(01-02-2022 12:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Everyone that keeps suggesting to lower the number of bowl eligible teams needs to read this article and ESPN’s entire M.O. about bowl season:

https://theathletic.com/3003984/2021/12/...n-too/?amp

Simply put, ESPN would put up the money to have 100 bowl eligible teams if they could. We’re more likely to allow all 5-win teams to be bowl eligible than to see a change requiring 7 wins.

Bowls are simply about TV, TV, TV. Anyone that thinks this is about merit or reserved for elite teams is a dinosaur. If you don’t like them, then don’t watch. Otherwise, colleges should be able to maximize as much TV money from ESPN and other TV networks from bowl games as the market will bear.

Exactly. Money talks more and louder than anything. No way network sponsors are just going to walk away from all these bowl games.

I've never quite understood this. Why are meaningless exhibition games supposed to be for only the best teams and mean something?

Bowls are silly and pointless. But football is fun to watch and they give us weird matchups at random times. I love bowl season. I'd be fine with eliminating the win requirement all together and having football on all the time around the holidays.

(01-02-2022 11:47 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-02-2022 08:07 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you want to defeat bowl apathy, you need to create bowl scarcity.

I assume you are talking about the players, not the millions of people tuning into the games. Do you really think if we reduced the bowls that guys would no longer opt out because the games mean more? I mean, Ohio State had 24 guys opt out of the Rose Bowl for crying out loud. I'd understand if 24 guys opted out of the Quick Lane Bowl, but the Rose Bowl? C'mon.

If you want to defeat opt outs, you need to expand the playoff to 8-12.

LOL at Ohio state EVER accepting to go to the Quick Lane Bowl!!!

But I get your point.