[Goose]

But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the past, that was probably true. Today, many of the players aren't willing to play. They are either going to transfer or hoping for an NFL career. They are not willing to risk injury for a game that is meaningless. If, on top of that, their current school is going to lose money on the deal there is no way these players will play. It is hard to blame them. This means the team going to the bowl game is not the team that earned the right to be there. IMO the fans won't like that one bit. It is a "bait and switch" operation. Part of the new world that will undoubtedly see the demise of almost all "lesser" bowls.

[Goose]

But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the past, that was probably true. Today, many of the players aren't willing to play. They are either going to transfer or hoping for an NFL career. They are not willing to risk injury for a game that is meaningless. If, on top of that, their current school is going to lose money on the deal there is no way these players will play. It is hard to blame them. This means the team going to the bowl game is not the team that earned the right to be there. IMO the fans won't like that one bit. It is a "bait and switch" operation. Part of the new world that will undoubtedly see the demise of almost all "lesser" bowls.

[82lsju]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

I would add the changes in transfer rules and the transfer portal as additional factors in who may or may not want to play in a bowl game.

[82lsju]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

I would add the changes in transfer rules and the transfer portal as additional factors in who may or may not want to play in a bowl game.

[Papa John]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

I would add the changes in transfer rules and the transfer portal as additional factors in who may or may not want to play in a bowl game.

All good comments, IMO. In the case of Kansas State--my hapless hometown team when I was growing up--their head coach retired and their incoming coach is still Texas A&M's offensive coordinator, which means that he is busy trying to prepare aTm for the CFP and secure his KSU staff for the 2026 season. I'm biased of course, but I think in that situation it's understandable why the Wildcats decided that trying to field and coach a team in a nonconsequential bowl game would be a net negative.

[Papa John]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

I would add the changes in transfer rules and the transfer portal as additional factors in who may or may not want to play in a bowl game.

All good comments, IMO. In the case of Kansas State--my hapless hometown team when I was growing up--their head coach retired and their incoming coach is still Texas A&M's offensive coordinator, which means that he is busy trying to prepare aTm for the CFP and secure his KSU staff for the 2026 season. I'm biased of course, but I think in that situation it's understandable why the Wildcats decided that trying to field and coach a team in a nonconsequential bowl game would be a net negative.

[PVTree]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

Now that the players are being paid like pros, I'm all for their contacts having enforceable transfer penalties. You leave because you got offered, $2M more than what you were getting, you'll need to reimburse some of the $ the original school invested in you. 

You don't want to play in a bowl game? Fine, it'll cost you for refusing to play all games as stated in your contact (of course, players will begin to fake injuries as to not be fined by their school).

They have the benefits of being a pro, they need to have the responsibilities too.

[PVTree]

Someone online said that it costs about $750k to send a football team to a bowl game. If the conference distribution income doesn't cover that, and if there's a high likelihood that a program wouldn't be able to sell enough of their ticket purchase obligation, then there might be good reasons to not go to a bowl game.  But in the interests of getting guys more practice time and giving them the full season experience, I would say athletes and fans expect teams to participate in bowl games when invited.

In the last 5-10+ years or so, a number of high-profile players - including CMac, IIRC - opted out of participating in bowl games due to injury concerns.  Any thoughts on whether NILs and other changes in the FB financial landscape might affect that trend?

Now that the players are being paid like pros, I'm all for their contacts having enforceable transfer penalties. You leave because you got offered, $2M more than what you were getting, you'll need to reimburse some of the $ the original school invested in you. 

You don't want to play in a bowl game? Fine, it'll cost you for refusing to play all games as stated in your contact (of course, players will begin to fake injuries as to not be fined by their school).

They have the benefits of being a pro, they need to have the responsibilities too.

[Mick]

Good insight from the WSJ (and a touch of snark):

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/notr..._permalink

It’s college football. If it didn’t make people mad, it would be pizza.

That being said, if you are going to make someone mad, it might as well be the Domers (or Trojans).  To be fair, I agree that the weekly playoff show is a traveshamockery, but that was always going to be the case.  And if the final playoff were announced without weekly reveals before that, someone would complain about the lack of transparency.  People always want a reason to be mad.

