Few college football programmes are more prestigious or influential than the University of Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish. So when the team, fresh off a College Football Play-off snub, opted out of a bowl game, many saw it as confirmation that the bowl system is a relic of the past and beneath teams with championship aspirations.

That reaction is understandable. But rushing to bury bowl games overlooks a basic fact: for much of college football, postseason absent the play-offs still brings critical attention, money and experiences that the play-off doesn’t fully replace. That makes the system worth saving and fixing.

Bowl games didn’t always feel this disposable. For decades, the match-ups were the ultimate reward for a successful season. With no national championship game — titles were determined by polls of coaches and players — they became college football’s unique postseason spectacle; the place where rivalries and traditions were created and sustained.

But the status associated with bowls has been breaking down for a while now. The College Football Play-off, first played in 2015, has been key to this decline.

Now that teams have a pathway to compete for a national title, a “championship or bust” mentality infuses the sport. Last year’s expansion of the CFP field from four to 12 teams accelerated that shift by making championship aspirations accessible to more schools.

In theory, the CFP has tried to preserve tradition by repurposing the six most storied bowls into rotating hosts for quarter-final and semi-final games. While that is good for those six, it also leaves dozens of other bowls off the championship path.

It is unsurprising, then, that schools and athletes now view those bowls differently. What was once a sought-after reward has been reduced to a consolation prize.¹

The result is a clear dilemma for players. Many have National Football League aspirations and competing in what amounts to meaningless games risks injury that could hurt their chances of being drafted. Some opt out, even if their teams are playing. Institutions also face their own low returns and decisions that make it more cost-effective to miss a bowl game than attend. Iowa State and Kansas State both willingly absorbed $500,000 fines from the Big 12 conference for declining bowl invitations in 2025. Having recently lost their coaches, the schools preferred to redirect their resources to rebuilding programmes. If they can become CFP contenders, the payoff justifies the penalty: merely qualifying for the CFP earns their conferences $4 million.

Just as important, the CFP provides a massive national platform that enhances an athletic programme’s value, from merchandise sales to intensified fan engagement and support from boosters — the alumni and local supporters who bankroll the programme. Winning it all, or the possibility of winning it all, enhances a school’s brand and ensures a steady flow of quality recruits.

Yet for all the risk-reward calculus done by players and schools, the bowls themselves have not lost their audience — proof that there is still something here worth preserving.

Last season, 33 non-CFP bowl games averaged a solid 2.7 million viewers, an increase of 14 per cent year over year. ABC enjoyed its best non-CFP bowl game audience in 11 years. And younger demographics, especially 18 to 49, were particularly engaged, showing a 21 per cent increase in viewing of games that don’t determine anything. Broadcasters are betting on that interest. Rather than back away from the games, ESPN and other networks will be airing hundreds of hours of bowl football between mid-December and early January.

For lower-tier teams such as Jacksonville State and Troy University — participants in the IS4S Salute to Veterans Bowl this year — that exposure is a can’t-turn-down, three-hour nationally televised infomercial. It helps with brand recognition, recruiting and fundraising. Elite programmes, on the other hand, get that exposure constantly during the regular season. But Notre Dame and other blue bloods should not be so quick to dismiss the opportunity, either. In the era of big-money college football, every bit of exposure helps to build brand and revenue opportunities.

All of that suggests that bowls still have real value; the challenge is that the window to show it is closing fast. Notre Dame’s exclusion from the CFP in 2025 has reignited the debate over whether to expand the play-off to more teams. If that happens — and it is likely that it will — one result would be the further marginalisation of non-CFP Bowls.

That raises an urgent question: is there a way to incentivise schools and players to embrace the non-CFP bowls before they fade away entirely?

One possibility is for bowls to offer direct compensation to athletes through name, image and likeness deals. Such an approach would appeal to players at elite and non-elite schools, and could be the basis for rebuilding a robust bowl system — especially since most schools actively seek new revenue to fund athlete compensation.

While colleges would ultimately control acceptance of invitations, those that decline against the wishes of their athletes would have to consider whether such a move might influence players to transfer elsewhere. Either way, NIL-based college tournaments are already happening. Last month, the Players Era Festival in Las Vegas attracted some of the biggest names in college basketball with big NIL payouts.

Notre Dame’s decision to skip bowl games this year may have come across as petulant, but it served a purpose. It reminded college football that nostalgia, alone, cannot sustain the bowl system. If the bowl system is to endure, it needs incentives that matter.

Notes:

1, Schools can still use bowls to develop athletes and programmes for the future, but that’s simply not why players and programmes compete at the highest levels.

• Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of sport. He is the author, most recently, of Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale