Waco
The American Football Coaches Association has proposed sweeping changes to the college football calendar, advocating for an earlier conclusion to the College Football Playoff season by the second Monday of January.
In a non-binding recommendation, the AFCA suggested eliminating conference championship games and reducing scheduling gaps to streamline the season. The move, discussed at the association’s annual meeting, reflects growing concerns over the length of the college football calendar and its impact on student-athletes.
“The length of the season is a critical issue,” the AFCA said in a statement, adding that the current structure does not align well with academic commitments or long-term athlete welfare. While the association does not hold direct authority over NCAA or CFP governance, its membership includes Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) coaches who play an influential role in shaping policy discussions.
Among the key proposals is reducing the number of bye weeks from two to one and ensuring a minimum gap of six days between games. The AFCA also recommended maintaining a dedicated window for the traditional Army–Navy Game, while allowing flexibility for other fixtures, including playoff games, to be scheduled around it.
The group stopped short of endorsing a specific expansion size for the playoff field, currently set at 12 teams, but emphasised that future formats should maximise participation while adhering to the proposed January deadline.
The recommendations align with broader efforts to modernise college football. An NCAA committee recently suggested a 12-game regular season played over 14 weeks starting in 2027, with the schedule running from late August through Thanksgiving.
Currently, the CFP extends deep into January, with the 2027 championship already slated for January 25 in Las Vegas — well beyond the timeline the AFCA is advocating. Coaches argue that condensing the calendar would improve competitive rhythm, reduce fatigue and better synchronise with academic schedules and transfer windows.
While the proposals are not binding, they signal increasing momentum among coaches to reshape the structure of college football, balancing commercial growth with the well-being of players and the integrity of the sport.
