During a morning appearance on a popular sports program, Herbstreit criticized Notre Dame’s schedule, saying there are only a couple of games that will truly test the team. He compared Notre Dame’s slate unfavorably to programs like Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State, suggesting that the gap in competition between Notre Dame and those powerhouses cannot continue without scrutiny.
The remarks drew counterpoints from colleagues and others in the sport. One notable reaction pointed out that, numerically, Notre Dame’s schedule includes a comparable number of top-25 opponents to some other elite programs, challenging the premise that the Irish are uniquely protected from tough tests.
While there is some truth in Herbstreit’s frustration about the overall strength of Notre Dame’s schedule, deeming it an outright embarrassment may overstate the case. Notre Dame operates as an independent program, which inherently shapes its scheduling approach. The team combines ACC opponents (due to long-standing agreements) with a mix of Big Ten and other non-conference games. This structure makes it impractical to overhaul the schedule on a year-to-year basis without broader changes to conference affiliations and scheduling norms.
Acknowledging the constraints, Notre Dame’s upcoming plans include several ranked opponents, underscoring that the team is not avoiding top competition. For example, the 2026 slate features teams that are highly regarded on the national stage, including a Top-10 program and other ranked foes from major conferences. Additionally, two of the scheduled marquee games come from the ACC, with another from the Big 12, illustrating that the Irish face a diverse and challenging slate rather than a single-minded avoidance of strong opponents.
The debate about scheduling also touches on how programs measure their strength against one another. Some comparisons show that other top-10 programs face multiple ranked opponents in a season, while Notre Dame’s own schedule includes a mix of ranked teams and potentially less daunting stretches. This nuance is important when assessing whether any program is receiving an unfair advantage or whether the metrics used to evaluate schedules should be adjusted.
As for the broader idea of reform, Herbstreit suggested the creation of a national scheduling office to oversee and potentially rebalance college football’s non-conference games. His proposal envisions a centralized system to ensure that high-profile matchups occur more consistently across conferences, reducing the risk of repetitive, non-challenging games for powerhouse programs.
In sum, while Herbstreit’s critique highlights legitimate concerns about how schedules are structured and how they influence playoff discussions, labeling Notre Dame’s schedule as a deliberate attempt to dodge quality competition may be an oversimplification. The independent status of Notre Dame, longstanding conference associations, and the complexity of modern college football scheduling all contribute to a more intricate reality than the claim of an intentionally watered-down slate. The ongoing discourse reflects a broader interest in ensuring that top programs face meaningful tests that accurately reflect their standing and help determine postseason outcomes.
