Will Bowls be Dead in 2024?

[Al_4_State]

People nowadays keep saying they hate bowl games because they don't mean anything. I'm sorry to break it to you, but they've never "meant anything". They've always been rewards for teams that had a decent season and a byproduct of advertisers and media companies wanting to get a little extra cash. That's no different today than it was in 1980. The only thing that has changed in that regard is people are often times taking out their frustration of all the changes in the sport and applying it towards anything possible.

Now, I will admit that the so-called "prestige" of winning one of the big bowls may not seem as important or it gets frustrating to see players starting to sit out those games. But tell the ISU fans, coaches, and players of a couple years ago that the Fiesta Bowl win was meaningless. In many ways, it was - just like it was in 1990. But it demonstrated a new milestone for our program and none of us would give it away.

I will never stop watching them because any college football is better than no football.

Yeah, I don't get why people just decided to hate bowl games one day. It's so weird to me.

 

[Clonehomer]

The bowls need to start paying the players directly in NIL deals. Forget the conference tie ins. Just say that we’ll pay the school X amount to come play and we’ll pay the players X amount as well. If that amount is enough to entice them to play, then they won’t sit out. If not, then the bowls will be full of backups.

I don’t know with the current rules if you can pay more to the winners, but maybe that’s an option too.

 

[JP4CY]

Yeah, I don't get why people just decided to hate bowl games one day. It's so weird to me.

I think some may do with the ever changing sponsorship names?

I've never understood how the NIT, CBI hurt people either.
Don't like more sports? Don't watch.

 

[3TrueFans]

People nowadays keep saying they hate bowl games because they don't mean anything. I'm sorry to break it to you, but they've never "meant anything". They've always been rewards for teams that had a decent season and a byproduct of advertisers and media companies wanting to get a little extra cash. That's no different today than it was in 1980. The only thing that has changed in that regard is people are often times taking out their frustration of all the changes in the sport and applying it towards anything possible.

Now, I will admit that the so-called "prestige" of winning one of the big bowls may not seem as important or it gets frustrating to see players starting to sit out those games. But tell the ISU fans, coaches, and players of a couple years ago that the Fiesta Bowl win was meaningless. In many ways, it was - just like it was in 1990. But it demonstrated a new milestone for our program and none of us would give it away.

I will never stop watching them because any college football is better than no football.

In 1980 there were like 15 bowl games, now there's 43 according to my googling. It's exploded in the last 20ish years because corporations and tv networks realized they could make tons of advertising money if they just made enough bowl games for half the teams to play in one.

Now that you can finish 9th in the Pac-12 and there's a bowl game waiting for you it doesn't really have the same level of prestige.

I don't have a problem with it, if people want to watch more football go for it, but I do think it's different than it was 40 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

 

[goody2012]

The bowls need to start paying the players directly in NIL deals. Forget the conference tie ins. Just say that we’ll pay the school X amount to come play and we’ll pay the players X amount as well. If that amount is enough to entice them to play, then they won’t sit out. If not, then the bowls will be full of backups.

I don’t know with the current rules if you can pay more to the winners, but maybe that’s an option too.

What do the bowls get out of that? They still have a team come play either way, does adding a few extra players that would have been sitting out make them more money than they have to pay to them?

 

[BoxsterCy]

People nowadays keep saying they hate bowl games because they don't mean anything. I'm sorry to break it to you, but they've never "meant anything". They've always been rewards for teams that had a decent season and a byproduct of advertisers and media companies wanting to get a little extra cash. That's no different today than it was in 1980. The only thing that has changed in that regard is people are often times taking out their frustration of all the changes in the sport and applying it towards anything possible.

Now, I will admit that the so-called "prestige" of winning one of the big bowls may not seem as important or it gets frustrating to see players starting to sit out those games. But tell the ISU fans, coaches, and players of a couple years ago that the Fiesta Bowl win was meaningless. In many ways, it was - just like it was in 1990. But it demonstrated a new milestone for our program and none of us would give it away.

