NCAA Football 2023

[ImLawBoy]

The model that people seem to be yearning for is more than a little Pollyanna-ish, IMO. It's the same thing that happens whenever us olds start talking about how much better the good old days were. We pick and choose the good things from the past, hand wave or just outright ignore the bad things, and complain about the new things without reference to how we got to the new normal.

Thirty years ago I was visiting a friend at his school, which was a DII football school and a low minor D1 basketball school. He pointed out a row of new cars and said that they belonged to the basketball team. This was common knowledge at the school. Why did the NCAA not do anything about it? Because it happened everywhere and the NCAA's enforcement capabilities, then as now, are woefully insufficient to handle the number of schools involved and the breadth of the cheating.

The model that was in place pre-NIL was the same for decades. Players received scholarships for athletics above board, and were expected to be lily white otherwise. Movement from one school to another was made nearly impossible. As fans, we could hope that ABC chose our team to play on TV this week - if not, we could always read the recap in Sunday's paper. The player compensation and rights parts remained constant as the rest of it changed. Cable got involved, more games showed up on TV. Conferences built their own networks. The money to college athletics exploded exponentially. Coaches were paid millions upon millions as they jumped from school to school. Facilities were upgraded to the point that some had waterfalls and giant slides. Players received scholarships for athletics above board, and were expected to be lily white otherwise. Movement from one school to another was made nearly impossible.

The ins and outs aren't the same anymore. There is so much more revenue coming in to colleges, but the "compensation" to players is supposed to remain fixed at tuition? Coaches can come and go as they please, but the athletes shouldn't be able to do so as well? NIL and the transfer portal may not be perfect answers to these issues, but they're damn sure better than what was before.

As we shake our fists and yell at the clouds, change will continue to occur. I doubt it will doom college sports as some speculate, but they will certainly change. That said, even if they doom college sports, if the only way to "save" college sports is by continuing to exploit the athletes, maybe college sports don't deserve to be saved.

[Pyperkub]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

[Unagi]

It's still an evolving landscape, and we have to see what happens. Personally, I think the paid tuition angle is ludicrous, particularly given the amount of money schools are taking in on athletic revenue. "These players who risk their health and futures for our entertainment should be happy - after all, we gave them the stale crusts we cut off of our sandwiches."

A full ride scholarship to higher ed is stale crusts? I suggest looking up what it costs to attend any one of the schools in the top 25 for four years.

Compared to the money the major football schools make the scholarship expense to the schools is nothing. Also scholarships are year to year, and so nobody gets a “full” ride to start.

in support:
Yes, if the only math we do here is weighing the $ value of a scholarship, well it ignores that this is just how much this school charges a normal student to attend - and that a football student brings in massive cash.

hypothetical...
The school spends $200,000 for the athlete's scholastics and makes $3,800,000 off their NIL.
The school spends $200,000 for the student's scholastics and makes $200,000 off their tuition.

While I think greed ruins it all, truly, alas if the school is making it, I think the student should benefit from it too.

Cash is king.
People suck.
College football, when inspected with even the most modest of magnifying glasses, is too far gone to pretend there is something worth saving when it comes to high levels of integrity or honor... I'm learning.

nonsequitur:
I want to pretend that "Winning and Cash while playing within the Rules" is where we are at, but the truth is we are very much in the "Winning and Cash at any cost" world.

[Scuzz]

College football at the major level is an industry and is run as such. Just like the NFL. It probably has been for 40+ years.

[Pyperkub]

It's still an evolving landscape, and we have to see what happens. Personally, I think the paid tuition angle is ludicrous, particularly given the amount of money schools are taking in on athletic revenue. "These players who risk their health and futures for our entertainment should be happy - after all, we gave them the stale crusts we cut off of our sandwiches."

A full ride scholarship to higher ed is stale crusts? I suggest looking up what it costs to attend any one of the schools in the top 25 for four years.

Compared to the money the major football schools make the scholarship expense to the schools is nothing. Also scholarships are year to year, and so nobody gets a “full” ride to start.

in support:
Yes, if the only math we do here is weighing the $ value of a scholarship, well it ignores that this is just how much this school charges a normal student to attend - and that a football student brings in massive cash.

hypothetical...
The school spends $200,000 for the athlete's scholastics and makes $3,800,000 off their NIL.
The school spends $200,000 for the student's scholastics and makes $200,000 off their tuition.

While I think greed ruins it all, truly, alas if the school is making it, I think the student should benefit from it too.

Cash is king.
People suck.
College football, when inspected with even the most modest of magnifying glasses, is too far gone to pretend there is something worth saving when it comes to high levels of integrity or honor... I'm learning.

nonsequitur:
I want to pretend that "Winning and Cash while playing within the Rules" is where we are at, but the truth is we are very much in the "Winning and Cash at any cost" world.

On the other hand, the NIL is 99% tied to the institution's brand. Caleb Williams is a great QB, but there's no way he's making the money he makes if he's at a D2 school instead of USC (seen any D2 players in Dr. Pepper commercials lately?). Ditto every other Blueblood. The added value of being at the institution and leveraging the institutional brand is huge, as well as the blueblood competition to drive up NIL for these players - they are mostly bidding against themselves (and, I expect, someday soon they'll start colluding to keep NIL deals down in true cartel fashion.

[ImLawBoy]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

Now compare the increase in tuition to how much athletic revenue to schools has increased.

[Pyperkub]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

Now compare the increase in tuition to how much athletic revenue to schools has increased.

sorry, but it actually does need to be overall university revenue, and revenue cuts, IMHO. Especially WRT Tuition. Athletic revenue ain't paying for faculty at most institutions, etc.

[ImLawBoy]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

Now compare the increase in tuition to how much athletic revenue to schools has increased.

sorry, but it actually does need to be overall university revenue, and revenue cuts, IMHO. Especially WRT Tuition. Athletic revenue ain't paying for faculty at most institutions, etc.

Sorry, but that's just absurd. Let's say for argument's sake that tuition went up 10x the rate of inflation. Now let's say that athletic department revenue went up 100x the rate of inflation (which probably grossly underestimates it, but just to throw something out there). Are you suggesting that athletes should be satisfied with the tuition when the department is profiting so wildly off of them? Do you think any labor union on the planet would agree with that?

[Carpet_pissr]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

Now compare the increase in tuition to how much athletic revenue to schools has increased.

You're making some good points, and I am listening, and thinking, but I don't get this. I don't know the numbers, but are you suggesting that...say annual tuition rate % increases are less than annual athletic revenue % increases? I will totally take that bet if so. I guess we would need to define a time period. Last 15 years or so should be good.

[Pyperkub]

Tuition most definitely isn't 'fixed'

It has been going up faster than inflation, TBH.

Now compare the increase in tuition to how much athletic revenue to schools has increased.

sorry, but it actually does need to be overall university revenue, and revenue cuts, IMHO. Especially WRT Tuition. Athletic revenue ain't paying for faculty at most institutions, etc.

Sorry, but that's just absurd. Let's say for argument's sake that tuition went up 10x the rate of inflation. Now let's say that athletic department revenue went up 100x the rate of inflation (which probably grossly underestimates it, but just to throw something out there). Are you suggesting that athletes should be satisfied with the tuition when the department is profiting so wildly off of them? Do you think any labor union on the planet would agree with that?

Because without football there is still a University, but without the University...

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know the numbers, but are you suggesting that...say annual tuition rate % increases are less than annual athletic revenue % increases?

Yes, I'm saying that athletic department revenue has gone up much faster than tuition.

Because without football there is still a University, but without the University...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Pretend I'm an idiot and spell it out for me.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know the numbers, but are you suggesting that...say annual tuition rate % increases are less than annual athletic revenue % increases?

Yes, I'm saying that athletic department revenue has gone up much faster than tuition.

To expand on this for a moment, this site tells me that:

The average cost of college tuition in the U.S. for undergraduate students has more than tripled, multiplying by 3.15 times over the last 58 years, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). It rose from $4,336 in 1963 to $13,777 in 2020.Note Reference [1] That's accounting for inflation.

