ADVERTISEMENT

A question for all of you learned college football fans concerning opting out of bowl games except the playoff games.

Freddie.B.Cocky

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2002
46,532
11,493
113
I can see to some extent why players that are projected as high draft choices would opt out of playing in a meaningless bowl game. They obviously could get seriously injured and never play in the NFL and hence never make the millions of dollars that comes with playing in the NFL.

However, couldn't they also get injured in a playoff game and hence never play in the NFL? All the injured player would be getting as a result of getting injured in a playoff game would be a ring if his team won. I guess the 2nd place team would get a ring, too, but my point is why would a player play in the playoff games and not in some of the more minor bowls. Yes, a National Championship Game would mean more than the Gator Bowl but you are still just as injured in the Gator Bowl as the Championship game. In both cases, the player ends up not making the NFL, if it's a serious injury.

I'm trying to educate myself on this issue and I'm sure I've overlooked some facts that are important to the players.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tngamecock#
Why would anyone play college FB if they did not want to win a National championship?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jweaks
I can see to some extend why players that are projected as high draft choices would opt out of playing in a meaningless bowl game. They obviously could get seriously injured and never play in the NFL and hence never make the millions of dollars that comes with playing in the NFL.

However, couldn't they also get injured in a playoff game and hence never play in the NFL? All the injured player would be getting as a result of getting injured in a playoff game would be a ring if his team won. I guess the 2nd place team would get a ring, too, but my point is why would a player play in the playoff games and not in some of the more minor bowls. Yes, a National Championship Game would mean more than the Gator Bowl but you are still just as injured in the Gator Bowl as the Championship game. In both cases, the player ends up not making the NFL, if it's a serious injury.

I'm trying to educate myself on this issue and I'm sure I've overlooked some facts that are important to the players.
Risk vs. Reward.
 
I see why they do it. I just don’t like it. I know the players can purchase insurance policies, but what if the school/league/NCAA would pay for a policy? Use their projected draft status to determine traumatic injury payout. Amount may not be what they would end up making long term, but would be substantial enough so they would be fine should they get injured.
 
To me one is an exhibition game, and the other counts toward a goal you’ve been playing for all season/college career.

bowl games are frivolous and fun and meant to be a reward for a good season. A true exhibition. No reason to potentially harm your future earnings.
 
I don't like it. But for those with an almost certain NFL future I can see it. Merely a business decision. They see media, administrators, coaches, shoe companies, etc., making millions while they are just actors on the stage. Now they do need college ball to market themselves for the NFL. But once they have proven their talents, they have to weigh the decision of playing one last game, or taking the chance on an injury causing them to lose a ton of money. Its all business
 
To me one is an exhibition game, and the other counts toward a goal you’ve been playing for all season/college career.

bowl games are frivolous and fun and meant to be a reward for a good season. A true exhibition. No reason to potentially harm your future earnings.

But what about fan that purchases tickets, in some cases they can ill afford, and stands in 100 degree weather to watch players play that represent their university? If you were a Gator fan would you be happy with the performance of your team the other night? Especially if you spend thousands of dollars buying tickets, gas, food, etc to see your team play all year long. To me those fans got cheated.
 
I can see to some extent why players that are projected as high draft choices would opt out of playing in a meaningless bowl game. They obviously could get seriously injured and never play in the NFL and hence never make the millions of dollars that comes with playing in the NFL.

However, couldn't they also get injured in a playoff game and hence never play in the NFL? All the injured player would be getting as a result of getting injured in a playoff game would be a ring if his team won. I guess the 2nd place team would get a ring, too, but my point is why would a player play in the playoff games and not in some of the more minor bowls. Yes, a National Championship Game would mean more than the Gator Bowl but you are still just as injured in the Gator Bowl as the Championship game. In both cases, the player ends up not making the NFL, if it's a serious injury.

I'm trying to educate myself on this issue and I'm sure I've overlooked some facts that are important to the players.
While players don’t tend to “opt out” of playoff games, my opinion is some of them do loaf it or “fake” injuries. That all world DE for OHST did virtually nothing against the taters last year and appeared to take a lot of plays off. The first year the taters played Alabama, it looked like their two first round corner and safety both appeared to loaf it or get slightly “injured” during the game. Just my personal observation.
 