I will never stop watching them because any college football is better than no football.

Gonna disagree. Being an elder Cyclone I remember when they used to recognize the Top 20 - 25 teams in the country. When ISU when to the Liberty Bowl in 1972 there were only 11 bowl games and 22 teams made the cut. If you weren't ranked you didn't get an invite. Last year there were 43 bowl games and everybody with a winning record got an invite and some teams with losing records got one. With 4 times as many teams playing, most of the teams are average and a lot of the games are just exhibitions. Making the Liberty Bowl was a bit prestigious at one time, now it's something like a consultation or participation prize.

 

[BoxsterCy]

In 1980 there were like 15 bowl games, now there's 43 according to my googling. It's exploded in the last 20ish years because corporations and tv networks realized they could make tons of advertising money if they just made enough bowl games for half the teams to play in one.

Now that you can finish 9th in the Pac-12 and there's a bowl game waiting for you it doesn't really have the same level of prestige.

I don't have a problem with it, if people want to watch more football go for it, but I do think it's different than it was 40 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

You posted as I was writing mine and mine now looks like plagiarism. Even used the same "prestige" term

 

[isucy86]

In 1980 there were like 15 bowl games, now there's 43 according to my googling. It's exploded in the last 20ish years because corporations and tv networks realized they could make tons of advertising money if they just made enough bowl games for half the teams to play in one.

Now that you can finish 9th in the Pac-12 and there's a bowl game waiting for you it doesn't really have the same level of prestige.

I don't have a problem with it, if people want to watch more football go for it, but I do think it's different than it was 40 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

Yea doesn't ESPN own a number of bowl games? So it seems like the current # and structure of bowl games will remain as long as ESPN is willing to finance them. Or ESPN comes up with a more popular structure like a G5 playoff.

IMO the playoff will expand to 16 teams within a decade. It could end up the combination of a 16 team playoff and a G5 playoff might actually improve bowl games. Could end up with a dozen or less bowl games at great locations and match-ups only between P3/4 teams.

 

[Shawker]

There are 43 bowl games which is 86 teams. There are 128 FBS teams in total. That means just over 67% of teams make a bowl game.

For comparison, there are 351 teams in D1 basketball and 68 make the tournament if you include all play-in teams. That is a little over 19% of teams that make the NCAA tourney. If it was like football then 236 teams would make the NCAA tourney.

I understand the why of it when it comes to there being so many bowl games, but it just doesn't mean much anymore unless you're making an upper tier bowl. If only 30 to 40 teams made bowl games then it would be a lot more interesting, IMO.

 

[theshadow]

Yea doesn't ESPN own a number of bowl games? So it seems like the current # and structure of bowl games will remain as long as ESPN is willing to finance them. Or ESPN comes up with a more popular structure like a G5 playoff.

IMO the playoff will expand to 16 teams within a decade. It could end up the combination of a 16 team playoff and a G5 playoff might actually improve bowl games. Could end up with a dozen or less bowl games at great locations and match-ups only between P3/4 teams.

ESPN owns/operates ~16 of the bowl games. That's why there are so many.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The bowls need to start paying the players directly in NIL deals. Forget the conference tie ins. Just say that we’ll pay the school X amount to come play and we’ll pay the players X amount as well. If that amount is enough to entice them to play, then they won’t sit out. If not, then the bowls will be full of backups.

I don’t know with the current rules if you can pay more to the winners, but maybe that’s an option too.

The bowls aren’t full of backups right now, the people sitting out are the ones going to the NFL. With an expanded playoff you will see even fewer opt outs. You can’t offer enough money to every player to offset the NFL money lost if they get hurt.

 

[Jer]

In 1980 there were like 15 bowl games, now there's 43 according to my googling. It's exploded in the last 20ish years because corporations and tv networks realized they could make tons of advertising money if they just made enough bowl games for half the teams to play in one.

Now that you can finish 9th in the Pac-12 and there's a bowl game waiting for you it doesn't really have the same level of prestige.

