Junior

I agree there is a point where playoff expansion can go too far, where we may differ is not on whether expansion is warranted, but on scale. Given the number of teams there are in Division 1 college football, disparities in schedule difficulty across teams/conferences, and the role of a selection committee, a 24-team playoff strikes a reasonable balance. More outcomes would be decided on the field, rather than in the committee room. Teams just outside the cutoff of a 24 team format would still object, but the risk of excluding a legitimate championship contender is lower than in the current 12-team format. Regarding college basketball, its regular season may suffer from factors beyond just playoff size—most notably a 30-plus game regular season schedule that dilutes the importance of individual games. That dynamic doesn’t exist in a 12-game football season played once a week, where each result carries real consequence. Talent continuity also matters: college basketball’s one-and-done model has weakened team identity and overall quality of play, gradually eroding fan interest. College football, by contrast, retains most elite talent for multiple seasons and benefits from being the nation’s dominant sport, which sustains engagement throughout the regular season. Given football’s cultural prominence, there is less risk that a 24-team playoff would diminish regular season interest. In fact, it could increase engagement, as more fan bases would remain invested longer, with more teams realistically in contention for a playoff spot.

Bottom line: presenting a clear rationale for why Texas belongs in the playoff is not whining. It’s exactly what Sark has done, and what many respected non-Texas media voices have also articulated over the past couple weeks. Texas, like every program, has a responsibility to evaluate its schedule and résumé on behalf of its players and everyone invested in college football. I support keeping Ohio State and Michigan as home games, but any other out-of-conference games scheduled will need to be reassessed based on what we know about this committee. Additionally, playoff expansion might also influence these decisions. What is difficult to justify is the committee ranking Miami, Notre Dame, and BYU ahead of Texas. Texas owns three current top-15 wins, while those three teams combined have just two. Texas has also defeated two current top-10 teams by double digits; collectively, Miami, Notre Dame, and BYU have zero top-10 wins. By any objective comparison, Texas’s overall body of work is greater than these teams however, it appears the committee prioritized the number of losses and relied on ambiguous concepts like the "eye test." Of course, a team looks impressive on film when they effectively execute all their plays against opponents like Syracuse, Navy, and Stanford.

I also support expanding the playoff to 24 teams, as it helps reduce the impact of significant strength-of-schedule disparities in college football that can exclude teams with legitimate championship potential—particularly in the SEC—simply because of who they play. College basketball provides a useful comparison: numerous teams have lost 25% or more of their regular-season games and still gone on to reach or win the NCAA championship. In fact, over the past 40 seasons, four teams have advanced to the championship game despite losing more than 30% of their regular-season games, which is roughly equivalent to a 9–3 or even 8–4 team in college football

Given how college football is currently structured, the most logical solution is to further expand the playoff for this coming season. The deadline to make that happen is January 23rd, and hopefully the power brokers in the SEC are doing whatever is necessary to ensure it gets done. It's the only way to ensure teams that are legitimately playoff-caliber—but play significantly tougher schedules (particularly in the SEC)—aren’t punished for it. You can’t keep ending up with scenarios like this year where a team like Texas is ranked behind Miami, Notre Dame, and BYU, despite having more top-15 wins than those three teams combined. No system is ever going to be perfect. Even with a 16- or 24-team playoff, there will always be teams that feel they were left out. But there’s a clear difference between excluding a team ranked around #13 that played a brutal schedule and is good enough to legitimately compete for a title, and a team sitting at #25 complaining about missing a hypothetical 24-team field. Teams ranked that low are rarely, if ever, truly championship-caliber.

Correction: we missed the playoffs because the committee objectively did a lousy job and also prioritized number of losses over full body of work. Many teams in the playoffs had a couple games they underperformed, lost or didn’t play up to their expected standard.

The way to have responded and carried yourself on this thread is unfortunate. whether you realize it or not your attitude does more to potentially undermine your own stated goal of maintaining a community around Texas football than someone making a harmless joke. Nevertheless, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because oftentimes we can misunderstand each other when communicating electronically instead of in person.

I understand your perspective, and given the current climate, I believe it’s best to steer clear of comments or jokes about politics and political figures. Let's also be careful not to label others as misogynist or racist without evidence, as such accusations are unwarranted and undermine a shared goal of fostering dialogue and community.

I understand not everyone will agree with what I have to say, but calling a post "stupid" and suggesting someone shouldn't be allowed to post because of it, isn't a valid argument and doesn't add to the conversation. If you believe my post was off-base or unhelpful, I'd welcome a specific critique. Otherwise, we're all just having fun here—it's sports, so lets try to relax a little.

Your stance is evident from your comment suggesting that some people shouldn’t be allowed to post. You’re welcome to present your case, engage in an open debate, or simply choose to stay out of it.

Go ahead and make your case—but suggesting someone shouldn’t be allowed to post only exposes the weakness of your argument. Ignoring the other side doesn’t change the facts

This isn’t emotion—it’s reason. Double digit wins over two current top 10 teams isn't bragging—it's evidence. Losses happened, sure, but context matters. Demanding that the committee be held accountable for ignoring strength of schedule and head-to-head is the opposite of being weak. It’s remarkable to see people sit back and mindlessly repeat the talking points of a committee that commands no respect and has been widely discredited

This isn’t whining—it’s logic. Weak? Not at all. What’s weak is ignoring the facts. Texas has played harder opponents and earned more quality wins than anyone else left in contention.

“Silly”? Sure—if you think committees deserve a free pass to ignore their own rules. True silliness is sitting back and providing cover for a committee with a long track record of questionable decisions and outright incompetence. This isn’t about overthrowing the system overnight—it’s about calling out inconsistencies and making sure the committee actually follows the rules it claims matter. If strength of schedule and head-to-head results are supposed to be the top factors, fans and media have every right to point out when they’re conveniently ignored. Being aware, speaking up, and insisting on fair evaluation isn’t wishful thinking—it’s holding the process accountable. Over time, that’s exactly how conversations—and decisions—get nudged closer to logic and fairness.

College football’s playoff selection evaluations must account for the fact that—unlike the NFL—teams do not play comparable schedules. Strength of schedule and head-to-head results matter more in college football precisely because the sport’s structure creates unavoidable imbalance. The selection committee itself lists those two metrics as its top criteria, yet its current decisions suggest it is not applying them consistently. That inconsistency becomes clear when you look at the data. We are not suggesting that an 8–4 or 7–5 Texas team deserves a playoff spot—at a certain point, the number of losses rightly carries significant weight. However, Texas currently has only one more loss than some 10–2 teams that have faced significantly weaker schedules, suffered losses as poor as Florida’s, or have accumulated very few quality wins. The résumé comparison here clearly favors Texas when context is properly considered. Notre Dame and Miami have just two combined wins over teams currently ranked in the CFP Top 25. Texas alone has three. And when it comes to total current ranked opponents played, Notre Dame and Miami have faced only four combined—whereas Texas has faced five on its own. The schedules are not comparable, and the results against quality opponents are not either. These facts matter. They should be driving the conversation, and they should be forcing the committee to justify its departures from its stated standards. Don’t echo narratives that ignore the a overall body of work. Give this team credit for the overall resume and the grit they showed this season. The committee needs to be accountable to its own criteria—and made to course-correct and take seriously the responsibility that's been entrusted to them.

Glad the oline and team showed their grit and didn't share this kind of mindset during the season