EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsYou're here for the sweet, sweet computer rankings, and I understand, but we're going to start with a quick aside: I first need to defend the concept of preseason numbers.SMU Mustangs coach Rhett Lashlee is one of the brightest in the business. Comparing how well his Mustangs have played in his four-year tenure with how well SMU has played over the past 20 years, you could say he might be the second-best coach of the 2020s. He's good at what he does, he's fun to chat with, and he railed against the idea of preseason rankings this summer.During ACC media days, in response to the frequent strength-of-schedule conversations emanating from SEC land this summer, Lashlee said, "Whenever some of y'all figure out how we can have preseason strength of schedules and power rankings before anybody has played a game, y'all let me know."On Twitter, he followed up: "It's so obvious, yet rarely ever questioned. Last year doesn't matter anymore AT ALL. We have NO idea who anyone is yet -- so it's impossible to have strength of schedule or FPI yet ... there's literally NO data to go off. Nothing to measure, compare or judge yet. However, we create this arbitrary baseline to begin the year."As it pertains to the College Football Playoff discussion, he's right. Nothing that happened last year should matter when it comes to determining this year's national champion. But for all the things we get wrong with the CFP selection process -- and I have a laundry list of complaints at this point, starting (but not ending) with the use of a committee of any sort -- there's one thing we get totally right: The CFP rankings don't start until later in the season, once there's a decent-sized sample of games from which to pull information.Preseason rankings therefore have two main purposes: First, they get us talking about the sport and help us determine which games to focus on early in the season. That's useful when there are a million games each weekend. I know people complain about how polls therefore set a narrative regarding a given team, but, well, Indiana got the No. 1 seed in the CFP last year despite a preseason No. 20 ranking, and Texas started out No. 1 but missed the playoff. The results will speak for themselves by the end.In the case of projection systems like SP+ and FPI, meanwhile, they are pretty damn good at making predictions. You might not like that information from prior seasons -- plus bits 'n' bobs such as returning production and a dash of recruiting rankings -- can create accurate projections, and it sure would be a lot more fun if, say, SMU, Texas, Texas State and UTEP all started out with equal chances of being awesome in 2026.Priors are predictive, however, even in the transfer portal era. And preseason rankings like SP+ paint an interesting and reasonably accurate picture; the formula doesn't get every team right -- and it wouldn't be any fun whatsoever if it did -- but it can tell us quite a bit. Of last year's projected top-15 teams in SP+, seven finished within one (regular-season) win of their August projections. And for the eight that didn't, close games (and, therefore, some randomness) played an enormous role. Six teams -- Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Oregon and Texas A&M -- overachieved their projected win total by at least 1.4 regular-season wins; they were projected to win 52.1 combined games but went 66-6 instead, primarily because of a combined 21-3 record in one-score games. Two teams -- Clemson and Penn State -- significantly underachieved their projections. They were expected to win 19.3 combined games on average but instead went 13-11 in the regular season. They certainly spent much of the season looking like anything but top-15 teams, but they also went a combined 2-8 in one-score finishes.There will always be some Clemson-style whiffs, and trying to guess which ones they'll be is part of the fun. But it's useful to find out what the computers have to say, and when it's time for teams to be judged on their CFP bona fides in a couple more months, they'll stand mostly on their own merits. Win-win.Below are the final preseason SP+ projections for the 2026 college football season. As always: SP+ is a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency. It is a predictive measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football, not a rsum ranking, and, along those same lines, these projections aren't intended to be a guess at what the AP Top 25 will look like at the end of the year. These are simply early offseason power