The Schedule Strength Saga: Sarkisian, Texas Tech, and the Bigger Picture
Let’s start with a question: Why do we care so much about what college football coaches say? Personally, I think it’s because their words often reveal more than just game strategies—they expose the underlying tensions, politics, and priorities of the sport. Take Steve Sarkisian’s recent comments about Texas Tech’s strength of schedule, for example. On the surface, it’s a minor dust-up between two programs. But if you take a step back and think about it, this is really about the broader issue of scheduling inequities in college football—and how they shape perceptions of success.
The Spark That Ignited the Debate
Sarkisian’s initial remarks, where he joked that Texas could “go undefeated” if they played their backups against certain schedules, were clearly a jab at the perceived ease of some teams’ non-conference games. What makes this particularly fascinating is how quickly it escalated. Texas Tech’s coach Joey McGuire fired back, challenging Texas to a Week 1 matchup in Lubbock. Even a booster got involved, offering to cover Texas’s buyout fee. But here’s the thing: Sarkisian insists it wasn’t a slight against Texas Tech. In his clarification, he framed it as a commentary on how the College Football Playoff (CFP) committee evaluates schedule strength.
From my perspective, this is where the story gets interesting. Sarkisian’s comments weren’t just about Texas Tech—they were about the systemic issues in college football scheduling. What many people don’t realize is that the CFP committee’s criteria for selecting teams are still somewhat opaque. Strength of schedule matters, but how much? And who gets to decide what constitutes a “tough” schedule? Sarkisian’s point, I believe, was that teams like Texas, which play in the SEC and face powerhouse opponents like Ohio State, are held to a different standard than those with softer non-conference slates.
The Mendoza Line of College Football
One thing that immediately stands out is Sarkisian’s use of the term “Mendoza Line” to describe a 9-3 record in the context of the CFP. For those unfamiliar, the Mendoza Line refers to a .250 batting average in baseball—the bare minimum for a player to be considered competent. Sarkisian’s analogy is clever, but it’s also revealing. He’s essentially saying that 9-3 is the bare minimum for CFP consideration, yet no 9-3 team has made the playoff in the past two years. This raises a deeper question: Are we undervaluing teams that play tougher schedules but fall just short of perfection?
What this really suggests is that the CFP committee might be prioritizing undefeated records over schedule difficulty. Personally, I think that’s a problem. College football is supposed to reward the best teams, not just the ones with the easiest paths. Sarkisian’s frustration is understandable, especially after Texas missed the CFP last year despite a 9-3 record and wins over three Top 10 teams. If you ask me, the system needs to evolve to better account for schedule strength.
The Human Side of the Drama
A detail that I find especially interesting is how Sarkisian and McGuire handled the fallout. Instead of escalating the tension, they joked about it over text messages, even looping in UTSA coach Jeff Traylor. This reminds us that, despite the competitive nature of the sport, these coaches are still human beings with relationships outside the field. It’s a refreshing contrast to the often toxic rivalries we see in sports.
But let’s not forget the bigger picture here. Sarkisian’s comments, whether intentional or not, sparked a conversation about fairness in college football. In my opinion, that’s a good thing. The sport needs more transparency and accountability when it comes to scheduling and playoff selection. Until then, we’ll keep seeing these kinds of debates—and coaches like Sarkisian will keep calling out the inconsistencies.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for College Football?
If there’s one takeaway from this saga, it’s that schedule strength is going to be a hot-button issue for years to come. With the CFP expanding to 12 teams, the stakes are higher than ever. Will a 9-3 team from the SEC or Big Ten finally make the cut? Or will the committee continue to favor undefeated records, regardless of schedule difficulty? Personally, I’m skeptical that much will change—but I’m hopeful that conversations like this will push the sport in the right direction.
In the end, Sarkisian’s comments weren’t just about Texas Tech. They were a call to action for college football to reevaluate its priorities. And that, in my opinion, is what makes this story so compelling. It’s not just about wins and losses—it’s about the future of the sport itself.
