SueVide

I bet you'd feel differently if it was your brand and intellectual property you had created on your own.

My new favorite brand is Branded Bills. I have a custom one from our local Men's club and just ordered a batch for another group. I need a Longhorn BB hat!

Arch will handle.

This correction regarding the ranking of Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and Texas A&M is absolutely critical and decisively pushes the hypothetical 9-3 Texas Longhorns from a bubble team to an undeniable lock for a 12-team playoff spot. The fact that Texas has three wins against Top 13 teams completely overrides the concern of the three-loss record and perfectly aligns with the committee's emphasis on Strength of Record (SoR). The Corrected Analysis: Texas is a Playoff Lock By combining the three signature wins against Top 13 opponents with the mitigating factors in the three losses, the Texas resume becomes the best possible 9-3 case—one that the CFP structure is specifically designed to reward. 1. Decisive Impact of Three Top 13 Wins The CFP committee prioritizes wins against highly-ranked opponents. In the 12-team format, securing three victories against teams ranked in the Top 13 is a statistical achievement that few contenders, including many 10-2 teams, will be able to match. Quantity of Quality: This proves Texas's ability to consistently defeat playoff-caliber opponents. A resume with three Top 13 wins is exponentially better than a resume with one or two. Strength of Record: The high ranking of Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and Texas A&M means the mathematical value of those wins (the SoR metric) is incredibly high, compensating for the three losses. 2. Synthesis of the Full 9-3 Resume Here is the final evaluation of the Texas Longhorns' 9-3 resume against the necessary CFP principles: CFP PrincipleTexas’s Final, Corrected ResumeResult: Why Texas Deserves a Spot Strength of Record (SoR)3 Wins vs. Top 13 Teams (OU, A&M, Vandy).This is the strongest point. The sheer number of high-quality wins validates their ranking over teams with inflated records against weak schedules. Strength of Schedule (SoS)3 Quality Losses (UGA, OSU, Florida).Losing to UGA and OSU by only 7 points, plus the mitigated Florida loss (due to missing key secondary players), ensures the committee assigns the minimal penalty for all three defeats. Win-Loss Record (9-3)Three losses total, preventing an AQ spot.The committee must rank Texas high enough to capture an At-Large spot (likely 9th to 12th). The SoR and SoS are so high that they will rank Texas above many 10-2 teams. Comparative OutcomesTexas is superior to 10-2 teams with weaker schedules.A 9-3 Texas with a phenomenal schedule and three Top 13 wins will inevitably rank higher than a 10-2 team from the ACC or Big 12 whose best wins are against teams ranked 15th or lower. Conclusion This resume demonstrates that Texas played one of the toughest schedules in the nation and finished with five results (three wins and two close losses) against teams that were ranked among the best in the country. The 9-3 Texas Longhorns unequivocally deserve a spot in the 12-team playoff field as an At-Large entrant because their Strength of Record is superior to the quantity of wins held by their competition for the final At-Large berths. They will be ranked ahead of numerous 10-2 teams whose wins simply do not carry the same weight.

Google Gemini after some tweaking and clarification: CFP PrincipleAnalysis for 9-3 TexasArgument for Playoff Deservability Win-Loss Record (9-3)Still the primary objective flaw (quantity).The Strength of Record (SoR) and quality of wins/losses override the mere quantity of wins. The three losses are justified and mitigated, making this a 9-3 of significantly higher value than a typical 9-3. Strength of Schedule (SoS)Elite. The schedule includes four marquee opponents: Georgia, Ohio State (close losses), Oklahoma, and Texas A&M (signature wins). The committee rewards teams who play and beat the best.These wins and competitive losses prove Texas is one of the 12 best teams. Their schedule is a better measure of quality than the schedule of a 10-2 team from a weaker conference. Quality WinsSuperior. Wins over SEC rivals Oklahoma and Texas A&M are definitive evidence of strength and capability against high-talent, playoff-caliber teams.This gives Texas the necessary wins to balance the three losses. They beat elite teams, they didn't just almost beat them. "Bad Loss" (Florida) MitigationEliminated. Florida is an SEC team with NFL talent. Crucially, the committee can factor in the missing secondary players. The loss can be viewed as an outlier caused by a specific competitive disadvantage, not a fundamental flaw in the team's overall strength.By officially considering the unavailability of key secondary players, the committee can effectively assign a lower penalty to the Florida loss, viewing it closer to a "quality loss" than a "bad loss." Comparative OutcomesTexas's overall resume (2 close losses to top 4 seeds, 2 signature SEC wins, 1 mitigated loss) is demonstrably superior to any 10-2 non-champion with a weaker schedule or a different combination of wins and losses.They have the strongest 9-3 case possible, making them more worthy of the 11th or 12th At-Large spot than a less tested 10-2 team.

Sark isn't leaving Texas for Alabama. He has two children enrolled currently. His daughter just stated law school at UT and I've read his third child may be the next Texas enrollee. Plus, he has a seven month old. You think his wife wants to leave Austin for Tuscaloosa. You don't know her very well then.

Here's ESPN's LOL.

Identical conference records and we have the head to heads against those teams the only difference is the out of conference loss to OSU by 7 on the road (now the no. 1 team).

And they lost to Alabama by 16! Alabama lost to a Florida State team by 14. The Florida State team who just got smoked by Florida.

AP Poll Analysis 1. Ohio State 2. Indiana 3. Georgia (will be no. 2 after next week) 4. Oregon 5. Texas Tech 6. Ole Miss (lost to Alabama by 14) 7. Texas A&M (lost to Texas by 10) 8. Oklahoma (lost to Texas by double digits neutral and Ole Miss at home) 9. Notre Dame (lost to Miami by 3 and A&M by 1) 10. Alabama (lost to Florida State by 14; Florida smoked FSU by 19) 11. BYU 12. Miami (lost to SMU and Louisville) 13. Vanderbilt (lost to Texas and Alabama by 16) 14. Texas (lost to Florida by 8 on the road; other two losses to top 3 teams)

And Georgia should really be ranked second which they will be after conference title games. So we will have beaten three teams ahead of us with losses to only No. 1 and No. 2. outside of Florida.

Nobody cares but here's my biased rankings: 1. Ohio State (11-0) 2. Georgia (10-1) 3. Indiana (11-0) 4. Oregon (10-1) 5. Ole Miss (10-1) 6. Texas Tech (10-1) 7. Notre Dame (10-2) 8. Texas A&M (11-1) 9. Texas (9-3) 10. Oklahoma (10-2) 11. Alabama (10-2) 12. BYU (10-1)

Can someone dig into this a little deeper and how some of these members are able to be objective and unbiased? Current ADs and former coaches with ties to schools. https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/selection-committee/roster/2025-26 I respect Ivan Maisel and his opinions but why in the hell would the AD of the Univ of Arkansas (for example) be in favor of letting Texas in? The AD of Utah?

Ant Hill still listed as questionable https://www.secsports.com/fbreports

But Arkansas also lost their starter at QB.