[lex24]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

[lex24]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

[cardcrimson]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

and Bryce Young is no Mac Jones. Watched a good bit of Young this year, and he's okay. IMHO, got the h e i s m a n this year because there was nobody else, and the "hey, Alabama hasn't had a QB win the award yet. . . ." philosophy.

[cardcrimson]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

and Bryce Young is no Mac Jones. Watched a good bit of Young this year, and he's okay. IMHO, got the h e i s m a n this year because there was nobody else, and the "hey, Alabama hasn't had a QB win the award yet. . . ." philosophy.

[teejers1]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

and Bryce Young is no Mac Jones. Watched a good bit of Young this year, and he's okay. IMHO, got the h e i s m a n this year because there was nobody else, and the "hey, Alabama hasn't had a QB win the award yet. . . ." philosophy.

Interesting.  I don't know about H.eisman voting, but my impression on Young is that he is going to be a good pro QB.

[teejers1]

Michigan can lose to Georgia, but I don't think most people appreciate how good Michigan is. And Harbaugh teams usually play very well in post season games, with great physicality. Michigan has two first round pick pass rushers. That alone makes them formidable. They have a rugged running game, with a home run hitter too.

Neither Georgia or Michigan has an overwhelming talent at QB. Georgia's defense put up great numbers in regular season, but sure got exposed against Alabama. Maybe they will bounce back, return to form and advance. Michigan just seems like a more balanced team to me, with a better head coach. We shall see.

Georgia stuffed the run all year. Bryce Young carved them up.  Cade McNamara is no Bryce Young.

and Bryce Young is no Mac Jones. Watched a good bit of Young this year, and he's okay. IMHO, got the h e i s m a n this year because there was nobody else, and the "hey, Alabama hasn't had a QB win the award yet. . . ." philosophy.

Interesting.  I don't know about H.eisman voting, but my impression on Young is that he is going to be a good pro QB.

[OutsiderFan]

Did any of you watch the Alamo Bowl between Oregon and Oklahoma? I had so little interest in it that I don't even know who won. I suspect Oklahoma would have won, but really don't care.

Part of it was Oregon getting slammed in two games against Utah confirmed they were the frauds they showed themselves to be by losing to Stanford, which made the game uninteresting. Part of if is just me being so tired of meaningless bowl games and the cancellations on top of it all this year. The Ohio State players pulling out of the Rose Bowl has made that game uninteresting to me too. I will not watch the Rose Bowl this year for the first time in decades. I don't even know who plays in the Sugar Bowl.

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.

Even 10 years ago I used to eagerly watch "Bowl Week" games. I haven't watched a single bowl game this year. I may end up watching one by chance, but not only are non-playoff bowl games not appointment viewing like they once were for me, they aren't even "accidental tourist" interesting now. All I care about watching are the playoff semi-finals on Friday.  

It's been a while since I have posted about this, but bowl games are a racket in terms of how they are structured and who gets paid from them.  They haven't proliferated because the people running them care about the kids. They have because the people who put them on make a lot of money by shaking down the schools playing in them as well as their fans. As much as I loathe the NCAA, it should take the FBS post season back for itself and run the D1 football playoffs like every other sport its members play.

[OutsiderFan]

Did any of you watch the Alamo Bowl between Oregon and Oklahoma? I had so little interest in it that I don't even know who won. I suspect Oklahoma would have won, but really don't care.

Part of it was Oregon getting slammed in two games against Utah confirmed they were the frauds they showed themselves to be by losing to Stanford, which made the game uninteresting. Part of if is just me being so tired of meaningless bowl games and the cancellations on top of it all this year. The Ohio State players pulling out of the Rose Bowl has made that game uninteresting to me too. I will not watch the Rose Bowl this year for the first time in decades. I don't even know who plays in the Sugar Bowl.

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.

Even 10 years ago I used to eagerly watch "Bowl Week" games. I haven't watched a single bowl game this year. I may end up watching one by chance, but not only are non-playoff bowl games not appointment viewing like they once were for me, they aren't even "accidental tourist" interesting now. All I care about watching are the playoff semi-finals on Friday.  

It's been a while since I have posted about this, but bowl games are a racket in terms of how they are structured and who gets paid from them.  They haven't proliferated because the people running them care about the kids. They have because the people who put them on make a lot of money by shaking down the schools playing in them as well as their fans. As much as I loathe the NCAA, it should take the FBS post season back for itself and run the D1 football playoffs like every other sport its members play.

