I agree to an extent...but players these days are working on their "craft" year around anyway (or they should be). But there are definetly certain players who benefit a lot from more exposures in practice that they might not have had all fall.
Do bowl games matter anymore?
- Thread starter Cy4All
- Start date
I agree to an extent...but players these days are working on their "craft" year around anyway (or they should be). But there are definetly certain players who benefit a lot from more exposures in practice that they might not have had all fall.
The reported "payout per team" isn't actually what that team gets, though. It all goes into one pot, and the conference provides X amount to each bowl team to cover expenses based on a formula and level of bowl game.
Everything left over gets divided up among all the league teams and is part of the annual disbursement to each school.
Eligible but didn't automatically get you one until more games were available.
ISU won 6 games three times in the 80s and didn't make a bowl game and that's often referred to as an awful time for ISU football.
Somewhere in there Iowa was 6-6 in the 2000s and didn't make one.
In 1995 Arizona, Arizona St., Baylor, TCU. Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Ole Miss all won 6 or more games and did not get a bowl game.
I'm not advocating for getting rid of the the Pro Bowl but I'll never watch another one.
Bowl games have lost some of the luster for numerous reason but the opting out by players (which I don't disagree with) really affects my interest and whether I'd travel to watch one. I can fly to warm locations in the winter and find plenty to do and not take some of that time to attend an exhibition.
When everybody on the team who played during the season played in the bowl. Stats count. The win or loss counts. Determines final ranking. They aren't exhibitions. The BCS, then the playoffs, and the trend for top players opting out has made them pretty meaningless though. They meant a lot more when 4 or 5 bowl games might have national title implications. They created too many bowls. Now they have a playoff on top of it. Just scrap them.
BCS Bowls (now known as NY6 bowls) used to mean something. When the BCS was only 1 v 2, those other BCS bowls meant a lot to the schools and players playing in them. And I bet the Sugar Bowl means the world to K-State
About 10-15 of them matter from an overall college football fan perspective.
I looked at the bowl lineup yesterday and I might watch the Baylor game, but otherwise the first bowl games I am excited to see is on Wed Dec 28 with Duke v UCF. KU v Arkansas, Oregon v UNC & Tech v Ole Miss.
The Wisky v Okie State game on Dec 27 would normally have been a fun game. But with new coach, Mertz transferring and Okie State floundering at the end of the season that game has lost some luster.
For the most part, Bowl games are for the fans of that school and gives them a vacation opportunity or football fix over the Holidays.
I looked at the bowl lineup yesterday and I might watch the Baylor game, but otherwise the first bowl games I am excited to see is on Wed Dec 28 with Duke v UCF. KU v Arkansas, Oregon v UNC & Tech v Ole Miss.
The Wisky v Okie State game on Dec 27 would normally have been a fun game. But with new coach, Mertz transferring and Okie State floundering at the end of the season that game has lost some luster.
For the most part, Bowl games are for the fans of that school and gives them a vacation opportunity or football fix over the Holidays.
They do, they are only downplayed bc the other conferences have proven they can beat SEC teams. The sec and their bought and paid for media mouthpieces are the ones who created this narrative. Crazy fans of big 12 teams buy into it bc espn says so.
Since we didn't make one this year, no, bowl games are stupid. Now, ask me again how I feel if we win 6+ next season.
I don't think all the 6-6 teams getting in made the games matter less though. The bar didn't really change.
There was a collective mindset shift that's kind of hard to pin down that did it.
It didn't necessarily make the games matter less, but the bar effectively got lowered when the schedules went from 11 games to 12, the qualifying mark stayed at 6 wins, and games against I-AA/FCS gradually became countable (first countable once every X years, then countable every year).
I don't get the argument that bowl games don't, or no longer, matter. They almost always seem to turn a profit and teams rarely turn down an opportunity to play in them. That means they must matter on some level to fans, players, coaches, programs, athletic departments, conferences, networks and host cities. Otherwise none of them would watch, prepare for, use the profits from, televise or host the games.
How is arguing that bowl games should be reduced because they don't matter any different than arguing that games between teams that have been eliminated from the CFP should be cancelled because they don't matter? Or maybe we should cancel games between teams that have been eliminated from their conference or division title races? What about G5 or Division II or III games, it's not like any of them are going to make the CFP outside of a few edge cases. What's the point? Why do we even need to play football? What's the point in determining if School A has better football players that School B? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? Well, nothing, really.
How is arguing that bowl games should be reduced because they don't matter any different than arguing that games between teams that have been eliminated from the CFP should be cancelled because they don't matter? Or maybe we should cancel games between teams that have been eliminated from their conference or division title races? What about G5 or Division II or III games, it's not like any of them are going to make the CFP outside of a few edge cases. What's the point? Why do we even need to play football? What's the point in determining if School A has better football players that School B? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? Well, nothing, really.
NO, at least not like they used to.
Bowl games are not worthwhile for any purpose other than maybe the practices and the possibility of a vacation to see the game. Attendance is generally small at the games (notice that the network covering the games rarely shows a long view of the stadium). I do not plan to watch any bowl games this year, but I do look forward to the extended CFP.
Bowl games are not worthwhile for any purpose other than maybe the practices and the possibility of a vacation to see the game. Attendance is generally small at the games (notice that the network covering the games rarely shows a long view of the stadium). I do not plan to watch any bowl games this year, but I do look forward to the extended CFP.
My question is how does Vegas handle all the uncertainty of players sitting out/transferring when making the odds?
When I originally posted this I was more thinking in the sense of do they matter in respect to a teams season as a whole. I get the money machine, tourist destination, television content matter to them. I was more thinking about the importance to the teams season. It used to be the reward for winning all those games throughout the season was the bowl game. But now with players opting out or transferring out and coaches getting fired or taking new jobs before the bowl game it's like they don't care about the reward. So the team that plays in the bowl game is completely different from the team who earned that spot in the bowl game in the first place.
