During a relaxed dinner this past fall, we covered numerous hot topics in college sports, and then a prominent figure in football surprised me by flipping the script.

“What would you do about the college football postseason?” they inquired, leading to a thought-provoking discussion that revealed an idea I hadn’t contemplated before.

For an industry that has long supported the bowl system, even sharing profits from the College Football Playoff (CFP), a shift seems to be brewing.

About a decade ago, when the CFP was created, it was obvious changes were coming to college football’s postseason dynamics, yet bowl games were still viewed as indispensable. Although the financial model often results in schools losing money on these games, institutions and conferences participated, believing they served as rewards for players, opportunities for coaches to conduct extra practices, and promotions for their universities.

“The landscape is certainly changing,” my dinner companion noted, requesting anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic. They pointed out that more players are choosing to skip bowl games or leaving through the transfer portal, which affects fan interest. “It’s becoming unsustainable. Is it really a reward if players are opting out? The simple solution might be to eliminate them. I value tradition, but I just can’t see how this is viable moving forward.”

I was taken aback. Hearing someone with such significant connections in the sport discuss the possibility of a major shift in the college football postseason was eye-opening.

Is it possible to completely eliminate bowl games? How about creating a secondary tournament in December for teams that miss out on the CFP? Or turning current bowl matchups into exhibition games or scrimmages following spring practice?

These and many other ideas should be part of the ongoing conversation, the individual suggested. With the playoff expanding to 12 teams, and potentially more, non-CFP bowls are losing their allure, making the status quo untenable.

Discussions about reshaping bowl season gained urgency recently when Marshall, the Sun Belt champions, withdrew from their scheduled Dec. 28 Independence Bowl against Army, due to having fewer than 50 available players after head coach Charles Huff left for Southern Mississippi and subsequent player departures in the transfer portal.

“Currently, our football program’s participation levels raise significant concerns regarding the health and safety of our student athletes competing safely,” school officials said in a statement.

Although Louisiana Tech, which finished with a 5-7 record, stepped in to take Marshall’s place, officials at Army and the American Athletic Conference expressed outrage. Conference commissioners are likely to have discussions in January about reforming the bowl system.

“We need to evaluate the entire framework and see if there are better alternatives,” said one commissioner, who wished to remain anonymous as formal discussions have yet to commence.

The timing is ripe for considerations of change. In 2026, current agreements are set to expire, and the College Football Playoff is anticipated to expand to 14 teams, which will undoubtedly affect the current bowl landscape, which includes 35 bowl games not associated with the playoff.

It’s crucial to acknowledge that despite its flaws, bowl season remains integral to ESPN’s December programming lineup. ESPN operates 17 of these games directly and has agreements with virtually all the others. It’s daunting to convince college football’s main business partner that bowl games should be deemed unnecessary when they fill TV slots around the holidays, drawing more viewers than regular-season games of the NBA, college basketball, or NHL.

“I believe any changes will need to be subtle,” said Nick Carparelli, executive director of Bowl Season, which oversees various operational aspects among bowl organizers. “There are workable solutions. It’s just about whether people are willing to think outside the box and prioritize the best interest of the sport instead of adhering to a status quo that is clearly no longer viable.”

So, what might those solutions be? Carparelli suggested ideas that could include adjusting the transfer portal schedule, linking player revenue-sharing to bowl participation, allowing bowl payouts to vary based on player availability, and imposing consequences for schools that withdraw from bowl games after committing to play. It could also mean creating greater flexibility to craft matchups that make more logical sense, rather than sticking with the current selection process that mandates specific conferences fill specific bowl slots.

“Bowl games are loved by fans and the bowl system has its charm,” Carparelli stated. “The real issue lies not within the bowl games themselves but rather with the overall structure of college football, which is currently harming the sport at all levels.

“It’s time to stop offering excuses and identifying reasons for our inaction in implementing beneficial changes to the sport. We need to take bold actions to address this. We’re beyond the stage where we can expect a one-size-fits-all solution. Difficult choices are required that prioritize the sport’s best interests, even if they may not be widely accepted.”

However, the situation becomes complicated. Carparelli’s main role is to advocate for the bowls. For many years, this was relatively straightforward as those involved in the sport viewed the system as valuable and willingly made compromises to support and expand it. They even adjusted the structure to include six bowl games within the College Football Playoff system, even when it may have been more practical to eliminate them. Nobody wanted to be the one responsible for ending the Rose Bowl.

Now, the sentiments within the industry have shifted. Athletic directors are currently grappling with significant budget constraints arising from the House vs. NCAA settlement and athlete revenue sharing agreements, which could cost them tens of millions. At the same time, fans are increasingly being asked to contribute financially to support name, image, and likeness initiatives.

Is it really worth losing money over a bowl game—most schools do so because they have to purchase large amounts of tickets upon signing the participation contract—especially if they’re not in the playoffs, fans show little interest, and many key players have chosen not to participate?

“We keep increasing the number of bowl games, which has unfortunately diminished the significance of the entire postseason by merely adding more events,” a source familiar with the matter shared with YSL News Sports under the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of these partnerships. “And the bowls manage to avoid financial loss since they transfer all the risks to the schools. We need to enhance the value we provide to ensure their sustainability.”

The dynamic interplay between the bowl system advocating for NCAA-driven changes that enforce player participation and schools/conferences seeking reforms that could reduce bowl games or improve financial terms will be interesting to observe as we approach 2025.

It’s evident that administrators are at least considering a drastically different future for postseason games beyond just the playoff. The bowls no longer exert overwhelming influence over the decision-makers. One way or another, transformation is on the horizon.

“Any modification involves some compromise,” Carparelli remarked. “However, there’s a workable system that ensures everyone retains their opportunities.”