That's obviously a pretty steep climb.

This site looks at TV contracts that are driving athletic department revenue. It's not broken down as simply as the tuition and fees site, but take a look at the Big Ten. From 1996-2006, their media rights deal provided $10M per year in revenue split over 11 teams. Their latest media rights deal spanning 2023-2029 provides revenues of $1.2B (with a B!) per year over however many schools there are. I'm not sure if it's going to be adjusted for the Pac 10 influx or if that's already accounted for, but in any event TV revenues went up an astronomical amount compared to tuition and fees.

[Carpet_pissr]

58 years?! Come on, man.

Here, something a little more relevant:

The two charts below show 20 years of tuition changes – with one accounting for inflation – as reported to U.S. News by the 342 ranked National Universities included in the 2024 Best Colleges rankings. Tuition and fees are displayed by the rankings edition year, with the data for 2024 gathered by U.S. News in spring and summer of 2023. Here's a quick breakdown of the tuition changes over the last two decades.

Not adjusted for inflation:
Tuition and fees at private National Universities have jumped about 132%.
Out-of-state tuition and fees at public National Universities have risen about 127%.
In-state tuition and fees at public National Universities soared by about 158%.

Adjusted for inflation:
Tuition and fees at private National Universities have increased about 40%.
Out-of-state tuition and fees at public National Universities have risen about 38%.
In-state tuition and fees at public National Universities have grown about 56%.

And for the athletic program revenue, here's a more sensible number, from the NCAA itself - this includes ALL FBS, FCS and Div I schools by the way, and includes ALL revenue, not just media:

"NCAA schools across all three divisions reported total athletics revenues of just over $18.9 billion dollars in 2019.

Of that amount, approximately $8.3 billion (44%) was allocated revenues from government and institution support and student fees; $10.6 billion (56%) was generated by the athletics departments.

Pretty interesting read actually, as it goes into detail about where the money comes from, what % is from media, tuition, ticket sales, etc.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/resear ... Report.pdf

And finally, here's a real number for the time period we were talking about (I am not sure what is meant by "autonomy" vs "non-autonomy" schools):

For FBS schools, over the 15-year period, median generated revenue grew by 149% at the autonomy conference schools and by 47% at the nonautonomy schools


Not exact years matching the tuition numbers above and the athletics revenue, but it's pretty close.

AROUND 132% increase for tuition vs AROUND 149% for the athletics revenue for the same period, but we could I guess squabble over the slight difference in years compared, or whether you should be able to compare tuition vs revenue, instead of profit, or if you want to consider ANYthing outside of the FBS schools (which would bring that 149% growth way, way down, like half or something based on what I saw in the pdf.) I kind of scanned through that report, so there could be actual numbers that speak more accurately that my post, but I'm not willing to read that whole thing.

[Carpet_pissr]

This was posted on a Utah message board this week and I think it sums up lots of my issue with what's currently going on. There's a bunch of Utah-specific examples, but you can easily translate that into other schools or locales.

Let’s be real. Compared to the NFL, the on field product sucks. It’s no different, skill wise, than the G Leauge or AAA baseball. Maybe even worse. Yet we watch and love it. Why?

1 – It’s local. Traditionally, it was your school. Especially in places like Salt Lake, Provo, Stillwater, Corvallis, etc. You didn’t have a professional team, but you had YOUR football team.

2 – The players were local. Traditionally the kids on the team were local kids. I have never watched high school football and never plan to. But I like to bag on Dalton Schultz for not going to Utah. I love seeing Barton get burned on the Commanders and going, “hey, look, it’s Barton. He’s from Salt Lake.”

3 – It was affordable. NFL games are nuts. All my kids are from Philly. I was going to take my oldest to the Philly/Seattle game until they moved it to Monday night. For the same amount of money, we can go to the Vegas Bowl. You could get cheap seats and afford to take the family.

