OT: How to make bowl games matter again

[HailToPitt725]

Why not make every non-NY6 bowl a regular season “challenge” between conferences? It’d essentially be the college football equivalent of an MTE.

For example, each ACC school could have a non-conference game at the beginning of the season where they play a Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC team (would rotate) based off the previous year’s standings. This would accomplish multiple objectives:

1. Since they’d be a regular season game, bowls would once again have significance in the playoff era and players would no longer elect to opt out
2. Networks retain early-season neutral site games and get to televise great matchups in the process
3. Create a memorable experience for senior classes who otherwise wouldn’t get a bowl game experience if their team finished below .500
4. It’d theoretically create more “balanced” schedules when comparing playoff contenders
5. Cold-weather cities would be more “palatable” for hosting bowl games since they’d be held in early September

Just some food for thought. What say you?

 

[4382]

Bowl games are dead as games are dead. I think the only way to "resurrect" them is make them underclassmen classics. Allow all teams to go to one but make them all exhibition games where only guys with remaining eligibility are allowed to participate. Seniors and guys going pro can just enjoy the trip. You could have the option of playing them in the traditional bowl window or move them to the spring.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

A preseason conference challenge like you suggest sounds ok and all, but it is not the same as the specter of post season. Post season hopes (as well as wagering of course) are what drives nearly ALL of sports fandom. For fans, most every sport is impatient endurance of the mundane regular season, suffered through only because of the allure of “playoffs” or the equivalent.

How about making bowls a condition of a players scholarship that they can’t opt out? A bowl is a real game, it counts in the standings, players are on the team, they get paid (scholarships and increasingly, school sponsored NIL) for playing in games. Players need to be required to play. And this needs to be a national rule, and all schools have to agree to adhere to it. (This is one they should, finally, all be happy to agree to).

College programs should also work with the networks to get the NFL to press for Bowl participation as well. The NFL gets so much free development from college football, it should be convinced that every player signed should get some kind of “Bowl bonus” for having played in their college’s bowl game. The NFL has literally thousands of great prospects every season to enter the ranks and there is the freakish near-zero chance of a serious injury in Bowl season. Put a stop to the opting out nonsense.

At the same time, a large pool of player insurance, not just for bowls but for ANY game, should be escalated to compensate players in case of injuries incurred in games or practice or even offseason workouts, where they can’t play football any longer, at least within reasonable rehab time (aka 6 months from their final game, or when NFL camps would begin).

The opting out BS is easily cured, as with most social problems, with a combination of stick and carrot.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Bowl games are dead as games are dead. I think the only way to "resurrect" them is make them underclassmen classics. Allow all teams to go to one but make them all exhibition games where only guys with remaining eligibility are allowed to participate. Seniors and guys going pro can just enjoy the trip. You could have the option of playing them in the traditional bowl window or move them to the spring.

Isn't this more along the lines with what they kind of are now and why they suck?

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Isn't this more along the lines with what they kind of are now and why they suck?

the problem is rankings are still done after the bowls. They should really do the final poll at the end of the season, that way bowls are totally exhibitions. Although then it might morph into the NFL pro bowl where no one cares at all.

At least the argument of program X's fans don't travel well to bowl games is becoming a mute point, more so with the expanded playoffs.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

And I love Pickett, but still disappointed he didn't play in Peach Bowl. Partly blame Narduzzi for that for being so stubborn with Whipple. If Whipple still coaches, Pickett probably plays, we win easily and have the first 12 win season, and first less than 3 loss season since 1981 and finish with a Top 10 ranking.

So that game kind of soured me on the whole bowl experience. We were told it is an important bowl game and fans should attend but then top stars from Pitt & MSU opt out.

 

[DruidTM]

And I love Pickett, but still disappointed he didn't play in Peach Bowl. Partly blame Narduzzi for that for being so stubborn with Whipple. If Whipple still coaches, Pickett probably plays, we win easily and have the first 12 win season, and first less than 3 loss season since 1981 and finish with a Top 10 ranking.

So that game kind of soured me on the whole bowl experience. We were told it is an important bowl game and fans should attend but then top stars from Pitt & MSU opt out.

Particularly being there at the game (we were) and realizing you should hold what… a 21-11 lead with 8 minutes to go by having a few drives… instead the defense got worn out …

Then ahole Tucker tweeted like he won the Super Bowl…. It was a bit much to take really

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

And I love Pickett, but still disappointed he didn't play in Peach Bowl. Partly blame Narduzzi for that for being so stubborn with Whipple. If Whipple still coaches, Pickett probably plays, we win easily and have the first 12 win season, and first less than 3 loss season since 1981 and finish with a Top 10 ranking.

So that game kind of soured me on the whole bowl experience. We were told it is an important bowl game and fans should attend but then top stars from Pitt & MSU opt out.

