THE APEX TIMES
The Texas Longhorns head coach suggested that the sport’s playoff direction could affect how major nonconference scheduling is approached, pointing to the impact a future College Football Playoff field may have on marquee neutral-site and home-and-home matchups.
Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian said he has concerns about sticking with plans for a Notre Dame home-and-home if the College Football Playoff does not expand in the near future, framing the issue as one of incentives for elite programs to keep scheduling tradition-heavy series against each other.
The comment, reported by Yahoo Sports, lands in the middle of a wider industry debate about whether the CFP is drifting toward a more professional model, one that places a higher value on access to postseason positioning. In that setting, Sarkisian’s point is not simply about one rivalry-style matchup, but about what playoff chances mean for how coaches and athletic departments prioritize future scheduling.
The backdrop is the evolving structure of the CFP itself. The four-team format launched in 2014, ran through 2023 with that same size, and has included 12 teams since 2024. As the sport continues to weigh whether another expansion is coming, the question becomes what that does to the risk-reward calculus of nonconference games, especially those that are expensive to stage and difficult to replace.
From Sarkisian’s perspective, marquee games like a Notre Dame home-and-home are built on mutual benefits: they create recruiting and recruiting-brand value, test teams against high-level opponents, and help confirm a program’s national relevance outside the league schedule. But in a playoff system where the margin between “in” and “out” can swing on scheduling strength and selection criteria, the cost of a loss can change dramatically as the field grows or does not.
Notre Dame is also a special case in modern college football scheduling, both because of its national following and because its independence historically has required it to manage a large portion of its slate through high-profile matchups. Sarkisian’s comments, as characterized in the report, reflect a broader reality for programs operating in crowded calendar windows and heightened CFP scrutiny, where the same game can be viewed as either an investment or a liability depending on postseason access.
The most important detail in the report is the language of conditionality. Sarkisian is not presenting a finalized statement about a broken contract or an immediate scheduling change. Rather, he is indicating that if the playoff picture does not widen as expected, the value of keeping certain blockbuster series may not justify the risk, at least from the standpoint of elite program strategy.
For college football fans, the implication is that scheduling may become more tightly linked to the postseason math. If another CFP expansion moves forward, coaches may feel more comfortable maintaining a steady stream of heavyweight nonconference tests. If expansion stalls, more programs could look for safer paths to building resumes that align with a narrower playoff field. What to watch next is whether governing bodies and conferences provide clearer timelines and what athletic directors choose to prioritize once the CFP’s final shape is set. (The report’s framing suggests the conversation will continue until that clarity arrives.)