I don't have a problem with it, if people want to watch more football go for it, but I do think it's different than it was 40 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

Gonna disagree. Being an elder Cyclone I remember when they used to recognize the Top 20 - 25 teams in the country. When ISU when to the Liberty Bowl in 1972 there were only 11 bowl games and 22 teams made the cut. If you weren't ranked you didn't get an invite. Last year there were 43 bowl games and everybody that with a winning record got an invite and some team with losing records got one. With 4 times as many teams playing most of teams are average and a lot of the games are just exhibitions. Making the Liberty Bowl was a bit prestigious at one time, now it's something like a consultation or participation prize.

There are 43 bowl games which is 86 teams. There are 128 FBS teams in total. That means just over 67% of teams make a bowl game.

For comparison, there are 351 teams in D1 basketball and 68 make the tournament if you include all play-in teams. That is a little over 19% of teams that make the NCAA tourney. If it was like football then 236 teams would make the NCAA tourney.

I understand the why of it when it comes to there being so many bowl games, but it just doesn't mean much anymore unless you're making an upper tier bowl. If only 30 to 40 teams made bowl games then it would be a lot more interesting, IMO.

All are very valid arguments. I understand they've lost some of their prestige because of dilution, but they were always rewards or consultations, regardless of how many there were. You either win the NCG or you don't. But yes, I do agree that the drop in exclusiveness does impact people's opinion, and fairly.

 

[Al_4_State]

In 1980 there were like 15 bowl games, now there's 43 according to my googling. It's exploded in the last 20ish years because corporations and tv networks realized they could make tons of advertising money if they just made enough bowl games for half the teams to play in one.

Now that you can finish 9th in the Pac-12 and there's a bowl game waiting for you it doesn't really have the same level of prestige.

I don't have a problem with it, if people want to watch more football go for it, but I do think it's different than it was 40 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

Every 6-6 team in a major conference was making a bowl game 20-25 years, barring some weird exceptions.

As long as I can really remember (mid to late 90's) there's been a sentiment that there are too many bowl games.

 

[3TrueFans]

Every 6-6 team in a major conference was making a bowl game 20-25 years, barring some weird exceptions.

As long as I can really remember (mid to late 90's) there's been a sentiment that there are too many bowl games.

From what I can tell, in 1980 there was 15 bowl games, in 1990 there was 19, 2000 there was 25, and by 2015 there was the 43 we have now.

There probably was the same sentiment in the 90's, but it's exploded even more recently.

 

[CascadeClone]

I think some may do with the ever changing sponsorship names?

I've never understood how the NIT, CBI hurt people either.
Don't like more sports? Don't watch.

People LOVE to b!tch about everything.

And between the internet and 500 sports channels, there is plenty of dead air to fill with all that b!tching.

 

[CascadeClone]

From what I can tell, in 1980 there was 15 bowl games, in 1990 there was 19, 2000 there was 25, and by 2015 there was the 43 we have now.

There probably was the same sentiment in the 90's, but it's exploded even more recently.

Are the value of the bowls degraded with volume? Certainly.

Is it still a net-net good thing for a bunch of college kids, from some Mountain West school, to get a free trip to Florida to play their chosen sport in an exhibition against a bunch of other college kids getting a free trip from some mid-major school in the mid-south? Yes it is. Humans do many, many worse things that this.

 

[3TrueFans]

Are the value of the bowls degraded with volume? Certainly.

Is it still a net-net good thing for a bunch of college kids, from some Mountain West school, to get a free trip to Florida to play their chosen sport in an exhibition against a bunch of other college kids getting a free trip from some mid-major school in the mid-south? Yes it is. Humans do many, many worse things that this.

I don’t personally care if there are more bowl games, and they’ll be around as long as they make money, I’m just saying it’s reasonable that some people are a bit over bowl games at this point.

 

[FLYINGCYCLONE]

If you have 16 teams in the playoff that is like 15 games? That is a good start on bowl games. If you take the next 32 teams? That is 16 more bowls. Lots of possibilities.