But what about fan that purchases tickets, in some cases they can ill afford, and stands in 100 degree weather to watch players play that represent their university? If you were a Gator fan would you be happy with the performance of your team the other night? Especially if you spend thousands of dollars buying tickets, gas, food, etc to see your team play all year long. To me those fans got cheated.

I would definitely be disappointed if I was a Gator fan (mostly because I'd have to wear orange), however, if people are spending their last dollar on a football game, then that's on them. But bowls for fans is supposed to be more than the game as well. It's a vacation surrounding an exhibition game by their favorite team - like a 72-hour-long tailgate. If they're only going for the game, then they might as well watch on TV.

But until the players are directly paid by the fans ticket revenue (like in the pros), then the players owe the fans nothing. The school owes the fans, and the players owe the school - but there's a disconnect between the players and fans. I do have a problem with professional players sitting out games so they're healthier for the playoffs because those players are getting paid so fans can see them.
 
It’s a business now plain and simple . All this rah rah play for the love of the game , teammates and university died years ago . It’s just the way it is now . Don’t have to like it but gotta accept it
 
It’s a business now plain and simple . All this rah rah play for the love of the game , teammates and university died years ago . It’s just the way it is now . Don’t have to like it but gotta accept it

Well, I know it's a business now but I think the game is losing something, at least for me. That's one reason, I never liked Pro Football because it was all about business and now college football is "closing in" on becoming the same.

I will always love the players I watched at Carolina from years gone by, such as the gentleman in the picture above my username, plus guys like Dickie Harris, Sunshine, Jeff Grantz, Lattimore and so many more that I won't even try to mention simply because they loved USC and was proud to suit up in the Garnet and Black.

Today's players are going to have to grow on me a little bit before I can make the same statement about them.
 
Well, I know it's a business now but I think the game is losing something, at least for me. That's one reason, I never liked Pro Football because it was all about business and now college football is "closing in" on becoming the same.

I will always love the players I watched at Carolina from years gone by, such as the gentleman in the picture above my username, plus guys like Dickie Harris, Sunshine, Jeff Grantz, Lattimore and so many more that I won't even try to mention simply because they loved USC and was proud to suit up in the Garnet and Black.

Today's players are going to have to grow on me a little bit before I can make the same statement about them.

I agree the game is losing its innocence. I’m still a massive NFL fan probably more so than college but the college game is slowly just turning into a farm system for the NFL . Unfortunately I think that trend will continue to get worse before it gets better .
 
To me one is an exhibition game, and the other counts toward a goal you’ve been playing for all season/college career.

bowl games are frivolous and fun and meant to be a reward for a good season. A true exhibition. No reason to potentially harm your future earnings.
For that reason, they should all be eliminated. Any of the participants could be seriously hurt and the games don't mean anything. And if the teams in the bowls are not the same teams that played the season, why travel or otherwise spend money to see them? Why even watch if they aren't the same teams people have been watching all season? So, eliminate all of them that aren't playoffs.
 
For that reason, they should all be eliminated. Any of the participants could be seriously hurt and the games don't mean anything. And if the teams in the bowls are not the same teams that played the season, why travel or otherwise spend money to see them? Why even watch if they aren't the same teams people have been watching all season? So, eliminate all of them that aren't playoffs.

But the opt outs are a very small minority of the players. The rest want to play. It’s fun for them. It’s a reward where they get treated to a very cool experience. They get national tv coverage, gift bags, great food. If someone has moved on to something else and doesn’t want to play - who cares?
 
Well, I know it's a business now but I think the game is losing something, at least for me. That's one reason, I never liked Pro Football because it was all about business and now college football is "closing in" on becoming the same.

I will always love the players I watched at Carolina from years gone by, such as the gentleman in the picture above my username, plus guys like Dickie Harris, Sunshine, Jeff Grantz, Lattimore and so many more that I won't even try to mention simply because they loved USC and was proud to suit up in the Garnet and Black.

Today's players are going to have to grow on me a little bit before I can make the same statement about them.

