Debate: Power Four Challenge Week
by Ovi Muniz
My position: Every Power Four program should be required to play at least one non-conference opponent from another Power Four conference every season.
I would take it one step further and create a Power Four Challenge Week, preferably during Week 2. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC would be matched against one another, creating games such as:
- Big Ten vs. SEC
- ACC vs. Big 12
- SEC vs. ACC
- Big 12 vs. Big Ten
Rotate the matchups each year. Ohio State might play Georgia one season. Alabama could play Oregon. Clemson could face Michigan. Texas could play Penn State. Indiana could play Notre Dame separately or take on an SEC, ACC or Big 12 opponent.
Why it matters
Curt Cignetti's scheduling philosophy illustrates the problem. Indiana has emphasized its nine-game Big Ten schedule rather than adding another Power Four opponent. Cignetti previously said Indiana was adopting what he called the SEC scheduling philosophy and focusing on its nine conference games.
But there's an important wrinkle now: the SEC has changed. Beginning with its nine-game conference schedule, SEC programs are also required to play at least one additional Power Four opponent or Notre Dame. Meanwhile, Indiana currently has no Power Four nonconference opponents on its future schedules.
That makes the debate even stronger.
How can we accurately compare an 11-1 Big Ten team with an 11-1 SEC team if they never play anyone from the other conference?
Conference games tell us who is good within that conference. They don't necessarily tell us how strong that conference is compared with everyone else.
And that matters because the College Football Playoff committee explicitly considers strength of schedule, head-to-head results and results against common opponents when comparing teams.
The Cignetti argument
I understand Cignetti's side. If you're already playing nine Big Ten games, why voluntarily add Notre Dame, Georgia, Clemson or Texas when another program can schedule an easier opponent, finish with a better record and potentially receive the same playoff consideration?
That's smart strategy under the current system.
But that's exactly why the system should change.
Don't ask coaches to voluntarily make their road to the playoff harder. Make everyone play by the same rule.
A mandatory Power Four Challenge Week would give us something college football desperately needs: a measuring stick.
If the Big Ten goes 11-5 against the SEC, that means something. If the Big 12 dominates the ACC, that means something. If Indiana beats Alabama in Week 2 and then goes 8-1 in the Big Ten, nobody can question whether Indiana belongs in the playoff.
And if a supposed powerhouse gets exposed? That's valuable information too.
My debate statement
If you want to be called one of the best teams in college football, you should have to prove it against somebody outside your own neighborhood.
Going undefeated or losing once in a Power Four conference is impressive, but conference competition alone shouldn't completely define a national championship résumé. College football should establish a Power Four Challenge Week early in the season, requiring every Power Four program to play an opponent from another major conference.
Curt Cignetti's approach makes sense strategically: protect your record and concentrate on winning the Big Ten. But college football shouldn't reward teams for avoiding risk. If strength of schedule matters when selecting playoff teams, then the sport should create a scheduling system that gives us meaningful evidence.
You don't prove which conference is strongest through rankings and reputation. Put them on the field and let them settle it.
And from a television/fan standpoint? Week 2 would become appointment viewing. Instead of Alabama vs. Directional State Tech at noon, we'd have an entire Saturday of conference pride on the line.