rankings based on the information we have been able to gather to date.Here are the full rankings (overall, offense, defense and special teams) along with each team's average projected win total and strength-of-schedule ranking.You can determine a hypothetical projection for a given game by subtracting Team A's rating from Team B's and, if necessary, giving the home team an extra 2.5 points. With that as a cue, let's look at the projections for some noteworthy early games.Week 0North Carolina vs. TCU (in Dublin): TCU by 5.8NC State at Virginia: UVA by 4.8Jacksonville State at North Dakota State: NDSU by 8.5Memphis at UNLV: UNLV by 5.8We've seen plenty of surprises in the Week 0 Dublin game in the past. We've also seen the losing team's season virtually collapse a few times. Meanwhile, UNLV has the edge in one of the more fascinating Group of 6 games of the season, and NDSU is a projected favorite in its first game as an FBS team.Week 1No. 23 Clemson at No. 13 LSU: LSU by 9.8Louisville vs. No. 10 Ole Miss: Ole Miss by 5.4No. 20 SMU at Florida State: SMU by 0.4This really is a bit of a skimpy slate as far as Week 1s go, but Lane Kiffin's LSU has a chance for an early statement, and we might have a toss-up in Tallahassee.Week 2No. 1 Ohio State at No. 5 Texas: Ohio State by 7.5No. 13 Oklahoma at No. 14 Michigan: Michigan by 0.7Arizona at No. 12 BYU: BYU by 7.9Home field makes OU-Michigan a virtual toss-up, and BYU has the edge in an early Big 12 battle. But if you look at the strength-of-schedule rankings above, Week 2's showcase game -- Texas hosting Ohio State -- is big for a couple of reasons. It's a battle of top-five brands for starters, but with rugged schedules ahead, the loser of this one is going to face some solid CFP anxiety.Ohio State will still have to visit Indiana and USC and host Oregon and Michigan -- all projected top-15 teams -- while Texas will still have to face the projected No. 9 (Texas A&M), No. 10 (LSU), No. 11 (Oklahoma) and No. 14 (Tennessee) teams, all away from Austin. Either team would be at the top of a pile of 9-3 teams, but Texas learned last year that you need a few breaks to get in the playoff at 9-3. The Horns didn't get those breaks in 2025.SP+ vs. conventional wisdomAs is usually the case, there aren't many huge differences between SP+ projections and the preseason polls. But there are some differences worth noting.Teams the coaches poll likes moreTop Big 12 teams not named Texas Tech. Among BYU (15th in the coaches poll, 21st in SP+), Utah (21st and 30th, respectively) and Houston (24th and 38th), at least one team will likely enjoy a string of close wins and post a solid record. It should have the best line play in the conference outside of favorite Texas Tech. But SP+ isn't particularly trusting, especially of a Houston team that went 6-1 in one-score finishes last year. Ole Miss. The Rebels are 10th in the coaches poll but 16th in SP+, primarily because of major turnover at receiver and in the secondary and change in the head coach's office. I've baked in some regression-toward-the-mean factors for when a team over- or underachieves by a large amount and then changes head coaches, and since Kiffin was Ole Miss' best head coach in 50 years, the change to Pete Golding comes with a bit of a downgrade. SMU. Well, this is a bit awkward. Preseason ranking-hating Lashlee's team is getting quite a bit of love from the pollsters despite last season's slip from 11-3 to 9-4. But while the Mustangs start 20th in the polls, they're a bit further back, at 25th, in SP+.Teams SP+ likes more Texas Tech. I fear I might be a little too confident in the Red Raiders this season, since they steamrolled through the Big 12 last year despite often mediocre quarterback play. Am I already taking their portal abilities for granted? Am I assuming too much from a defense that had to reload quite a bit in the front six? The pollsters downgraded Tech to 12th, but SP+ has my back, starting them eighth despite the turnover. That's a pretty solid reinforcement of just how good they were in 2025.The SEC's light heavyweights (as always). A good number of pollsters likely attempt to predict how they think the polls will look at the end of the season, while SP+ is, again, a pure power rating. Among Florida (27th in the preseason poll, 20th in SP+), Missouri (25th and 19th, respectively), South Carolina (30th and 24th) and Tennessee (18th and 14th), at least a couple will end up on the wrong side of close games and hovering around .500. The SEC might have a huge middle class, but someone still has to lose games. With a few decent