College football is at a crossroads, and the path forward is littered with debates over player compensation, playoff expansion, and conference realignment. But one issue stands out as particularly symptomatic of the sport’s current malaise: the decline in the quality of non-conference scheduling. Personally, I think this trend is not just a scheduling quirk but a reflection of deeper systemic issues in college football. It’s a symptom of a win-at-all-costs mentality that prioritizes playoff appearances over the integrity of the game itself.
Take the recent collapse of the USC-Notre Dame rivalry, for instance. On the surface, it’s just another canceled game. But what makes this particularly fascinating is how both teams benefit from the cancellation—fewer tough opponents, more guaranteed wins, and a better shot at the College Football Playoff. This isn’t just about USC and Notre Dame; it’s a microcosm of a broader trend where Power 5 teams are increasingly padding their schedules with weaker opponents. From my perspective, this isn’t just bad for competition; it’s bad for the sport’s soul.
Enter Nick Saban, the legendary former coach of Alabama, who recently proposed a solution that’s as bold as it is simple: play 12 games against Power 5 opponents. One thing that immediately stands out is Saban’s willingness to call out the elephant in the room—college football is a business, and fans want to see marquee matchups. What many people don’t realize is that Saban’s proposal isn’t just about creating better games; it’s about restoring the sport’s credibility. If you take a step back and think about it, the current system incentivizes mediocrity. Why risk a loss when you can schedule a sure win?
But here’s the kicker: Saban’s idea will likely never gain traction. Why? Because it challenges the status quo. Coaches, athletic directors, and even fans have grown comfortable with the idea that winning is more important than competing. This raises a deeper question: are we okay with college football becoming a glorified version of high school athletics, where teams avoid tough opponents to protect their rankings?
A detail that I find especially interesting is how Saban’s proposal aligns with the potential expansion of the College Football Playoff to 24 teams. If more teams are going to make the playoff, why not embrace tougher schedules? What this really suggests is that the sport is at a tipping point. Do we want a playoff system that rewards mediocrity, or do we want one that celebrates competition?
Consider the Week 1 schedule for some of the biggest teams: Ohio State vs. Ball State, Texas vs. Texas State, USC vs. Fresno State. These aren’t games that excite fans or test teams. They’re placeholders, designed to pad win columns. In my opinion, this is a disservice to the sport and its fans. College football should be about more than just winning; it should be about the spectacle, the rivalry, the drama.
Saban’s solution is refreshingly straightforward: play better games, trust your team, and let the chips fall where they may. It’s a call to return to the roots of the sport, where competition mattered more than rankings. Will it happen? Probably not. But it should. Because if college football continues down this path, it risks losing what makes it special—the unpredictability, the passion, and the sheer joy of watching two great teams collide.
What this really suggests is that the problems with college football scheduling are just the tip of the iceberg. They’re a symptom of a sport that’s lost its way, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability. Personally, I think Saban’s proposal is more than just a scheduling fix; it’s a call to rethink the values that drive the sport. And if we don’t listen, we might just wake up one day to a college football landscape that’s unrecognizable—and uninspiring.
