what makes bowl games any more or less meaningful than any other game on the schedule?
They're college football-ish. Weeks (a month?) after the regular season wraps up, travel to up to a week before the game and half-practice, half-activity once there, hope you don't have too many significant players suspended for any number of reasons that pop up in December. Other than playing a different team, they're more like a spring game than a regular season game.
Under any postseason system, I've thought bowl games are a silly data point to judge football teams on.
Meh, difference of opinion I guess. But they count on your record. Spring games don't (KU's 2012 spring game notwithstanding). People don't drive a thousand miles to attend a spring game.
I understand Bill doesn't treat the bowl games very seriously, but I think he's an bad person for that.
Yeah, they're meaningful in that they get included in a season record. But I see through teams bragging up a "10-win season" or whatever the W number is as if that means the same as it used to, when teams are now playing 12 regular season games + 1-2 postseason games. Kind of like talking up being a "bowl team" or a "20-win" hoops team.
I'm talking more about how the bowl game reflects on how good a team was during that season, so I guess I'm implying maybe they shouldn't count in the team's season record. They're just too different from how all the other games are conducted to be an accurate reflection of anything.
Of course many more people attend them than a spring game, and they're meaningful to those people who have them as a part of their holiday and/or family vacation. But as to the on-field product, lots of similarities - a somewhat distinct 3-week practice session, a focus during the practice on younger players and longer-term future production and much more off-the-field activity surrounding the "game" than in any regular season contest.
