[OutsiderFan]

2) Their supporting bowls isn't because the bowls have power over them, I don't think. My guess is the play is this: if you do on-campus playoff games, the political pressure to let students in at discounted prices and bands, etc., plus the lack of luxury suites, lessens opportunities for money-grubbing. At an NFL stadium or the Rose Bowl, they can charge of extremely large proportions prices and get away with it. The tradition of bowls serves as a convenient excuse in this instance. That's really too bad from a sporting and branding perspective, I think. In terms of branding for TV: you can tell the difference almost palpably in person or on the tube between an on-campus game and one in a (generally sterile) NFL stadium. It detracts from the experience. But then again I'm sure they've got an army of accountants and consultants on this thing.

Fair point on the stadiums.  The thing to keep in mind is that it is all about games on TV or any other screens.  The students won't get in for cheap because the games would be sanctioned by the NCAA, like the Pac-12 Championship ticket prices were way higher than the typical regular season games.  I don't think the minor bowls have much clout, but they all belong to the College Football Bowl Association, and that is a strong lobby.  If they didn't know how much they had to lose (and how much the NCAA members could gain) as a result of the bowls going away, there would be no need for all the lobbying and gamesmanship going on with the college football post season.  The bowls would never tell the NCAA out of the goodness of their hearts how much more money it could make by doing away with them.

[OutsiderFan]

2) Their supporting bowls isn't because the bowls have power over them, I don't think. My guess is the play is this: if you do on-campus playoff games, the political pressure to let students in at discounted prices and bands, etc., plus the lack of luxury suites, lessens opportunities for money-grubbing. At an NFL stadium or the Rose Bowl, they can charge of extremely large proportions prices and get away with it. The tradition of bowls serves as a convenient excuse in this instance. That's really too bad from a sporting and branding perspective, I think. In terms of branding for TV: you can tell the difference almost palpably in person or on the tube between an on-campus game and one in a (generally sterile) NFL stadium. It detracts from the experience. But then again I'm sure they've got an army of accountants and consultants on this thing.

Fair point on the stadiums.  The thing to keep in mind is that it is all about games on TV or any other screens.  The students won't get in for cheap because the games would be sanctioned by the NCAA, like the Pac-12 Championship ticket prices were way higher than the typical regular season games.  I don't think the minor bowls have much clout, but they all belong to the College Football Bowl Association, and that is a strong lobby.  If they didn't know how much they had to lose (and how much the NCAA members could gain) as a result of the bowls going away, there would be no need for all the lobbying and gamesmanship going on with the college football post season.  The bowls would never tell the NCAA out of the goodness of their hearts how much more money it could make by doing away with them.