Correct. The opting out is the problem and what needs to be solved.

I did not mean to dismiss the OP idea for a inter - conference challenge at the start of each season, it’s far better than playing the watery stool like Wofford. But given how many schools game the OOC to be artificially ranked, much like the opt-in requirement, every P5 school would need to agree to play in such contests and sacrifice at least one rent a victim game each year. That is a tall order because those garbage games are also almost always home games.

The universal opt-in requirement, tempered with the incentives I list above, should be something every school should easily get behind, though.

 

[303vND]

It's easy - make it a play for pay proposition. Each player from the winning team get's xyz money, the losers get xy money. It's all about the Benjamins baby!

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

It's easy - make it a play for pay proposition. Each player from the winning team get's xyz money, the losers get xy money. It's all about the Benjamins baby!

I thought I saw that idea floated around at some point. Would help to rekindle interest i would think

 

[rmf05]

Bowl games were always exhibitions concocted by the host cities for $$$$$$. That's what they continue to be. What's the problem?

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

It's easy - make it a play for pay proposition. Each player from the winning team get's xyz money, the losers get xy money. It's all about the Benjamins baby!

Yep. That is literally all that needs to be done. It still might not be enough to entice guys who expect to be drafted highly, but it's a start.

 

[WillyDavis33]

get rid of all bowls! The CFP or nothing! Play the games at the school with the higher rank! done

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Bowl games were always exhibitions concocted by the host cities for $$$$$$. That's what they continue to be. What's the problem?

rankings are done after the bowls and most of the players don't care about playing

 

[MorningCoffee13]

Make it a true challenge. You don’t make it into the playoffs but are bowl eligible allow the eligible team to select any team they want to play. But its gotta be like WWE or AEW. Someone is the heel and someone the Babyface. Change the rules so that you can sack the quarterback long after the play but you know its gotta be choreographed.

Deion and Colorado dont make it to the playoffs so they challenge the Harvard team because someone on that team posted a very inflammatory tweet about the team earlier in the year.

On a short yardage situation the defense knocks out several referees before the ball can be spotted and a melee ensues.

It would be a blast.

 

[rmf05]

rankings are done after the bowls and most of the players don't care about playing

Sure but that's always been the case. In the golden age of the Rose Bowl, Pitt got an invite and said no thanks because their last game there was totally rigged for the PAC team. Many Pitt players in the 76' Sugar Bowl were hungover. In most of the bowls of that era, players saw bowls as just an extended party. It drove me Sherrill nuts.

 

[DruidTM]

People need to stop complaining about Bowl games

Sound like a bunch of Ron Cooks for crissakes

 

[Dan1911]

How to make bowl games matter again? Get rid of the playoffs. Nothing else will do it.

 

[upj87]

Why not make every non-NY6 bowl a regular season “challenge” between conferences? It’d essentially be the college football equivalent of an MTE.

For example, each ACC school could have a non-conference game at the beginning of the season where they play a Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC team (would rotate) based off the previous year’s standings. This would accomplish multiple objectives:

1. Since they’d be a regular season game, bowls would once again have significance in the playoff era and players would no longer elect to opt out
2. Networks retain early-season neutral site games and get to televise great matchups in the process
3. Create a memorable experience for senior classes who otherwise wouldn’t get a bowl game experience if their team finished below .500
4. It’d theoretically create more “balanced” schedules when comparing playoff contenders
5. Cold-weather cities would be more “palatable” for hosting bowl games since they’d be held in early September

Just some food for thought. What say you?

oh, I was hoping that it might be that the losing team's captains along with every other teammate from the losing team who sits out will be publicly decapitated or something similar as the winning team was receiving their trophy. Split screen. That would put meaning back into to the games...."We got to win this thing or Thomas and Kowolski die".. Ratings would be through the roof.. .your solution seems a bit more complex..

 

[kma0043]

Bowl games will exist because it draws ratings during Xmas to new years week. People are looking for something to watch and they tune in, so it stays.

 

[MJG-90]

I didn’t have time to read all of the ideas thoroughly, so I apologize if this repeats an idea someone else posted first. I like the idea of getting bowls to matter again. But they won’t unless there is more at stake.

What about set bowl tie-ins (not the sorta that we have now). CFP doesn’t count, but does handicap the scoring system. This is because conferences with more schools in the CFP are at a disadvantage in the tie-in bowls since a fourth place team could replace a first place team, and so on.

Then come up with a scoring system that rewards ($$$) conferences based on how they finish in the bowls. This should give every game more meaning. And give an incentive for Pitt fans to watch the Syracuse bowl game, thus increasing tv ratings across the board.

Just a quick response off the top of my head. Maybe there are enough holes in my idea to render it “stupid”. But I definitely agree something new needs to happen with the bowl season. It’s not even remotely exciting anymore.