Code sports
Sports Betting
News, Blog and Guides
College Football Preseason Rankings and Predictions 2023
Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan and Alabama lead the way in our 2023 college football preseason predictions for win totals, conference champions, and more.
August 18, 2023 – by Jason Lisk
Can Michigan or Ohio State flip the SEC dominance? (Frank Jansky/Icon Sportswire)
Georgia is the current top Dawg in college football, with two straight national titles. They are also atop our rankings this year, as Kirby Smart’s team has finally supplanted Alabama, at least for now, in the SEC and national pecking order. But don’t forget about Alabama either, as the Crimson Tide are still one of the leading contenders.
Meanwhile, Ohio State and Michigan both made the college football playoff last year, and are once again hoping to end the recent run of SEC dominance.
This is the last year before we see even more massive conference shifts due to conference realignment, and you can also expect some bitter rivalry games as a result as teams in the Big 12 and Pac-12 may face off for the last time in a long time. We still get a different-looking Big 12 with the additions of several new members, and an American Conference that looks very different after the departure of Central Florida, Cincinnati, and Houston.
In this massive college football preview post, we’ve compiled all of our preseason rankings and predictions for the 2023 college football season in one place.
Preseason Predictions Menu
You can use the links below to jump to any section you want to read:
College Football Rankings HighlightsConference Champion OddsCollege Football Playoff OddsFBS Conference BreakdownsBowl Game Matchup PredictionsFull Preseason Rankings (All Teams)How We Make Preseason Predictions
Golf Pool Picks
Get an edge in your One And Done and Majors pools
Learn MoreGet Picks Now
2023 TR College Football Preseason Top 25
Jump to Rankings for All 131 FBS Teams
The table below features our 25 highest-ranked teams in the preseason (e.g. Georgia at No. 1), along with their associated preseason predictive ratings (e.g. 31.0 for Georgia).
The final five columns how the relative contribution that specific predictive factors and our “market adjustment” made to our final preseason rating for each team. We’ll explain those factors below.
| RANK | TEAM | RATING | LAST YEAR | PROGRAM | RETURN | LUCK | MARKET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 31.0 | 24.0 | 5.3 | -0.6 | -1.4 | 3.8 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 27.3 | 20.8 | 7.6 | 3.3 | -0.1 | -4.2 |
| 3 | Michigan | 26.3 | 18.6 | 3.2 | 2.9 | -0.4 | 2.1 |
| 4 | Alabama | 25.6 | 20.2 | 7.2 | -3.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| 5 | Louisiana State | 22.6 | 14.0 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
| 6 | Texas | 21.7 | 15.3 | 3.3 | 3.6 | -0.9 | 0.5 |
| 7 | Clemson | 20.0 | 10.9 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.4 |
| 8 | Southern California | 20.0 | 10.4 | 2.0 | 3.2 | -4.4 | 8.7 |
| 9 | Tennessee | 19.8 | 20.1 | 1.2 | -0.8 | -2.4 | 1.7 |
| 10 | Penn State | 19.6 | 16.2 | 3.8 | -0.2 | -2.8 | 2.6 |
| 11 | Florida State | 19.3 | 12.9 | -0.1 | 2.9 | -0.5 | 4.1 |
| 12 | Texas A&M | 16.2 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.8 | -0.6 | 5.8 |
| 13 | Washington | 15.5 | 9.6 | 1.9 | 6.9 | -1.0 | -2.0 |
| 14 | Oregon | 15.5 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 2.7 | -1.9 | 1.1 |
| 15 | Notre Dame | 14.9 | 8.7 | 4.5 | -1.8 | 1.3 | 2.3 |
| 16 | Oklahoma | 14.6 | 7.2 | 4.6 | -0.1 | -0.3 | 3.2 |
| 17 | Utah | 14.2 | 13.7 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 0.0 | -5.6 |
| 18 | Mississippi | 13.7 | 8.4 | 1.7 | -0.4 | 0.8 | 3.2 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | 12.5 | 6.3 | 4.6 | 1.7 | -0.1 | -0.1 |
| 20 | Kansas State | 11.7 | 13.7 | 1.5 | -3.1 | -1.0 | 0.6 |
| 21 | Texas Christian | 11.3 | 13.1 | 1.7 | -6.2 | -1.1 | 3.7 |
| 22 | Texas Tech | 10.4 | 8.4 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 0.0 | -2.5 |
| 23 | Kentucky | 10.1 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.8 |
| 24 | North Carolina | 9.8 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 0.6 | -0.8 |
| 25 | Iowa | 9.7 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 0.1 | -1.5 | 1.4 |
Preseason Ratings Predictive Factors
We’ve done a lot of research over the years to identify and value team-level stats that are highly correlated with success in college football.