4 – You could dream of that special season. Even though it wasn’t reality, you could dream about your team having a "BYU in 1984" moment. You could see the national champion winners from the pre 1970’s and think, “hell if they could win a title, we could get lucky one time.”

5 – Bowl games were a huge deal and you got to play teams you never got to play anymore.

6 – Winning a conference championship gave you a sense of pride as you typically worked with/associated with people from teams in your conference because the game was so local. It gave you something to talk about.

All of that is gone now. All of it. It’s not local anymore. Utah plays a conference game in Orlando next year. That is about as non-local as you can possibly get. I don’t think I’ll ever run into a UCF fan here on the west coast. That game will come and go and no one will care. I’ll watch it, but I won’t talk about. Here in Seattle, there are OSU, Oregon, UW, WSU, USC, UCLA grads everywhere. There is always someone that cares about the Utah game and visa versa. Not anymore.

The transfer portal and NIL have taken away the local aspect. Even the bigger conferences has as well. There is so much turnover on teams, how do you ever learn who was what? The days of having Marcus Williams play like absolute horse s**t his freshman year and get better then elite are gone. The days of Devin Lloyd sitting for two years, having the starter quit and Lloyd, who knows the system inside and out, step in and excel are gone. A game that already is worse than the NFL will get even sloppier.

And the money…you could relate to the college kids. We all have memories of college and the struggle and working hard to make something for yourself. A 19 year old backup QB making a million dollars at Utah who might not even be any good? How do you relate to that? How do you have patience with that? How do you root for them to get better? The expectation is that they are good and ready to go.

The games aren’t that affordable any more. Enough said. The bowl games suck now. FSU is in the Orange Bowl and there have been rumblings of them not even going. That’s insane.

And the emphasis on national titles has ruined conference championship games and with how Utah was treated in 2008 and how FSU was treated this year…there is no chance of a special season. You can win it all if you are a blue blood. Outside of that, if FSU can get left out, then Utah 100% will.

This isn’t college football and I’m not sure how long this version can last. Nothing that made it great is still there. And if I want to watch good football, I’ll just watch the NFL.

Hmmm, well I agree with SOME of that, but I have to admit that IMLB is probably right about me being naive here.

The local thing I MOSTLY agree with, but at least for my school (and I DO think this is very dependent on how big your school is or not, how big/good the football program is, etc) we have had many players from all over the country play and start here. Sure, the homegrown ones like Deebo Samuel, Stephon Gilmore, Alshon Jeffrey, Clowney, Kinlaw, etc. do make the game more fun to watch (for me at least), but I would guess there are as many starters from out of state as there are from in-state.

Affordable? I don't get that one. I would pay around the same money to go watch my college team as I would the nearest NFL team (Charlotte/Panthers, in which case they should actually be paying US to go watch that bullshit).

#4 applies to the NFL as well if you are from or live in an "NFL city".

The absurd amount of player churn and turnover I do agree with completely...it was a lot of fun watching some of the players that got picked in the first few rounds of the NFL develop from freshmen. That can still happen of course, it's just a lot less likely now.

So I guess, ultimately, I see IMLB's point about shaking our fists at the sky....I try to be aware of that as I get older...and tamp it down. So here is me trying to do that, while also agreeing that it will never be like it was, will be much more commercial, etc etc. and we can at least say "it was fun and great while it lasted".

While we're changing everything up, can we not at least change the one big thing that REALLY sucks about college football, which is the game length?!

[Skinypupy]

Affordable? I don't get that one. I would pay around the same money to go watch my college team as I would the nearest NFL team (Charlotte Panthers, in which case they should actually be paying US to go watch that bullshit).

I’ve only been to one NFL game. On a work trip to Phoenix, I went out a day early to see a mid season game with the Csrds and Eagles. This was probably 10+ years ago and IIRC, neither team was great. Stadium wasn’t near full.

Nosebleed tickets two rows from the very top were in the neighborhood of $150 + service fees. Nachos and one beer was around $30.

By comparison, I pay $450 for my Utah season tickets; and that’s after a pretty significant increase over the past 5 years. Snacks are usually $15ish per person.