The game has lost some of its innocence. There are several steps to bring that innocence back to the days where George Rogers, Dickie Harris, and Jeff Grantz were around 40-50 some odd years ago.

1. TV deals would have to be drastically reduced. You want football innocent like it was in 1970 or whatever? There can be 2 or so channels nationally showing 1 or 2 games a week, max. Those who want to watch a game on TV whose game isn't one of the 2 national games of the week will need to actually go to the game or listen to the Gamecock Radio Network. That's how it worked in the innocent times.

2. Ticket prices will need to be reduced radically. $40 max for the best seats in the house, students go free, lowest prices will run you about $5-10 dollars. Luxury seating will be converted to general seating.

3. Due to the huge decrease in revenue, facilities will be stripped to a bare minimum. Current Taj Mahal facilities will be given to the universities for academic program use or sold to private interests. All athletes will be housed with the general student population.

4. Coaches will again be paid a "coach's salary." Adjusted for inflation, Bear Bryn's made about $1.2 million a year towards the end of his career. That will be the new coaching salary cap. Many coaches won't make much more than $100,000 a year. No assistant coaches will even sniff a million dollar annual salary. For reference, Dabo makes about $9.3 million a year.

5. Due to the scaled back version of football, the number of administrators will be decreased. ADs will be making a whole lot less money and will have to do a lot more "nuts and bolts" stuff that their assistant ADs currently do. There will be far, far fewer assistant ADs and support staff.

6. Merchandising deals will be greatly reduced.

7. NCAA compliance must be ramped up dramatically. The Death Penalty will be brought back and probation will need to have teeth again. Post-season bowl bans, TV bans, major scholarship penalties, etc. will be a regular thing. Criminal penalties passed by the federal government would need to be strongly considered to deter particularly egregious behavior on the part of alums, players, coaches, etc.

8. To reduce the incentive of players sitting out, the money in pro football will need to be dramatically reduced as well. In order to bring the innocence back, TV networks, team owners, players, and potential advertisers will need to find it in their hearts to take big paycuts, reduce endorsements, cut back television exposure of pro teams (no NFL network or fan packages), end video game deals, dramatically reduce apparel deals, and cut ticket prices substantially. This will in turn lower the salaries of the NFL players to what they were in the simpler times, thus reducing the incentive of college players to sit out big games.

9. The number of bowl games will be reduced considerably. 8 wins will be the minimum number of wins to qualify. The regular season will be reduced back to 11 games, which will increase time for the players to concentrate on their studies.

So basically, taking the money out of it will increase the innocence. Make it more like the olden times. Even many of the super elite college players will no longer fear losing life-changing amounts of money on one bad play and will be more willing to just play for the "fun of it." The all-important bowl games will have greater importance again. That said, almost all of the above proposals are highly unlikely. Times have changed, perhaps not for the better in all respects. The genie is out of the bottle and it's probably impossible to put him back in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidrobinski
But the opt outs are a very small minority of the players. The rest want to play. It’s fun for them. It’s a reward where they get treated to a very cool experience. They get national tv coverage, gift bags, great food. If someone has moved on to something else and doesn’t want to play - who cares?
The opt outs decrease value. When they reach the extent that we saw in this year's Cotton Bowl, the entire exercise is invalidated. So eliminate all postseason "exhibition" games that "don't mean anything", even if it means expanding the playoffs, an idea that I have staunchly resisted up until now. Bowls have become entitlements, which never should have been allowed to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad
The opt outs decrease value. When they reach the extent that we saw in this year's Cotton Bowl, the entire exercise is invalidated. So eliminate all postseason "exhibition" games that "don't mean anything", even if it means expanding the playoffs, an idea that I have staunchly resisted up until now. Bowls have become entitlements, which never should have been allowed to happen.

sounds like the free market should decide. You say opt outs decrease value - but to whom? If the fans don’t want to watch the games because of opt outs, then they can stop watching. If that actually happens (it won’t to any significant degree, but hypothetically) then it may not be financially viable for some bowls to continue. The bowls don’t put on a game to lose money and they can’t run on a deficit. If they lose money the business folds.