[Phogge]

I decided to watch an old movie and picked Sayles' Lone Star. Still holds up. Another game played for the schools' fans and their excuse to travel and get hammered away from home. And also to fill up ESPN's boring schedule. Matthew M and Chris Cooper over Donald Duck and the boys in Technicolor unis any day.

[Phogge]

I decided to watch an old movie and picked Sayles' Lone Star. Still holds up. Another game played for the schools' fans and their excuse to travel and get hammered away from home. And also to fill up ESPN's boring schedule. Matthew M and Chris Cooper over Donald Duck and the boys in Technicolor unis any day.

[DC 86]

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.]

[DC 86]

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.]

[Phogge]

Hope I'm alive the day that ESPN crashes from a payola scandal that would make the old music scandal of the 50's like stealing an apple from Whole Foods.

[Phogge]

Hope I'm alive the day that ESPN crashes from a payola scandal that would make the old music scandal of the 50's like stealing an apple from Whole Foods.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[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.

[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.

[OutsiderFan]

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?

[OutsiderFan]

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?

[oman]

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.

At this point we need a system with promotion and relegation.  It would be wonderful, with all the games mattering.  (Who wouldn't be interested in watching Texas play USC to see who has to drop down a league?) Everyone could be completely transparent, with the most shameless and wealthy perennial top dwellers and schools less interested in playing that game enjoying their stay in the lower leagues. 

Before NIL and the transfer portal I thought this would be too much, but now, it would be a perfect solution to the current gnashing of teeth. 

The Bowl games could just be converted to pre, middle of the season or end of season games that were focused on traditional rivalries or bragging rights trophies between teams in the same division (Premier East v. Premier West).

[oman]

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.

At this point we need a system with promotion and relegation.  It would be wonderful, with all the games mattering.  (Who wouldn't be interested in watching Texas play USC to see who has to drop down a league?) Everyone could be completely transparent, with the most shameless and wealthy perennial top dwellers and schools less interested in playing that game enjoying their stay in the lower leagues. 

Before NIL and the transfer portal I thought this would be too much, but now, it would be a perfect solution to the current gnashing of teeth. 

The Bowl games could just be converted to pre, middle of the season or end of season games that were focused on traditional rivalries or bragging rights trophies between teams in the same division (Premier East v. Premier West).

[Goose]

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.

As I am sure you know, D1 football players get that "reward" because people will pay big money to see them play these games. The NIT exists for a similar reason. Not about players. As far as playing in the bowl game being a "reward", I think players are "socialized" into making a bowl game a reward. Playing in a lower-tier bowl is actually more of a pain in the ass than fun. Getting a bit of "swag" isn't actually worth the time and effort, and the players are realizing that more and more. Nobody will care that you got a ring from the "Who cares" bowl in 2021. However, being "bowl eligible" is a sign of competence. The extra practices make you a better team next year. These benefits are real, and the guys coming back next year know that. It is politic for the players to say they think this is all great, but the opt-outs are a trend. The number of teams that are physically present but that don't actually "show up" is also a trend.

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?

Nothing, as far as I am concerned. Actually, I kind of liked it when it was Rose Bowl or nothing. However, we aren't going back there as long as the other games make money.

[Goose]

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.

As I am sure you know, D1 football players get that "reward" because people will pay big money to see them play these games. The NIT exists for a similar reason. Not about players. As far as playing in the bowl game being a "reward", I think players are "socialized" into making a bowl game a reward. Playing in a lower-tier bowl is actually more of a pain in the ass than fun. Getting a bit of "swag" isn't actually worth the time and effort, and the players are realizing that more and more. Nobody will care that you got a ring from the "Who cares" bowl in 2021. However, being "bowl eligible" is a sign of competence. The extra practices make you a better team next year. These benefits are real, and the guys coming back next year know that. It is politic for the players to say they think this is all great, but the opt-outs are a trend. The number of teams that are physically present but that don't actually "show up" is also a trend.

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?

Nothing, as far as I am concerned. Actually, I kind of liked it when it was Rose Bowl or nothing. However, we aren't going back there as long as the other games make money.

[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.

[DC 86]

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.

On the first point you also proposed going back to only having bowl games (no playoff) with people arguing about the final polls that determine a champion. That was the basis for my reference to going back to the old system.

