College football has always thrived on rivalries, traditions, and marquee matchups that fans look forward to every season.
But, as the sport transitions into a new era with yet another expansion to the College Football Playoff (CFP) and reported automatic qualifiers on the table for the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12, one question looms large: Is there any real benefit to playing non-conference games anymore?
The case for canceling for college football non-conference games
For teams in power conferences, non-conference games have always been a double-edged sword. On one hand, a big win against a tough opponent can boost a team's resume. On the other, a loss could put them in a tough spot for College Football Playoff selection. But with automatic bids now in place, that changes.
Risking injury or an unnecessary loss in a non-conference matchup suddenly seems like a bad trade-off when a team could simply focus on winning its conference games. A team like Georgia or Michigan, for example, could cruise through SEC or Big Ten play and still make the playoff without worrying about a fluke September — or November — loss derailing their season.
More control over playoff positioning also becomes a factor. Without non-conference games, teams would have a clearer path to controlling their postseason fate. Instead of worrying about the impact of a random Week 2 matchup against an out-of-conference contender, a team’s entire focus would be on its own league games — which analysts expect to move to 9 for conferences that haven't already made that decision.
Uniformity across conferences would also be a benefit. Right now, some teams schedule cupcake opponents to pad their record, while others take on ranked non-conference foes in the hopes of impressing the committee. Eliminating non-conference play would create a more level playing field.
Honestly, what benefit does Florida State, for example, have in scheduling a tough out-of-conference opponent if the ACC is going to get two automatic bids? The Seminoles would be better off focusing on winning their conference games and earning one of those two bids, using that non-conference spot to play a lesser opponent from the Group of 5 or FCS level.
The case for keeping non-conference games intact for college football
Of course, removing non-conference games would fundamentally change the sport—and not necessarily for the better. Michigan Athletic Director Warde Manuel recently pushed back on the idea that easier schedules are the way to go for CFP selection, arguing that the committee still values teams that schedule and win tough games rather than those who play it safe.
One of the best things about college football is seeing powerhouse programs from different conferences clash in early-season games. To start out this 2025 season, we're going to get to see Clemson vs. LSU, Ohio State vs. Texas, Miami vs. Notre Dame, and Florida State vs. Alabama.
Strength of schedule still matters. Even with automatic bids, teams will be jockeying for seeding. A team that wins tough non-conference games could position itself for a higher seed and an easier playoff path, while one that coasts through a weak schedule might get penalized in the rankings.
Then there’s tradition. Some of college football’s best rivalries happen in non-conference play. Would we really want to see Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, or Notre Dame-USC disappear? Rivalry games are the backbone of the sport, and eliminating non-conference play would erase decades of history.
The sport is changing, no doubt, but some things should never change. It will be interesting to see if that becomes the case or not.