Joel Klatt’s vision for college football represents a bold step forward for the sport. By centralizing scheduling and adopting the 9-1-2 model, college football can address its longstanding issues of inconsistency and unfairness
This proposal not only benefits players and teams but also enhances the fan experience by delivering more competitive and entertaining matchups.
As the sport continues to evolve, ideas like Klatt’s provide a blueprint for a brighter and more equitable future.
With strong leadership and a commitment to reform, college football can achieve its full potential and solidify its place as one of the most beloved sports in America.
Scheduling in college football has long been a contentious issue, and Joel Klatt’s perspective shines a light on many of the flaws in the current system.
From the overreliance on FCS opponents to the complexities of independent programs like Notre Dame, there is no shortage of areas for improvement.
As the sport moves into a new era with an expanded CFP and ongoing conference realignment, addressing these issues will be essential for maintaining the integrity and appeal of college football.
Also Read: Joel Klatt’s Honest Take on Colorado’s Week 1 Struggles Under Deion Sanders
Table of Contents
Joel Klatt’s Vision as Commissioner
Joel Klatt, a prominent FOX college football analyst, has presented a bold and comprehensive solution to address the long-standing controversies surrounding college football’s scheduling practices.1
With the College Football Playoff selection process at the center of heated debates, Klatt stepped into the imaginary role of a national college football commissioner during an episode of The Joel Klatt Show.
His mission: to introduce uniformity in scheduling and ensure a fairer, more engaging system for players, teams, and fans alike.
It is far past time to make a schedule that is actually exciting, competitive, and balanced which would make CFB better for everyone, specifically fans @JoelKlattShow pic.twitter.com/QSBPaXR4Y4
— Joel Klatt (@joelklatt) January 15, 2025
The Problem with Current College Football Scheduling
College football scheduling has often faced criticism for its inconsistency and lack of structure. Each athletic director is currently responsible for creating their team’s schedule, leading to significant disparities in the strength of schedules between programs.
This lack of uniformity has a direct impact on the College Football Playoff selection process. Teams from Power Five conferences often find themselves competing against vastly different levels of competition, making it difficult to objectively evaluate their performances. Joel Klatt highlighted this disparity, drawing comparisons to the NFL.
“We don’t let NFL owners build their own schedule,” Klatt pointed out. “So why in the world do we let athletic directors build their own schedule?”
The current system often results in highly uneven matchups, with powerhouse programs scheduling easy non-conference games against weaker opponents to secure early-season wins. This practice frustrates fans and undermines the competitive integrity of the sport.
Joel Klatt’s Proposal: Centralized Scheduling Process
To address these issues, Klatt proposed a centralized scheduling model, removing the responsibility from individual athletic directors and placing it in the hands of a national body.
According to Klatt, this approach would significantly increase the value of college football’s inventory and deliver a product that fans truly want.
“I think that needs to be a centralized process,” Klatt emphasized. “If we do that, we can increase the valuable inventory five-, six-, seven-, ten-fold.”
By centralizing the scheduling process, Klatt envisions a system where every team plays a balanced and equitable schedule. This would ensure that teams are judged more fairly when competing for coveted playoff spots.
Introducing the 9-1-2 Model
At the core of Klatt’s vision is the 9-1-2 scheduling model. Under this system, every team would play:
- Nine conference games
- One non-conference game against a Power 4 opponent
- Two non-conference games against Group of Five teams
This model ensures consistency while maintaining diversity in matchups. The emphasis on nine conference games promotes intra-conference rivalries and guarantees that each team faces a significant number of quality opponents within its league.
The inclusion of one Power 4 non-conference game addresses the demand for high-profile matchups that fans crave. These games, featuring elite teams from different conferences, often generate massive viewership and shape the national championship narrative.
Finally, the two Group of Five non-conference games provide an opportunity for smaller programs to showcase their talent on a bigger stage. This also ensures that powerhouse programs don’t avoid competitive non-conference matchups entirely.
Joel Klatt: Why the 9-1-2 Model Works?
Klatt’s 9-1-2 model aligns with the goals of fairness, competition, and entertainment.
Here’s why it stands out as a viable solution:
1. Uniformity Across Conferences
One of the most significant challenges in college football is the disparity in the number of conference games played across leagues.
Some conferences, like the SEC, play only eight conference games, while others, like the Big Ten and Pac-12, play nine. This inconsistency creates an uneven playing field when evaluating teams for the playoffs.
