and Daniels play last year?
I can't find an official list, but I think around 5 draft-eligible players sat out bowls last year for purposes of risk mitigation. That leaves several hundred who did not (I think only Josh Rosen sat out among the top 10). Did they all think it was meaningless?
Is it meaningless to Kirk Ferentz? Is his bowl record part of his legacy?
Is it meaningless to the program? Would 9-4 with a win over a solid SEC team carry more recruiting clout than 8-5 with a disappointing loss?
Is it meaningless to fans? How many have their moods irrationally wrecked by the outcome of a bowl game?
Is the CFP the only thing that has any meaning at this point? If that is the case, why don't entire teams forfeit the remainder of their schedule once they are eliminated from contending?