bounces, however, all four could end up in great shape, and SP+ reminds us that the components for those teams (especially Tennessee) are pretty promising.SP+ vs. 2025Let's add some context to the 2026 ratings above by laying out which teams' ratings are projected to change the most from last year.Largest projected improvement over 2025 Oklahoma State (up 22.0 points, 39th overall). I referenced a regression-toward-the-mean factor with coaching changes above; well, after stellar 20-year SP+ averages, OSU suddenly collapsed at the end of the Mike Gundy era and fielded its worst team in more than 60 years last season. A coaching change (to North Texas' Eric Morris) and a major production boost on both sides of the ball have the Cowboys likely to rebound pretty significantly. Virginia Tech (up 18.7 points, 36th overall). Progression toward the mean strikes again. Virginia Tech also collapsed last season and also replaced its head coach. Throw in a boost from recruiting and transfers, and you have another candidate for a major rebound. UCLA (up 14.1 points, 46th overall). Same idea here. Bob Chesney took over and brought a ton of production with him after the Bruins face-planted in 2025. Florida (up 11.7 points, 20th overall). Are you catching a theme? Another coaching change (and upgrade) for a program that was abnormally poor in 2025. Syracuse (up 11.2 points, 76th overall). Here we have the largest projected improvement for a team that didn't change its head coach. Between the return of Steve Angeli at quarterback and an intriguing offensive coordinator change -- I have the same regression-toward-the-mean factor baked in for coordinator changes, though it's not quite as strong -- Syracuse has a chance to rebound from a shocking late-season collapse. The bar is pretty low here, though: The Orange are still projected just 76th.Largest projected regression versus 2025The theme continues here, only in reverse. We can pack these five teams together.North Texas (down 25.4 points, 105th overall).UConn (down 17.0 points, 110th overall).Toledo (down 15.2 points, 101st overall).Southern Miss (down 13.6 points, 128th overall).South Florida (down 13.3 points, 74th overall).These five teams averaged 9.0 wins and a 49.4 SP+ ranking among them last season. They all lost their head coaches and loads of starters to another school. Now they're projected to average 5.9 wins and a 103.6 ranking. It's a pretty cruel world out there for mid-majors at the moment.Largest projected regression versus 2025 (Power 4 edition)Looking specifically at power-conference teams gives us a bit more variety when it comes to reasons for projected regression. Utah (down 12.4 points, 30th overall). The coaching change from Kyle Whittingham to Morgan Scalley a year after fielding a particularly fantastic team (the Utes were eighth in SP+ in 2025) plays a bit of a role in the downgrade, but so do mediocre returning production numbers -- driven in part by massive turnover on both lines. Vanderbilt (down 10.5 points, 29th overall). Among power-conference teams, only Iowa State ranks lower than Vandy in returning production. This Commodore program feels far sturdier than it did a couple of years ago, especially with the addition of blue-chip quarterback Jared Curtis, but this certainly feels like a bit of a reset year. If Vanderbilt really does finish in the top 30, that's an incredible endorsement of the program Clark Lea is building. Iowa State (down 10.2 points, 69th overall). Speaking of the Cyclones, Matt Campbell left after a run of historic overachievement, and most of his starting lineup is gone too. The offense, in fact, returns just four of last year's starts. Starts, not starters. I'm honestly surprised they aren't projected to drop a little further. Ole Miss (down 7.6 points, 16th overall). We covered this one above: Kiffin was indeed the best Ole Miss coach in a half-century, and that leaves a high bar to clear. Golding certainly made a solid impression during last year's CFP run, at least. Indiana (down 6.6 points, fifth overall). I guess it makes sense if, after your greatest season in history, you're expected to fall back a bit. It sure seems like Curt Cignetti nailed another great transfer class, though. The Hoosiers will have a shot at creating something great again.Conference power rankings and hierarchiesHere are the 10 FBS conferences ranked in order of average projected SP+ rating. 