Ohio State’s AD wants the college football calendar to change: Buckeye Breakfast

Ohio State’s Athletic Director Ross Bjork’s call for changes to the college football calendar comes at a pivotal moment as the sport faces increasing scrutiny regarding its demands on student-athletes, coaching staff, and the broader athletic ecosystem. Bjork’s stance represents a broader movement within the college sports community aimed at finding a balance between maximizing competition and ensuring the well-being of athletes. This debate has become especially pertinent given the expanding scope of college football and its shift towards a more professionalized model, where the calendar no longer just involves games but extends to recruitment, NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness), and media commitments.

The Traditional College Football Calendar

The current structure of the college football calendar is somewhat rigid, leading to challenges for players, coaches, and administrators. Typically, the college football season kicks off with a short preseason in early August, followed by a nine- or ten-game regular season running until late November or early December. Bowl games and the College Football Playoff (CFP) then dominate the postseason through January. This format leaves little room for flexibility, often straining the resources of athletic departments and testing the endurance of student-athletes.

However, as college football grows in both popularity and financial importance, its calendar has become increasingly hectic. The demands of recruiting and the relentless pursuit of talent, particularly with NIL deals, have added layers of complexity that didn’t exist in the past.

Ohio State’s Perspective

For Ohio State, a program consistently in the hunt for national titles, the stakes are exceptionally high. The Buckeyes are perennially in the College Football Playoff conversation, and their schedule must be meticulously planned to ensure that the team is peak-ready for the most critical games of the season. However, the compressed timeline means that players and coaches are forced to prepare quickly, often with little time to address minor injuries or to provide athletes with proper recovery periods.

Ross Bjork’s push for a revised calendar comes from these realities. He sees the current system as inefficient and exhausting for athletes who already juggle rigorous academic commitments. Additionally, Bjork believes that the emphasis on football alone—especially with increasing media obligations—has overshadowed other important aspects of student-athlete life. The combination of a grueling schedule and heightened media attention, particularly in the weeks leading up to the College Football Playoff, could lead to physical and mental burnout, reducing the performance of athletes on the field and their overall experience in college football.

The Buckeye Breakfast: A Catalyst for Change?

One of the most interesting elements of this conversation is the “Buckeye Breakfast” initiative, a program that was born out of Ohio State’s frustration following their unexpected loss to Oregon in 2021. While not directly related to the proposed calendar changes, the Buckeye Breakfast encapsulates many of the challenges Bjork has highlighted. The breakfast is an early morning gathering where players gather for a team meeting and meal to discuss discipline, mental toughness, and the overall state of the team. It’s symbolic of the larger problem with the college football calendar—the need to fit important team-building, reflection, and recovery moments into a system that is often too rigid to allow for them.

The Buckeye Breakfast became a way to encourage focus, but also a reflection of how the compressed nature of the season often forces teams into a reactionary mode rather than a proactive one. Players, coaches, and staff are constantly chasing game schedules, academic deadlines, and media obligations, leaving little room for long-term development, team cohesion, and meaningful recovery. The breakfast initiative, while helpful, points to a larger systemic issue in college football: how the existing calendar doesn’t necessarily allow for the sustainable development of athletes.

Potential Changes to the College Football Calendar

Bjork’s proposed changes revolve around the idea of restructuring the calendar to alleviate some of the pressure on athletes and coaches. While specifics of his proposal remain vague, several potential changes have been discussed within the industry:

1. Extending the Preseason – Currently, teams begin their preseason training in early August, just weeks before the regular season starts. An extended preseason would allow for more time to integrate new players, especially freshmen, into the system. This could help alleviate some of the pressure felt during the regular season, particularly for teams with new coaching staff or players transitioning into starting roles.
2. Adjusting the Bowl and Playoff Structure – The current bowl system, while tradition-rich, often places games during the busy holiday season and extends the season well into January. Adjusting the calendar to give teams more time between regular-season games and bowl games could allow for better recovery and preparation. Additionally, reshaping the playoff structure could give teams more time to rest, reducing the rush that comes with making deep postseason runs.
3. Offseason Scheduling – With the growing influence of NIL deals, college football has increasingly become a year-round affair. By extending the offseason window, programs could allow players more time to balance academic responsibilities and extracurricular activities, making it possible to reduce the burnout that many student-athletes face. An extended offseason would also provide coaches the time they need to scout talent, work with existing players, and make more strategic decisions about their roster, without the constant demands of the regular season.
4. More Flexible Game Scheduling – College football’s current structure tends to pack several games into a short period, leaving little time for recovery. By introducing more flexibility into scheduling—perhaps by pushing the start of the season back a few weeks or extending the overall calendar—teams could better plan around player health and injuries, potentially leading to less wear and tear over the course of a season.

Balancing Tradition with Innovation

The key challenge for Bjork and others advocating for changes is balancing the rich traditions of college football with the demands of a modern, media-driven landscape. College football is synonymous with intense competition, fanfare, and tradition, and any changes to the schedule must respect those elements. However, as the sport grows in both popularity and complexity, it’s increasingly clear that the demands of both student-athletes and coaches may require a reevaluation of how the season is structured.

As Bjork pointed out, the current system, which has been in place for decades, may no longer serve the best interests of the athletes, who are now more than just football players—they are entrepreneurs, media figures, and highly scrutinized individuals. The balancing act between the well-being of these athletes and the profitability of college football is a difficult one to navigate.

A Broader Conversation

Bjork’s comments about the college football calendar are part of a broader conversation taking place across the country. Other athletic directors and coaches have weighed in on similar issues, noting the difficulties posed by the current system and how it may not fully take into account the evolving nature of college sports.

While the discussion of a revised calendar is ongoing, it’s clear that changes are needed to keep pace with the changing dynamics of college football. Whether that means altering bowl schedules, lengthening the offseason, or shifting the start and end dates of the season, one thing is certain—college football is at a crossroads.

Ohio State, as one of the sport’s most successful and visible programs, is in a unique position to influence how this conversation develops. The Buckeyes’ continued prominence on the national stage, both on the field and off, means that any changes to the college football calendar will likely have a ripple effect throughout the sport. The push for reform from Bjork signals that college football’s future might be as much about its calendar as it is about its game-winning plays.

In the coming months, expect further debate on the issue, as other schools and conferences weigh in. The changes proposed by Bjork and others could have a lasting impact on the landscape of college football, making it more adaptable to the needs of the modern student-athlete while preserving the traditions that fans cherish.