The Big Ten has made news for a slew of wrong reasons thus far, what with the clock controversy at the end of the Michigan-Western Michigan game, three head-to-head losses to the ACC in 24 hours and Oregon's meltdown at Oklahoma State.
Week 3 won't be a shining moment for the conference, either. The schedule is just this side of ghastly.
Which game grabs your interest: Could it be Penn State vs. Buffalo? Or perhaps Washington vs. Eastern Washington? How about Nebraska vs. North Dakota?
The Saturday lineup is so devoid of choice content that Fox selected Ohio State vs. Kent State for its showcase Big Noon broadcast, and CBS picked USC vs. Rutgers for its afternoon window.
The Buckeyes are favored by 52 points; the Trojans, by a mere 24.
That's appointment TV, said nobody ... ever.
People are also reading…
All in all, the Big Ten lineup features 11 opponents from the Group of Six or FCS and eight games with a betting line larger than 30 points.
To be clear, this is not the fault of the conference office — for those unaware, the campuses control their non-conference schedules.
If anything, commissioner Tony Petitti and his top football executives are probably dismayed at the state of affairs. They want top-shelf inventory, and they know the Big Ten fans and TV partners want top-shelf inventory, too.
All of which brings us to the latest example of college football's increasingly interconnected existence: How the Big Ten's Week 3 schedule explains the push for College Football Playoff expansion.
There is no evidence of the viewing public clamoring for a 24-team playoff.
Nor is there proof that the regular season would benefit from a 24-team playoff.
But there is evidence to explain why Fox, the Big Ten's media partner — and one of the sport's two ATM machines, along with ESPN — supports a 24-team playoff field.
The network wants premium content, and most Big Ten schools aren't carrying their weight in that department over the quarter of the season allocated for non-conference matchups.
Consider the 16 games this weekend:
— Two conference matchups: USC-Rutgers and Purdue-UCLA.
UCLA running back Jaivian Thomas runs with the ball during the second half against San Diego State at the Rose Bowl on Sept. 12, 2026.
— Three dates with power conference opponents: Maryland-Virginia Tech, Michigan State-Notre Dame and Northwestern-Colorado.
— Five games against FCS teams: Oregon-Portland State (Friday), Nebraska-North Dakota, Illinois-Southern Illinois, Iowa-Northern Iowa and Washington-Eastern Washington.
— Six games against Group of Six teams: Ohio State-Kent State, Penn State-Buffalo, Minnesota-Akron, Wisconsin-Eastern Michigan, Michigan-UTEP and Indiana-Western Kentucky.
Put another way: 11 of the 16 games feature FCS or Group of Six opponents.
In the SEC this week, only 4 of 11 games have FCS or Group of Six teams.
And this isn't an outlier for the Big Ten, unfortunately. In Week 1, the conference faced 16 opponents from the FCS or Group of Six.
All told, five of the 18 schools in the Big Ten (27.8 percent) don't play a Power Four opponent this season outside of the league schedule.
You know how many SEC teams don't play a Power Four school in non-conference competition? Zero.
Yes, it's a disappointing display by the Big Ten campuses, with Indiana carrying the cupcake banner. And it has left Fox, in particular, with such a thin September schedule that the network is pushing for playoff expansion.
Doubling the size of the field, to 24 teams, would serve two purposes:
1. Fox would have the option to bid on the new inventory, assuming the CFP takes the 12 additional games to the market.
2. Expansion would make room for three- and perhaps four-loss teams to participate, thereby reducing the fear of non-conference losses and, in theory, spurring teams to schedule more marquee games for September.
The 24-team concept originated with Petitti, who shares Fox's concerns but did not work directly with the network on his proposal.
If the playoff does expand, Petitti has indicated the Big Ten would require teams to play 10 games against Power Four opponents: nine in conference, one out of conference. (The ACC, Big 12 and SEC already have that policy.)
Additionally, Petitti is expected to pursue an annual crossover series with the SEC that would play out over several September Saturdays.
In other words, playoff expansion is a means of incentivizing Big Ten schools to emerge from their tortoise shells and play the type of high-level games we saw last weekend from Michigan (Oklahoma) and Ohio State (Texas).
And yet, there are no guarantees. What if the playoff expands, to Fox's delight, but a crossover series doesn't materialize, and most Big Ten teams look for the easy way out with the 10-game power conference requirement.
What if Indiana schedules a home-and-home series with Kansas instead of Miami?
What if Penn State schedules NC State instead of Georgia?
The sport could be left with the worst of both worlds: An expanded playoff that undercuts the do-or-die drama of the regular season and Big Ten schools taking the softest option possible with that 10th Power Four game.
Petitti seems convinced the opposite will prove true on both fronts -- that playoff expansion will elevate the regular season (more teams in the race) and motivate his schools to challenge themselves in September.
Fox seemingly is in agreement about the former, hoping for the latter and, through it all, doing what's best for its bottom line.
The endgame is unknowable at this point. For the time being, most Big Ten schools are content to take the easiest road through the non-conference portion of their schedules.
Our advice: Ignore the Week 3 lineup. It's soul-crushing.