1. SECAverage rating: 15.0 (up 1.9 points, from 13.1 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 33.1 (first)Average defensive rating: 18.3 (first)Average returning production percentage: 59.0% (second)Projected top four (in order of projected wins): No. 4 Georgia (7.0 projected wins), No. 6 Texas (6.0), No. 10 LSU (5.8), No. 9 Texas A&M (5.6)The spread of SEC teams versus Big Ten teams isn't as dramatic here as it was at the end of 2025, when three Big Ten teams were higher than any SEC team and seven Big Ten teams were lower than any SEC team. To start 2026, there are only two Big Ten teams higher than Georgia (though UGA and Indiana are virtually tied) and four lower than Mississippi State. One can see how that would create stronger SP+ averages for the SEC, though if you want to give the "Strongest Conference" title to the Big Ten because of the recent national titles, that's fine. That's basically how the SEC has told you to judge it for a couple of decades.Toughest schedules (per projected SOS): Texas (No. 1 overall schedule), Arkansas (No. 2), Oklahoma (No. 4), Kentucky (No. 7)Easiest schedules: Georgia (No. 26), Vanderbilt (No. 24), Tennessee (No. 20), LSU (No. 19) 2. Big TenAverage rating: 12.1 (up 2.1 points, from 10.0 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 31.2 (second)Average defensive rating: 19.3 (second)Average returning production percentage: 59.7% (first)Projected top four: No. 1 Ohio State (7.5 projected wins), No. 2 Oregon (7.3), No. 5 Indiana (7.0), No. 17 Penn State (6.2)There's definitely a "top three and everyone else" vibe here, though I guess last year's top three heading into the season would have been Ohio State, Oregon and Penn State -- and not Indiana. Surprises happen.Toughest schedules (per projected SOS): Ohio State (No. 3 overall schedule), Michigan (No. 5), Northwestern (No. 6), Nebraska (No. 10)Easiest schedules: Penn State (No. 59), Rutgers (No. 39), Wisconsin (No. 37), UCLA (No. 36)Penn State doesn't play a team projected higher than 98th in nonconference play, then misses each of the top three while playing five of the bottom six in conference play. This is a shockingly extreme schedule -- among other things, a product of having a gargantuan 17 conference mates and only playing them nine at a time -- and it certainly offers new coach Matt Campbell a chance to start on the right foot. 3. Big 12Average rating: 6.5 (up 0.7 points, from 5.8 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 29.5 (third)Average defensive rating: 23.0 (fourth)Average returning production percentage: 56.5% (third)Projected top four: No. 8 Texas Tech (7.7 projected wins), No. 21 BYU (6.6), No. 30 Utah (5.4), No. 34 Kansas State (5.4)Texas Tech has questions to answer at quarterback, and a bunch of exciting new transfer defenders will have to dominate the way the last batch did, but the Red Raiders are still the most proven entity here. The race for No. 2, with seven teams projected between 21st and 39th, could be amazing.Toughest schedules (per projected SOS): Arizona State (No. 28 overall schedule), Oklahoma State (No. 40), TCU (No. 42), Baylor (No. 43)Easiest schedules: Texas Tech (No. 72), Kansas State (No. 69), UCF (No. 65), Utah (No. 64)Tech's conference title chances are bolstered by the fact that BYU, Utah and Kansas State aren't on its conference docket. 4. ACCAverage rating: 6.5 (up 3.2 points, from 3.3 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 28.6 (fourth)Average defensive rating: 22.1 (third)Average returning production percentage: 56.0% (fourth)Projected top four: No. 7 Miami (7.6 projected wins), No. 25 SMU (6.2), No. 27 Louisville (5.9), No. 23 Clemson (5.1)As with the Big 12, the top team is fairly clear, and the No. 2 team is totally up in the air: The ACC has six teams between 23rd and 37th, though the projections above suggest SMU has the most navigable schedule in that regard. The Mustangs have to be good right out of the gate -- they play at Florida State and Louisville in the first month of the season.Toughest schedules (per projected SOS): Boston College (No. 27 overall schedule), Stanford (No. 29), Florida State (No. 34), North Carolina (No. 35)Easiest schedules: NC State (No. 68), Virginia (No. 67), California (No. 63), Louisville (No. 60) 5. Pac-12Average rating: -3.4 (down 1.3 points, from -2.1 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 23.6 (sixth)Average defensive rating: 26.9 (fifth)Average returning production percentage: 51.1% (fifth)Projected top four: No. 49 Boise State (5.1 projected wins), No. 65 San Diego State (4.3), No. 77 Texas State (3.8), No. 73 Fresno State (3.8)Boise State starts out as a comfortable favorite in the Pac-12, and with the high-upside talent the Broncos still boast on defense, I'm guessing they're candidates to overachieve a rather conservative projection. But this could still be a pretty fun competition. 