Bowl Games Are Not Meaningless Exhibitions

[Ree4]

I'll never think it's meaningless when Iowa plays. I haven't missed a game by attendance/TV in 15 years, and I'm certainly excited every time they play.

 

[Fryowa]

You are making the point that Bowls are stupid and meaningless because they are an extra-game that exists solely as a money grab. That very well may be true, but the fact of the matter is that this still represents a game on the schedule, and as a player, the battle is the thing. So even if the game only exists so many can line their pockets, as a player you want to win it, and hence it has meaning.

I could get behind your "do away with a million bowls" argument, but until they do, each of those stupid bowls still has a lot of meaning to the players playing in them. If they didn't, the players sitting out would be a majority, not a very small minority (that might be changing, which maybe could drive the change you are hoping for).

Having over 40 bowl games is stupid. Yes.

They may be fun for players and some fans, but they are in fact meaningless in the overall scheme of college football unless they are part of the playoff.

If you're going to allow really shitty teams without a losing record to play, why not let every team just have an extra game of their choosing in the south every year?

A 6-6 team did nothing special to "qualify" for a bowl game other than lose half their games.

The top 12 teams getting to play in NY6 bowl games because they dominated throughout the year? Now that means something.

 

[CP87]

Having over 40 bowl games is stupid. Yes.

They may be fun for players and some fans, but they are in fact meaningless in the overall scheme of college football unless they are part of the playoff.

If you're going to allow really shitty teams without a losing record to play, why not let every team just have an extra game of their choosing in the south every year?

A 6-6 team did nothing special to "qualify" for a bowl game other than lose half their games.

The top 12 teams getting to play in NY6 bowl games because they dominated throughout the year? Now that means something.

Yes, you re-stated your point. I understand it. I will re-state my point. There is a difference between being meaningless in the grand scheme or college football, and being meaningless to the individual players/coaches. Bowls may very well be the former, but there is overwhelming evidence that they are not the latter.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Having too many bowl games has diluted their significance, no doubt about that. But ask a player, band member, student, fan, who's done a bowl trip while they were in school. They'll tell you the bowl trip was memorable.

We get to "do" the bowl every year via TV. But players only get a few shots. Much as the world has changed... a team road trip is still a cool thing.

 

[lightning1]

Totally agree. So if most players are making the choice to play (they are not being compelled, although perhaps somewhat by social norms), the game obviously has meaning to them. Nothing in your reply really relates to that primary point of my post, which is that these games obviously have a lot of meaning to a lot of players.

And if a player like Fant chooses not to participate in a bowl game, that is not because he thinks the game is without meaning, it is because the meaning the game has to him is not worth the risk to his own personal well-being that he is incurring. It becomes a personal value judgement. Currently the players making the same value judgement as Fant are in the minority, but there is definitely a strong trend in that direction.

Of course they have meaning. And the meaning varies from player to player. It's like any decision a person makes. Weigh the pros and cons, make a choice. Some players might think an Outback Bowl is 'meaningless" when they know they have everything to lose (guaranteed 1st round money) and nothing to gain by playing in it.

 

[CP87]

Of course they have meaning. And the meaning varies from player to player. It's like any decision a person makes. Weigh the pros and cons, make a choice. Some players might think an Outback Bowl is 'meaningless" when they know they have everything to lose (guaranteed 1st round money) and nothing to gain by playing in it.

The scenario you presented doesn't imply a game is meaningless. It implies the meaning of the game is not worth the risk. Those are very different things.

 

[lightning1]

The scenario you presented doesn't imply a game is meaningless. It implies the meaning of the game is not worth the risk. Those are very different things.

Once I weigh the risks and decide I'm not doing something, it becomes meaningless to me.

 

[homes]

They are if you're staring down the barrel of a guaranteed first round NFL contract

I get the rationale, protect himself, but why draw the line at bowl games? Why should Fant have played in the Illinois or Nebraska games, the West was already decided, why risk injury in those games, how were they anymore meaningful? Would those who say it's okay for any player (not just Fant, I'm not picking on him) to miss a bowl game for this reason give that same player the same pass for missing a regular season game? It's a slippery slope.

 

[CP87]

Once I weigh the risks and decide I'm not doing something, it becomes meaningless to me.

That is fair, and probably a good way to approach it. Once you make a decision, don't look back.

If I offered you $1,000,000 to cut off your balls, you probably wouldn't do it. I would say that is because while $1,000,000 definitely has meaning to you, it is not worth the cost of losing your testicles.

You would say that $1,000,000 doesn't have meaning to you, but you obviously don't believe it has no meaning in an absolute sense, but rather just within this context (its meaning does not exceed the cost).

