Does Nick Saban Have a Good Point? “If We Don’t Take Strength of Schedule into Consideration, Is There Any Benefit to Scheduling Really Good Teams in the Future?”
Nick Saban, the legendary head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide, has long been a key figure in shaping the landscape of college football. Recently, he raised a provocative question that has sparked significant debate within the sport: “If we don’t take strength of schedule into consideration, is there any benefit to scheduling really good teams in the future?” Saban’s comments touch on an issue that has become more pressing in recent years as college football has evolved with the expansion of the playoff system, the importance of playoff rankings, and the rise of the NIL era.
Saban’s question stems from a growing concern that, in the current college football climate, teams are penalized for playing difficult non-conference schedules. The College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings, which ultimately determine the four teams that compete for a national championship, are heavily influenced by a variety of factors—including a team’s overall record and strength of schedule. However, Saban points out that if strength of schedule isn’t truly taken into account when the rankings are determined, then there may be little incentive for elite programs to schedule high-caliber teams.
At first glance, this may seem like a contradiction. After all, college football’s elite programs, like Alabama, are expected to play the best teams in the country, and many believe that testing themselves against top-tier competition is what separates them from the rest of the pack. However, as Saban suggests, the current playoff system doesn’t always reward teams for playing tough schedules. Instead, it sometimes favors teams that may have played a more manageable schedule, but emerged undefeated or with fewer losses.
The College Football Playoff Selection Committee evaluates a range of factors when determining rankings, and strength of schedule is one of the most scrutinized. A team’s ability to defeat highly ranked opponents is supposed to weigh heavily in the rankings, but in practice, this isn’t always the case. Teams that schedule tough opponents can often find themselves in a difficult position, especially if they lose one or more games against these elite opponents.
For example, a team like Alabama, which routinely schedules challenging non-conference games, faces the risk of losing a game early in the season or in the middle of conference play. If the team then struggles to win the SEC or loses a conference game, it might fall behind other teams in the playoff rankings that have an easier schedule but fewer losses. As Saban rightly points out, this creates a paradox: why should a team put itself at risk by scheduling difficult opponents if the reward doesn’t always match the effort?
As the dynamics of college football have shifted, many top-tier programs have adopted a more conservative approach to scheduling. Instead of scheduling marquee matchups with other top-10 teams, some programs are opting for softer non-conference schedules that allow them to rack up wins and maintain a favorable record. This trend is not unique to Alabama; several powerhouses, including teams from the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC, have opted to schedule less challenging non-conference opponents in the regular season.
The shift toward softer schedules has become even more pronounced with the increasing influence of the playoff system and the desire to maintain a top ranking. Teams that fail to win their conference championships or lose a game early in the season can see their playoff hopes dashed, despite potentially having played some of the toughest opponents in the country. For many programs, this creates a situation where they are forced to prioritize wins over quality of competition.
Saban’s concern highlights a flaw in the current playoff system: the lack of a true reward for playing tough schedules. The benefit of scheduling elite teams should not only be about the immediate impact of a win but also about the broader narrative that a tough schedule creates. A team that plays and defeats high-caliber opponents is likely to be more prepared for the playoff and national championship picture. It also adds to the overall excitement and prestige of college football, as fans look forward to seeing their favorite teams test their mettle against other powerhouses.
One way to address this issue could be to provide a clearer advantage in the playoff rankings for teams that schedule and defeat difficult opponents. This would encourage elite programs to seek out top-tier non-conference games, knowing that it would boost their playoff chances rather than hurt them. This system would reward teams for their commitment to excellence and create more high-profile matchups that would benefit the sport as a whole.
Nick Saban’s comments about scheduling tough opponents in the modern era of college football raise an important question: is the current system really rewarding the right behavior? While some may argue that teams should simply focus on winning their conference championships and let the chips fall where they may, Saban’s concerns highlight a larger issue within college football. The sport has evolved, and so too should its scheduling and ranking practices. If college football truly values the best teams competing for a national championship, it’s time to re-evaluate the weight given to strength of schedule in the playoff rankings. Otherwise, teams might have little reason to schedule the very games that make college football so compelling in the first place.