[lex24]

College football can't have it both ways. It can't have a playoff that takes all the oxygen out of the room, and then play a string of meaningless exhibition games becoming seemingly less relevant each year, and expect the market to be anything but indifferent to them. College football leaders should expand the playoff and do away with the exhibition bowl games to keep interest in the sport in December or get rid of the playoffs and go back to the old system of bowl games being another game on the schedule and arguing about who the best teams are.

Except that your narrative (and your individual experience) doesn't square with reality. The market is far from indifferent.

Independence Bowl (UAB/BYU): 3.22 million viewers, most since 2015.
Gasparilla Bowl (Florida/UCF): 3.2 million viewers, despite going up against an NFL game.
Celebration Bowl (NCA&T/Alcorn): 1.8 million viewers, up 43% from 2019 (wasn't held in 2020).
Armed Forces Bowl (Army/Missouri): 2.6 million viewers, up 48% from 2019 (up 14% from 2020). For context, the Warriors/Knicks national prime time game in which Stephen Curry broke the all-time 3-point record drew 2.25 million viewers.

Ratings are only available for the first 12 bowl games thus far, which are the least attractive ones. 9 of the 12 games have ratings increases vs the previous edition, with several posting the highest viewership in years, despite the overall trend of sports ratings going down due to cord cutting and market saturation, and despite players opting out and coaches leaving.

The LA Bowl (brand new and featuring a decidedly non-marquee matchup between Oregon State and Utah State) drew a healthy 2.9 million viewers.

People are watching these games and they are making plenty of money for ESPN/ABC. Nobody wants to go to the old system, this one is doing fine.

[Just to clarify: I don't mean that literally nobody is lobbying for the old system since that seems to be your preference - based on a data point of one that there is diminished interest in the preliminary bowls. But the people that run the sport are delighted with a system whereby almost 3 million people tune in to watch Oregon State play Utah State.]

I've made clear I want an expanded playoffs and bowl games to die a slow death.  

But on the point people are watching.... The country is football-obsessed obviously and will watch just about anything, but if those games were quarterfinal playoff games as opposed to exhibition bowl games with lousy teams playing, the numbers would be way, way larger.

So, 12 play the rest are done.  I’m not sure that’s the answer.  Pairing down the number to perhaps 48 teams, would mean 36 teams play in “meaningless” bowl games.  18 games.  Not a bad number.  

But I guess I’d like your definition of “meaningless.”  Take the Armed Forces Bowl.  (Understandably an extreme example). It has no “ meaning” towards the championship, or even the polls.  But I suspect it means a heck of a lot to the Cadets. Further, by what I believe (perhaps mistakenly) is your definition all bowl games have been “ meaningless “ unless it impacted the crowning of a mythical NC.

To me the question is what do the players want.  Bowl games are a reward.  Becoming “bowl eligible” matters to a whole lot of programs out there that will never challenge for a National  Championship. Teams do (and should) have the option of saying “no.”  As Stanford did in 2020.

If the players don’t want to play the game, that’s there choice.  There are a few, of course, opting out to prepare for the NFL.  Completely understandable.  

I root for Iowa for family reasons.  I GUARANTEE you that Bowl games matter to Iowa fans.  Just check out how many Iowa fans go to the game.  I use that as an example,  But I think that is true for a lot of programs and their fans out there.

I don’t want College Football to be about 20 teams or so that have a  chance to get in a 12 team format. With the rest playing a regular season with no possibility of some sort of chance to play in a bowl game.  That would make the regular season “ meaningless “ for the vast majority of teams.

Why should D1 football players get "rewards" athletes playing other sports don't get? I mean every other NCAA sport and level, if you don't make the tournament, your season is over. You don't get to play exhibition games against other teams, go to amusement parks, have karaoke contests, and take home swag.

FCS had I believe 24 teams qualify for playoffs this year. The regular season was played to determine who those 24 would be. Your season was over if you weren't one of them. What's wrong with that?

I don’t think College Football should be all about a National Championship series.  Further, they won’t go beyond 12 teams. Which essentially means you have about 20 teams a year playing “meaningful” games. And the vast majority of programs will never compete for one of those 12 spots. So I suppose you can just cut football programs out for most schools.

