re: I have a solution to this inevitably growing bowl game sit out business

quote:

---

Name 1 sit out that's been successful In the NFL after 3 years.

---

It’s hasn’t been three years since this trend has started but McCaffery, Fournette, and Derwin James have all had really good starts to their careers thus far.

It’s not dumb. It’s unconventional, and I personally wouldn’t care for it. But it functions the same way in terms of the money it brings in and the exposure it brings to the schools. Also it absolutely solves the two issues at hand: 1) it makes it so no one sits out of them and 2) it makes the bowl games have much more meaning with regard to their impact on a given season. The romantacism of playing the games at a different time may be debatably altered or diminished, but the mechanics of what it does to solve the two above mentioned issues cannot be debated.

Bowl games mean even less now with the early signing period. Most recruits are signed before the bowl game is ever played.

I think everyone has already mentioned all of the reasons why playing a bowl game at the beginning of the next season is a bad idea. Unless the players who sit out of bowl games start getting drafted lower, there’s nothing else that will prevent future players from sitting out.

quote:

---

It’s not dumb. It’s unconventional, and I personally wouldn’t care for it. But it functions the same way in terms of the money it brings in and the exposure it brings to the schools. Also it absolutely solves the two issues at hand: 1) it makes it so no one sits out of them and 2) it makes the bowl games have much more meaning with regard to their impact on a given season. The romantacism of playing the games at a different time may be debatably altered or diminished, but the mechanics of what it does to solve the two above mentioned issues cannot be debated.

---

It is dumb. And here's why - what you have failed to realize here, and I would suspect of more importance for players and coaches, is the extra practice time all of these teams get leading up to the bowl games, which they would not get in your scenario.

Also, besides what I imagine are a relatively small group of people, nobody really cares about the two solutions you're trying to solve for. Of course the media is going to push this agenda, because outside of the actual playoff games, there's nothing else for them to talk about right now...so let's create drama.

While I, personally, would love to see guys like Greedy play one more game - the fact is, it's his decision to play/not play. So, if he wants to sit, then so be it...but I would have to assume that it would not be the same decision if LSU was in the Final Four.

To the point of the games not meaning anything, well, it's been that case forever. Except for a few games over the the life of bowl games, MOST bowl games had no real significant meaning - and it was a "reward" for a good season...and gave the fans the opportunity to travel somewhere fun over the Holidays.

Most of the teams that have a chance to compete for the title essentially already play a bowl game at the start of the season now, anyway, so...

quote:

---

what you have failed to realize here, and I would suspect of more importance for players and coaches, is the extra practice time all of these teams get leading up to the bowl games, which they would not get in your scenario.

---

This is the first valid point I’ve seen made against it, and you’re right.

But at the same time, didn’t you just kind of make a point as to the value of Bowl games in the current format? From the coaches’ very own points of view, the extra practice time is of GREAT significance to the team. Wouldn’t that alone make the Bowl games worth their salt?