Klatt’s model mandates that every conference plays the same number of games, leveling the playing field and making it easier to compare teams from different leagues.
2. Increased Power 4 Matchups
The lack of regular, high-stakes games between top programs is a common complaint among fans. The 9-1-2 model addresses this by requiring each team to play at least one non-conference game against a Power 4 opponent.
“We need more games of Power 4 against Power 4,” Klatt said. These marquee matchups not only boost television ratings but also help determine the best teams in the country through direct competition.
3. Opportunities for Group of Five Teams
While Power 4 programs dominate the spotlight, Group of Five teams often struggle to gain recognition.
Klatt’s model ensures that these teams get opportunities to face top-tier programs, giving them a chance to prove their worth and potentially upset the big names.
These games also provide a financial boost for smaller programs, as they benefit from the revenue generated by high-profile matchups.
Also Read: Joel Klatt’s Wife: Who Is Sara Ordway? Net Worth As Fox Sports Analyst
Joel Klatt: Fan-Centric Approach
Klatt’s proposal is rooted in enhancing the fan experience. By creating a standardized schedule with more competitive games, college football would deliver a product that meets the demands of its passionate audience.
“I’m looking at you, fans, and I’m like, ‘I’m about to give you more of what you want,’” Klatt said.
This fan-first mentality is essential for the long-term growth of college football. With increasing competition from other sports and entertainment options, the sport must prioritize engaging and exciting matchups to maintain its appeal.
Addressing Potential Challenges
Implementing the 9-1-2 model would not be without its challenges. Resistance from athletic directors, conferences, and certain programs is inevitable.
Many schools currently benefit from the ability to schedule weaker opponents, ensuring early-season wins and boosting their chances of bowl eligibility.
Additionally, logistical concerns such as travel costs and existing contracts with non-conference opponents would need to be addressed.
Transitioning to a centralized scheduling process would require careful planning and collaboration among all stakeholders.
However, the long-term benefits of a more equitable and entertaining scheduling system far outweigh these obstacles. With the right leadership and a commitment to the sport’s growth, the 9-1-2 model could revolutionize college football.
Impact on the College Football Playoff
A uniform scheduling approach would have a profound impact on the College Football Playoff.
By eliminating discrepancies in schedule strength, the selection committee would have a clearer picture of each team’s true capabilities.
Under the current system, teams from weaker conferences or those with easy schedules often face criticism when selected for the playoffs.
The 9-1-2 model ensures that every team competes against a comparable level of competition, leading to a fairer and more credible playoff selection process.
Why Joel Klatt Feels Scheduling Needs Tweaked in College Football?
The topic of scheduling in college football has been a hot-button issue for years, and Joel Klatt, a prominent college football analyst, recently added his voice to the ongoing debate.
From the structure of the College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings to the challenges posed by scheduling weaker opponents, Klatt’s perspective offers valuable insights into how the system could be improved.
When it comes to the CFP rankings, strength of schedule often emerges as a deciding factor in determining which teams make the cut. Conferences like the SEC and Big Ten frequently highlight the difficulty of their schedules to validate their teams’ placement in the rankings.
The SEC, with its powerhouse programs like Alabama, Georgia, and LSU, consistently claims to be the toughest league in the nation. Similarly, the Big Ten prides itself on its competitive slate, boasting teams such as Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
However, Klatt argues that the current structure rewards some teams while penalizing others. For instance, SEC and Big Ten teams may benefit from strong intra-conference competition but are also criticized for scheduling non-conference games against weaker opponents, often from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS).
This raises the question: does playing a few difficult conference games justify scheduling unbalanced non-conference matchups?
View this post on Instagram
The Problem With FCS Opponents
One of the most controversial aspects of college football scheduling is the inclusion of FCS opponents on the schedules of top-tier teams.
Programs like Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia routinely face FCS teams during their non-conference slates.
While these games may provide valuable opportunities for smaller schools to earn revenue and gain exposure, they often result in lopsided contests with little entertainment value.
Joel Klatt has repeatedly emphasized that these mismatches do little to benefit powerhouse programs. “How does beating an FCS team 63-7 prepare a program for the challenges of competing in the CFP?” he asked during a recent broadcast.
While there have been notable exceptions—such as Appalachian State’s shocking victory over Michigan in 2007—such upsets are few and far between.
Also Read: Hunter Woodhall’s Performance in the Men’s 100m T64 at the Paris Paralympics and Paid Partnership
