Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I've never bought that teams don't get up for bowl games. Lots of kids are playing their last football game, as in ever. There's not that many games to play either. Each one is an event. They all matter to the kids playing and coaches coaching. It's their life.

Okay, but based on what?  Besides you guys just saying so?  Each game IS an event, yes, but to expect 20 year olds to get 'UP' for 100% of them is foolish.  

A bowl game is a special thing to a 55 year old man.  Sure.  I get that.  But to a 20 year old who's season didn't turn out the way it was supposed to, the bowl game = free stuff, a bunch of events he may or may not enjoy, and then one more game to play which is meaningless in terms of season goals.  

The goal for every team is to win every game it plays, whether that game is the MNC final or a pre-conference (or tune up) game against Hawaii or ULaLa.

Auburn was one game from the playoff (and SEC championship) and missing that effectively ended their hopes and dreams, while a win over UCF would have been a meh, so what?

Wisconsin was one game (6 points) away from the playoff (and B1G Championship), got shafted into playing a true road game against Miami, and what happened?
"Turnover Chain my f'ing ass!", said Paul Chryst.
Ohio State had an argument over Bama ("no clear separation") last year, got shafted into playing its Rose Bowl in Dallas, and what happened?
Hell, the season before last, UW was one game away from a B1G Championship and got shafted to play PJ Barnum's undefeated Rowboats from Western Michigan, in Dallas. 
PJ Barnum may never beat Wisconsin, I'm thinking, if he couldn't beat them in that game. But that's not the topic here.

Okay, but based on what?  Besides you guys just saying so?  Each game IS an event, yes, but to expect 20 year olds to get 'UP' for 100% of them is foolish.  

A bowl game is a special thing to a 55 year old man.  Sure.  I get that.  But to a 20 year old who's season didn't turn out the way it was supposed to, the bowl game = free stuff, a bunch of events he may or may not enjoy, and then one more game to play which is meaningless in terms of season goals.  

Meaning is different to different people. 
A coach wants to win a bowl game. They literally put it on their season goal lists everywhere. It's usually one of the more attainable ones actually. I assume most players want to win rather than lose. Most are competitive. Some let the noise and such around them distract them. Some aren't focused because they felt they deserved better or let failure compound itself.
Some teams just aren't up for it. Bowls should be taken with a grain of salt. But it also becomes a retroactive thing, playing the outcome. If a game goes one way, it means one team was better, the other, that team was still better, but didn't try. I'm plenty into saying, this outcome doesn't necessarily mean something black and white, but this brand of excuse-making is something that never quite sat right. 

But what you call "just got beat" isn't different than "looking ahead".  It's a bell curve.  

The better team loses sometimes.  Some X-percent of the time.  I think we all agree on that.  
So let's look at 3 all-time insane upsets that just pop in my head, that I think everyone will know about:

1975 Kansas beats Oklahoma, 23-3.  Kansas was 5-3, OU was on a 28-game winning streak.
Is it unfair to say OU looked past KU?  The Sooners had 6 turnovers in the 2nd half, but KU forced at least some of them, didn't they?  The KU defense kept the rolling OU wishbone out of the end zone for 60 minutes.  OU was by far the better team, but got beat.  Do we just say KU played better and go on about our business?  Am I silly when I suggest that OU, facing hapless KU at home, sandwiched between road games vs ranked opponents, thought the Jayhawks would be another easy win, as they always had been, and might not have prepared their hardest?  Might not have played with their hair on fire, as they SHOULD every game?  

We can give KU it's due AND state the obvious - that the better team didn't play anywhere near its best, much of which had nothing to do with what KU did.  What's the crime in that?!?

1992 Iowa St beat Nebraska, 19-10.  ISU was 3-6, UNL was in the top 10.
There wasn't a big turnover disparity here.  ISU ran all over the Huskers and earned their win.  But what was the context?  UNL had just destroyed two top-15 teams the past 2 weeks and was trying to clinch the Big 8 title the following week vs OU.  Is someone going to tell me they weren't overlooking lowly ISU?!?  This is exhibit A of exactly what I'm saying happens - the better team having just dominated 2 large bumps in the road, with a major goal still ahead of them, and they poop the bed vs a lesser team.  Saying "upsets happen" isn't enough - why do they happen?  when?  Are there certain situations in which upsets are more likely?  All I'm saying is YES.  

2007 App St beat Michigan 34-32.  App St was I-AA, UM was #5 in the country.
This one was unique, wasn't it?  The season-opener.  App State was #1, but in FCS.  Vegas didn't put a line on it, because it was supposed to be an easy blowout.  UM had a lot of talent coming back - NFL types.  Home game.  Ranked 5th.  Probably paid ASU a lot of money, too.  No big statistical difference, no big turnover difference.  App State earned the win.
The flukiest things in the game were the last 2 events, really - UM getting into FG range in the last 25 seconds, then App State blocking the FG attempt as time expired.  The other 59 minutes and 30 seconds weren't fluky.  Was the eventual 13-2 ASU team better than 9-4 Michigan?  No.  But they won, and that's the goal. Great.  Did UM "show up"?  Did they play their best?  

If you want to debate playing your best every single game vs playing your baseline average, that'd be one thing.  But UM's best was better than ASU's best.  UM's average baseline was better than ASU's baseline.  Now badge and others like to say every team should always play their best at all times forever.  Sure they should.  BUT THEY DON'T.  NO ONE DOES.  NO ONE CAN.  What should be and what is, is vastly different.  Putting your head in the sand and pretending it's not true is silly.

Look at the "losers" on the list - Switzer, Osbourn, Carr.  Bad coaches?  Bad motivators?  Of course not.  They did everything good coaches do year after year, game after game.  But 100% isn't a realistic goal.  

and sometimes, the underdog justs plays a great game with a few good bounces