Bowls are cool and all, but…
- Thread starter AppleCornCy
- Start date
No - It's not even comparable. Can you name a season where this many starting QB's sat out or transferred before their bowl game? This is only Day 1 of the portal being open.
Cam Ward
Will Howard
DJ Uiagalelei
Grayson McCall
Kyle McCord
Dillon Gabriel
Tyler Van Dyke
Since the thread hasn't been 100% derailed yet..
are we assuming Gabriel is going to follow Lebby to Miss St? Just like he followed him to OU?
There needs to be a 32 team tournament. No bowls. They are dumb now.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
I'm still not sure if I'm putting it entirely at the feet of NIL. It's more of the nature and timing of the portal process.
But let's look at situations here. Ward and Uiagalelei's teams are losing their conference. Howard, McCord and Gabriel are likely losing their starting jobs at their current spots. McCall is a grad transfer from a G5 school. Can you really fault any of them looking for new schools?
I see this as players utilizing their their mobility to improve their situations, and I refuse to see that as a bad thing.
The bowl system has already been devalued, due to saturation, the playoff, and playoff expansion. Non playoff bowl games are important for fans, and I'm sure to some of the players, but we can't expect all players to feel the same way.
I've never blamed guys for sitting out of meaningless bowls if they have high draft potential. Damn right it's about the money. Just ask Jaylen Smith (Notre Dame).
32 team tournament? They will play.
Or have financial incentive to play even if it's just a bowl..
The way to fix the lesser bowls (and this isn't my idea at all) is for the bowls to financially incentivize players to participate.
The thing I love the most about bowl games is the random matchups you would otherwise never get.
Think about the fact that we've played Notre Dame, Oregon (wish we had fans in attendance for that one), and Clemson......all 3 of those are major brands and yeah two of those games didn't go our way, but it's not like we'll ever play them in the non-con.
I think that's why so many people are upset with playing Memphis again....it was alright the first time, but we have never played Auburn.....that would be a fun time
Think about the fact that we've played Notre Dame, Oregon (wish we had fans in attendance for that one), and Clemson......all 3 of those are major brands and yeah two of those games didn't go our way, but it's not like we'll ever play them in the non-con.
I think that's why so many people are upset with playing Memphis again....it was alright the first time, but we have never played Auburn.....that would be a fun time
Honestly, the FBS division needs to be split into two with two tournaments of 16+ teams. You essential have three levels of Division 1 college football that each have their own tournament. The top division is the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Notre Dame, Oregon St., Washington St., and maybe a couple of other schools.
If you've gone to bowl games, I'm not sure you'll share the same sentiment. Bowl games are fun. It's a way to get a bunch of fans together in places that you normally don't go to celebrate a decent/good season and watch the team play one more time.
Some of the most fun I've had attending Iowa State football games were at bowl games - Insight Bowl in 2000, Alamo Bowl, Liberty Bowl.
I wouldn't trade the bowl season for a playoff because more college football is better than less college football, even if the games don't really mean anything.
The thing with NIL is that it’s also basically a 1 year contract. Purdy would be making a lot more if that were the case too.
Agreed - opt outs predate NIL by years. They keep increasing, but that's more a function of it being accepted and not penalized by the NFL, teammates, fans, etc. NIL has nothing to do with it. If anything, NIL might be a way to incentivize bowl participation. Have the bowl sponsor give some NIL cash to players if they opt in.
It's true that there are guys that are not NFL bound sitting out due to the portal and NIL, so I"ll give you that. The problem there is when the portal opens there are a lot of guys competing for spots and NIL money, so they don't want to wait to get in the portal.
If minimizing opt outs is a big deal, then the portal can't be open until after the bowl season, and you probably need bowl sponsors shelling out NIL money to players to incentivize them to play. I'm just not sure there is the will to put time and money into making the bowls more appealing.
Someone mentioned an idea of a system where every teams gets an additional conference game at the end of the conference season and it still intrigues me. Instead of only the two top teams playing for the conference title every team could play a "+1" game. You could either have it a strict 3 plays 4, 5 plays 6, 7 plays 8, etc. or you could allow for a little deviation to minimize rematches of games played earlier in the season. Conference title game could still be a neutral site game with the other games played at the higher seed's stadium. If two teams can play one additional game without it negatively affecting the scholar athletes, every team should be able to...
Back 30 years and more, bowls were more than exhibitions. They were exposure. People wouldn’t see 7-4 teams because only a handful of games got aired. When the TV networks decided to air more to make money, bowls lost that niche.
Sec and big 10 won’t do it. Could hurt one of their bids if 4 beats 3 and there is too big of a gap.
Glad to see many others in support of this while recognizing the decline in Bowl interest.
I think there could be two tournaments with 24 postseason qualifiers
The first is essentially the P5 teams, the second is the G5 teams.
Run it exactly like the FCS playoff model, byes, home games and all of that. Could do neutral sites for Final Four or something.
I'd start the playoff Thanksgiving weekend. No mythical conference championship games. I understand the conferences make money on these games, so getting rid of them would be met with resistance. I'd argue it is easy to identify a conference champion without an extra game being played. It may result in some co-champions, but that was acceptable for 80 years, it can be acceptable again.
The real key in all of this? Meaningful postseason games. If you're 6-6, nice job, but you don't make the postseason. Just like, well, literally every other level of football in the USA
I think there could be two tournaments with 24 postseason qualifiers
The first is essentially the P5 teams, the second is the G5 teams.
Run it exactly like the FCS playoff model, byes, home games and all of that. Could do neutral sites for Final Four or something.
I'd start the playoff Thanksgiving weekend. No mythical conference championship games. I understand the conferences make money on these games, so getting rid of them would be met with resistance. I'd argue it is easy to identify a conference champion without an extra game being played. It may result in some co-champions, but that was acceptable for 80 years, it can be acceptable again.
The real key in all of this? Meaningful postseason games. If you're 6-6, nice job, but you don't make the postseason. Just like, well, literally every other level of football in the USA
Hot take: Bowl games should take place weeks 1-3 during the non-con portion of the schedule. Makes scheduling a little harder and seniors do not get a reward but when we move to the 12 team playoff it won’t matter as much.
That's a good point. Don't forget we were inches (or possibly a bad call) from beating Alabama in the 2001 Independence Bowl. I still enjoy watching the bowl games. I support expanding the playoff size but I think if it gets too big then it starts getting watered down.