We’ve also done research to identify information that seems like it should help determine a team’s future performance, but doesn’t actually hold up to rigorous historical testing.
Here’s a quick explanation of the factors we currently use in our preseason ratings:
LAST YEAR: How good a team was last yearPROGRAM: How good a team has been in recent history (excluding last year)RETURN: Measure of returning player performance in several key stat areasLUCK: How likely a team is to improve in higher-variance metrics (e.g. turnovers)MARKET: Adjustment if our initial projection is far off the betting market or the Associated Press poll
If interested, you can also find more in our preseason rankings explanation post.
Return to Main Menu
College Football Preseason Rankings Highlights
Showdowns Up Top in SEC and Big Ten. Our 2023 preseason top 5 have three teams from the SEC (Georgia, Alabama, and LSU) and two from the Big Ten (Michigan and Ohio State). We’ve seen a non-champion from each of these conferences make it into the playoffs the last two years (Ohio State in 2022 and Georgia in 2021), and the odds are good we get another this year.Look at ratings, not rankings. People tend to fixate on rankings, but the ratings are more important. LSU is one example, ranked No. 5 but just as close to No. 10 Penn State as No. 4 Alabama in our ratings. There’s also only 2.0 points difference between No. 12 Texas A&M and No. 17 Utah, so the teams in that range can be viewed as part of a tier, as there’s a three-point gap between Texas A&M and No. 11 Florida State.No non-Power Five in the Top 25. For the second year in a row, we don’t have any non-Power Five teams in our Top 25. Last year, Tulane was the one who broke through to get the “Group of Five” berth to the Cotton Bowl, and they are the highest-ranked from that group this year, at No. 30 in our power rankings.
Return to Main Menu
Conference Champion Odds
Here are the most likely teams to win each FBS conference according to our preseason predictions, along with each team’s conference-champion odds:
| CONFERENCE | FAVORITE | ODDS TO WIN |
|---|---|---|
| ACC | Clemson | 33.5% |
| Big 12 | Texas | 38.3% |
| Big Ten | Ohio State | 33.6% |
| Pac-12 | USC | 33.5% |
| SEC | Georgia | 44.8% |
| AAC | Tulane | 28.9% |
| C-USA | Western Kentucky | 37.0% |
| MAC | Toledo | 29.7% |
| MWC | Boise State | 31.0% |
| Sun Belt | Troy | 23.2% |
Two-time defending champ Georgia is the biggest favorite to win a conference this year, but are still under 50% to do so. All the Power Five conference favorites have at least a 33% chance of winning the conference title.
Western Kentucky is the biggest favorite to win a Group of Five conference, in a revamped Conference USA that lost several quality teams to the American Athletic Conference (who were in turn replacing teams that moved to the Big 12).
In-Season Updates
Once the 2023 college football season starts, we update all of our season projections and conference title odds daily on our college football predictions page.
Return to Main Menu
College Football Playoff Odds
Using our preseason ratings and predictions and combining it with an examination of the College Football Playoff selections over the previous nine seasons, here are our playoff-odds estimates for the top 20 teams.
These estimates are based on three things:
The betting market oddsThe predicted power ratings for each team compared to how past playoff teams rankedThe projected chances that each team goes undefeated entering bowl season; is a one-loss major conference champ; or is a one-loss wild-card option from the top two conferences (Big Ten or SEC)
The UNDEFEATED column below is the projected chance that team is undefeated following the conference title games.
| School | Conference | Undefeated | Playoff Odds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | SEC | 31% | 61% |
| Ohio State | BIG TEN | 19% | 41% |
| Michigan | BIG TEN | 21% | 40% |
| Alabama | SEC | 9% | 32% |
| USC | PAC 12 | 11% | 24% |
| Texas | BIG 12 | 9% | 24% |
| Clemson | ACC | 12% | 24% |
| LSU | SEC | 6% | 19% |
| Florida State | ACC | 12% | 18% |
| Penn State | BIG TEN | 6% | 16% |
| Tennessee | SEC | 3% | 11% |
| Washington | PAC 12 | 5% | 11% |
| Oregon | PAC 12 | 5% | 11% |
| Oklahoma | BIG 12 | 5% | 10% |
| Notre Dame | INDEP | 4% | 9% |
| Utah | PAC 12 | 3% | 9% |
| Texas A&M | SEC | 1% | 7% |
| Wisconsin | BIG TEN | 2% | 6% |
| Kansas State | BIG 12 | 2% | 5% |
| TCU | BIG 12 | 2% | 4% |
It should be no surprise that we see recent playoff stalwarts Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, and Alabama with the best odds to make the playoffs.
