If college football truly shifts to a full-scale Week 0 model for every FBS team, it would be one of the biggest structural changes since the College Football Playoff expansion. And like most NCAA decisions, the ripple effects would stretch far beyond simply kicking off a week earlier.
College football leaders have discussed moving all teams to Week 0 as early as this year, creating a longer calendar with another potential bye week, while pushing Labor Day weekend into what would effectively become
Week two.
From a Mountain West lens, this feels like the kind of move that could both elevate and complicate programs outside the Power Four.
The biggest pro is visibility
Week 0 has traditionally been a national spotlight reserved for a select few: think Hawaii, overseas showcases, or TV-friendly one-offs. If every team starts then, Group of Five schools like Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State or UNLV could gain earlier inventory in a media ecosystem desperate for live football.
More inventory means more TV windows, more exposure for playoff résumés and potentially more revenue opportunities for leagues fighting for relevance.
For Mountain West teams especially, an extra week could reduce scheduling bottlenecks and create more flexibility for marquee non-conference games without compressing league play.
Then there’s player management.
A universal Week 0 likely adds scheduling flexibilty, meaning schools can better distribute bye weeks across a longer season. In theory, that could help with recovery, especially as the postseason keeps expanding. More rest could matter for programs that survive on roster depth margins far thinner than SEC or Big Ten giants.
Where the downside hits
An earlier start means earlier fall camp, more summer disruption and another “inch” toward treating college football like a near year-round enterprise.
For players, particularly at non-blue blood schools without elite sports science resources, this could mean more wear, more heat exposure in August practices and greater physical toll. Coaches may love the flexibility; trainers may not.
Fans also shouldn’t ignore the calendar creep. College football’s traditional Labor Day launch has cultural value. Moving that could dilute one of the sport’s cleanest annual rituals.
For schools, finances aren’t universally positive either. Smaller athletic departments may face added logistical costs from housing, staffing and travel schedules that begin earlier, especially if campus calendars don’t align neatly.
Week 0 for everyone sounds equitable, but the burden is heavier on schools without SEC-level budgets.
And then there’s competitive balance.
The rich usually adapt faster. Programs with deeper rosters, better NIL infrastructure and stronger recovery systems may simply use the expanded runway to widen the gap.
Theoretically, more football opportunities help everyone. Practically, Alabama and Ohio State probably weaponize that flexibility better than Wyoming or Nevada.
So how does this most likely play out?
Expect eventual adoption in some form, because television and playoff expansion usually win.
The CFP era keeps stretching the back end of the season and moving the front end forward is the cleanest administrative counter.
The NCAA and conference commissioners will likely sell it as player-friendly through added bye options, while networks will love the extra week of content.
For fans, it’ll be a mixed bag: more football sooner, but a potentially diluted sense of occasion.
For schools, especially outside the power structure, it’s opportunity wrapped in operational strain.
For players, it may depend entirely on whether the added calendar space genuinely reduces strain or just expands the grind.
But in classic NCAA fashion, the move would probably be marketed as modernization.
In reality, it’s more likely another balancing act between money, exposure, health and tradition. And as always, the teams best equipped to adapt first may benefit most.
