[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16303.msg183451#msg183451 date=1482443327]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16303.msg183437#msg183437 date=1482438845]
I saw an interesting quote from Nick Saban who suggested that the decisions not to play in bowl games (Fournette, McCaffrey, and others) were directly related to the college football playoff.  I didn't get to watch the entire segment, but I could see the logic.  Players with an NFL future will obviously continue to play for their team in the playoffs, but for regular old bowl games the desire to play will be balanced against the risk of injury, etc.  The more the playoffs are emphasized, the more bowl games will be de-emphasized and the decision to play or not will be much like college all star games, balancing an opportunity to impress scouts against the risk of injury and a chance to devote full time to preparing for the draft.

Unexpected consequences.

BC

It's all the more reason to expand the playoffs and kill the bowl system.  If that means doing away with conference championship games, hallelujah!

I know I've been on record wanting no more than an 8-team playoff, but if Stanford eked in as a #16 seed this year, and say they played #1 Alabama, I highly doubt McCaffrey would be skipping that game.

Nick Saban is a wise man who's words should be heeded.
[/quote]

Except it's probably not true. What's the difference between the BCS and the playoff in terms of the desire for a kid to play in the Sun Bowl? Or, for that matter, the pre-BCS system. It's not like 3-loss Stanford would ever have been in contention for a national title.

I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking, and that if there is correlation, it's of the "drownings rise when ice cream sales go up" kind. No one drowns in ice cream, and these guys aren't starting to skip these games because of the playoff.
[/quote]

This is a reasonable argument, and my gut feeling is that it may be correct.  But I do disagree that there is a difference between the BCS and current playoffs in terms of prestige for the also-ran bowls, and definitely the pre-BCS system.  Now, to be fair, there are other factors at play, including the proliferation of bowls such that we are now routinely seeing 5-7 teams becoming bowl eligible because of the exhaustion of 6-6 teams.  However, I do think that as the system for devising a national champion has changed, the prestige of the other bowls has as well.  In the pre-BCS era, there was no pre-determined bowl that had implications for the national championship.  The Rose Bowl might be important for the National Championship one year, if a Big Ten or Pac-10 team were one of the top couple teams in the country, and it might not otherwise.  Plus, because of the possibilities of upsets, more than two bowl games were relevant unless the #1 and #2 teams happened to be playing.  Once the BCS system came into play, that disappeared, but still, the non-championship BCS bowls nonetheless could feature very good to great teams.  As the playoffs expand, now to 4 and later to 8 and maybe eventually to 16 teams, the games that do not feature playoff participants are necessarily relegated to also-ran status, becoming the equivalent of the NIT or lower tournaments.  I've often said that as the playoffs expand, the prestige of non-playoff bowls will diminish.

All that being said, I don't think this entered into C-Mac's heuristic, other than "we are not playing for a national championship or a Rose Bowl championship".  But I have a hard time believing that the players today are taking the Sun Bowl less seriously than the 2001 players took the Seattle Bowl just because there is a playoff now and there wasn't then.

Things change, priorities change, and their relative importance changes.  Sucks for us that we don't get to see C-Mac one last time.