At least since the CFB Playoff era began nine seasons ago, the playoff teams have mostly come from teams near the top of our predictive preseason power rankings. The top four teams in the preseason rankings have accounted for over two-thirds of the eventual playoff participants (25 of 36). TCU was the lowest-ranked team in the preseason to make the playoffs (No. 37 last year), but they are a true outlier. Only four of the 36 playoff participants were outside our Top 8 entering the year.
The teams from the Pac-12, Big 12, and ACC probably need to go 12-1 to be in consideration for the playoffs. If they don’t, it does open the door for the runners up in the Big Ten and SEC to claim more spots, like they did last year.
Return to Main Menu
Golf Pool Picks
Get an edge in your One And Done and Majors pools
Learn MoreGet Picks Now
FBS Conference Breakdowns
Below, you will find all 10 conferences in FBS, as well as FBS independents.
Each conference table shows the team’s power rating and power rating rank among all FBS teams. You can also see that full table at the bottom of this article for all 130 teams.
It then shows the projected W-L record in regular-season games (no conference championship games included here) for all games as well as conference-only games.
Finally, it shows our projected odds of winning the conference title, which does account for the chances of playing in and winning the conference title games.
Quick LinksACC | Big Ten | Big 12 | Pac-12 | SECAAC | Conf. USA | MAC | MWC | Sun Belt | Independents
Return to Main Menu
ACC Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Clemson | 20.0 | 7 | 9.6 | 2.4 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 33.5% |
| Florida St | 19.3 | 11 | 9.4 | 2.6 | 6.3 | 1.7 | 30.6% |
| Louisville | 6.7 | 38 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 2.8 | 6.4% |
| N Carolina | 9.8 | 24 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 8.8% |
| Pittsburgh | 6.9 | 36 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 5.7% |
| Miami (FL) | 6.0 | 41 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.9% |
| NC State | 4.7 | 44 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.7% |
| Wake Forest | 3.3 | 48 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 2.2% |
| Duke | 3.7 | 47 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.5% |
| Syracuse | 0.8 | 60 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 1.1% |
| VA Tech | -2.6 | 75 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 0.7% |
| Boston Col | -4.3 | 83 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 0.5% |
| GA Tech | -5.4 | 89 | 4.2 | 7.8 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 0.3% |
| Virginia | -9.1 | 101 | 3.6 | 8.4 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 0.1% |
The ACC looks like a two-team race now between Clemson and Florida State. Clemson bounced back to win the ACC title last year. Florida State, meanwhile, had its first 10-win season since 2016, in Mike Norvell’s third year in charge.
The conference has also gotten rid of the divisions, so those two can now meet in the ACC title game, something they could not do last year playing in the same division.
Return to Conference Menu
Big 12 Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Texas | 21.7 | 6 | 9.4 | 2.6 | 7.2 | 1.8 | 38.3% |
| Oklahoma | 14.6 | 16 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 6.3 | 2.7 | 16.6% |
| Kansas St | 11.7 | 20 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 5.4 | 3.6 | 9.7% |
| TX Christian | 11.3 | 21 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 3.9 | 8.0% |
| Texas Tech | 10.4 | 22 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 6.8% |
| Baylor | 8.5 | 29 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.2 | 5.9% |
| Central FL | 6.7 | 37 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4.0% |
| Oklahoma St | 3.3 | 49 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 2.8% |
| Kansas | 4.5 | 46 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.6% |
| W Virginia | 1.7 | 55 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 3.6 | 5.4 | 1.6% |
| BYU | 0.9 | 57 | 5.4 | 6.6 | 3.3 | 5.7 | 1.1% |
| Cincinnati | -2.1 | 72 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 3.2 | 5.8 | 0.9% |
| Iowa State | 1.1 | 56 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 1.0% |
| Houston | -0.6 | 69 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 2.9 | 6.1 | 0.7% |
Oklahoma and Texas reached a deal to move to the conference in 2024, so this represents their swan song in the Big 12. They are the two favorites to win the conference this year, but just last season we saw TCU and Kansas State spoil that.
