Do non-CFP bowls matter?

[racepug]

In 1984 as a junior-high school student, I won a second-place prize in the lottery here in Mexico predicting 13 bowl games (I believe there were back then only 14 or 15). There were three options: Team A won by 7 or more points, Team B won by 7 or more points, and the third option was a difference of 6 points or less or a tie. I only missed two games: the Gator Bowl, when Oklahoma State scored a late TD and a 2-point conversion to beat South Carolina by 7, and the Sugar Bowl, when LSU beat handily Ohio State. I was lucky with the Orange Bowl, when thanks to a unsportsmanlike penalty on the Sooner Schooner after a missed field goal, Washington came back and beat Oklahoma 28-17.

By the way, that was the year Brigham Young won the National Championship playing in the Holiday Bowl. I am wondering if it is the only time a team has been a champion without playing in one of the "major" Bowls.

I remember it all too well as I was a fan of the Washington Huskies and that was probably the very first time in my life (out of VERY few overall) that I was actually pulling for the Michigan Wolverines (who, of course, weren't able to come through for me). I've held a grudge against BYU ever since. I'm convinced that the Huskies would've mopped the floor with those Cougars from Provo if they'd been given the opportunity, but they weren't (although beating OU and "Bootlegger's Boy" Barry Switzer in the Orange Bowl was a nice "consolation prize").

[racepug]

There was never any football-facing reason to have bowls with 6-6 teams. There's no reason to care about them. Folding all of the New Year's 6 bowls into the CFP is the right move imo, it should have been at least 8 teams from the start. I kind of think the FSU controversy, being the first undefeated team to miss the playoffs, was done that way intentionally to drum up fan demand for the expansion. If Texas was left out instead, for example, only Texas fans would be up in arms.

I completely agree with you but I e-mailed a local sportswriter about that very topic a few years ago and though I don't remember exactly what his response was the gist of it was that there are too many perks and favors involved in teams being invited to bowl games for the situation to ever go back to having a reasonable amount of bowl games with truly deserving teams in them.

[racepug]

Yeah College football has gone a little overboard in recent years. But to be honest the NFL isn't much better. The entire sport of American football is a shell of what it used to be and is all about money and tv viewership these days.

I'll still take college football though over NFL teams losing almost half their games and still for some reason making it to the post season. And the NFL continuing to increase the number of teams making the playoffs so now sub .500 teams have a legit shot at the post season.

At least with college football teams will still need to have really good seasons to make the playoffs.

I really hate that the N.F.L. has gone to 7 playoff teams per conference. To me, more (i.e. "undeserving") teams just cheapens the experience. But even MLB has gone to a bunch of teams in its playoffs when for decades all you heard from baseball people was: "We're not like basketball or hockey. We let only worthy teams in OUR playoffs" (or words to that effect) so if MLB can be moved to "go nuts" with how many teams it puts in its playoffs then what hope is there to keep the # of playoff teams down in our other professional leagues?

[Mark]

I think the non-CFP bowls partly serve the same purpose bowls were invented for in the first place ---- to encourage tourism. Virginia Tech's first bowl appearance was in the Sun Bowl in 1946 even though they were only a .500 team. As I recall they were invited because there was a connection between the school and someone in charge of the bowl. For a long time the bowls didn't even count toward the national championship.

[racepug]

Somebody else has been wondering the very same thing: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/bowl-games ... 21117.html

[Throwin_Samoan]

I completely agree with you but I e-mailed a local sportswriter about that very topic a few years ago and though I don't remember exactly what his response was the gist of it was that there are too many perks and favors involved in teams being invited to bowl games for the situation to ever go back to having a reasonable amount of bowl games with truly deserving teams in them.

Plus, TV.

They're TV shows.

And you know what else comes with a bowl trip. Several more weeks of practice. Football coaches love practice more than anything else, because they can control everything in practice. If you're not playing for a national championship, you can at least put your program in a positive light to the various recruits and transfer portal hopefuls, but practice is the big thing for coaches. God, do they love practice.

[Brian wolf]

John Riggins and Allen Iverson didnt like ... practice

[racepug]

I would say that Ohio State's performance in its loss to Mizzou yesterday and Florida State's performance in the curb-stomping it suffered today would indicate that some teams/players don't really care much for the bowls that they're in.

[rhickok1109]

John Riggins and Allen Iverson didnt like ... practice

When Paul Hornung was asked if he should make so much money for playing a game, he replied, "I love football and I play for free, but they have to pay me to practice."

[Mark]

If I recall correctly Joe Montana said he would actually prefer being a basketball player because practice was more like playing the game.