So in my extremely limited experience, NFL games are stupid expensive, comparatively.

[Skinypupy]

Between portal transfers, opt-outs, and guys declaring early for the NFL, Utah is now down another 22 players for the Vegas Bowl (in addition to all the season ending injuries that already happened). At this point, I literally have zero idea what 3rd and 4th string guys will be taking the field.

I’m sure the coaches think the extra month of practices are worth it, but any bowls outside of the CFP certainly seem to have outlived what little usefulness they once might have had. While intended as both a player and fan reward, it’s simply not worth the risk for most players anymore.

Vegas is a $100 flight or a 5 hour drive from here, and I have exactly zero interest in making the trip.

[ImLawBoy]

58 years?! Come on, man.

A longer period is actually worse for my argument, because the starting point is longer so the delta between the oldest figure and the highest figure is larger. It says "In 2020-2021 dollars, one year's college tuition in 1963 cost just over $4,300. In 2020, it cost nearly $14,000." That's over a 300% increase, adjusted for inflation. That's a much larger increase than your source shows over 20 years. It's still orders of magnitude lower than the (relevant) increase in athletic department revenues.

And for the athletic program revenue, here's a more sensible number, from the NCAA itself - this includes ALL FBS, FCS and Div I schools by the way, and includes ALL revenue, not just media:

That's not really a good comparison, because it assumes that athletic departments among FBS, FCS, and Div I are equivalent. Heck, they're not even equivalent among FBS schools. The Power 5 (soon to be Power 4) schools (BTW, those are the "autonomous" schools) are not playing the same game as the rest of the NCAA, and their revenues aren't comparable. To wit, for 2022 in the Big Ten:

The Big Ten had the greatest revenue total at $845.6 million and the greatest per-school distribution at about $58.8 million for each school other than Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. Those schools each received several million less, the conference said, because of distribution of revenue from the Big Ten Network that was earned before they became entitled to full shares.

Almost $60M per school! From media alone! And that's before the even more lucrative deal that started in 2023! And keep in mind that the Big Ten media rights deal in 2000 was giving those schools a shade under $1M per year. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the massively increased athletic department revenues. The NCAA can spin the numbers in a million different ways (and they have a vested interest in seeming egalitarian), but it's hard to argue that the P5 schools haven't seen an increase in athletic department revenues that absolutely dwarfs increases in tuition.

Sure, you can argue that it's unfair that the P5 schools have that much revenue while the non P5 schools don't, but that's hardly a new issue nor terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. Miami of Ohio is not the same as the University of Miami. They never were and they never will be. It's part and parcel of the insanity of having an athletic league that covers an absurd 130+ institutions.

[Scuzz]

Between portal transfers, opt-outs, and guys declaring early for the NFL, Utah is now down another 22 players for the Vegas Bowl (in addition to all the season ending injuries that already happened). At this point, I literally have zero idea what 3rd and 4th string guys will be taking the field.

I’m sure the coaches think the extra month of practices are worth it, but any bowls outside of the CFP certainly seem to have outlived what little usefulness they once might have had. While intended as both a player and fan reward, it’s simply not worth the risk for most players anymore.

Vegas is a $100 flight or a 5 hour drive from here, and I have exactly zero interest in making the trip.

The coaches like the opportunity to see next years possible starters play in a game that doesn’t actually mean anything. Of course no coach wants to lose a game.

[Unagi]

Question for anyone who may know the answer, or willing to spit-ball...

Re: portal transfers & committing.... I'm seeing news shared about athletes that are 'decommiting' to teams.

How does that work? It clearly flies in the face of the word 'commit', is there a penalty for doing this? Is it rare? frowned upon? Normal? Is there any formal structure to being committed? Or is it just an honor-system thing where ultimately the athlete can just always do whatever they want?

[Scuzz]

Question for anyone who may know the answer, or willing to spit-ball...

Re: portal transfers & committing.... I'm seeing news shared about athletes that are 'decommiting' to teams.

