I heard this idea on the radio being discussed. The idea was to make the Bowl Games basically an NIL deal with the players getting paid by each bowl for media and endorsement rights. Only players eligible to play would get paid, so if someone has left via the portal or is sitting out for any reason they wouldn't get paid. One idea that was brought up, that I liked, was that there be a larger NIL deal for players on the winning team.

Not sure if this would even be allowed, but I think it would step in the right direction to improve the non-CFP bowl games.

I think I like it but I wonder if as soon as players start getting paid officially for participation that it opens up the door for all the other sports that lose money to demand fair and equal payment too.

2 hours ago, theguru said:

I think I like it but I wonder if as soon as players start getting paid officially for participation that it opens up the door for all the other sports that lose money to demand fair and equal payment too.

Exactly. College sports as we know it is finished. My solution for bowl games? Cancel about 70 percent of them.

27 minutes ago, 9068 said:

Exactly. College sports as we know it is finished. My solution for bowl games? Cancel about 70 percent of them.

I would still do what I proposed in the past, the top 16 teams play for one title and the NIT of college football could be teams 17 to 32.  But, they would have to be paid for all of that and that probably brings us back to square one, dump most of the games. 

2 hours ago, 9068 said:

Exactly. College sports as we know it is finished. My solution for bowl games? Cancel about 70 percent of them.

The ratings for “meaningless” bowl games are higher than almost anything else on television. You’re proposing a solution that isn’t being sought. No one has to watch the games but all the evidence shows people are watching. And nothing is getting canceled. 

For the life of me I can’t understand why so many people complain about bowl games. Other than about five games they are nothing more than exhibitions. You know this in advance. But you aren’t being held hostage; nobody has to watch. I will never understand why a mid-tier bowl game in a random location on a Wednesday afternoon is this hill people choose to die on. 

24 minutes ago, gchs_uk9 said:

For the life of me I can’t understand why so many people complain about bowl games. Other than about five games they are nothing more than exhibitions. You know this in advance. But you aren’t being held hostage; nobody has to watch. I will never understand why a mid-tier bowl game in a random location on a Wednesday afternoon is this hill people choose to die on. 

Generally speaking I think the exhibitions are unfair to the players which is my beef.  But the more games on the merrier for me. 

Expand the playoff to 12 teams, and move all the rest of the bowl games to the beginning of the season. Bowl committees still invite teams they want, and the bowl games actually matter. 

16 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

Expand the playoff to 12 teams, and move all the rest of the bowl games to the beginning of the season. Bowl committees still invite teams they want, and the bowl games actually matter. 

I prefer 16 but yes!

3 hours ago, TheDeuce said:

Expand the playoff to 12 teams, and move all the rest of the bowl games to the beginning of the season. Bowl committees still invite teams they want, and the bowl games actually matter. 

I’m extremely curious to see what the bowl schedule looks like once the expanded playoff begins in a couple years. 

Cut back on the number of games.

Don't open the transfer portal until January.

10 hours ago, theguru said:

I think I like it but I wonder if as soon as players start getting paid officially for participation that it opens up the door for all the other sports that lose money to demand fair and equal payment too.

That's why it has to be an NIL thing between the bowls and the players. 

If fair mattered WNBA would get paid the same as the NBA. WNBA will never be on par with NBA nor should it until it creates the revenue the NBA does. Same argument for college football player getting bigger NIL deals than an unknown 3rd basemen.

14 hours ago, The Raven said:

Cut back on the number of games.

Don't open the transfer portal until January.

I would not be in favor of any restrictions on the transfer portal, all that does is put the players last. 

13 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

That's why it has to be an NIL thing between the bowls and the players. 

If fair mattered WNBA would get paid the same as the NBA. WNBA will never be on par with NBA nor should it until it creates the revenue the NBA does. Same argument for college football player getting bigger NIL deals than an unknown 3rd basemen.

I don't think the WNBA is a good analogy.  It is a separate league, it's horrible basketball, no one cares, and therefore they operate at a loss even with the NBA subsidies. 

In the case of college athletics it would be different teams playing for the same school so I can see where an argument could be made for "equity" and the courts making it happen. 

To your point, the games would have to be NIL Sponsored Games or something like that.

2 hours ago, theguru said:

I don't think the WNBA is a good analogy.  It is a separate league, it's horrible basketball, no one cares, and therefore they operate at a loss even with the NBA subsidies. 

In the case of college athletics it would be different teams playing for the same school so I can see where an argument could be made for "equity" and the courts making it happen. 

To your point, the games would have to be NIL Sponsored Games or something like that.

Yes, they have to be paid by a 3rd party and not the schools.

 

I guess a better analogy would be men's and women's world cup soccer. FIFA controls both and women make less due to lower TV rights and sponsorships compared to men's soccer.