Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian is asking a fair question about College Football Playoff selection criteria, but the foundation of his argument rests almost entirely on hypotheticals.
Speaking about the Longhorns’ 9-3 season that ended outside the CFP, Sarkisian suggested Texas would have been in a much stronger position had it not scheduled Ohio State in non-conference play.
“If we beat Ohio State, we’re surely in a much better place for the playoffs. If I don’t play Ohio State and play Jones Jr. High, we’re 10-2 and our losses are to Georgia and Florida and we’re a playoff team.”
He doubled down by questioning how much the selection committee truly values strength of schedule.
“The committee’s got to show us what happens now, and what’s the value that they’re placing on strength of schedule. Are we ever going to let a 9-3 team in as an at-large? We’ll find out.”
The comments sparked debate because they revolve around one recurring theme: ifs.
If Texas beats Ohio State.
If Texas schedules an easier opponent.
If the Longhorns finish 10-2 instead of 9-3.
Those are reasonable talking points in July, but they don’t change what happened on the field. The committee has always evaluated actual resumes rather than hypothetical ones. Strength of schedule is one piece of the equation, but wins and losses remain the most important factor.
Ironically, Sarkisian’s comments could also be interpreted as an argument against scheduling marquee non-conference games. If coaches begin believing a difficult September matchup can cost them a playoff spot, many may choose the safer route against lower-tier opponents instead.
That’s a conversation worth having. Whether the CFP should reward aggressive scheduling more heavily is a legitimate debate as the playoff enters a new era.
But the Longhorns’ 2025 résumé will never include a win over Ohio State because they didn’t earn one. Likewise, they’ll never know whether a different schedule would have changed their fate.
In the end, playoff committees don’t select teams based on alternate timelines. They select them based on what actually happened, not on what might have happened if one game—or one scheduling decision—had been different.
