Kalani Sitake Proposes Bold New Scheduling Model for College Football
FRISCO, Texas — As Kalani Sitake begins his 10th season as the head coach of BYU football, the college football world around him looks vastly different from when he first took the job. In a decade, the sport has undergone seismic shifts—from the introduction of the transfer portal and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules to the expansion of the College Football Playoff (CFP).
When Sitake stepped into his role, the postseason picture was limited to a four-team CFP format. Fast forward to today, and the CFP has expanded to 12 teams, with talk of moving to a 16-team format as early as 2026. With such developments, the criteria used to determine which teams make the playoff field are evolving as well.
One of the most important metrics moving forward is expected to be strength of schedule. As a result, coaches and athletic directors across the country are beginning to look at their future non-conference matchups with a more strategic lens. Gone are the days when teams could stack their schedules with weaker opponents for easy wins—those wins may not carry much weight in the playoff conversation anymore.
For schools in the Big 12, like BYU, this growing emphasis on strong schedules is particularly relevant. Under current rules, Big 12 programs are required to schedule at least one non-conference game against another school from an autonomous (or “Power Four”) conference, in addition to their Big 12 matchups. That rule gives Big 12 teams 10 games per season against power-conference opponents.
Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark believes these high-stakes non-conference games are vital—not only for playoff implications but also for fans and the sport’s overall growth.
“These games matter. They’re great for fans and essential for building strong résumés,” Yormark said in an interview with the KSL Sports Zone. “As we look at the selection process for the College Football Playoff, the strength of schedule is going to carry even more weight.”
Currently, BYU is doing its part to schedule big games. This season, they’ll complete a home-and-home series with Stanford, now a member of the ACC. Next year, they’re set to host California, another ACC member, before traveling to Berkeley in 2027. Additional future games are lined up against Boston College and Virginia Tech. There are also remnants of previously planned contests with SEC and Big Ten schools that were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
However, outside of these matchups, BYU’s future non-conference games are mostly against Group of Six teams or FCS programs—mainly from the reorganized Pac-12. These matchups may not provide the playoff-boosting strength of schedule that the program—and the playoff selection committee—would prefer.
This discrepancy in quality has prompted Kalani Sitake to propose a bolder, more unified vision for college football scheduling.
Sitake’s Proposal: One Non-Conference Game Against Each Power Conference
Sitake’s plan is straightforward but ambitious: eliminate weaker non-conference games and replace them with marquee matchups across the country. Specifically, he suggests that BYU—and other Power Four programs—schedule their three non-conference games each season against one team each from the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten.
“We play three non-conference games. I would love to play an ACC team, an SEC team, and a Big Ten team. Line them up. Let’s do this,” Sitake said with enthusiasm. “Why can’t we do that?”
The concept is refreshingly simple. Rather than loading the early schedule with local FCS teams or mid-major opponents, Sitake wants every game to count. For fans, it means exciting matchups week after week. For programs, it could mean increased revenue from ticket sales, more national TV exposure, and most importantly, better positioning for postseason selection.
The financial and entertainment appeal of such a model is clear. If universities knew they’d host (or travel to) a fellow power-conference team every year, season ticket packages would likely become much more desirable. Athletic departments would benefit from increased demand and stronger gate receipts, while fans would get the chance to witness compelling matchups in person.
The Challenge: Conference Scheduling Inconsistency
Despite its appeal, Sitake’s scheduling vision isn’t without obstacles. One of the main issues is the lack of uniformity in how conferences handle their internal schedules. Currently, the SEC and ACC play eight conference games per year, while the Big 12 and Big Ten play nine. That single game difference makes coordinating uniform non-conference models more complicated than it appears.
Coaches like Brent Brennan, the head coach at Arizona, acknowledge this inconsistency and advocate for more alignment across college football.
“I think anything we can do to get everyone on the same page is a good thing,” Brennan said. “Whether it’s how we schedule, how we revenue share, how we handle NIL, how we recruit—if we can standardize all of it, I’m in favor.”
Brennan noted that much of the current scheduling is made years in advance, which limits his and other coaches’ influence over who their teams play outside the conference. This long lead time, often stretching 5–10 years into the future, makes adjusting to new scheduling models a slow and complicated process.
Still, if the CFP selection criteria increasingly emphasize strength of schedule—and if fans continue demanding more meaningful games—pressure may mount on conferences to find common ground. A standardized approach could bring a new level of balance and fairness to the college football season.
A Vision for the Future
Sitake’s vision reflects where many believe college football is headed: toward a model where every game, including those outside the conference, has real playoff implications. The days of padding records with easy non-conference wins may be numbered, particularly for schools with playoff aspirations.
For BYU, the transition into the Big 12 has already brought a higher level of weekly competition. Embracing a national non-conference slate against the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten would only further elevate the program’s brand and challenge level. It would also reflect the Cougars’ long-standing identity as a team willing to travel and face tough opponents in any region.
As the College Football Playoff continues to expand, so too must the vision of scheduling. If strength of schedule becomes the guiding star for postseason access, coaches like Sitake who advocate for bold change could soon find themselves at the forefront of a new era in college football.
His model may be ambitious, but it offers a compelling blueprint: if everyone’s chasing the same prize, they might as well be playing by the same rules.