It is entirely a semantic issue, but I think it is an important one in this debate (the debate about skipping bowl games, not a debate about your testicles).

If we say the bowls have no meaning and we really believe that in an absolute sense, then we are implying that there are a lot of football players out there who are absolute idiots and completely wasting their and everyone else's time. Moreover, if the Bowls have no meaning, then it really creates a slippery slope regarding the purpose of sports in general. If the only meaning is derived from championships, than all teams but one wasted their time all season long. If we extend that and argue that a championship is not necessary, but rather "competing for a championship" has meaning, then every single team is wasting time once they are realistically eliminated from CFP contention.

You are a coach, so I would guess you have probably spent a lot of time playing as well. How many seasons have you had (as a coach or player) when you won the ultimate championship available to you?

How many seasons have you had when you had no realistic shot at the ultimate championship? Were those experiences devoid of meaning? If we say so, we are really devaluing sport as a teaching/learning tool, and we are down to the point of it being merely a tool of determining dominance. Maybe by the time we get to big time college football that is all it is. I, for one, would like to continue to believe in the value of sport for sport's sake, even at this level. Perhaps it is naive, but frankly the minute I stop believing it is the minute I stop caring about Hawkeye football and instead spend my time on something else.

 

[CP87]

Having over 40 bowl games is stupid. Yes.

They may be fun for players and some fans, but they are in fact meaningless in the overall scheme of college football unless they are part of the playoff.

If you're going to allow really shitty teams without a losing record to play, why not let every team just have an extra game of their choosing in the south every year?

A 6-6 team did nothing special to "qualify" for a bowl game other than lose half their games.

The top 12 teams getting to play in NY6 bowl games because they dominated throughout the year? Now that means something.

My reply to @lightning1 got me thinking more about your point. I think you are absolutely right that Bowls are just a money grad by a lot of people who are not really assuming any of the risk. And while I believe every opportunity to compete as a team has meaning, what the Bowls are really doing is creating a situation where they can take advantage of players' willingness to compete and their loyalty to team/program. These factors compel athletes to compete for something that really is devoid of meaning outside of those intrinsic factors. It is quite the sham.

To be fair to the players, most of whom are going to compete due to a variety of intrinsic motivators, give them something of meaning to compete for. Or do away with them. I am totally on board with that.

 

[lightning1]

That is fair, and probably a good way to approach it. Once you make a decision, don't look back.

If I offered you $1,000,000 to cut off your balls, you probably wouldn't do it. I would say that is because while $1,000,000 definitely has meaning to you, it is not worth the cost of losing your testicles.

You would say that $1,000,000 doesn't have meaning to you, but you obviously don't believe it has no meaning in an absolute sense, but rather just within this context (its meaning does not exceed the cost).

It is entirely a semantic issue, but I think it is an important one in this debate (the debate about skipping bowl games, not a debate about your testicles).

If we say the bowls have no meaning and we really believe that in an absolute sense, then we are implying that there are a lot of football players out there who are absolute idiots and completely wasting their and everyone else's time. Moreover, if the Bowls have no meaning, then it really creates a slippery slope regarding the purpose of sports in general. If the only meaning is derived from championships, than all teams but one wasted their time all season long. If we extend that and argue that a championship is not necessary, but rather "competing for a championship" has meaning, then every single team is wasting time once they are realistically eliminated from CFP contention.

You are a coach, so I would guess you have probably spent a lot of time playing as well. How many seasons have you had (as a coach or player) when you won the ultimate championship available to you?

How many seasons have you had when you had no realistic shot at the ultimate championship? Were those experiences devoid of meaning? If we say so, we are really devaluing sport as a teaching/learning tool, and we are down to the point of it being merely a tool of determining dominance. Maybe by the time we get to big time college football that is all it is. I, for one, would like to continue to believe in the value of sport for sport's sake, even at this level. Perhaps it is naive, but frankly the minute I stop believing it is the minute I stop caring about Hawkeye football and instead spend my time on something else.

I think the more we understand CTE and the other long term health factors of playing tackle football, the less meaning every football game has. If my son were a high D-1 football player, I'd be very careful about how many unnecessary hits they took/games they played.
Everyone has different reasons for competing in and coaching sports. If I were a college player trying to get drafted in the NFL, those extra Bowl practices/Bowl game, would have meaning. It's an opportunity to get better, in search of my goal. My personal goal. If we asked every single incoming freshman football player "what are your personal goals for football?" How many of them do you think would include playing in an Outback Bowl as one of their goals?

