Players skipping bowl game

[Dwight Schrute]

I think that takes away from the argument you've presented, which I agree with. There's an enormous difference to fans, as well as to the program secondary to wins and the implications from a nicer bowl should they win ($$$$). Also to Stoops and company with career implications and again with money.

But to Josh Allen? Any enormous difference would be purely subjective. The money doesn't change if he sat out of the UL game as well, if that's the most important factor here.

With that said, I'll be very surprised if any of our players sit out this opportunity against Penn State .

I can't speak to what Josh Allen might be thinking, though. Just saying that a regular season (rivalry) game is actually meaningful in the grand scheme of things, whereas a bowl game is just a cherry on top.

That said, the Citrus Bowl is a pretty nice cherry, and it's a New Year's day game. But Josh Allen has made his money and if he makes the calculation that playing in this game can only hurt him and expose him to risk of injury, I understand the calculation.

That said, I agree these guys all seem like they love the program and want to play in the bowl game on this stage.

[Westtncat]

Because there's an enormous difference in a bowl game versus a regular season rivalry game.

When it comes to losing 30 million dollars (thats the argument) what is the difference?

[Dwight Schrute]

When it comes to losing 30 million dollars (thats the argument) what is the difference?

Well, it'll be a month closer to the NFL combine for one. But I don't think the argument is merely risking $30 million - it's losing $30 million for a meaningless game. The Citrus Bowl is pretty prestigious but at the end 9-4 or 10-3 doesn't mean much.

Tim Couch made his money and his name in the regular season, by the time the Outback Bowl came around he was pretty well assured of being the #1 pick.

[Catsrock]

At least you and I can respectfully disagree, unlike some that post on WCN (I'm not necessarily talking about the fb forums either). I can see both sides of the coin. As one who has been a dedicated fan since 1954, I want the Cats to win every game they play. I know we have a much better chance if Josh and Benny play. Therefore, part of me wants them to play. On the other hand, as I previously stated, if they choose not to, I can understand that as well. As far as what they should do, I think they should play. They are receiving benefits to play fb for UK and until they quit, graduate or leave early for the NFL, they are a part of the team and the bowl game is part of the team's schedule for this season. Someone mentioned insurance. I don't know how you determine the amount of money a Josh Allen could earn from a pro career when he's never played a down in the NFL. Also, I would imagine the premium would be a hefty sum. Can someone, in his life, afford it? To me, it's not cut and dried.

Hey I'll always respect your opinions Matt. You've given me no reason not to. Actually very few on WCN have given me reason to actually not respect their opinion. And it's not like I don't understand a player's motivation to sit out. I just don't get what makes a single bowl game so much more dangerous than the 12 they have played this year. Or at least the last 6 games once they've solidified their draft position. But again, with Josh, maybe the discussion is moot--maybe he plans to play anyway.

[Catsrock]

Because there's an enormous difference in a bowl game versus a regular season rivalry game.

Then make the argument about the Middle Tennessee game rather than the UL game. Is that one also more important than a New Year's Day bowl?

[JFCats22]

When it comes to losing 30 million dollars (thats the argument) what is the difference?

Because (like it or not, right or wrong) it's become accepted and somewhat of the norm for these premier, top 10 guys who have nothing to gain/prove, to skip bowl games that aren't in the playoffs. Skipping regular season games (at least so far) is not accepted like it is for the bowl games.

[Catsrock]

Because (like it or not, right or wrong) it's become accepted and somewhat of the norm for these premier, top 10 guys who have nothing to gain/prove, to skip bowl games that aren't in the playoffs. Skipping regular season games (at least so far) is not accepted like it is for the bowl games.

Well give it time I suppose. Because the argument or reasoning is no different whatsoever. But you're not wrong.

[Matt Dillon]

Hey I'll always respect your opinions Matt. You've given me no reason not to. Actually very few on WCN have given me reason to actually not respect their opinion. And it's not like I don't understand a player's motivation to sit out. I just don't get what makes a single bowl game so much more dangerous than the 12 they have played this year. Or at least the last 6 games once they've solidified their draft position. But again, with Josh, maybe the discussion is moot--maybe he plans to play anyway.

I don't have a clue what Josh and Benny are thinking. They may be planning on playing. I hope they do, but would not be down on them if they don't. The bowl game probably isn't any more dangerous than any of the other 12 but the more you do something the more chance there is that something will happen.

[Dwight Schrute]

Then make the argument about the Middle Tennessee game rather than the UL game. Is that one also more important than a New Year's Day bowl?

Yeah, it is. I understand the ramifications of playing in a New Year's Day bowl game for a program like ours, but regular season games > non-playoff bowl games.

[Pobilly]

Any which way it plays out is fine. I hope what ever 11 guys we put on offense execute to the best of their abilities and that equals a bunch of points. I hope that the 11 we put out there on defense does the same and shuts down the the Penn St Offense.

[Brasslock]

Beating Penn State means something to me. I'm not sure I would risk a million, much less multiple millions, to play. Then again, there are post season all-star games that invite players so they can be scouted and raise their value in the draft. If I was going to play in a game I would probably choose Penn State rather than participating in one of these post season events. Benny is going to play cause that's what he does .... plays football. The only factors I might consider is a lingering injury issue. I'm not sure I would want to reinjure or make it worse. Then again, it's the last game I would get to play with my brothers.

[Catsrock]

Yeah, it is. I understand the ramifications of playing in a New Year's Day bowl game for a program like ours, but regular season games > non-playoff bowl games.

OK. We'll just disagree on that point. To me the only thing big about beating MTSU is it gets you to a better bowl game. And prevents some embarrassment.

After the bowl we'll be 10-3 or 9-4 not 9-3 plus went to Orlando.

[Lighthouse]

I think you would feel very different if your child or grandchild had $30+ million riding on it.

I hope he plays, I love Allen. One of my favorites to ever play at UK. I would simply not blame him a bit though if he decided not to risk it.

No I wouldn't, and I want him to play. But I will blame him if he doesn't. I guess I'm dumb too, but I think there's a rule on WCN about calling posters names.

[Lighthouse]

I think that takes away from the argument you've presented, which I agree with. There's an enormous difference to fans, as well as to the program secondary to wins and the implications from a nicer bowl should they win ($$$$). Also to Stoops and company with career implications and again with money.

But to Josh Allen? Any enormous difference would be purely subjective. The money doesn't change if he sat out of the UL game as well, if that's the most important factor here.

With that said, I'll be very surprised if any of our players sit out this opportunity against Penn State .

Well said Matt!

[JFCats22]

No I wouldn't, and I want him to play. But I will blame him if he doesn't. I guess I'm dumb too, but I think there's a rule on WCN about calling posters names.

You should be able to easily differentiate between calling a person dumb (which I did not do) and saying that a statement is dumb. But, since it's me no surprise that you ignore the very clear difference.