[lex24]

College football can't have it both ways. It can't have a playoff that takes all the oxygen out of the room, and then play a string of meaningless exhibition games becoming seemingly less relevant each year, and expect the market to be anything but indifferent to them. College football leaders should expand the playoff and do away with the exhibition bowl games to keep interest in the sport in December or get rid of the playoffs and go back to the old system of bowl games being another game on the schedule and arguing about who the best teams are.

Except that your narrative (and your individual experience) doesn't square with reality. The market is far from indifferent.

Independence Bowl (UAB/BYU): 3.22 million viewers, most since 2015.
Gasparilla Bowl (Florida/UCF): 3.2 million viewers, despite going up against an NFL game.
Celebration Bowl (NCA&T/Alcorn): 1.8 million viewers, up 43% from 2019 (wasn't held in 2020).
Armed Forces Bowl (Army/Missouri): 2.6 million viewers, up 48% from 2019 (up 14% from 2020). For context, the Warriors/Knicks national prime time game in which Stephen Curry broke the all-time 3-point record drew 2.25 million viewers.

Ratings are only available for the first 12 bowl games thus far, which are the least attractive ones. 9 of the 12 games have ratings increases vs the previous edition, with several posting the highest viewership in years, despite the overall trend of sports ratings going down due to cord cutting and market saturation, and despite players opting out and coaches leaving.

The LA Bowl (brand new and featuring a decidedly non-marquee matchup between Oregon State and Utah State) drew a healthy 2.9 million viewers.

People are watching these games and they are making plenty of money for ESPN/ABC. Nobody wants to go to the old system, this one is doing fine.

[Just to clarify: I don't mean that literally nobody is lobbying for the old system since that seems to be your preference - based on a data point of one that there is diminished interest in the preliminary bowls. But the people that run the sport are delighted with a system whereby almost 3 million people tune in to watch Oregon State play Utah State.]

I've made clear I want an expanded playoffs and bowl games to die a slow death.  

But on the point people are watching.... The country is football-obsessed obviously and will watch just about anything, but if those games were quarterfinal playoff games as opposed to exhibition bowl games with lousy teams playing, the numbers would be way, way larger.

So, 12 play the rest are done.  I’m not sure that’s the answer.  Pairing down the number to perhaps 48 teams, would mean 36 teams play in “meaningless” bowl games.  18 games.  Not a bad number.  

But I guess I’d like your definition of “meaningless.”  Take the Armed Forces Bowl.  (Understandably an extreme example). It has no “ meaning” towards the championship, or even the polls.  But I suspect it means a heck of a lot to the Cadets. Further, by what I believe (perhaps mistakenly) is your definition all bowl games have been “ meaningless “ unless it impacted the crowning of a mythical NC.

To me the question is what do the players want.  Bowl games are a reward.  Becoming “bowl eligible” matters to a whole lot of programs out there that will never challenge for a National  Championship. Teams do (and should) have the option of saying “no.”  As Stanford did in 2020.

If the players don’t want to play the game, that’s there choice.  There are a few, of course, opting out to prepare for the NFL.  Completely understandable.  

I root for Iowa for family reasons.  I GUARANTEE you that Bowl games matter to Iowa fans.  Just check out how many Iowa fans go to the game.  I use that as an example,  But I think that is true for a lot of programs and their fans out there.

I don’t want College Football to be about 20 teams or so that have a  chance to get in a 12 team format. With the rest playing a regular season with no possibility of some sort of chance to play in a bowl game.  That would make the regular season “ meaningless “ for the vast majority of teams.

Why should D1 football players get "rewards" athletes playing other sports don't get? I mean every other NCAA sport and level, if you don't make the tournament, your season is over. You don't get to play exhibition games against other teams, go to amusement parks, have karaoke contests, and take home swag.

FCS had I believe 24 teams qualify for playoffs this year. The regular season was played to determine who those 24 would be. Your season was over if you weren't one of them. What's wrong with that?

I don’t think College Football should be all about a National Championship series.  Further, they won’t go beyond 12 teams. Which essentially means you have about 20 teams a year playing “meaningful” games. And the vast majority of programs will never compete for one of those 12 spots. So I suppose you can just cut football programs out for most schools.