How does that work? It clearly flies in the face of the word 'commit', is there a penalty for doing this? Is it rare? frowned upon? Normal? Is there any formal structure to being committed? Or is it just an honor-system thing where ultimately the athlete can just always do whatever they want?

A “decommite” is, As far as I know, a high school kid who verbally agreed to attend a school but then changed his mind before signing. It may also refer players who do the same as a JC transfer or someone from the portal.

[Skinypupy]

Question for anyone who may know the answer, or willing to spit-ball...

Re: portal transfers & committing.... I'm seeing news shared about athletes that are 'decommiting' to teams.

How does that work? It clearly flies in the face of the word 'commit', is there a penalty for doing this? Is it rare? frowned upon? Normal? Is there any formal structure to being committed? Or is it just an honor-system thing where ultimately the athlete can just always do whatever they want?

A “decommite” is, As far as I know, a high school kid who verbally agreed to attend a school but then changed his mind before signing. It may also refer players who do the same as a JC transfer or someone from the portal.

This is my understanding as well. Verbal commits who change their minds at some point.

I think formal commits who have signed commitment letter can be released from it, but the team needs to agree. Which they typically do (because why would you force a kid who doesn’t want to be there to stay).

[Unagi]

Okay, that was what I was mostly thinking: the news is just putting a spotlight on what is a natural part of the history of these verbal agreements. Kids (people) change their minds.

Thanks for the replies.

[Skinypupy]

Florida AG launching probe into FSU’s exclusion from the CFP

Good luck with that.

[Jaymann]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

[Pyperkub]

Florida AG launching probe into FSU’s exclusion from the CFP

Good luck with that.

You forgot this bit - it's something they are actually budgeting state money for:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was requesting $1 million to set aside for Florida State to sue the committee if it chooses.

[Pyperkub]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

[Scuzz]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

With guys in the portal Ohio State may be playing a lot of backups.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's still an evolving landscape, and we have to see what happens. Personally, I think the paid tuition angle is ludicrous, particularly given the amount of money schools are taking in on athletic revenue. "These players who risk their health and futures for our entertainment should be happy - after all, we gave them the stale crusts we cut off of our sandwiches."

A full ride scholarship to higher ed is stale crusts? I suggest looking up what it costs to attend any one of the schools in the top 25 for four years.

I suggest looking up how much money these schools are taking in on the backs of these student athletes. Calling tuition the crusts off of that revenue sandwich is probably being exceedingly generous.

For the 15-20 blue bloods, sure. For everyone else, not so much.

A full ride is the the minimum they have to do to get recruits. It's not near proportionate compensation, it's the league minimum. Especially now when you're asking players to forego the education part to play at an elite level. A few hundred thousand in barter, not real money, off an inflated tuition? Pittance.


I'm no fan of where this is taking college football either but paying the athletes only seems fair. It's not the money going to them that's breaking the game, it's the money, period. It's the relentless push for a playoff and post season.

[Skinypupy]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other. With so many players opting out or transferring now, they don't even serve that purpose anymore. I guess it's a way to see how competitive the 2nd and 3rd string guys might be. I'm sure coaches probably like the extra month of practice, but that's about the only benefit.

I would be surprised if any bowls outside the playoff even exist within 10 years, maybe less.

[Carpet_pissr]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights

Maybe it's different now, but bowl games also payed the winner pretty well IIRC, depending, of course on the bowl.

[Pyperkub]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other. With so many players opting out or transferring now, they don't even serve that purpose anymore. I guess it's a way to see how competitive the 2nd and 3rd string guys might be. I'm sure coaches probably like the extra month of practice, but that's about the only benefit.

I would be surprised if any bowls outside the playoff even exist within 10 years, maybe less.

Eh, I think the bowl TV partners are going to have something to say about this, as well as NIL deals for commercials (think Dr. Pepper is happy Caleb Williams is skipping his showcase bowl? I don't) as well as those funded by wealthy alums? Think the alums who buy bowl tickets (schools are managed to sell X amount of tickets or they eat the costs) want to pay for scrubs? Especially if they are funding the bill for NIL deals?