As it is more groups want to put on bowls than ever. And as long as someone wants to put on a game, two teams want to play in that game, a title sponsor wants the game named after it and a network wants to air the game - then there should be a game. Why get all communist and close it down with something as American as football?
 
When you play in a bowl your representing your conference and more importantly your own program. Treating bowls like they are “meaningless games” makes us National Embarrassments when we go out and get clowned on National TV. Like the UVA bowl!
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Freddie.B.Cocky
sounds like the free market should decide. You say opt outs decrease value - but to whom? If the fans don’t want to watch the games because of opt outs, then they can stop watching. If that actually happens (it won’t to any significant degree, but hypothetically) then it may not be financially viable for some bowls to continue. The bowls don’t put on a game to lose money and they can’t run on a deficit. If they lose money the business folds.

As it is more groups want to put on bowls than ever. And as long as someone wants to put on a game, two teams want to play in that game, a title sponsor wants the game named after it and a network wants to air the game - then there should be a game. Why get all communist and close it down with something as American as football?

Indeed. The issues everyone are complaining about center on one thing: money. Take the money out, and you'll have your scrappy guys playing for the love of the game again. Until then, this is what you get if you want your SEC network, $9 million a year coaches salaries, $300 tickets, etc.
 
sounds like the free market should decide. You say opt outs decrease value - but to whom? If the fans don’t want to watch the games because of opt outs, then they can stop watching. If that actually happens (it won’t to any significant degree, but hypothetically) then it may not be financially viable for some bowls to continue. The bowls don’t put on a game to lose money and they can’t run on a deficit. If they lose money the business folds.

As it is more groups want to put on bowls than ever. And as long as someone wants to put on a game, two teams want to play in that game, a title sponsor wants the game named after it and a network wants to air the game - then there should be a game. Why get all communist and close it down with something as American as football?
I see you found a hopefully disarming word to use, but it's not that complicated and it won't work with me. Players play football because they love the game. Stakeholders stage bowls to boost economies and extend the season. The appeal of the bowls lies in the quality of the teams being pitted against one another. The "rewarding the players" aspect is a by-product of what a team achieved during the regular season, that is, the team that played the regular season. When that team no longer exists because people simply decide not to play, both the spirit of the game and the basis for the bowl matchup is diminished, so the loss of value is inevitable. These bowl events became suspect well before 2020. They became laughable this year. I'm not the one to decide how many bowls or the qualifications for playing in them, but I know the difference between good and better, or better and best, or good and bad. And I'll vote with either my pocketbook or my remote. I agree with you in one aspect: the market will dictate. Diminution of the product, if it persists, will eventually turn the market.
 
The idea of the best players playing for free is dead and gone. We are on the precipice of the likeness and image money. Add in opt outs, and the transfer window, which decimated team and teammate loyalty, and amateur College football does not exist. The system of the future is an NFL developmental league and a separate amateur College league with hard and fast rules. We won't like it, with the lesser quality of play, but maybe institutional loyalty will become a marketable commodity. But only with less talented players.
 
I see you found a hopefully disarming word to use, but it's not that complicated and it won't work with me. Players play football because they love the game.

To some extent this is true, but substantially fewer people would be playing football if the potential for big time money wasn't there. Take out the potential for huge financial payoffs and the number players who are in it for the love of the game will increase.
 
To some extent this is true, but substantially fewer people would be playing football if the potential for big time money wasn't there. Take out the potential for huge financial payoffs and the number players who are in it for the love of the game will increase.
Sounds like a compelling case for an NFL developmental league to me.
 
Sounds like a compelling case for an NFL developmental league to me.

Times change. It might come to that. The money wasn't there 40 years ago like it is now. College football is a developmental league as it is now, and it's naive to think otherwise.
 
The idea of the best players playing for free is dead and gone. We are on the precipice of the likeness and image money. Add in opt outs, and the transfer window, which decimated team and teammate loyalty, and amateur College football does not exist. The system of the future is an NFL developmental league and a separate amateur College league with hard and fast rules. We won't like it, with the lesser quality of play, but maybe institutional loyalty will become a marketable commodity. But only with less talented players.
College football could exist again. What was stated in post #31 could be the first step.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT