Let’s analyze this issue based solely on what transpired during the games. A fresh perspective, I know.

Texas faced off against Arkansas and secured a 20-10 victory on Saturday in Fayetteville, an unimpressive performance that highlights the Longhorns’ sluggish path to the top of the College Football Playoff rankings.

Two weeks earlier, Ole Miss played against Arkansas in the same venue and dominated them with a score of 63-31. Just last week, Ole Miss handed a defeat to the formidable Georgia team by 18 points.

However, if you check the latest CFP rankings, there’s a stark difference between Texas and Ole Miss that’s as exaggerated as Florida State’s hopes of joining the Big Ten versus reality.

This is the core issue with the playoff rankings — particularly the selection committee, which seems to adhere to the principle of “less is more” for losses.

A glance at Texas’ schedule reveals a lack of substance. There are no standout victories or a series of impressive games that justify their No. 3 ranking.

On the other hand, when it comes to Ole Miss, the CFP committee seems to overlook more than just the Georgia victory that keeps the Rebels at No. 11 in the rankings. And by “more,” I do not refer to the 24-point win over the hottest SEC team, South Carolina.

By “more,” I mean losses. Ole Miss has two, while Texas has one.

As if that wasn’t enough.

Texas suffered a home defeat against Georgia — the very team Ole Miss handed its most significant regular-season loss since 2018, where Texas trailed 23-0 in the second quarter before they could catch their breath. Coach Steve Sarkisian was so rattled that he replaced starting quarterback and Heisman candidate Quinn Ewers, and by the third quarter, both Ewers and Arch Manning were looking to avoid the Georgia defense.

Conversely, Ole Miss lost to Kentucky and LSU at home, both due to desperate fourth-down throws. Without those two unlikely plays, Ole Miss would be undefeated.

This is the problem with the committee. There is a lack of subtlety in the rankings, no assessment of teams, shared opponents, or level of difficulty.

This is precisely why the playoff was expanded to 12 teams.

This glaring oversight regarding on-field outcomes is detrimental to the College Football Playoff and the sport itself. The amount of money involved in this process ($1.2 billion annually) means the committee cannot afford to make such mistakes.

One might say to calm down, as there are still three weeks left for things to unfold and for the committee to rectify the situation. But that’s not the main concern.

If this is the method the committee uses to reach these specific decisions, what implications does that have for the rest of the rankings? If such an obvious discrepancy can be overlooked, what else might be ignored?

The outcomes of these committee choices are significant; the positions from No. 7 to 10 in the rankings may be so close that these arguments will determine who hosts a playoff game versus who has to travel.

If a team from the south has to play in the midwest during December’s frigid temperatures and potential snowfall, versus a game at home in mild 50s weather.

If the committee fails to recognize that Texas’ top win is over Colorado State from the Group of Five or at Vanderbilt, while Ole Miss has triumphed over Georgia and South Carolina, what other factors might the committee disregard for the sake of just one less loss?

The true effort is shown on the field, not in the secretive rooms where the selection committee meets.

This scenario is no different from the perplexing Bowl Championship Series rankings, where computer polls — each with its unique weighted and confidential algorithms — influenced decisions about who would compete for the national title.

Consider this: we are placing the most critical aspect of the college football season into the hands of athletic directors and random individuals serving on the committee.

Rule No. 1, everyone: significant victories outweigh a painful loss.

A fresh perspective, I know.