[JohnR34231]

I don't really get it.
These are "meaningless exhibition games", until, of course, a Pac-12 team loses one. Then they suddenly become h.uge embarrassments for the conference. I know the Pac-12 record in them over the last year or so is awful, but if they are really meaningless, who cares?
Someone will no doubt explain it to me.

So here's my two cents:

1) Not all bowl games are meaningless.  The CFP games and the NY6 bowl games definitely have value.  It is still a big thing to win a Rose Bowl, and I haven't heard of any players sitting this one out (though I admit the one or the other might have slipped past me).  The games leading up to the national championship are very meaningful for the programs and players involved.

2) There are far too many low-level bowls that pit teams against each other with barely winning records.  Although these bowl games do not carry much weight, they were often perceived as a season-ending reward for players (and fans); and if the venue was decent, the participating teams had fun, got some extra practices, maybe got to raise a trophy and generated some money for their conference.  

3) However, since the advent of players "sitting out" the post-season, the results of these lower-tier bowl games have become even more meaningless.  How important is a Sun Bowl if key players are not participating?  What will Stanford's victory (or loss) mean in the broader context of the 2018 season?  

4) Still, the results of the post-season are definitely used to advance certain narratives and stoke the promotional feuds for next season.  If the Pac-12 again produces a belly-flop in the post-season, nobody will remember that N'Keal Harry sat out the ASU game vs. Fresno State and essentially neutered the Sun Devil passing game.  And Cal's ugly near-miss yesterday will simply be another L for west coast pride.  SportCenter stated that the Cal-TCU game "set football back 50 years", which was a clear dig at the Pac-12 and the Big-12 by SEC-leaning sportscasters.  If the SEC, by contrast, piles up a lot of wins in equally meaningless bowl games, that narrative will be used to justify high pre-season rankings for the 14 teams in the conference.  

So are the bowl games meaningless?  Yes, many of them are.  Should we care?  Unfortunately, yes, because even losing meaningless games will be used against the Pac-12 when the 2018 season is written up and locked in the record books; and this will have a negative effect on everything from recruiting to pre-season rankings.  Winning still counts, regardless of the contest.

Good answer, but you seem to be saying they are meaningless, but then again they really aren't. I think they have to be one or the other.

[JohnR34231]

I don't really get it.
These are "meaningless exhibition games", until, of course, a Pac-12 team loses one. Then they suddenly become h.uge embarrassments for the conference. I know the Pac-12 record in them over the last year or so is awful, but if they are really meaningless, who cares?
Someone will no doubt explain it to me.

So here's my two cents:

1) Not all bowl games are meaningless.  The CFP games and the NY6 bowl games definitely have value.  It is still a big thing to win a Rose Bowl, and I haven't heard of any players sitting this one out (though I admit the one or the other might have slipped past me).  The games leading up to the national championship are very meaningful for the programs and players involved.

2) There are far too many low-level bowls that pit teams against each other with barely winning records.  Although these bowl games do not carry much weight, they were often perceived as a season-ending reward for players (and fans); and if the venue was decent, the participating teams had fun, got some extra practices, maybe got to raise a trophy and generated some money for their conference.  

3) However, since the advent of players "sitting out" the post-season, the results of these lower-tier bowl games have become even more meaningless.  How important is a Sun Bowl if key players are not participating?  What will Stanford's victory (or loss) mean in the broader context of the 2018 season?  

4) Still, the results of the post-season are definitely used to advance certain narratives and stoke the promotional feuds for next season.  If the Pac-12 again produces a belly-flop in the post-season, nobody will remember that N'Keal Harry sat out the ASU game vs. Fresno State and essentially neutered the Sun Devil passing game.  And Cal's ugly near-miss yesterday will simply be another L for west coast pride.  SportCenter stated that the Cal-TCU game "set football back 50 years", which was a clear dig at the Pac-12 and the Big-12 by SEC-leaning sportscasters.  If the SEC, by contrast, piles up a lot of wins in equally meaningless bowl games, that narrative will be used to justify high pre-season rankings for the 14 teams in the conference.  

So are the bowl games meaningless?  Yes, many of them are.  Should we care?  Unfortunately, yes, because even losing meaningless games will be used against the Pac-12 when the 2018 season is written up and locked in the record books; and this will have a negative effect on everything from recruiting to pre-season rankings.  Winning still counts, regardless of the contest.

Good answer, but you seem to be saying they are meaningless, but then again they really aren't. I think they have to be one or the other.