TCU has to replace the most production of any team in our preseason Top 25 after getting to the national title game last year. Oklahoma will look to rebound from the program’s worst season in over two decades in Brent Venables’ first year as coach, since before Bob Stoops took over back in 1999.
Return to Conference Menu
Big Ten Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Ohio State | 27.3 | 2 | 10.2 | 1.8 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 33.6% |
| Michigan | 26.3 | 3 | 10.5 | 1.5 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 32.3% |
| Penn State | 19.6 | 10 | 9.4 | 2.6 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 12.6% |
| Maryland | 6.7 | 40 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 1.4% |
| Michigan St | 0.9 | 58 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 0.2% |
| Rutgers | -5.2 | 86 | 4.2 | 7.8 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 0.0% |
| Indiana | -4.5 | 84 | 4.1 | 7.9 | 2.1 | 6.9 | 0.0% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Wisconsin | 12.5 | 19 | 8.6 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 2.9 | 7.9% |
| Iowa | 9.7 | 25 | 8.2 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 5.1% |
| Illinois | 5.8 | 42 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 2.4% |
| Minnesota | 8.3 | 33 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 3.0% |
| Nebraska | 1.9 | 53 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 0.9% |
| Purdue | 0.7 | 61 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 3.2 | 5.8 | 0.5% |
| Northwestern | -10.1 | 107 | 3.3 | 8.7 | 1.6 | 7.4 | 0.0% |
Michigan and Ohio State both made the college playoff last year, and both look to get back as the favorites in the Big Ten.
Iowa and Wisconsin are the two favorites to emerge out of the West and play in the Big Ten title game.
Meanwhile, Northwestern has plummeted in our projections. An offseason hazing scandal that resulted in the firing of head coach Pat Fitzgerald has put a cloud over a program coming off a one-win season a year ago, and now with a first-time interim coach in David Braun.
Return to Conference Menu
Pac-12 Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| USC | 20.0 | 8 | 9.7 | 2.3 | 7.2 | 1.8 | 33.5% |
| Oregon | 15.5 | 14 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 17.9% |
| Washington | 15.5 | 13 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 17.4% |
| Utah | 14.2 | 17 | 8.2 | 3.8 | 5.9 | 3.1 | 13.7% |
| UCLA | 9.2 | 27 | 8.2 | 3.8 | 5.7 | 3.3 | 7.2% |
| Oregon St | 9.1 | 28 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 5.4 | 3.6 | 7.2% |
| Wash State | 0.6 | 63 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 4.1 | 4.9 | 1.2% |
| California | 0.3 | 64 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.2 | 5.8 | 0.9% |
| Arizona | -2.5 | 73 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 0.4% |
| Arizona St | -2.6 | 74 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 2.8 | 6.2 | 0.5% |
| Colorado | -8.1 | 99 | 3.3 | 8.7 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 0.1% |
| Stanford | -12.6 | 116 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 1.5 | 7.5 | 0.1% |
A Pac-12 team hasn’t finished the regular season with one or fewer losses since 2016. Washington did so that year, and it was also the last Pac-12 team to reach the College Football Playoff.
USC is the favorite to end that streak in what looks like the final year of the Pac-12’s existence, over defending champion Utah as well as Oregon and Washington. The conference will disperse with some teams joining the Big Ten and others the Big 12.
Return to Conference Menu
SEC Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Georgia | 31.0 | 1 | 11.0 | 1.0 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 44.8% |
| Tennessee | 19.8 | 9 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 8.7% |
| Kentucky | 10.1 | 23 | 6.9 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 1.4% |
| S Carolina | 8.4 | 31 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 0.9% |
| Missouri | 8.2 | 35 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 0.8% |
| Florida | 8.2 | 34 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 0.7% |
| Vanderbilt | -3.2 | 78 | 4.2 | 7.8 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 0.0% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Alabama | 25.6 | 4 | 9.6 | 2.4 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 21.0% |
| LSU | 22.6 | 5 | 9.3 | 2.7 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 12.3% |
| Texas A&M | 16.2 | 12 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.4% |
| Mississippi | 13.7 | 18 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.5% |
| Auburn | 9.7 | 26 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 1.1% |
| Arkansas | 8.3 | 32 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 0.8% |
| Miss State | 6.7 | 39 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 2.7 | 5.3 | 0.7% |
Another year, and Georgia and Alabama are again atop the predictions. LSU, though, is right there with Alabama, and Tennessee is a contender if they can somehow knock of Georgia.
