The College Football Playoff system has always been a hotbed of controversy, but the recent comments from Texas Longhorns coach Steve Sarkisian have reignited debates about fairness, strategy, and the true value of schedule strength. What first appears as a simple critique of Texas Tech’s scheduling choices quickly unravels into a deeper conversation about how the playoff system prioritizes results over merit, and how that shapes the landscape of college football. Personally, I think Sarkisian’s remarks highlight a critical flaw in the current structure: the idea that a team’s path to the CFP is more about the quality of its opponents than the actual performance of its players. It’s a paradox that feels familiar to anyone who’s ever watched a game where the underdog wins against the odds, only to be left out of the championship picture.
Sarkisian’s jab at Texas Tech isn’t just about scheduling—it’s a calculated move to emphasize the importance of a team’s ‘strength of schedule’ in the eyes of the CFP committee. But here’s the thing: when you play in a different conference, you’re not just facing tougher opponents, you’re also avoiding the regional rivalries that define college football. Texas Tech’s 2025 season, for example, included matchups against BYU and UCF—teams that might not be as dominant as the SEC or Big Ten squads, but they still added a layer of challenge that Texas couldn’t replicate. What many people don’t realize is that this kind of scheduling strategy is a double-edged sword. It gives teams a leg up in the CFP race, but it also creates a system where the most ‘qualified’ teams are the ones that avoid the toughest competition.
The broader issue is that the CFP committee’s criteria for selecting playoff teams is increasingly based on a flawed assumption: that a team’s success is directly tied to the quality of its schedule. But this is a dangerous oversimplification. A team that wins 11 games while playing in a weaker conference is no less deserving of a championship than one that struggles against the best in the country. In my opinion, the playoff system is designed to reward teams that can win in the most difficult circumstances, but it’s failing to recognize that the real test of a program is its ability to perform consistently against the best competition. Sarkisian’s comments remind us that the current system is more about the path to the playoffs than the actual merit of the teams.
Then there’s the question of playoff expansion. Sarkisian’s advocacy for a four-team playoff is a fascinating reflection of his belief in a more balanced, less chaotic system. He argues that the current model, with 12 teams, has created a ‘playoff-or-bust’ mentality that undermines the value of the regular season. This is a perspective that resonates with many fans who feel that the CFP is becoming a lottery for the best teams. However, what this really suggests is a deeper cultural shift in college football: a growing desire for a system that rewards consistency and excellence rather than luck and scheduling advantages. If you take a step back and think about it, the four-team model might actually be the most logical way to ensure that the teams competing for the title are the ones that have truly earned their place through sustained performance.
The real irony, though, is that Sarkisian’s criticism of Texas Tech is a reminder of how the CFP system is still deeply influenced by regional politics. Texas Tech’s success in 2025 was partly due to its ability to avoid the SEC’s dominant teams, but it also benefited from the fact that the CFP committee might be more inclined to favor a team that plays in a different conference. This raises a deeper question: is the CFP really about the best teams, or is it about the teams that can navigate the system’s biases? The answer, I think, is a mix of both, and that’s what makes the current system so frustrating for fans and coaches alike.
Ultimately, Sarkisian’s comments are a call to reexamine the entire framework of college football’s playoff system. The idea that a team’s schedule is a key factor in its CFP eligibility is a flawed logic that needs to be challenged. The future of the sport depends on whether we can move beyond this narrow focus and create a system that rewards true excellence, not just the ability to manipulate the rules of the game. As the CFP continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the battle over fairness and merit will never be far from the forefront of college football’s most heated debates.
