​MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA – JANUARY 19: Head coach Curt Cignetti of the Indiana Hoosiers hoists the College Football Playoff National Championship Trophy after defeating the Miami Hurricanes 27-21 in the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship at Hard Rock Stadium on January 19, 2026 in Miami Gardens, Florida. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)Getty ImagesCollege football has a scheduling problem, or at least the perception of one. Programs are encouraged to schedule marquee nonconference opponents, producing compelling matchups and substantial commercial value. Yet the consequences of losing those games can threaten their College Football Playoff aspirations. This creates an apparent contradiction between what benefits college football collectively and what benefits individual programs.The 2025 season brought this tension into focus. Indiana completed an undefeated regular season, won the Big Ten championship, and entered the playoff as the nation’s top-ranked team despite playing a relatively modest nonconference schedule. Texas, meanwhile, opened its season against Ohio State, suffered a loss, and ultimately finished 9–3, ranked 13th and excluded from the 12-team playoff. Texas coach Steve Sarkisian subsequently questioned the incentive to schedule opponents such as Ohio State when the additional difficulty might jeopardize playoff qualification.COLUMBUS, OHIO – AUGUST 30: CJ Donaldson #12 of the Ohio State Buckeyes scores a first half touchdown past Liona Lefau #18 of the Texas Longhorns at Ohio Stadium on August 30, 2025 in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)Getty ImagesThe College Football Playoff’s recently announced expansion to 24 teams adds another dimension to this debate. Beginning in 2027, Power Four programs will be expected to play at least 10 games against qualifying opponents, including conference members, other Power Four programs, and Notre Dame. The policy explicitly seeks to encourage more compelling nonconference matchups, suggesting that playoff administrators recognize a need to influence schools’ scheduling decisions. Yet the rule leaves an important distinction unresolved: playing a Power Four opponent does not necessarily mean playing a strong opponent. Programs can satisfy the requirement while continuing to minimize competitive risk.The underlying economic question is therefore straightforward: Does the College Football Playoff reward programs sufficiently for scheduling stronger opponents, or does it create incentives to pursue the easiest permissible path to postseason qualification? This question resembles one of economics’ most recognizable strategic problems: the Prisoner’s Dilemma.The Economics Of College Football SchedulingThe Prisoner’s Dilemma describes a situation in which individuals pursuing their own interests produce an outcome that is collectively inferior to one achievable through cooperation. Applied to college football, consider two major programs choosing