The first two weeks of the college football season have drawn sharp criticism for their cautious approach. Only a single Top 25 matchup appeared on Labor Day, and many programs opted for matchups that promise little drama or national intrigue.
By shielding their records with easy nonconference opponents, teams are essentially gaming the playoff selection process. Conference win totals become inflated, making it harder for deserving teams to stand out when the playoff committee evaluates résumés.
History offers a contrasting picture. In 1984, Auburn scheduled a demanding early slate that featured games against formidable opponents, and the 2016 Labor Day weekend showcased a lineup rich with high‑profile contests. Those seasons demonstrated how compelling early‑season games can energize fan bases and shape playoff conversations.
Reimagining the Schedule
Two proposals have emerged to break the current stalemate. One calls for a Big Ten‑SEC Challenge that would pit powerhouses from those conferences against each other in the opening weeks, guaranteeing marquee matchups. The alternative suggests adopting 10‑game conference schedules, which would free up slots for more meaningful nonconference games while preserving the traditional regular season structure.
Both ideas aim to dismantle the tribal loyalty that keeps conferences insulated from each other. By forcing high‑stakes interconference games early, the sport could generate the excitement that fans crave and provide the committee with a richer set of performance metrics to evaluate.
Expanding the playoff to 24 teams is not a panacea for the scheduling dilemma. Even with a larger field, the underlying need for compelling early‑season contests remains. The real solution lies in daring scheduling choices that prioritize competition over convenience, giving each program a chance to prove itself on a national stage from the outset.