Discussion:
Why do they continue to play bowl games?
(too old to reply)
JE Corbett
2023-12-05 18:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Bowl games are a relic of the past. They began as post season exhibitions.
Until the mid 1960s, they had no bearing on the national championship.
When #1 Texas played #2 Navy in the 1964 Cotton Bowl, it had no bearing on the
mythical national championship. That had already been decided. The AP
started taking their final poll after the bowl games in 1965 but the UPI(coaches
poll) didn't follow suit until 9 years later. Because of conference/bowl game
matchups, it was rare to have #1 play #2 in a bowl game and when it did it
was purely by happenstance. The national championship was still determined at the ballot box.

In the late 1980s, the Bowl Alliance was formed to get the highest ranked
teams to play each other within the framework of the bowl contracts with
the various conferences. The Big 10 and Pac 10 were not part of the BA.
When conference/bowl contracts ran out, the Bowl Coalition was formed to
ensure the two highest ranked teams in the coalition would play each other,
but the Big 10 and Pac 10 were still not part of it. That not happen until 1998
with the formation of the BCS which selected two teams to play in a national
championship game. In 2014, a four team playoff was created.

One would think that with the expansion of the playoff, there would be less
importance in bowl games. It used to be an accomplishment for a team to
be selected to play in any bowl game. Now, there are so many you can get in
one with a losing record. The bowl system rewards mediocrity. Players don't
even care about them as evidenced by opt outs by the best players on the
teams. Many of the coaches have also moved on to other teams or been
fired. I know the sole reason for the survival of bowl system is money.
Sponsors think it is good business to sponsor games which are played in
half filled stadiums by mediocre teams with pitiful TV ratings. It amazes me
that most of these bowls can make money for anybody. The bowl system
has become the NIT of college football. Nobody watches most of them.
Nobody cares.

I'm sure some people are thinking, if you don't like them, don't watch. I don't.
I only watch the 3 CFP games. Next year that will expand to 11. I wouldn't
care one bit if every non-playoff bowl game disappeared. In fact I wish they
would. Keeping the bowl system postpones the playoff. The 12 team playoff
is scheduled to begin the third weekend of December with the final being the
third Monday of January. I would like to see that moved up a week. That
would create even less interest in the minor (crappy) bowl games which is
probably why they aren't doing it. Those meaningless bowl games are
apparently still bringing in money to the participating programs and college
football is all about the money, nothing else.
The NOTBCS Guy
2023-12-05 19:57:42 UTC
Permalink
1. Because ESPN has nothing better to show on afternoons in December.

2. Because of the extra practice that the teams in the bowls are allowed.

3. Because somebody is still under the impression, if not delusion, that a team's fans are interested in any bowl game that team is in, even if it is the Whothehellcares.com Lose Money Bowl.

4. The sponsors probably don't mind, either - otherwise they wouldn't put up the money for the naming rights.

There should be a new policy: any bowl game whose TV rating is less than the lowest of the four NCAA soccer semi-finals shouldn't have its licensing renewed. (You can't compare it to the finals, as there are quite a few people who will watch just the championship game.)