All but one of the teams in the conference are rated in our preseason Top 40, so it’s going to be hard for the middle of the pack to separate against those tough schedules.
Return to Conference Menu
AAC Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Tulane | 8.5 | 30 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 28.9% |
| S Methodist | 2.9 | 50 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 15.1% |
| TX-San Ant | 4.9 | 43 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 18.1% |
| Memphis | 2.2 | 52 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 13.2% |
| Fla Atlantic | -0.2 | 67 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 9.3% |
| Navy | -4.3 | 82 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.0% |
| E Carolina | -6.8 | 92 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 1.9% |
| Temple | -7.1 | 94 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.4% |
| North Texas | -5.5 | 90 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.2% |
| UAB | -7.0 | 93 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 3.1 | 4.9 | 1.6% |
| Tulsa | -9.7 | 105 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 3.1 | 4.9 | 1.1% |
| Rice | -10.2 | 108 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 1.2% |
| S Florida | -11.2 | 110 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 0.8% |
| Charlotte | -16.7 | 126 | 3.3 | 8.7 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 0.2% |
The American Conference looks a lot different this year, as Central Florida, Cincinnati, and Houston are gone to the Big 12. The conference added several teams that were formerly in Conference USA to try to make up for those losses.
Texas-San Antonio is the most likely contender among the newcomers. But Tulane is the conference favorite after making a surprise run to the Cotton Bowl last season.
Return to Conference Menu
C-USA Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| W Kentucky | -0.1 | 66 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 37.0% |
| Liberty | -1.9 | 70 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 29.3% |
| Middle Tenn | -7.7 | 97 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 12.1% |
| LA Tech | -9.4 | 103 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 9.5% |
| TX El Paso | -12.2 | 114 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 6.5% |
| N Mex State | -13.8 | 119 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.2% |
| Jacksonville State | -16.0 | 125 | 4.3 | 7.7 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 0.0% |
| Sam Hous St | -17.0 | 127 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 0.0% |
| Florida Intl | -19.2 | 130 | 3.7 | 8.3 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 1.4% |
Conference USA got decimated by conference realignment, with only five schools that were in the conference a year ago still around. The conference has added former independents Liberty and New Mexico State, along with FBS newcomers Jacksonville State and Sam Houston State.
Western Kentucky and Liberty are the two favorites in the new Conference USA.
Return to Conference Menu
MAC Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Ohio | -3.4 | 80 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 18.5% |
| Miami (OH) | -6.1 | 91 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 12.3% |
| Buffalo | -7.4 | 95 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 9.1% |
| Bowling Grn | -13.7 | 118 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 3.1% |
| Akron | -15.7 | 123 | 4.3 | 7.7 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.0% |
| Kent State | -21.3 | 132 | 2.9 | 9.1 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 0.5% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Toledo | 0.8 | 59 | 8.7 | 3.3 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 29.7% |
| E Michigan | -7.5 | 96 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 8.3% |
| N Illinois | -11.0 | 109 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.5% |
| Central Mich | -9.7 | 104 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 6.0% |
| Ball State | -11.4 | 111 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.3% |
| W Michigan | -14.5 | 120 | 3.9 | 8.1 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 2.0% |
Ohio put up the best regular season record in the MAC a year ago, but lost in the championship game to Toledo. We see a rematch between those two as the most likely title game this season in the always wide-open MAC.
Return to Conference Menu
Mountain West Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Boise State | 4.6 | 45 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 31.0% |
| Air Force | 0.6 | 62 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 18.7% |
| Fresno St | -0.2 | 68 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 16.9% |
| San Diego St | -3.4 | 79 | 6.6 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 10.5% |
| Wyoming | -5.3 | 88 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 6.9% |
| San Jose St | -5.3 | 87 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 7.1% |
| UNLV | -9.8 | 106 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.4% |
| Colorado St | -12.0 | 113 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 2.3% |
| Nevada | -15.8 | 124 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 4.9 | 1.1% |
| Utah State | -12.7 | 117 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.5% |
| Hawaii | -18.4 | 129 | 4.2 | 8.8 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 0.4% |
| New Mexico | -20.5 | 131 | 3.7 | 8.3 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 0.2% |
After a surprising run to the conference title in 2021, Utah State fell back to the pack last year and is projected near the bottom again.
