[Goose]

I think the attraction is:
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with. 

(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)

2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game. 

3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.

While I think all of the above are true, we currently live in a society where "participation awards" abound. College players came to expect that more than just the conference champion deserved some "respect". It sounded good for a while, but now even the athletes realize that the CheezeIt bowl is not respect. It is another opportunity to get hurt playing a game nobody cares about (or watches) and where victory is meaningless. The majority of the appeal games like the Rose Bowl have revolves around their exclusivity. Ask Kal about that. For quite a while, the illusion of exclusivity applied to the minor bowl games, but now every team (even Kal) has been to one of these bowls and realizes it isn't the real deal.

These games are going away on their own to some extent. I don't see the minor bowls as "players" going forward. The few "major" bowls still have a seat at the table/money trough. I have no idea how easy it may or may not be to exclude them going forward, but for sure it is easier now than it was 30 years ago. Whether that is "better" for college football is arguable. Personally, I preferred the system where only the conference champions played in the affiliated bowls and the public accepted the idea that the national championship was inherently "mythical". Today, it still is equally mythical but we accept the illusion that it isn't.

[Goose]

I think the attraction is:
1. Turning down a bowl game tends to cause howling of rabid fans, that no AD wants to deal with. 

(Those howls are despite he fact that after somewhat disappointing seasons, those same fans tend to post on fan web sites that they should turn down any bowl invitation.)

2. ADs get to tell their fans they had a great season, because they went to a bowl game. 

3. Coaches get to keep their job by pointing out they took their team to a bowl game.

While I think all of the above are true, we currently live in a society where "participation awards" abound. College players came to expect that more than just the conference champion deserved some "respect". It sounded good for a while, but now even the athletes realize that the CheezeIt bowl is not respect. It is another opportunity to get hurt playing a game nobody cares about (or watches) and where victory is meaningless. The majority of the appeal games like the Rose Bowl have revolves around their exclusivity. Ask Kal about that. For quite a while, the illusion of exclusivity applied to the minor bowl games, but now every team (even Kal) has been to one of these bowls and realizes it isn't the real deal.

These games are going away on their own to some extent. I don't see the minor bowls as "players" going forward. The few "major" bowls still have a seat at the table/money trough. I have no idea how easy it may or may not be to exclude them going forward, but for sure it is easier now than it was 30 years ago. Whether that is "better" for college football is arguable. Personally, I preferred the system where only the conference champions played in the affiliated bowls and the public accepted the idea that the national championship was inherently "mythical". Today, it still is equally mythical but we accept the illusion that it isn't.