On the second point, that's inarguable, but that's a total of four games. There are still another 30+ games (in a normal non-Covid year) which is what we're talking about.

Also on the second point, now you are saying that "people will watch just about anything" but your initial post asserted that people weren't watching these games as the basis for eliminating the "meaningless" bowls, hence my response.

[DC 86]

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.

On the first point you also proposed going back to only having bowl games (no playoff) with people arguing about the final polls that determine a champion. That was the basis for my reference to going back to the old system.

On the second point, that's inarguable, but that's a total of four games. There are still another 30+ games (in a normal non-Covid year) which is what we're talking about.

Also on the second point, now you are saying that "people will watch just about anything" but your initial post asserted that people weren't watching these games as the basis for eliminating the "meaningless" bowls, hence my response.

[needle]

I only saw the first half of Oregon-Oklahoma, and the Ducks were destroyed.

Phogge, I watched Lone Star in my Chicano studies class at Stanford back in the day.

Very worthy choice, imo. Isn't there a scene with some football-obsessed woman talking about a recruit who runs a 3.7 forty?

[needle]

I only saw the first half of Oregon-Oklahoma, and the Ducks were destroyed.

Phogge, I watched Lone Star in my Chicano studies class at Stanford back in the day.

Very worthy choice, imo. Isn't there a scene with some football-obsessed woman talking about a recruit who runs a 3.7 forty?

[lex24]

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.

At this point we need a system with promotion and relegation.  It would be wonderful, with all the games mattering.  (Who wouldn't be interested in watching Texas play USC to see who has to drop down a league?) Everyone could be completely transparent, with the most shameless and wealthy perennial top dwellers and schools less interested in playing that game enjoying their stay in the lower leagues. 

Before NIL and the transfer portal I thought this would be too much, but now, it would be a perfect solution to the current gnashing of teeth. 

The Bowl games could just be converted to pre, middle of the season or end of season games that were focused on traditional rivalries or bragging rights trophies between teams in the same division (Premier East v. Premier West).

Perfect.  Stanford could hire Ted Lasso….. :)

[lex24]

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.

At this point we need a system with promotion and relegation.  It would be wonderful, with all the games mattering.  (Who wouldn't be interested in watching Texas play USC to see who has to drop down a league?) Everyone could be completely transparent, with the most shameless and wealthy perennial top dwellers and schools less interested in playing that game enjoying their stay in the lower leagues. 

Before NIL and the transfer portal I thought this would be too much, but now, it would be a perfect solution to the current gnashing of teeth. 

The Bowl games could just be converted to pre, middle of the season or end of season games that were focused on traditional rivalries or bragging rights trophies between teams in the same division (Premier East v. Premier West).

Perfect.  Stanford could hire Ted Lasso….. :)

[teejers1]

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.

Good post, Lex.  
What I don't understand is people who get bent out of shape because the "minor" bowls are even played.  It's no skin off those folks' back to ignore them, and the participants (and some of their fans) might, you know, enjoy the experience.  Obviously, someone thinks its worth televising.  So, good for them.

BTW, I watched only a bit of the beginning of Oregon-Oklahoma.  The Sooners winning no surprise, though I though Oregon moved the ball well early and could have scored more than they did.

Lone Star is a terrific flick (Chris Cooper WAY underappreciated as an actor).

Lastly, I wonder if Stanford regrets not playing in a bowl game in 2020 . . . for this reason.  Playing would have cut down the negative recruiting argument of "Stanford hasn't played in a bowl game since 2018" by a couple years.  It may not seem like much to us now, but Stanford already hasn't been a "bowl team" in their recruits' HS playing days.  If that drops to their "since they were in elementary school" . . . well, that can't be good.

[teejers1]

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.

Good post, Lex.  
What I don't understand is people who get bent out of shape because the "minor" bowls are even played.  It's no skin off those folks' back to ignore them, and the participants (and some of their fans) might, you know, enjoy the experience.  Obviously, someone thinks its worth televising.  So, good for them.

BTW, I watched only a bit of the beginning of Oregon-Oklahoma.  The Sooners winning no surprise, though I though Oregon moved the ball well early and could have scored more than they did.

Lone Star is a terrific flick (Chris Cooper WAY underappreciated as an actor).

