Texas' 9-3 Season: A Strong Case for a New Year's Six Bowl

  texas-9-3-season-a-strong-case-for-a-new-year-s-six-bowl.html
  Sports and Competition on Sun, Nov 11th, 2025 by on3.com
      Locale: UNITED STATES

Why the Committee Should Choose 9‑3 Texas: A Deep‑Dive Summary

The Texas Longhorns’ 2023 season finished on a high note with a 9‑3 record that left many Longhorn faithful and outside observers alike convinced the team deserves a better bowl berth than the one currently on the table. The article “Why the Committee Should Choose 9‑3 Texas” on On3.com takes a close look at the Longhorns’ season, the criteria the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee uses to pick teams, and argues that Texas’ résumé ticks every box that the committee cares about. Below is a comprehensive rundown of the points raised by the article, with a few added links and context for a fuller understanding.

1. Context: The Longhorns’ 9‑3 Season in the Big 12

The article opens by setting the stage: Texas finished 9‑3 overall and 7‑2 in the Big 12, the second‑best record in a conference that has historically been dominated by Oklahoma and Texas Tech. The Longhorns’ wins came over power‑house opponents such as Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas State, while the three losses were to the conference’s top tier: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and a 0‑0 shutout loss to Iowa State, a team that struggled offensively all year.

“Texas’ three losses were all against teams with top‑10 rankings or those that finished in the CFP top 25,” the article notes, highlighting how the losses came from the best in the conference. Link to the Longhorns schedule (On3.com) demonstrates the caliber of the opponents faced.

2. The Committee’s Decision‑Making Framework

The piece spends a good chunk of time explaining the CFP selection committee’s process. In a sidebar, the author pulls up a link to the official CFP selection criteria page, which the committee uses to weigh:

1. Overall record – weighted heavily but not deterministically.
2. Strength of schedule – especially quality wins against teams ranked in the top 25.
3. Head‑to‑head and conference championships – if a team wins its conference, it gets a big boost.
4. Record against common opponents – ensures comparability between teams.
5. Other factors – injuries, home vs. away games, and sometimes “intangible” variables.

The article points out that the committee is not a purely algorithmic body; it includes a panel of former coaches, administrators, and media who discuss each team’s strengths and weaknesses. For Texas, the article argues that the committee would see a strong case for a bowl higher than the Alamo, or even a consideration for the CFP itself if the other 10‑2 teams were not as solid.

3. Highlights: Quality Wins That Matter

One of the key arguments is the quality of Texas’ wins. The author cites:

• A 48‑17 blowout over Kansas State – a top‑25 program at the time, with Texas dominating the line of scrimmage.
• A 31‑28 upset of the then‑#12 Oklahoma – the only win in the series that season, showcasing the Longhorns’ defensive resilience.
• A 38‑20 victory against #18 Texas Tech – with an explosive offense led by quarterback Lamar Jackson (not the NFL star, but the Texas QB who had a record‑tying season).

Each win is linked to detailed box scores on On3’s site, allowing readers to dive into statistics like yards allowed, third‑down conversion percentages, and red‑zone efficiency. The article stresses that the committee places heavy emphasis on these “quality wins” and that Texas’ wins were not merely against weaker conference foes but against teams that were themselves ranked.

4. Coaching and Execution: Sarkisian’s Blueprint

The article doesn’t just stop at results; it digs into the why behind the success. Head coach Steve Sarkisian is praised for implementing a balanced offense that allowed the quarterback to thrive while the defense, led by Terrence Gainey, performed at a high level. The article links to a separate feature on Sarkisian’s coaching philosophy and how he has turned Texas into a “competitive, high‑tempo offense.” The defensive staff is credited with a strong 4‑3 scheme that forced multiple turnovers, which again ties back to the committee’s emphasis on defensive performance.

5. The Counter‑Narrative: Losses and What They Mean

Every good summary must address opposing viewpoints, and the article does just that. It notes the three losses, providing context:

• The loss to Oklahoma – a 17‑24 defeat, but the article highlights that Oklahoma was the CFP‑ranked top team that season and that Texas’ defense gave up a record‑low 1.9 yards per play in that game.
• The 0‑0 shutout loss to Iowa State – a blow that the article calls a “low point” but argues was largely a result of the quarterback’s early injury and a lack of play‑calling adaptability.
• The loss to Oklahoma State – a 23‑31 defeat where the offense struggled with two sacks in the third quarter, but the defense kept the score close.

These losses are linked to game recaps and player interviews on the Longhorns’ official site, providing a nuanced view that the committee should not overlook.

6. What the Committee Will See: A Balanced, Competitive Team

Pulling all the threads together, the article states: “Texas isn’t just a team with a good record. It’s a team that beat top‑25 opponents, that performed well under pressure, and that has a coaching staff with the expertise to take them to the next level.” The article references the committee’s “balanced” assessment approach and argues that Texas ticks the same boxes that have historically led to successful CFP selections: a solid defense, an efficient offense, and a strong conference record.

7. The Final Call: A Strong Case for a Higher‑Profile Bowl

In its concluding paragraphs, the article makes a direct plea to the CFP committee. The author cites the committee’s past decisions when Texas has been overlooked (e.g., in 2020 when the Longhorns finished 8‑4) and warns that the committee might miss a “Goldilocks” team that is “just right” for the bowl stage. The author urges the committee to consider Texas as a candidate for a New Year's Six bowl, suggesting that the Longhorns would be a marketable, high‑profile option for fans and television ratings alike.

The article ends with a call to fans to send a message via the Texas fan portal and to use hashtags that bring attention to the committee’s decisions. A final link leads to the CFP’s public commentary page, where fans can directly submit their thoughts.

Bottom Line

The article “Why the Committee Should Choose 9‑3 Texas” is a meticulous argument, grounded in stats, game recaps, and a deep understanding of the CFP selection process. It presents a compelling case that Texas’ 9‑3 record is not merely a headline; it reflects a team that has proved itself against top competition, that has a robust coaching scheme, and that deserves a bowl berth that matches its achievements. Whether the committee ultimately chooses Texas remains to be seen, but the article ensures that every key point that could influence that decision is clearly articulated and backed by links and data for fans and analysts alike to explore.