If you ask me, what they should do is, allow each team not in the playoff to play an additional game against a nonconference FBS opponent, either at a neutral "bowl" site or at one of the team's home fields. That way, everybody gets the same amount of additional practice. Right now, the NCAA is just punishing teams with losing records.
JE Corbett
2023-12-05 21:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The NOTBCS Guy
1. Because ESPN has nothing better to show on afternoons in December.
2. Because of the extra practice that the teams in the bowls are allowed.
3. Because somebody is still under the impression, if not delusion, that a team's fans are interested in any bowl game that team is in, even if it is the Whothehellcares.com Lose Money Bowl.
4. The sponsors probably don't mind, either - otherwise they wouldn't put up the money for the naming rights.
There should be a new policy: any bowl game whose TV rating is less than the lowest of the four NCAA soccer semi-finals shouldn't have its licensing renewed. (You can't compare it to the finals, as there are quite a few people who will watch just the championship game.)
If you ask me, what they should do is, allow each team not in the playoff to play an additional game against a nonconference FBS opponent, either at a neutral "bowl" site or at one of the team's home fields. That way, everybody gets the same amount of additional practice. Right now, the NCAA is just punishing teams with losing records.
In absence of complete elimination of all non-playoff bowl games, this makes sense. Make post season games participation
trophies. Everybody gets one. Play the games the week of the Army/Navy game (which I still watch because it matters). Nobody is going to pay attention to them anyway. Also give programs the right to opt out of these games if they choose. I'd
bet that if the players voted, most of them would vote that way. If there are an odd number of teams that opt in, eliminate one
by luck of the draw. Who wants to go to the trouble of rating the 80 worst teams in the country.
JGibson
2023-12-05 22:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by The NOTBCS Guy
1. Because ESPN has nothing better to show on afternoons in December.
2. Because of the extra practice that the teams in the bowls are allowed.
3. Because somebody is still under the impression, if not delusion, that a team's fans are interested in any bowl game that team is in, even if it is the Whothehellcares.com Lose Money Bowl.
4. The sponsors probably don't mind, either - otherwise they wouldn't put up the money for the naming rights.
There should be a new policy: any bowl game whose TV rating is less than the lowest of the four NCAA soccer semi-finals shouldn't have its licensing renewed. (You can't compare it to the finals, as there are quite a few people who will watch just the championship game.)
If you ask me, what they should do is, allow each team not in the playoff to play an additional game against a nonconference FBS opponent, either at a neutral "bowl" site or at one of the team's home fields. That way, everybody gets the same amount of additional practice. Right now, the NCAA is just punishing teams with losing records.
In absence of complete elimination of all non-playoff bowl games, this makes sense. Make post season games participation
trophies. Everybody gets one. Play the games the week of the Army/Navy game (which I still watch because it matters). Nobody is going to pay attention to them anyway. Also give programs the right to opt out of these games if they choose. I'd
bet that if the players voted, most of them would vote that way. If there are an odd number of teams that opt in, eliminate one
by luck of the draw. Who wants to go to the trouble of rating the 80 worst teams in the country.
Actually, I don't think any of them have to accept the bowl bid.
The NOTBCS Guy
2023-12-06 13:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JGibson
Actually, I don't think any of them have to accept the bowl bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least some conferences mandate that they do accept.
Besides, with the bowl game comes those extra days of practice, and I am assuming that in most cases, schools in bowl games make money from them.
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 15:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The NOTBCS Guy
Post by JGibson
Actually, I don't think any of them have to accept the bowl bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least some conferences mandate that they do accept.
Besides, with the bowl game comes those extra days of practice, and I am assuming that in most cases, schools in bowl games make money from them.
I don't know how other conferences work but the revenue from a bowl game, minus expenses, is shared equally among all
the schools in the conference. I would bet that with the minor bowls, the participating schools are barely breaking even if
not losing money. It costs about the same to send a team to a minor bowl as it does for a New Years 6 bowl game.

Coaches definitely like the extra practice time. A bowl game is a transition game. It's as much the first game of the next
season as it is the last game of the current season, especially if there are a lot of departing players opting out. In some
cases, there are interim coaches because the head coach took another job or even been fired. Depending on the bowl, the
players are going to have different levels of enthusiasm. I wonder what the enthusiasm level will be for the Orange Bowl
teams after they got snubbed by the CFP.
The NOTBCS Guy
2023-12-06 16:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by The NOTBCS Guy
Post by JGibson
Actually, I don't think any of them have to accept the bowl bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least some conferences mandate that they do accept.
Besides, with the bowl game comes those extra days of practice, and I am assuming that in most cases, schools in bowl games make money from them.
I don't know how other conferences work but the revenue from a bowl game, minus expenses, is shared equally among all
the schools in the conference. I would bet that with the minor bowls, the participating schools are barely breaking even if
not losing money. It costs about the same to send a team to a minor bowl as it does for a New Years 6 bowl game.
Which could explain any conference demands that its teams play in any bowl games to which they are invited.
Post by JE Corbett
Coaches definitely like the extra practice time. A bowl game is a transition game. It's as much the first game of the next
season as it is the last game of the current season, especially if there are a lot of departing players opting out. In some
cases, there are interim coaches because the head coach took another job or even been fired. Depending on the bowl, the
players are going to have different levels of enthusiasm. I wonder what the enthusiasm level will be for the Orange Bowl
teams after they got snubbed by the CFP.
My first response to this thread was going to be, "Since it is a de facto game for the returning players, how hard would it be to leave out the seniors?" - then I realized you are asking each team to play with only something like 75 players, only 60 or so of which are on scholarship (and let's not forget about the players now in the transfer portal; practicing with them for "next season" is more than meaningless - it's tipping them off as to what the team will be doing next season).
Loading...