what do you guys think about the regional aspect of bowl games? VSIN guide is making a case that teams playing in a regional proximity to their school gives them the sense of homefield advantage. In these identified games, teams are 10-9 ATS the last 3 years, but 37-29 the last 66 such games.
I have often cherry picked it the other way, teams that don't travel for the bowl, don't go to a different town or area, someplace they haven't been before, especially if the team had a disappointing season and finds themselves in their home stadium or region for a bowl game, to me is a negative. There is no bowl experience or less of one when you stay closer to home. The sense of being somewhere new and all that comes with it is gone which is a big part of the whole bowl week activity schedule. Examples being - Tennessee playing in Nashville last year, lost as TD fav. Miss State last year returning to the Liberty Bowl in Memphis where they had just played a regular season game, lost as big fav. Auburn played Houston last year in their home state of Alabama, lost. North Carolina teams playing in Charlotte's Duke Mayo bowl have lost their last 2 (0-2 ATS also) and 3 of the last 4 (0-3-1 ATS).
It just depends. I did ML Idaho several years ago when they played on the blue as I thought it would be a rare chance for them to go there and actually win a game in that stadium so they might be excited to do so, they did. MWC teams usually do well in that game vs their opponents. Some of the Michigan MAC schools have done well in the Motor City Bowl.
So I think this can cut both ways, and would think that regional aspects of the bowl location to the school could be considered a positive in some cases, and a negative in other cases and not any kind of 'rule' or guideline I would use for selecting teams without consideration.