Alabama vs Ohio State: why the game must be played as scheduled

College football’s early-season calendar used to be a showcase for risky, high-profile matchups — the kind of games that could make a season or redefine a program. Lately, those head-to-head clashes have been dwindling as teams increasingly prefer easier opponents on opening Saturdays. The result: fewer national statement games and more predictable results before conference play begins.

That shift hit a new snag this week when reports surfaced that Alabama is expected to cancel a planned home-and-home with Ohio State that was due to start in September 2027. If true, it’s another sign that the sport’s most storied programs are rethinking risky nonconference dates in the age of an expanded College Football Playoff.

Why powerhouse programs are backing away from tough early games

The expansion of the College Football Playoff has nudged many schools toward safer scheduling. There are several forces pushing programs to protect their records instead of chasing marquee wins:

• Playoff math rewards wins more than daring scheduling: With more slots and an emphasis on overall records, a loss can feel costlier than a potential signature win feels rewarding.
• Financial and roster risk: High-profile neutral-site or road games carry injury risk and travel costs; an early upset can derail an entire campaign.
• Recruiting pressure and expectations: Coaches under hot scrutiny prefer padding schedules to keep momentum and fan goodwill while building toward conference play.
• Television and revenue deals: Networks can create drama with other formats, and schools chase guaranteed payout games that often come without top-tier competition.

Those incentives don’t disappear when programs talk about tradition or legacy—practical considerations often win.

How the Texas-Ohio State opener altered the calculus

The 2025 season-opening matchup that sent Texas to Ohio State was supposed to be a measuring stick. After a 14-7 loss in Columbus, Texas finished 9-3 and watched its playoff hopes evaporate. That single game has been cited by some as the moment that convinced other programs to shy away from risky home-and-homes.

But the broader story is more complicated. Texas’s exclusion from the playoff wasn’t a simple byproduct of opening on the road against a top opponent; it was the cumulative effect of several blemishes on its résumé. Losses to Georgia and to a struggling Florida squad, plus narrow escapes against lesser opponents, left the Longhorns with too many question marks for the committee.

Resume damage vs. signature defeat

A loss to a high-quality opponent can be framed as a strong indicator of schedule strength — or as the pivotal scar that sinks a season — depending on the context:

• Big losses against elite teams (e.g., a lopsided road defeat) are far more harmful than a close loss to a top program.
• Close wins over weak or middling opponents—forcing overtime against sub-.500 teams—look poor on a résumé even if the final record is strong.
• The committee weighs the body of work, not just the headline results; inconsistency hurts more than one marquee setback.

What a win in Columbus might have meant for Texas

It’s tempting to run counterfactuals: if Texas had beaten Ohio State, would the rest of the season have been viewed differently? The answer is likely yes — but not automatically.

• Momentum and margin for error: An early signature road victory would have given Texas more leeway for later slip-ups and might have reduced the negative impact of one or two poor outings.
• Seeding implications: Finishing at 10-2 with a marquee road win could have vaulted Texas into stronger seeding territory in an expanded CFP, even if the team had lost a game or two later.
• Perception shift: Beating Ohio State on the road would have been a resume centerpiece and a narrative boost that could sway voters and analysts alike.

But those potential upsides only materialize if the rest of the season supports the signature result. One high-profile victory doesn’t erase a pattern of underwhelming performances.

Why marquee early-season matchups still matter for the sport

Beyond committee gymnastics and coaching risk management, there are reasons college football should keep these matchups on the calendar:

• Television and national exposure: Big games in September create must-watch television and grow the sport’s profile early in the season.
• Competitive clarity: Head-to-head games between blue-blood programs give voters and fans a tangible comparison that can’t be manufactured late in the year.
• Fan excitement and recruiting narratives: These clashes drive interest, ticket sales, and recruiting momentum that benefit programs long-term.
• Quality over padding: Replacing marquee matchups with one-sided cupcakes dilutes the product and makes the early season feel hollow.

The broader cost if these games vanish from the calendar

If the trend toward avoidance becomes entrenched, college football risks losing an important source of drama. The sport’s early weeks would likely tilt toward predictable blowouts that generate little long-term conversation, and the CFP field could become more insular — biased toward teams that chose convenience over courage.

Schedules are ultimately a reflection of incentives. If committees, broadcasters, and athletic departments value spectacle and resume strength, there are levers to adjust. If not, we may see fewer classic nonconference battles and a longer stretch of forgettable September Saturdays — a quiet cost to the sport that thrives on marquee moments.

You might also like:

• CFP rankings: Ohio State tops poll, committee snubs Miami
• Steve Sarkisian playoff case: why Texas still doesn’t belong in the College Football Playoff
• Ohio State aims to defend national championship in 2025
• College football week 12: key takeaways, upsets and playoff implications
• College football AP top 25 week 5 gets it wrong again

John Davis

John Davis is a sports journalist focused on the NBA, NFL, and major global championships. With seven years of live coverage, he breaks down performances and key strategies. His expertise gives you a clear view of every game and its impact.