Back to the proposal book

The Game · Chapter 02 of 17

Scheduling and Conference Architecture

Create comparable schedules through common minimums and an interconference challenge while protecting rivalries, campuses, and conference authority.

conference games
9
meaningful nonconference
2
flexible game
1
protected rivals allowed
3
Kenneth C. Zirkel · CC BY 4.0.
Browse all 17 chapters

Quick chapter answers

Proposed rules

How many regular-season games?

Twelve: nine conference games, two meaningful nonconference games and one other permitted game. Protected rivalries and campus schedules remain part of the design.

What is the interconference challenge?

One meaningful nonconference game is assigned through a published rotation, creating recurring cross-conference evidence rather than selecting attractive television matchups after teams are known.

What happens to rivalries and FCS games?

Protected rivalries remain. The proposal removes late FCS games and asks large conferences to publish strength-adjusted tiebreakers before the season.

How it works & full rules
The recommendation

Create more comparable schedules with a nine-game conference slate, two meaningful nonconference games, and one coordinated interconference challenge—without replacing conferences with a national schedule office.

Why change is needed

Teams are judged against one another even when their schedules contain too little shared evidence. That rewards strategic avoidance and leaves rankings to fill the gap with reputation.

Why this approach

The goal is not identical schedules. It is enough connection that records, opponent quality, and conference results can be compared with less guesswork.

How it works

  1. Power Four teams play nine conference games, two meaningful nonconference games, and one flexible game.
  2. One nonconference game belongs to a centrally coordinated challenge that creates recurring cross-conference evidence.
  3. Rivalries remain protected, late FCS games disappear, and large leagues publish strength-adjusted tiebreakers before the season.

The tradeoff

A stronger shared floor reduces some scheduling freedom and can add travel. Matchups therefore need advance notice, regional sense where possible, and no after-the-fact selection for television value.

In practice

A challenge opponent is assigned through a published rotation before anyone knows which matchup will draw the biggest rating; the result becomes real cross-conference evidence rather than a made-for-TV exception.

The complete rule set

What this part would establish

  • Power Four institutions play nine conference games, two meaningful nonconference games, and one flexible game.
  • One meaningful nonconference game becomes part of a centrally coordinated interconference challenge.
  • No FCS game is scheduled after approximately October 1.
  • Each team may protect up to three annual conference opponents, subject to balancing rules.
  • Large conferences publish strength-adjusted tiebreakers before the season.

Detailed mechanics

01

A common schedule floor

The standard makes résumés more comparable while preserving one flexible game. Meaningful opponents can include Power Four institutions, FBS independents, or other FBS teams meeting a published quality threshold. Double-bye eligibility also requires a minimum schedule standard.

02

The College Football Challenge

Designated conferences rotate pairings on a multi-year cycle and match teams by prior-year performance tiers. Most games are home-and-home. A limited number can become neutral showcases operated by bowl organizations. Independent and qualifying non-Power Four institutions join through a pool balancing quality, geography, and home-game equity.

03

How the rotation is administered

Each participating conference submits protected rivalries, existing nonconference contracts, available home dates, and venue constraints before the rotation is drawn. The administrator publishes the multi-year pairing logic, performance bands, home-and-away balance, replacement order, and the treatment of a canceled game before schools know the season's selection stakes. A neutral-site conversion requires both teams' consent and must preserve the rotation's long-term home-game equity.

  • The meaningful-game threshold is set before scheduling begins and cannot be rewritten after an opponent has a weak season.
  • Independents and qualifying non-Power Four teams receive access through the same published pool rather than private one-off exceptions.
  • An unavoidable cancellation can use the published replacement order; it cannot become a late opportunity to choose the easiest available opponent.
  • The October FCS limit keeps late-season résumé comparisons centered on FBS competition while preserving early-season local and financial relationships.
04

Rivalries are a design requirement

Rivalry Week remains the final regular-season weekend, and protected opponents remain part of conference schedule construction. A schedule can be mathematically balanced and still be a cultural failure; the reform explicitly rejects that trade.

05

Fairer large-conference standings

When teams with identical records did not play, head-to-head cannot solve qualification. Conferences would use a published adjustment built from opponent conference performance and shared-opponent data rather than an unexplained national ranking. Divisions, pods, and protected-opponent systems all remain available.

Current proposal answers

Decisions already made.

These are policy calls—not claims that outside approval or validation already exists.
01

Which strength-adjusted tiebreaker is transparent enough for fans and stable enough for qualification?

Use the published National Résumé Rating as the final cross-schedule tiebreaker after head-to-head, common-opponent, and conference-record procedures. The input file and calculation must be frozen and auditable before qualification is decided.

Safeguards

What keeps the rule honest

  • Challenge rotations and matchup tiers are announced far enough in advance for travel and ticket planning.
  • Campus home-game equity is tracked across the full rotation.
  • Schedule thresholds reward ambition without making geography or existing contracts impossible to manage.

Evidence still required

What outside proof must answer

  • What opponent-quality threshold should satisfy a meaningful nonconference requirement?
  • How should conferences compensate institutions that give up existing high-value home inventory?
Discuss this chapter

Community

Discuss this chapter.

Ask a question or suggest a change. Threads also appear in Community; sign in to post.

Popular in Scheduling & rivalriesView all threads
Loading public threads…
Create a threadHow do we improve schedules without flattening tradition?