Imagine this: a powerhouse college football team, feeling snubbed by the playoff committee, decides to throw a fit and threaten to avoid challenging opponents in the future. Sounds dramatic, right? Well, that's exactly what's happening with the Texas Longhorns and their head coach, Steve Sarkisian. But here's where it gets controversial... Is this a justified reaction to a flawed system, or just a case of sour grapes? Let's dive in.
Following the latest College Football Playoff poll, Sarkisian is fuming. He believes the 9-3 Longhorns deserve a spot, claiming their exclusion would be a "disservice" to the sport. His frustration stems largely from an early-season loss to the Ohio State Buckeyes—a game he feels is being unfairly held against them. But hold on—this is the part most people miss: Texas also lost two conference games, including a disappointing defeat to the struggling Florida Gators, who barely managed three wins against non-FCS teams this season. So, is Ohio State really the only issue here?
In a recent press conference, Sarkisian hinted at a dramatic shift in the Longhorns' non-conference scheduling strategy. While he insists Texas will honor existing commitments—like return games against Ohio State and Michigan—he made it clear that future schedules are "up for discussion." Translation? Texas might start avoiding high-profile non-conference matchups altogether. Sarkisian even admitted to discussing this with Athletic Director Chris Del Conte, citing the challenges of a nine-game SEC schedule and the committee's focus on win-loss records.
Here’s the kicker: This argument isn’t new. Fans of Big Ten and former Pac-12 teams have long complained about the difficulty of balancing a tough conference schedule with demanding non-conference games. Take the USC Trojans, for example. In 2024, they faced LSU and Notre Dame in addition to a grueling Big Ten schedule, finishing 6-6. The following year, despite a 9-3 record, they were still criticized for their non-conference loss to Notre Dame. Sound familiar? Lincoln Riley could easily echo Sarkisian's complaints. But the real question is: Are these teams being punished for ambition, or are they simply falling short?
What Sarkisian fails to address is that Texas's issues go beyond the Ohio State loss. Their struggles against weaker SEC opponents like Mississippi State and Kentucky—where they barely scraped by—raise serious concerns. For instance, trailing 31-14 in the fourth quarter against a mediocre Bulldogs team isn't exactly playoff-worthy. And let's not forget their lackluster performance against the Wildcats, with offensive drives that were, frankly, embarrassing.
Here’s the reality: If Texas had beaten Ohio State and finished 10-2, they’d likely be in the playoff conversation despite their other flaws. Their current relevance is largely due to that high-profile matchup. But here’s the controversial take: Is scheduling tough opponents only valuable when you win? Or should the committee reward teams for taking risks, regardless of the outcome? And if Texas starts avoiding challenging non-conference games, are they really doing a disservice to the sport—or just themselves?
What do you think? Is Sarkisian’s frustration justified, or is he making excuses? Let us know in the comments—this debate is far from over.