Boise State rebounded to go a perfect 8-0 in conference play last year, but lost to Fresno State in the MWC Championship Game. Those two, along with Air Force and San Diego State, are the most likely to play for the title this year, in a year where we no longer have divisions to decide the two participants in the title game.
Return to Conference Menu
Sun Belt Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Coastal Car | -2.0 | 71 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 13.5% |
| James Mad | -0.1 | 65 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 0.0% |
| App State | -4.3 | 81 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 10.1% |
| Marshall | -3.0 | 76 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 10.3% |
| GA Southern | -7.7 | 98 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 5.0% |
| Georgia State | -9.2 | 102 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.1 | 4.9 | 3.0% |
| Old Dominion | -15.5 | 121 | 3.5 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 5.8 | 0.8% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Troy | 2.6 | 51 | 8.2 | 3.8 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 23.2% |
| S Alabama | 1.8 | 54 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 18.4% |
| LA Lafayette | -3.2 | 77 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 9.4% |
| S Mississippi | -8.3 | 100 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.7% |
| Arkansas St | -12.4 | 115 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 1.4% |
| Texas State | -15.7 | 122 | 3.9 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 0.7% |
| LA Monroe | -17.3 | 128 | 3.2 | 8.8 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 0.5% |
Troy finished last year at 12-2 and ranked 19th, marking the fourth straight year that at least one Sun Belt team has been ranked in the Top 20 at season’s end.
They are the favorites this year. James Madison, who is our top-rated team in the East, is still ineligible to win the conference title and play in a bowl game, after going 8-3 in their first season in FBS. Coastal Carolina is our most likely participant in the title game from the East.
Return to Conference Menu
Independent FBS Football Preseason Predictions 2023
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L |
| Notre Dame | 14.9 | 15 | 8.3 | 3.7 |
| Army | -5.2 | 85 | 6.3 | 5.7 |
| Connecticut | -11.8 | 112 | 5.1 | 6.9 |
| U Mass | -24.2 | 133 | 2.5 | 9.5 |
There are only four independents left, after BYU joined the Big 12 and Liberty and New Mexico State went to Conference USA.
Connecticut is coming off a surprising bowl season a year ago, but we see Army as the most likely to join Notre Dame in making a bowl game this year, if an opportunity arises that allows an independent to claim a spot because another conference cannot fill it.
Return to Conference Menu
Bowl Predictions 2023
These are our predictions for bowl matchups for the 2023-24 bowl season, from the College Football Playoff matchups to the opening game in the Bahamas. While we wouldn’t exactly make travel plans based on these projections any time soon, they do incorporate our season predictions into the bowl schedules.
Last year, of the 41 bowl games, we correctly placed 15 teams in the exact bowl in the preseason. Only 17 of the eventual 82 teams that made a bowl game last year were not in our initial bowl projection.
Each projected matchup is based on potential conference tie-ins for the bowl season, as we slotted our projected finishers for each conference into relevant bowl games. Every team that is projected for 6.0 wins or more is currently projected for a bowl game (with a few that are fractionally under that also getting into the projections).
