I guess this is something you and I have went around on before and just see differently. Last year’s Rose Bowl between Washington and Ohio St to me wasn’t any less important than it was 30 years ago when Michigan St and USC played in it. Both games were matchups of really good teams that won their conferences but weren’t in the NC picture. I struggle sometimes to see the difference in how the bowls were viewed.
Every bowl, even the major ones, has had its share of “meaningless” games that goes back well before the CFP.
Yes, but a few things.
1.) Even if it was "meaningless" as far as the national championship went, it was still the peak bowl for that team. Ohio State could do no better than the Rose Bowl, Alabama the Sugar Bowl, etc..., even if it had no national title implications. It was still the goal bowl. Now, if you are in the Rose Bowl, it means you weren't good enough for your real goal.
2.) Even in the BCS era, the national title game was a single game. It was such an elite echelon, that coverage could not and did not singularly focus on it. The way the coverage is now, you would think they went straight to a 64 team playoff, because the 4 team playoff seems to be covered like the NCAA basketball tournament.
3.) The randomness of the bowl tie ins. Even as your goals adjusted with each loss, it went from Championship Game, to Rose Bowl, to NYD bowl, to just getting a bowl. I know there was some playing with that, but there was at least somewhat of a correlation. Now, the Big Ten just has a bunch of random bowl deals, and they have to take 6 different teams over 6 years or something. So once you get to 6 wins, meh? Nothing you do from that point on impacts anything. I don't think MSU has been to the Citrus or Outback Bowls this cycle, so hell, we might go 6-6 or 7-5 and wind up playing NYD just because we can, and the other bowl eligible teams can't.