Despite Dominant Defense, Texas Longhorns Projected to Struggle Among College Football’s Top Contenders According to New Game Simulation
The Texas Longhorns are entering the 2025 season with high expectations. After a series of impressive defensive showings in the past two years and a roster filled with blue-chip talent, the buzz around Steve Sarkisian’s team has been undeniable. However, despite the hype, a recent simulation from the highly anticipated “College Football 26” game suggests that Texas may not be as dominant among the elite as many fans believe. In fact, the simulation casts the Longhorns as a team potentially plagued by critical inefficiencies that could see them fall behind national powerhouses like Georgia, Michigan, and Alabama.
According to details emerging from early gameplay and team ratings in “College Football 26,” Texas suffers in several key categories that are essential to success at the elite level. Most notably, the simulation highlights offensive inconsistency, a lack of depth in the running back room, red-zone struggles, and situational game management as the key factors holding the Longhorns back. It’s a sobering evaluation for a team considered a dark horse contender for the national title.
The game, known for its meticulous attention to realism and statistical modeling, uses a combination of real-world data, historical trends, and scouting input to simulate how teams would fare in a season. For Texas, the model is clear: a ferocious defense can only carry the team so far if the offense remains as inconsistent as it was during stretches of the 2024 season.
One of the most glaring issues in the simulation is the inconsistency of quarterback Quinn Ewers. Though undeniably talented and possessing the physical tools to be one of the best signal-callers in the country, Ewers has struggled with rhythm, accuracy under pressure, and decision-making during crucial moments. “College Football 26” reflects this by giving Ewers a mid-tier rating in awareness and clutch performance. That hurts the Longhorns in simulated high-stakes scenarios, where razor-thin margins often separate winners from losers.
Ewers’ inconsistency is compounded by the instability at the running back position. Following season-ending injuries to promising talents like CJ Baxter and Christian Clark, the depth chart looks alarmingly thin. In real life, this has already forced Sarkisian to make emergency recruiting efforts and rely more on the passing game. But in the game simulation, it means a lower stamina rating for remaining backs and a higher risk of injury fatigue in long matchups, which reduces the team’s ability to control the tempo and run down the clock in the second half.
Another area where Texas falters in the simulation is red-zone efficiency. Despite having a defense that routinely creates turnovers and gives the offense favorable field position, the Longhorns often settle for field goals instead of touchdowns in the red zone. In real-world matchups, this has been one of Sarkisian’s Achilles’ heels, often opting for conservative play-calling or mistimed aggressive decisions. The game factors this into playbooks and decision trees, reducing the Longhorns’ overall offensive efficiency rating and limiting their scoring ability in tight games.
Further contributing to Texas’ simulated struggles is the history of blown leads and fourth-quarter collapses. In the past two seasons, the Longhorns have had multiple games where they held significant leads entering the fourth quarter, only to lose grip due to questionable in-game adjustments or mental lapses. “College Football 26” incorporates this tendency by reducing the team’s “composure” and “discipline” attributes, two elements that affect performance during simulated clutch moments. As a result, Texas is more likely to give up points in the final minutes or fail to convert on key third-downs.
On the flip side, the defense receives elite-level treatment in the game. Led by future NFL prospects across the defensive line and secondary, the Longhorns boast one of the highest-rated defensive units in the simulation. Run defense, pass rush, and coverage grades all rank in the top three nationally. The team is especially dominant in pass breakups, quarterback hurries, and third-down stops. This isn’t surprising given their real-world performance, where Texas finished last season as one of the best defenses in the nation. The simulation confirms that, on paper, this unit can match up with any team in the country.
But football games aren’t won on defense alone—especially in the modern era of explosive offensive schemes. The simulation shows that while the Longhorns can often control games for two-and-a-half quarters, they struggle to land the knockout blow. This results in more close games, where one or two mistakes can be fatal. Against teams like Ohio State or Michigan, who are more balanced and boast both strong offenses and defenses, Texas ends up on the losing side more often than not.
What’s more, “College Football 26” applies fatigue and momentum mechanics throughout games. As the Longhorns’ offense fails to maintain long drives, their defense is forced to spend more time on the field, eventually wearing down against high-tempo opponents. The cumulative effect in simulation is clear—strong starts, but weak finishes.
Off the field, the simulation also takes into account program trajectory and recruiting momentum. While Texas has recruited well, there’s a perception—both in real life and in the game—that development hasn’t always kept pace with raw talent. The Longhorns have had multiple five-star recruits who never reached their full potential, and the coaching staff is often criticized for underutilizing certain skill sets. In the game’s Dynasty Mode, this translates to lower player progression and morale scores, impacting team chemistry and player development over time.
There’s also the intangible factor of coaching philosophy. Sarkisian’s aggressive early-game strategies followed by conservative late-game decisions are simulated via adaptive AI logic. In games where Texas builds a lead, the play-calling AI tends to tighten up, running conservative plays that stall drives and allow opponents to mount comebacks. This mimics real-life game flow issues that have haunted the Longhorns during Sark’s tenure.
The result of all these combined elements is a team that starts the season ranked among the top 10 but finishes outside the playoff picture in the majority of simulations. The Longhorns often end with a respectable 9-3 or 10-2 record but fall short in marquee matchups that could boost them into true championship contention.
In contrast, programs like Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, and USC boast more balanced rosters and consistent execution in all phases. They have higher ratings in stamina, red-zone execution, and game management—all areas where Texas lags. These details may seem minor, but they accumulate quickly in simulations and separate the truly elite from those on the cusp.
The reaction among Longhorn fans has been mixed. Some are brushing off the simulation as just a video game, while others see it as a reflection of concerns they’ve been voicing for the past year. “We’ve got the talent, no doubt,” said one fan on a popular Longhorns forum. “But unless Sark fixes the mental side of things and the play-calling gets sharper, we’re always going to be that team that looks good on paper but fades in November.”
Interestingly, the simulation does leave room for optimism. If Ewers can deliver consistent performances and if a young running back emerges to take pressure off the passing game, the Longhorns could easily flip several of those simulated losses into wins. The margin isn’t huge—but it’s significant enough that execution and development will be the difference between a solid season and a legendary one.
The coaching staff has responded to some of these concerns by emphasizing player development and tweaking offensive schemes in spring practices. There’s been more focus on red-zone drills, conditioning, and late-game situational play. Whether that translates to on-field improvement remains to be seen, but it’s clear that the shortcomings identified by “College Football 26” are not lost on the team itself.
In the end, the simulation is just that—a digital prediction. But it’s based on real data, real tendencies, and real outcomes. If nothing else, it serves as a timely reminder that talent alone isn’t enough. Execution, discipline, depth, and situational awareness matter just as much, if not more.
Texas may well prove the simulation wrong. With a defense capable of matching up with any offense in the nation and a quarterback who, when dialed in, can torch any secondary, the potential is there. But until the Longhorns fix the gaps that the game so clearly identified, they may remain on the outside looking in—dominant in parts, but incomplete as a whole.
As the 2025 season approaches, all eyes will be on Austin. Can Texas rise above its projected limitations, or will “College Football 26” prove to be a prophecy too accurate to ignore? Time will tell, but for now, the message is clear: Texas still has work to do.