| Bowl | Date | Team 1 | Team 2 | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rose (Playoff) | 1-1 | Ohio State | Alabama | Pasadena, CA |
| Sugar (Playoff) | 1-1 | Georgia | Michigan | New Orleans, LA |
| Fiesta | 1-1 | USC | Oklahoma | Tempe, AZ |
| Orange | 12-30 | Florida State | LSU | Miami, FL |
| Peach | 12-30 | Tennessee | Tulane | Atlanta, GA |
| Cotton | 12-29 | Texas | Penn State | Dallas, TX |
| Citrus | 1-1 | Wisconsin | Texas A&M | Orlando, FL |
| Reliaquest | 1-1 | Maryland | Mississippi | Tampa, FL |
| Arizona | 12-30 | Toledo | San Diego State | Tucson, AZ |
| Music City | 12-30 | Minnesota | Arkansas | Nashville, AZ |
| Sun | 12-29 | Wake Forest | Oregon State | El Paso, TX |
| Liberty | 12-29 | South Carolina | Baylor | Memphis, TN |
| Gator | 12-29 | North Carolina | Kentucky | Jacksonville, FL |
| Alamo | 12-28 | TCU | Utah | San Antonio, TX |
| Pop-Tarts | 12-28 | Miami | Kansas State | Orlando, FL |
| Pinstripe | 12-28 | Nebraska | NC State | New York, NY |
| Fenway | 12-28 | Duke | SMU | Boston, MA |
| Texas | 12-27 | Missouri | Texas Tech | Houston, TX |
| Holiday | 12-27 | Louisville | Washington | San Diego, CA |
| Duke’s Mayo | 12-27 | Notre Dame | Auburn | Charlotte, NC |
| Military | 12-27 | Pittsburgh | Texas-San Antonio | Annapolis, MD |
| Guaranteed Rate | 12-26 | Illinois | Oklahoma St | Phoenix, AZ |
| First Responder | 12-26 | BYU | Marshall | University Park, TX |
| Quick Lane | 12-26 | Purdue | Ohio | Detroit, MI |
| Hawaii | 12-23 | Navy | Wyoming | Honolulu, HI |
| Las Vegas | 12-23 | Iowa | Oregon | Las Vegas, NV |
| 68 Ventures | 12-23 | Northern Illinois | South Alabama | Mobile, AL |
| Famous Idaho | 12-23 | Miami-OH | Fresno State | Boise, ID |
| Armed Forces | 12-23 | Kansas | Coastal Carolina | Fort Worth, TX |
| Camellia | 12-23 | Army | San Jose State | Montgomery, AL |
| Birmingham | 12-23 | Mississippi State | Appalachian State | Birmingham, AL |
| Gasparilla | 12-22 | Florida | Memphis | Tampa, FL |
| Boca Raton | 12-21 | UNLV | New Mexico State | Boca Raton, FL |
| Frisco | 12-19 | Louisiana | North Texas | Frisco, TX |
| Myrtle Beach | 12-18 | Temple | UTEP | Conway, SC |
| Independence | 12-16 | Central Florida | Washington St | Shreveport, LA |
| LA Bowl | 12-16 | UCLA | Boise State | Inglewood, CA |
| New Mexico | 12-16 | La Tech | Air Force | Albuquerque, NM |
| Cure | 12-16 | Florida Atlantic | Buffalo | Orlando, FL |
| New Orleans | 12-16 | Liberty | Troy | New Orleans, LA |
| Bahamas | 12-16 | Western Kentucky | Eastern Michigan | Nassau, BAH |
Return to Main Menu
2023 Preseason Rankings (All Teams)
Here are our power ratings and rankings for all 133 FBS teams for the 2023 season.
| RANK | TEAM | RATING | LAST YEAR | PROGRAM | RETURN | LUCK | MARKET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 31.0 | 24.0 | 5.3 | -0.6 | -1.4 | 3.8 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 27.3 | 20.8 | 7.6 | 3.3 | -0.1 | -4.2 |
| 3 | Michigan | 26.3 | 18.6 | 3.2 | 2.9 | -0.4 | 2.1 |
| 4 | Alabama | 25.6 | 20.2 | 7.2 | -3.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| 5 | Louisiana State | 22.6 | 14.0 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
| 6 | Texas | 21.7 | 15.3 | 3.3 | 3.6 | -0.9 | 0.5 |
| 7 | Clemson | 20.0 | 10.9 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.4 |
| 8 | Southern California | 20.0 | 10.4 | 2.0 | 3.2 | -4.4 | 8.7 |
| 9 | Tennessee | 19.8 | 20.1 | 1.2 | -0.8 | -2.4 | 1.7 |
| 10 | Penn State | 19.6 | 16.2 | 3.8 | -0.2 | -2.8 | 2.6 |