Frustration is a feature, not a bug. Teams have been getting robbed as long as we’ve been doing this; rage long precedes the 12-team format. Auburn had an undefeated team in 2004 that got squeezed out of the championship game. How about Florida State just a couple of years ago? They’re still seething in Tallahassee about that one.

Folks, I’m so old, I was alive last week when BYU fans were annoyed in advance of their conference championship, worried that the committee was protecting Notre Dame and were going to squeeze the Cougars out. I’m also very aware that I could get a hearty case from a fan of the Cougars, the Vanderbilt Commodores, the Utah Utes or even the Texas Longhorns.

And yes, it’s surely true that this again shows the hazard of Notre Dame’s independence, the lack of a conference structure (and pathway) to give their process some clarity. If Notre Dame played in, say, the ACC, this whole drama might have been avoided.

In other news, apparently Notre Dame is pissed that the ACC was lobbying for its own member to make the playoffs and not Notre Dame.  L-O-friggin-L.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...670481007/

According to Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua, the blatant politicking done by the conference against the Fighting Irish — including repeated ACC Network airings of Miami's Week 1 win over Notre Dame and turning its social media accounts into a Miami highlight reel during the final week of the regular season, not to mention graphics comparing resumes — the actions of the ACC are going to have a longstanding effect.

Pretty rich for a team that, time and again, has turned down an opportunity to join a conference, is now complaining that a conference that wanted them was politicking on behalf of a conference member.  Sorry to the cake-eater-havers in South Bend, but if you want a conference behind you making the case for you to be in the playoffs, there’s an easy solution.

Anyway, fair or not, someone was going to be screwed and I can’t say that I am not kinda happy that it was the Domers.

BC

For a different take, read "The Poutin' Irish." Funny and accurate, focuses on the absurdity of ND pouting when they received special treatment from the NCAA for decades as independents for the same underlying reasons.

Notre Dame missed the CFP, then took its ball and went home. Here’s why that’s a problem

[Mick]

Good insight from the WSJ (and a touch of snark):

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/notr..._permalink

It’s college football. If it didn’t make people mad, it would be pizza.

That being said, if you are going to make someone mad, it might as well be the Domers (or Trojans).  To be fair, I agree that the weekly playoff show is a traveshamockery, but that was always going to be the case.  And if the final playoff were announced without weekly reveals before that, someone would complain about the lack of transparency.  People always want a reason to be mad.

Frustration is a feature, not a bug. Teams have been getting robbed as long as we’ve been doing this; rage long precedes the 12-team format. Auburn had an undefeated team in 2004 that got squeezed out of the championship game. How about Florida State just a couple of years ago? They’re still seething in Tallahassee about that one.

Folks, I’m so old, I was alive last week when BYU fans were annoyed in advance of their conference championship, worried that the committee was protecting Notre Dame and were going to squeeze the Cougars out. I’m also very aware that I could get a hearty case from a fan of the Cougars, the Vanderbilt Commodores, the Utah Utes or even the Texas Longhorns.

And yes, it’s surely true that this again shows the hazard of Notre Dame’s independence, the lack of a conference structure (and pathway) to give their process some clarity. If Notre Dame played in, say, the ACC, this whole drama might have been avoided.

In other news, apparently Notre Dame is pissed that the ACC was lobbying for its own member to make the playoffs and not Notre Dame.  L-O-friggin-L.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...670481007/

According to Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua, the blatant politicking done by the conference against the Fighting Irish — including repeated ACC Network airings of Miami's Week 1 win over Notre Dame and turning its social media accounts into a Miami highlight reel during the final week of the regular season, not to mention graphics comparing resumes — the actions of the ACC are going to have a longstanding effect.

Pretty rich for a team that, time and again, has turned down an opportunity to join a conference, is now complaining that a conference that wanted them was politicking on behalf of a conference member.  Sorry to the cake-eater-havers in South Bend, but if you want a conference behind you making the case for you to be in the playoffs, there’s an easy solution.

Anyway, fair or not, someone was going to be screwed and I can’t say that I am not kinda happy that it was the Domers.

BC

For a different take, read "The Poutin' Irish." Funny and accurate, focuses on the absurdity of ND pouting when they received special treatment from the NCAA for decades as independents for the same underlying reasons.

Notre Dame missed the CFP, then took its ball and went home. Here’s why that’s a problem