[Apollo]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other. With so many players opting out or transferring now, they don't even serve that purpose anymore. I guess it's a way to see how competitive the 2nd and 3rd string guys might be. I'm sure coaches probably like the extra month of practice, but that's about the only benefit.

I would be surprised if any bowls outside the playoff even exist within 10 years, maybe less.

I think a lot of people would agree with you, but I enjoy watching bowl games throughout the month of December when there's no other College Football games on and I'll bet others do too. It's the reason they have an NIT in basketball; an excuse to watch more basketball with quality opponents facing one another. Bowls are still useful to rank non-playoff teams in the final polls, extra practice, a game to bring recruits to, a National advertisement for teams that might never get on TV outside their local market otherwise, etc.. I also think a lot of the smaller bowls actually matter more to the players because of the One Last Chance to get NFL scouts attention with a game that will be broadcast nationally.

I think College Football has addressed one of it's big weaknesses by coming up with a system where the best teams get a chance to prove they are they best on the field of play against one another, rather than the old AP Poll popularity contest. Now it just needs to get rid of all the uncompetitive games against teams like Louisiana Monroe or Southwest Missouri State and have teams playing games against other high-profile quality opponents all season long. Ultimately I think College Football needs a "Premier League" of about 32-36 teams so that the "lesser" schools that don't have tens of millions to spend can have their own playoff and Championship. I wouldn't even mind if this new top division had promotion and relegation like soccer where the worst two teams got booted and the two teams that played in the Championship game for the next lowest division were promoted to the "Premiere League" which would make the lesser division's Championship game super meaningful in more ways than one.

[Skinypupy]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other. With so many players opting out or transferring now, they don't even serve that purpose anymore. I guess it's a way to see how competitive the 2nd and 3rd string guys might be. I'm sure coaches probably like the extra month of practice, but that's about the only benefit.

I would be surprised if any bowls outside the playoff even exist within 10 years, maybe less.

Eh, I think the bowl TV partners are going to have something to say about this, as well as NIL deals for commercials (think Dr. Pepper is happy Caleb Williams is skipping his showcase bowl? I don't) as well as those funded by wealthy alums? Think the alums who buy bowl tickets (schools are managed to sell X amount of tickets or they eat the costs) want to pay for scrubs? Especially if they are funding the bill for NIL deals?

Sponsors aren't going to be willing to pay for scrubs, alumni aren't going to be willing to travel to see scrubs, and even die-hard fans aren't going to have much interest in watching scrubs on TV (I really couldn't care less about Utah's bowl game this year). What real incentive is there going to be to play bowl games anymore if all you ever get are the JV teams and none of the actual stars?

The playoff games (will they still be associated with specific bowls in the 12 team format?) will generate gobs of cash, but everything outside of that will just wither and die.

Maybe it's different now, but bowl games also payed the winner pretty well IIRC, depending, of course on the bowl.

I could be wrong, but I thought both teams got payouts for playing in bowls (not just the winner). Payouts which, in most of the non-NY6 bowls, didn't even cover the travel expenses to get there.

[Skinypupy]

I think a lot of people would agree with you, but I enjoy watching bowl games throughout the month of December when there's no other College Football games on and I'll bet others do too.

Oh, I absolutely do too. I watch lots of crappy college football with teams I don't care about during December. As a college football fan, I'll be sad if/when the lower tier bowls go away...but I don't really see a model where they're financially sustainable long term.

Bowls are still useful to rank non-playoff teams in the final polls, extra practice, a game to bring recruits to, a National advertisement for teams that might never get on TV outside their local market otherwise, etc.. I also think a lot of the smaller bowls actually matter more to the players because of the One Last Chance to get NFL scouts attention with a game that will be broadcast nationally.

Two thoughts here:
1. I know they will, but it doesn't really feel right to have games between 2nd and 3rd stringers have any impact on final rankings.
2. I'd say that about 95% of of the players who are NFL worthy will have already made that decision by the time the bowl games come around. There might be a few "bubble players" for whom a strong bowl performance could make a difference, but those are probably few and far between.