6. AmericanAverage rating: -7.2 (down 5.5 points, from -1.7 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 24.2 (fifth)Average defensive rating: 31.5 (eighth)Average returning production percentage: 46.0% (seventh)Projected top four: No. 64 Navy (5.8 projected wins), No. 67 Memphis (5.3), No. 80 East Carolina (5.2), No. 71 UTSA (5.2)Among the American teams that got decimated by coach departures and talent drains -- Memphis, USF and East Carolina (which kept its head coach but lost just about everything else) -- I'm guessing one of them proves to have particularly high upside and catches fire. But because it's hard to focus on just one of those teams, Navy, a far steadier and more proven entity (with perhaps a lower ceiling) starts out on top. 7. Mountain WestAverage rating: -7.9 (down 1.2 points, from -6.7 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 21.4 (seventh)Average defensive rating: 29.2 (sixth)Average returning production percentage: 44.3% (eighth)Projected top four: No. 55 UNLV (5.9 projected wins), No. 68 New Mexico (5.4), No. 83 Hawai'i (5.2), No. 84 Air Force (5.0)UNLV and New Mexico are easily the most highly projected teams, but schedule advantages will give Hawai'i and Air Force chances to close that gap. 8. Sun BeltAverage rating: -13.7 (down 5.1 points, from -8.6 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 21.0 (eighth)Average defensive rating: 34.4 (10th)Average returning production percentage: 42.6% (ninth)Projected top four: No. 70 James Madison (6.1 projected wins), No. 102 Louisiana (5.2), No. 93 Old Dominion (5.1), No. 98 Marshall (5.1)JMU is projected to fall back toward the pack in a major way after suffering so much attrition, but with such poor overall returning production numbers in the Sun Belt, it's hard to immediately figure out who might challenge the Dukes. 9. Conference USAAverage rating: -14.5 (down 4.3 points, from -10.2 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 20.1 (ninth)Average defensive rating: 34.4 (ninth)Average returning production percentage: 47.5% (sixth)Projected top four: No. 88 Liberty (6.0 projected wins), No. 95 Jacksonville State (5.6), No. 94 Western Kentucky (5.6), No. 114 Kennesaw State (4.4)We can typically count on a massive number of close games in Conference USA play -- as with the SEC, 50% of last year's conference games were decided by a touchdown or less -- and as would be expected, no one really stands out at the top. Liberty's schedule might give the Flames a slight advantage, though. 10. MACAverage rating: -16.7 (down 4.2 points, from -12.5 in 2025)Average offensive rating: 15.0 (10th)Average defensive rating: 31.4 (seventh)Average returning production percentage: 41.5% (10th)Projected top four: No. 85 Miami (Ohio) (6.2 projected wins), No. 90 Western Michigan (5.5), No. 101 Toledo (5.5), No. 109 Ohio (5.0)Last year ended with Miami and WMU atop the MAC pile, and this year begins the same way. With the switch from Jason Candle to FCS up-and-comer Mike Jacobs, however, plus some serious FCS star imports coming in, I'm really curious about Toledo. I could see the Rockets either over- or underachieving against projections by quite a bit.Final 2026 returning production rankingsThroughout the offseason, I post updates of my returning production rankings, which (A) are based on percentages that correlate most strongly to year-to-year improvement and regression and (B) include the production of incoming transfers. Here are the final numbers for 2026:The major story in recent seasons, as far as SP+ is concerned, has been the uptick of transfers and its effects on returning production numbers.2021 national average: 76.7%2022: 62.9%2023: 60.2%2024: 59.9%2025: 53.2%2026: 51.3%My approach to transfers remains as simple as possible: Incoming transfers' stats are plugged into the numerator and denominator, outgoing yards from departures are plugged into the denominator. So if you lose your 3,000-yard quarterback and bring in a 3,000-yard quarterback, your percentage of returning passing yards is 50%: 3,000 / (3,000 + 3,000). So you can see how the national averages will go down with increased transfers.But this affects power conferences differently than the Group of 6, of course: The average returning production for Power 4 teams is 58%, but it's 46% for G6 teams. The Pac-12 was the only G6 conference with an average greater than 50%. Life is challenging in the mid-major universe right now.