 

[CP87]

I think the more we understand CTE and the other long term health factors of playing tackle football, the less meaning every football game has. If my son were a high D-1 football player, I'd be very careful about how many unnecessary hits they took/games they played.
Everyone has different reasons for competing in and coaching sports. If I were a college player trying to get drafted in the NFL, those extra Bowl practices/Bowl game, would have meaning. It's an opportunity to get better, in search of my goal. My personal goal. If we asked every single incoming freshman football player "what are your personal goals for football?" How many of them do you think would include playing in an Outback Bowl as one of their goals?

I appreciate the back and forth with you and @Fryowa . I feel like I have gotten a better understanding of how I feel about this whole topic. Thanks for your inputs.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Case in point, the 2015 Rose Bowl.

Folks around here were talking like the Hawks were Alabama and then we proceeded to get Harlem Globetrottered by a PAC-12 team. I could hear McCaffery giggle all the way back here in Iowa every time he made a tackler miss.

I was at the Standford game versus the Cats in Evanston. I went to 2 Hox games that year, the one in Evanston and the one in Lincoln. I was certain, absolutely certain that Iowa would win that game. Never in a million years was I prepared for the level of beatdown that was handed to them. Probably the third best team of the KF era, just absolutely blown out of the water by a Standford team that lost to Northwestern. I used to think "I know Iowa won't win the title, so I'll be happy if we can just win the Rose Bowl." I have resigned myself to the fact that even the Rose Bowl is too lofty of a goal. It hasn't happened in like 60 years and in the next 30-ish years of decent life that I hopefully have left, they'll maybe get 2, possibly 3 cracks at it. I think it's more remote than a Cleveland Browns or Detroit Lions Super Bowl.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I think the more we understand CTE and the other long term health factors of playing tackle football, the less meaning every football game has. If my son were a high D-1 football player, I'd be very careful about how many unnecessary hits they took/games they played.
Everyone has different reasons for competing in and coaching sports. If I were a college player trying to get drafted in the NFL, those extra Bowl practices/Bowl game, would have meaning. It's an opportunity to get better, in search of my goal. My personal goal. If we asked every single incoming freshman football player "what are your personal goals for football?" How many of them do you think would include playing in an Outback Bowl as one of their goals?

I get the injury-avoidance angle. But bringing CTE into the discussion essentially ends the "skipping the bowl" argument. One extra game will hardly be the "line" between getting/not getting CTE. And when factoring in the "eliminated-from-contention" aspect, it begs the question: why play beyond that "elimination date"?

@JonDMiller and Steve Deace had a good back-and-forth on one of the podcasts this week. Deace made the point that when media types tell fans, "None of your business if he does/doesn't play", Deace rightly pointed out that it's the fans, en masse, that make this whole thing go. It then becomes a "At what point is shutting it down a negative for my NFL prospects/draft stock?" If a guy from Middle Level U shuts it down after game four, what does that tell the NFL? Do NFL guys "shut it down" when they are eliminated from contention? Maybe. But they won't get future contrats. Both JDM and Deace pointed out that, the sooner a guy shuts it down, the better the chances for "blackballing". KF maybe didn't "help" DJKs cause with the NFL. But how far would he--or any coach--go for a guy who says, "Coach, I'm shutting down, even though we have six games left. I need to prepare for the combine"?

I am totally supportive of NFs decision. But to say it's a "good" trend is flat-out not true, unless it actually leads to meaningful change, i.e., better insurance policies, better NFL and NCAA pre-draft support, etc.

 

[lightning1]

I get the injury-avoidance angle. But bringing CTE into the discussion essentially ends the "skipping the bowl" argument. One extra game will hardly be the "line" between getting/not getting CTE. And when factoring in the "eliminated-from-contention" aspect, it begs the question: why play beyond that "elimination date"?

@JonDMiller and Steve Deace had a good back-and-forth on one of the podcasts this week. Deace made the point that when media types tell fans, "None of your business if he does/doesn't play", Deace rightly pointed out that it's the fans, en masse, that make this whole thing go. It then becomes a "At what point is shutting it down a negative for my NFL prospects/draft stock?" If a guy from Middle Level U shuts it down after game four, what does that tell the NFL? Do NFL guys "shut it down" when they are eliminated from contention? Maybe. But they won't get future contrats. Both JDM and Deace pointed out that, the sooner a guy shuts it down, the better the chances for "blackballing". KF maybe didn't "help" DJKs cause with the NFL. But how far would he--or any coach--go for a guy who says, "Coach, I'm shutting down, even though we have six games left. I need to prepare for the combine"?

I am totally supportive of NFs decision. But to say it's a "good" trend is flat-out not true, unless it actually leads to meaningful change, i.e., better insurance policies, better NFL and NCAA pre-draft support, etc.

