Junior

Fair enough my friend but I’m not asking for advice. I’m free to say my peace here. It’s not my intention to get noticed by anyone and as long as people are being respectful, im not going to tell them how they should respond to the issues going on in the sport or tell them to keep their opinions to themselves. To each his own. Hook em

12 is not enough in a sport with such large disparities in schedule difficulty across teams and conferences. Selection committee is unable to adequately balance strength of schedule with win/loss record resulting in their rankings being based mostly on number of losses. This means a 10-2 Notre Dame, Texas tech or byu team with very easy schedules next year, will get in the playoffs over a hypothetical 9-3 Texas with a much more difficult schedule even though they’ll likely end up with more top tier wins than those teams but will be penalized for having 1 more loss. just look at the committees final rankings for 2025 which had Notre dame and byu ranked ahead of Texas despite Texas having more top 15 wins than those two teams combined and having played more top 15 teams during the season (5) than any team in the playoffs

I don’t know how much longer I’ll stay invested in college football with all the issues and lack of real leadership and accountability. I quit the NFL 5 years ago for other reasons and never looked back and can see myself doing the same with college if things don’t change. Ratings are at all time highs though, so people in charge don’t feel the pressure to make the hard decisions and are content kicking the can down the road. They are looking out for their own interests or whats best for their conference instead of what’s best for the sport. Why should I spend my limited time, focus and money on a sport that takes us for granted?

What a play by Mendoza, negating a slew of bizarre no calls by the refs on this drive and throughout the game

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