...and that you cannot draw any conclusions based on the bowls need to recheck their assumptions. First off the the majority of players are called student athletes but we all know better and they are really professional athletes playing in a quasi-minor league/D-league environment. Simply put, they're pros. When a pro athlete is playing in a post season game, then it has to be assumed that the athletes are mature enough to play their best.

To make excuses like OU, Ole Miss, Miss St and any other school that loses a bowl because they didn't want to be there or they felt let down because they missed the playoffs or one of the big bowls is inaccurate. Your team is as good as it's record, period. Every school is still playing for something be it the highest ranking it can get at the close of the season, further development of underclassmen for next season or to land that one recruit who is on the fence, etc...there is still some meaning to it.

If you want to talk about how there are too many bowls and that these should be significantly pared down, then that's a valid discussion to have. However, we can analyze schools based on what we have today. We have a slew of bowls; therefore, we have a large post season which means that a lot of teams are playing for something. If a team cannot recognize that exposure to the post season means you have something on the line, then I guess that team ultimately is not as good as people thought it was.

No the "majority" are not pros or quasi-pros. That is a cynical baseless argument put forward by people pissed that some "meathead" gets $7 million for coaching football and unhappy when a school will cover for the outlier athlete to win. Oh Jameis is a psychopath = Florida State has 105 psychopaths on roster.

There has always been an element of academic misfits and societal misfits. The Marx Brothers were ridiculing it back in 1932 but it has always been a fringe, if it weren't a fringe it wouldn't make news because the ordinary every day doesn't make news.

Now as to the meaning of bowls in rating teams.

The AP for years did not vote a poll after the last regular season game because bowls were viewed as exhibitions with great variance in preparation.

The last three seasons AState hasn't had it's head coach for the bowl game, when a team loses a bowl game with an interim head coach or a different OC or DC from the season, it's hard to figure out how that meshes with the regular season.

Schools vary wildly in preparation. Last time ULM made a bowl they practiced until the dorms closed, reported again the day before they traveled to Shreveport and got in a couple practices there. Their opponent ended up having six more practices than they did because they brought their team back while the dorms were closed.

I agree with you in terms of the teams and really hard core fans of a school.

They have become meaningless to the casual fan though. Every game through last nights Orange Bowl had hordes of empty seats. You never saw that 20 years ago when there were fewer of them - and getting invited was a really big deal.

Corporate sponsors have replaced these previously run civic events where the local city would support with parades, events, etc. - and attend the game.

Welcome to ESPN world. The TV ratings are more important than the event itself.

You just don't know how players are going to react after 3 weeks off, especially for these marquee games. Pin that on coaching and preparation, but a lot of things go on in your life as a college athlete in that time. You are thinking about going pro, getting ready for finals, graduating the following spring and worrying about landing a job. You're not watching film and practicing 5 days a week leading up to your bowl game, unless you are a top prospect and you are playing in a prime time bowl. Your mind is off football during that hiatus and who knows what these kids are thinking? Maybe it speaks more so to the program and the coaches than it does the players. But it is foolish to think you are looking at the same teams you saw in November.

(01-01-2015 11:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  No the "majority" are not pros or quasi-pros. That is a cynical baseless argument put forward by people pissed that some "meathead" gets $7 million for coaching football and unhappy when a school will cover for the outlier athlete to win. Oh Jameis is a psychopath = Florida State has 105 psychopaths on roster.

There has always been an element of academic misfits and societal misfits. The Marx Brothers were ridiculing it back in 1932 but it has always been a fringe, if it weren't a fringe it wouldn't make news because the ordinary every day doesn't make news.

Now as to the meaning of bowls in rating teams.

The AP for years did not vote a poll after the last regular season game because bowls were viewed as exhibitions with great variance in preparation.

The last three seasons AState hasn't had it's head coach for the bowl game, when a team loses a bowl game with an interim head coach or a different OC or DC from the season, it's hard to figure out how that meshes with the regular season.

Schools vary wildly in preparation. Last time ULM made a bowl they practiced until the dorms closed, reported again the day before they traveled to Shreveport and got in a couple practices there. Their opponent ended up having six more practices than they did because they brought their team back while the dorms were closed.

I disagree about them not being pros. I admit I can only assume things since I do not have access to individual SAT/ACT tests, school grades, applications, etc but you can make reasoned assumptions. If we assume that 60 percent would not make it to a quality P5 school based on academics alone, then what must you conclude? Using Occam's razor, you inevitably conclude that they are ringers. The more prestigious the institution, the worst it looks.

Regarding bowls, sure they used to be exhibitions. But it doesn't change the fact that today they are not. They do factor into the equation. Sure, the championship playoff and large volume of bowls dilute the interest of the fans. But that doesn't take away from how ESPN and the polls view the games today.

The problem I have with the "meaningless" argument is that over 2/3 of college football is "meaningless" if you use the definition of "crowning a champion" as the purpose of a game. If the only reason you play a game is to figure out if you can be champion, then every team that starts off 0-2 or 1-3 should just stop the season right there.

Football is fun to play and to watch. That's why you play the games. Winning is a fun part of games...so it's nice to win more than you lose. But that doesn't ruin the entire game when/if you lose. I get so sick of people trumpeting "bowl games are meaningless" because I want to ask them, "Why do you want LESS football to watch and potentially enjoy?" So Boston College and Penn State didn't crown a champion...but the first quarter and second half and overtime were quite fun to watch? Why do we need to whine and moan about it being "meaningless"? All of Penn State's November was "meaningless" but I still enjoyed watching my team play.

Funny OP...just a guess but probably has never speaks to or know anyone playing and what they go through to make these assumptions..oh well...

(01-01-2015 12:45 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The problem I have with the "meaningless" argument is that over 2/3 of college football is "meaningless" if you use the definition of "crowning a champion" as the purpose of a game. If the only reason you play a game is to figure out if you can be champion, then every team that starts off 0-2 or 1-3 should just stop the season right there.

Football is fun to play and to watch. That's why you play the games. Winning is a fun part of games...so it's nice to win more than you lose. But that doesn't ruin the entire game when/if you lose. I get so sick of people trumpeting "bowl games are meaningless" because I want to ask them, "Why do you want LESS football to watch and potentially enjoy?" So Boston College and Penn State didn't crown a champion...but the first quarter and second half and overtime were quite fun to watch? Why do we need to whine and moan about it being "meaningless"? All of Penn State's November was "meaningless" but I still enjoyed watching my team play.

Sure attendance is down at some games, but prices are up and while the Orange Bowl doesn't have the sort of crowds it had decades ago, it doesn't have the sort of teams it had a couple decades ago when it hosted the Big 8 champion vs an at-large opponent that was either the ACC champ, one of the best eastern independents or the SEC runner-up.

Last night they had the loser of the ACC title game and the third or fourth best SEC team. Mississippi State average attendance was 17k below the SEC average and GT's about 2k under the ACC average.