I disagree with regards to CTE. Right now, there is NO information on exactly how many games is too many. Or how many games is just enough to keep from getting CTE. The best you could do is limit the number of hits you take, as best you can.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

The too-many bowl games argument is valid for the average P5 conferences. But face it, 20 and 30 years ago, many deserving teams were left out of the picture. The 1998 UCF had tow losses, AT Purdue and AT Auburn. They beat some good teams. It was very early in their Division I/FBS tenure. They finished 9-2, and didn't get a bowl. Meanwhile 6-5 and 7-4 teams from "marquee" conferences were going to bowls.

It's happened to lots of other teams, as well. It doesn't justify 40-something bowls, but the bowl expansion process was theoretically about getting those "non-marquee" teams a piece of the pie. The BCS and CFP "agreements' are supposed to "include" the G5 teams, theoretically.

Several things are needed. One, P5 conferences shouldn't have 8/9/10/etc. bowl tie-ins. And there should NEVER be a case where a team with a sub-.500 record goes to a bowl. There just shouldn't, ever, end of story. It would also help if they limited inter-regional non-conference games. Let P5 teams have their cupcakes, perhaps, but keep those in-state as much as possible. Why is Alabama playing The Citadel? Why did Iowa play directional Tennessee schools? It makes less and less sense each passing year.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I disagree with regards to CTE. Right now, there is NO information on exactly how many games is too many. Or how many games is just enough to keep from getting CTE. The best you could do is limit the number of hits you take, as best you can.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, CTE has a lot of unknowns. But "fear of CTE" for skipping a bowl game, only to go to the next level? I can't buy that, at least from what we know right now.

 

[okeefe4prez]

In the grand scheme of things, yes, CTE has a lot of unknowns. But "fear of CTE" for skipping a bowl game, only to go to the next level? I can't buy that, at least from what we know right now.

There are two distinct head injury issues. One is CTE and one is concussions. They are related in that concussions can cause CTE, but impacts below concussion level also cause CTE.

With modern thinking, I assume a guy only has like 3-5 concussions in him before he's done. CJF had 4 in 2 seasons and he was done. There's no sense in taking that risk to play in some turd bowl once you hear back that you'll be an upper first round pick. You get that first contract locked in and pray you can make it to the second.

The CTE side is not well understood, but I think it is generally agreed that constant lower level impacts can turn fatty tissue in your brain into protein, which essentially rewires your brain. While we all see the plays during a game, guys who play line or TE are also taking these lower impact dozens of times in each practice. So it's not just one game we're talking about, it's one game and fifteen practices. No thanks, not worth it.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Agreed - bowl games are a pretty big deal for the team and fans, even if they aren't a factor in the grand scheme of things.. Or if there are a lot more of them than they used to be. Still a lot of fun.

 

[Ree4]

That is fair, and probably a good way to approach it. Once you make a decision, don't look back.

If I offered you $1,000,000 to cut off your balls, you probably wouldn't do it. I would say that is because while $1,000,000 definitely has meaning to you, it is not worth the cost of losing your testicles.

You would say that $1,000,000 doesn't have meaning to you, but you obviously don't believe it has no meaning in an absolute sense, but rather just within this context (its meaning does not exceed the cost).

It is entirely a semantic issue, but I think it is an important one in this debate (the debate about skipping bowl games, not a debate about your testicles).

If we say the bowls have no meaning and we really believe that in an absolute sense, then we are implying that there are a lot of football players out there who are absolute idiots and completely wasting their and everyone else's time. Moreover, if the Bowls have no meaning, then it really creates a slippery slope regarding the purpose of sports in general. If the only meaning is derived from championships, than all teams but one wasted their time all season long. If we extend that and argue that a championship is not necessary, but rather "competing for a championship" has meaning, then every single team is wasting time once they are realistically eliminated from CFP contention.

You are a coach, so I would guess you have probably spent a lot of time playing as well. How many seasons have you had (as a coach or player) when you won the ultimate championship available to you?

How many seasons have you had when you had no realistic shot at the ultimate championship? Were those experiences devoid of meaning? If we say so, we are really devaluing sport as a teaching/learning tool, and we are down to the point of it being merely a tool of determining dominance. Maybe by the time we get to big time college football that is all it is. I, for one, would like to continue to believe in the value of sport for sport's sake, even at this level. Perhaps it is naive, but frankly the minute I stop believing it is the minute I stop caring about Hawkeye football and instead spend my time on something else.

Speaking of bowling, I carried my team to a bowling league championship which was quite meaningful to me