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 quality of non-conference scheduling. Personally, I think this is where the heart of the problem lies—not just in the games themselves, but in what they reveal about the priorities of the sport. When teams like USC and Notre Dame cancel their historic rivalry, it’s not just a loss for fans; it’s a stark indicator of how the College Football Playoff (CFP) has warped incentives. Teams are opting for easier schedules to boost their win columns, sacrificing tradition and competitiveness on the altar of playoff eligibility.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader trend in college sports: the pursuit of short-term gains over long-term sustainability. From my perspective, this isn’t just about scheduling—it’s about the soul of the game. College football has always been about rivalries, upsets, and the unpredictability that comes with pitting powerhouse programs against one another. But when coaches and athletic directors prioritize playoff berths above all else, the sport loses its edge. One thing that immediately stands out is how this strategy backfires in the long run. Sure, you might secure a playoff spot by avoiding tough opponents, but at what cost? Fan engagement, historical rivalries, and the very essence of competition are all casualties of this approach.
Enter Nick Saban, the legendary former coach of Alabama, who has offered a solution that’s as bold as it is straightforward: play 12 games against Power 5 opponents. What many people don’t realize is that Saban’s proposal isn’t just about scheduling—it’s a call to restore integrity to the sport. In his testimony before the Senate, Saban acknowledged the business side of college football, a detail that I find especially interesting. He understands that fans want to see high-stakes, high-quality matchups, not lopsided games against lesser opponents. If you take a step back and think about it, Saban’s idea is a direct challenge to the status quo. It’s a reminder that college football should be about more than just winning; it should be about competing at the highest level, regardless of the outcome.
But here’s the kicker: Saban’s solution will likely never be adopted. Why? Because it requires courage—something that’s in short supply among coaches and administrators who are more concerned with job security than the health of the sport. This raises a deeper question: Are we content with a system that prioritizes playoff appearances over the very things that make college football great? I’m not. And neither should you.
What this really suggests is that the CFP has become a double-edged sword. While it’s elevated the sport’s profile, it’s also incentivized mediocrity. Take a look at this year’s Week 1 schedule: Ohio State vs. Ball State, Texas vs. Texas State, Florida vs. Florida Atlantic. These aren’t the matchups that inspire passion or drive viewership. They’re placeholders, designed to pad win totals rather than test a team’s mettle. Compare that to games like Ole Miss vs. Louisville or Wisconsin vs. Notre Dame, and it’s clear where the excitement lies.
From my perspective, the brilliance of Saban’s proposal is its simplicity. Play better games. Trust your team. Let the chips fall where they may. It’s a philosophy that aligns with the spirit of competition—something that’s increasingly rare in today’s win-at-all-costs landscape. Of course, this approach would mean more losses for some teams, but so what? If the CFP expands to 24 teams, as many predict, a few extra defeats won’t be the end of the world. What matters is the quality of the games and the stories they create.
In the end, Saban’s solution is less about scheduling and more about values. It’s a reminder that college football should be about more than just winning—it should be about competing with honor, tradition, and a commitment to excellence. Will his idea ever be implemented? Probably not. But it’s a conversation worth having, because the alternative is a sport that’s lost its way. And that’s a game no one wants to watch.
