I initially thought Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne’s idea for how to tweak the College Football Playoff selection process must be self-serving. After all, most playoff ideas that originate from a university or conference administrator are rooted in self-interest.
But, the more I considered Byrne’s idea to more greatly reward non-conference strength of schedule during the at-large selection process, the more I liked it.
My lasting thought: Byrne suggested a worthwhile idea for how to improve the college football season.
This came after I asked Byrne, one of the nation’s most prominent athletic directors, last spring how he’d address the playoff. He shared a few thoughts, but he emphasized he felt most passionately about the selection process needing to place additional merit on non-conference strength of schedule.
“I am 100% convinced that (would be) good for the game and everybody around it,” Byrne told me.
He’s right. Weighting non-conference strength of schedule would encourage Power Four teams to schedule more games fans want to see and media partners want to televise. That’s good for the game.
The playoff is not broken. Neither is the selection process, subjective and controversial though it is. But, playoff ideas that would boost the season interest me. This idea would do that, by incentivizing schools to schedule better non-conference games.
I’d add an addendum to Byrne’s suggestion. Don’t just value non-conference schedule strength. Value teams that win key interleague games.
The March Madness selection process has figured this out better than college football. Consider last basketball season, when the SEC dominated non-conference play, including a 14-2 record in the ACC-SEC challenge. The SEC’s NET ranking topped all conferences, and it appropriately qualified 14 of its 16 teams for the tournament. Throughout the postseason, the SEC lived up to the reputation it built during the season.
Byrne, who serves on the NCAA men’s tournament selection committee, says he pays particular attention to non-conference metrics as he partakes in the selection process.
“One of the first things I look at is non-conference strength of schedule in men’s basketball,” Byrne said, “because I think that’s good for men’s basketball to have it not be just a January to March sport.”
Again, he’s right. Likewise, wouldn’t it be better if college football’s September docket featured more non-conference blockbusters like Texas-Ohio State or LSU-Clemson, while reducing the number of games like Houston Christian-Nebraska and Austin Peay-Georgia?
The abundance of lopsided, lackluster non-conference games creates a drag on the regular season. Too many coaches and their bosses gravitate toward the path of least resistance, after seeing that strategy rewarded.
The past two national champions, Ohio State and Michigan, finished on top after neither played a Power Four non-conference opponent. Penn State crafted a similar road map for this year. The Nittany Lions will begin the season by chowing down on Nevada, Florida International and Villanova.
Indiana wriggled into the playoff last season after rolling through a non-conference feast of Florida International, Western Illinois and Charlotte. The Hoosiers recently doubled down on this strategy, adjusting their future non-conference schedules to make them as easy as possible.
Washington coach Jedd Fisch called Indiana’s strategy of playing three non-conference nobodies “dead-on right.”
It’s doggone pathetic, too, and it doesn’t stop with Indiana.
Big Ten, SEC teams among those seeking out cupcakes
Big Ten teams will play four times as many MAC foes as they will SEC opponents. SEC teams will square off against the Ohio Valley as often as they’ll face the Big 12.
Six Big Ten teams won’t play a single non-conference game against either a Power Four opponent or Notre Dame.
Teams might lose their appetite for cupcakes if the playoff committee more heavily weighted non-conference metrics. And, if teams stiffened their non-league schedules, that would assist the committee’s task of evaluating at-large playoff contenders.
How might this idea affect playoff selection?
If non-conference metrics had been more heavily weighted last season, that might have exposed Indiana, one of the last at-large teams admitted into the field. The Hoosiers didn’t bother to play a Power Four non-conference opponent.
The committee admitted Indiana thanks to its 11-1 record and its avoidance of a bad loss.
If non-conference results had been more greatly valued, a 10-2 BYU team that beat SMU, a playoff qualifier, might have appealed more to the committee.
Two-loss Miami, which beat Florida at The Swamp, also would have merited a stronger look. Three-loss South Carolina could have gained more of a boost from winning at Clemson, the ACC’s champion.
Now, let’s revisit my original thought: Would adding weight to non-conference schedule strength be self-serving for Alabama? Perhaps.
Starting this year, through 2034, Alabama has two games scheduled per season against either Power Four non-conference opponents or Notre Dame. Adding playoff selection value specific to non-conference metrics might therefore accelerate Alabama in bubble situations.
But, shouldn’t we want teams to follow Alabama’s lead of seeking out challenging non-conference opponents, rather than ducking Power Four opponents in favor of Austin Peay?
To Byrne, the answer seems obvious.
“Good non-conference games are really good for college football,” Byrne said.
Rewarding teams that play good non-conference games would help ensure those games remain part of college football’s future.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
