This ^^^ OF course, since "Mammon" rules the game these days, let's not hold our breath waiting for THAT to happen!My point was, the Sugar Bowl doesn't mean less to a player because some other team is in another bowl game, the Sugar Bowl means less to a player because the bowl experience itself has been devalued as a whole.
I mean if it was up to me, there would be a hard cap on the number of bowls, with preference for historical significance, and every team would have to have a winning record. Then, it would mean a bit more. You'd have to actually earn it, and what you earned would have some significance. You can't take a brand new bowl you just made up, and then put a couple 6-6 teams in there and not taint the bowl experience. And yes, I do disagree with anyone who says otherwise, heh.
And in the same Vein, the PAC-12 rule is just so much EMPTY POSTURING. When was the last time a PAC team with only 5 wins went to a bowl??? Yea, that would be about NEVER.
IF they wanted to make an Actual "STATEMENT" about the "quality of the game" or some other meaningless platitude, they'd pass a rule that ONLY teams with 7 FBS wins could go to bowls. But they won't - because THAT rule might have actual consequences - unlike this phony-balony "rule" they passed.