[Carpet_pissr]

I could be wrong, but I thought both teams got payouts for playing in bowls (not just the winner). Payouts which, in most of the non-NY6 bowls, didn't even cover the travel expenses to get there.

The very dry details of how bowls are paid out:

Spoiler:

Each conference gets $300,000 for each school that meets the NCAA's academic performance review (APR) for participation in a postseason bowl; FBS Independents like Notre Dame also receive the same amount.

Each of the 10 conferences receive a base payout, again pending that academic performance review. For the Power 5 conferences with contracts to send its champion to the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowl, each conference receives around $79 million. For the other Group of Five conferences that do not have automatic bids for its champion, they divide a total of around $103 million amongst themselves. Notre Dame automatically gets $3.89 million if it meets that APR review; all other independents split about $1.89 million.

Each conference gets $6 million for every football team it sends to a CFP playoff semifinal game. They also get an additional $4 million for participation in one of the other non-playoff New Year's Six bowl games. There is no additional revenue added for making the national championship game.

Each conference gets an additional $2.85 million to cover travel expenses for each game. (Info via the College Football Playoff website.)

"In summary: there is A LOT of money on the line for these massive football games."

And that doesn't even cover the winner's...winnings. Yes, both team that play get money, but the winner gets more IIRC. The winner gets the amount listed below, and the loser gets a "participatory payout" to basically cover travel expenses.

Here's a link to the payout for winning, by bowl. Quite the discrepancy!

https://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl-schedule/2023/

[Scuzz]

What? Missouri (10 - 2) is favored over Ohio State (11 -1) by 2.5? Who came up with that line, Matthew McConaughey?

Given that Ohio St will be missing its starting QB (portal), top WR (skipping, probably for NFL), and a host of other players, yeah, vegas probably has it right.

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other. With so many players opting out or transferring now, they don't even serve that purpose anymore. I guess it's a way to see how competitive the 2nd and 3rd string guys might be. I'm sure coaches probably like the extra month of practice, but that's about the only benefit.

I would be surprised if any bowls outside the playoff even exist within 10 years, maybe less.

Even in the playoff era when the quality has dropped off the number of games has increased beyond the number of “qualifying” teams. The bowls have become cheap live sports for ESPN.

[LawBeefaroni]

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other.

I remember when I was a kid, the Rose Bowl was bigger to Michigan fans than the Superbowl. If the Wolverines made it there were parties just for the announcement and you knew were you would be on New Year's Day (or the day after if it was a Sunday).

Yeah, they're meaningless now but there was a time when bowl games were a big deal.

[Unagi]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that ‘bragging rights’ in Michigan is taken to an obnoxious level.

[Skinypupy]

Bowl games have always ultimately been meaningless for anything except bragging rights, but were at least a good barometer of how different conferences stacked up against each other.

I remember when I was a kid, the Rose Bowl was bigger to Michigan fans than the Superbowl. If the Wolverines made it there were parties just for the announcement and you knew were you would be on New Year's Day (or the day after if it was a Sunday).

Yeah, they're meaningless now but there was a time when bowl games were a big deal.

I grew up with the Rose Bowl being a tradition in our house. Me and my dad watched it every year religiously, no matter who was playing. Back then, Utah playing in the Rose Bowl was unthinkable but we were all glued to the TV for both the parade and the game every New Years Day.

When I got to the stadium for Utah's first Rose Bowl and walked through the tunnel under the bleachers and out to the seats, I got hit with a wave of emotion so hard I literally had to stop walking. All I could do was slump against the wall in tears (I can only imagine the sight it must have been to others). Just thinking about the decades of memories watching this game with my dad, and now I get the chance to actually walk in and see my team play here...and he's not here with me. I don't know that I've missed Dad as much in a single moment since he passed as I did right then. So I fully agree, bowls were a big deal.

Trying to reconcile that level of emotion and meaningfulness with watching multiple players on both teams simply opt out of the Rose Bowl - the Rose Bowl - because it really meant nothing to them was honestly a little difficult to do.

[Carpet_pissr]

Very touching, thanks for sharing that.