Lastly, I wonder if Stanford regrets not playing in a bowl game in 2020 . . . for this reason.  Playing would have cut down the negative recruiting argument of "Stanford hasn't played in a bowl game since 2018" by a couple years.  It may not seem like much to us now, but Stanford already hasn't been a "bowl team" in their recruits' HS playing days.  If that drops to their "since they were in elementary school" . . . well, that can't be good.

[cardcrimson]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

[cardcrimson]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

[Farm93]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

That's rather pathetic.

The late cancellation was probably not a big deal for UCLA's fans as most of them were going to drive down for the game and go home that night.   NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side.

However, it is just another example of the real value of the bowl games.   For years now coaching staffs have been rather honest that the most important benefit of the bowl game has been the additional set of practices in December, so UCLA coaches got the primary benefit and didn't have to worry about bowl game injuries that could jeopardize spring ball or the 2022 season.   Win-win!

UCLA's decision, coupled with December coaching carousel and the players that opt out for NFL combine prep should provide ample evidence that these minor bowls are very useful program for ESPN, but have limited value for everyone else.

Create a playoff structure that includes every Power5 conference winner and a number of at-large invites that also gives every other FBS team 10 practices in December and I suspect that might get approved by most member institutions in the FBS.

[Farm93]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

That's rather pathetic.

The late cancellation was probably not a big deal for UCLA's fans as most of them were going to drive down for the game and go home that night.   NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side.

However, it is just another example of the real value of the bowl games.   For years now coaching staffs have been rather honest that the most important benefit of the bowl game has been the additional set of practices in December, so UCLA coaches got the primary benefit and didn't have to worry about bowl game injuries that could jeopardize spring ball or the 2022 season.   Win-win!

UCLA's decision, coupled with December coaching carousel and the players that opt out for NFL combine prep should provide ample evidence that these minor bowls are very useful program for ESPN, but have limited value for everyone else.

Create a playoff structure that includes every Power5 conference winner and a number of at-large invites that also gives every other FBS team 10 practices in December and I suspect that might get approved by most member institutions in the FBS.

[cardcrimson]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

That's rather pathetic.

The late cancellation was probably not a big deal for UCLA's fans as most of them were going to drive down for the game and go home that night.   NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side.

However, it is just another example of the real value of the bowl games.   For years now coaching staffs have been rather honest that the most important benefit of the bowl game has been the additional set of practices in December, so UCLA coaches got the primary benefit and didn't have to worry about bowl game injuries that could jeopardize spring ball or the 2022 season.   Win-win!

UCLA's decision, coupled with December coaching carousel and the players that opt out for NFL combine prep should provide ample evidence that these minor bowls are very useful program for ESPN, but have limited value for everyone else.

Create a playoff structure that includes every Power5 conference winner and a number of at-large invites that also gives every other FBS team 10 practices in December and I suspect that might get approved by most member institutions in the FBS.

This sentence, "NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side." somewhat contradicts the rest of your argument. It does mean something to people beyond ESPN. I'd imagine it meant a lot to those kids who were about to strap on their cleats for the last time, too. Not everybody is prepping for the combines . . . .

[cardcrimson]

UCLA looking worse and worse. Apparently, they cancelled because it would be unsafe for the players. Covid exposure? Nope, they were shorthanded and players might have to play out of position and could get hurt.

"Weenies" is spreading through the UC system. . . .

https://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo...ame/589531

That's rather pathetic.

The late cancellation was probably not a big deal for UCLA's fans as most of them were going to drive down for the game and go home that night.   NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side.

However, it is just another example of the real value of the bowl games.   For years now coaching staffs have been rather honest that the most important benefit of the bowl game has been the additional set of practices in December, so UCLA coaches got the primary benefit and didn't have to worry about bowl game injuries that could jeopardize spring ball or the 2022 season.   Win-win!

UCLA's decision, coupled with December coaching carousel and the players that opt out for NFL combine prep should provide ample evidence that these minor bowls are very useful program for ESPN, but have limited value for everyone else.

Create a playoff structure that includes every Power5 conference winner and a number of at-large invites that also gives every other FBS team 10 practices in December and I suspect that might get approved by most member institutions in the FBS.

This sentence, "NC State player families and alums had quite a lot more invested so they probably would have played if the situation happened on their side." somewhat contradicts the rest of your argument. It does mean something to people beyond ESPN. I'd imagine it meant a lot to those kids who were about to strap on their cleats for the last time, too. Not everybody is prepping for the combines . . . .