| 11 | Florida State | 19.3 | 12.9 | -0.1 | 2.9 | -0.5 | 4.1 |
| 12 | Texas A&M | 16.2 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.8 | -0.6 | 5.8 |
| 13 | Washington | 15.5 | 9.6 | 1.9 | 6.9 | -1.0 | -2.0 |
| 14 | Oregon | 15.5 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 2.7 | -1.9 | 1.1 |
| 15 | Notre Dame | 14.9 | 8.7 | 4.5 | -1.8 | 1.3 | 2.3 |
| 16 | Oklahoma | 14.6 | 7.2 | 4.6 | -0.1 | -0.3 | 3.2 |
| 17 | Utah | 14.2 | 13.7 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 0.0 | -5.6 |
| 18 | Mississippi | 13.7 | 8.4 | 1.7 | -0.4 | 0.8 | 3.2 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | 12.5 | 6.3 | 4.6 | 1.7 | -0.1 | -0.1 |
| 20 | Kansas State | 11.7 | 13.7 | 1.5 | -3.1 | -1.0 | 0.6 |
| 21 | Texas Christian | 11.3 | 13.1 | 1.7 | -6.2 | -1.1 | 3.7 |
| 22 | Texas Tech | 10.4 | 8.4 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 0.0 | -2.5 |
| 23 | Kentucky | 10.1 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.8 |
| 24 | North Carolina | 9.8 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 0.6 | -0.8 |
| 25 | Iowa | 9.7 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 0.1 | -1.5 | 1.4 |
| 26 | Auburn | 9.7 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | -0.3 |
| 27 | UCLA | 9.2 | 6.3 | 0.8 | -1.7 | 1.0 | 2.8 |
| 28 | Oregon State | 9.1 | 9.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | -1.1 | -0.3 |
| 29 | Baylor | 8.5 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 0.7 | -1.8 |
| 30 | Tulane | 8.5 | 8.8 | 0.8 | -1.2 | -0.9 | 0.9 |
| 31 | South Carolina | 8.4 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
| 32 | Arkansas | 8.3 | 5.8 | -0.2 | -1.7 | 0.2 | 4.2 |
| 33 | Minnesota | 8.3 | 9.2 | 2.3 | -0.8 | 0.0 | -2.4 |
| 34 | Florida | 8.2 | 5.8 | 4.0 | -1.8 | -1.0 | 1.2 |
| 35 | Missouri | 8.2 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| 36 | Pittsburgh | 6.9 | 5.4 | 1.0 | -1.7 | -0.7 | 2.8 |
| 37 | Central Florida | 6.7 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 2.4 | -0.5 | -3.3 |
| 38 | Louisville | 6.7 | 9.0 | 1.0 | -2.8 | -2.2 | 1.7 |
| 39 | Mississippi State | 6.7 | 10.7 | 1.1 | -1.5 | -0.2 | -3.4 |
| 40 | Maryland | 6.7 | 6.5 | -0.2 | 1.9 | -0.2 | -1.3 |
| 41 | Miami | 6.0 | -3.0 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 4.9 |
| 42 | Illinois | 5.8 | 9.4 | -0.1 | -2.3 | -2.3 | 1.1 |
| 43 | Texas-San Antonio | 4.9 | 2.6 | -2.7 | 3.6 | -0.3 | 1.7 |
| 44 | NC State | 4.7 | 4.7 | -0.4 | -0.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| 45 | Boise State | 4.6 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 4.0 | -0.3 | -2.1 |
| 46 | Kansas | 4.5 | 5.2 | -2.9 | 7.4 | -0.9 | -4.4 |
| 47 | Duke | 3.7 | 5.6 | -1.4 | 8.2 | -5.3 | -3.4 |
| 48 | Wake Forest | 3.3 | 6.4 | 1.3 | -2.5 | 0.0 | -2.0 |
| 49 | Oklahoma State | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.7 | -4.3 | 0.8 | -0.6 |
| 50 | Southern Methodist | 2.9 | 2.7 | 1.1 | -4.0 | 0.2 | 2.8 |
| 51 | Troy | 2.6 | 2.1 | -1.8 | 0.7 | -1.5 | 3.1 |
| 52 | Memphis | 2.2 | 4.0 | 1.3 | -3.2 | -0.5 | 0.6 |
| 53 | Nebraska | 1.9 | -1.8 | 1.3 | -3.4 | 0.6 | 5.2 |
| 54 | South Alabama | 1.8 | 0.8 | -3.1 | 5.8 | -1.0 | -0.7 |
| 55 | West Virginia | 1.7 | 2.9 | 0.4 | -1.5 | 1.2 | -1.3 |
| 56 | Iowa State | 1.1 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 1.5 | -10.3 |
| 57 | Brigham Young | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1.9 | -3.3 | 0.2 | 1.6 |
| 58 | Michigan State | 0.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | -2.9 | -0.3 | 0.4 |
| 59 | Toledo | 0.8 | -2.4 | -1.6 | 4.9 | 0.6 | -0.7 |
| 60 | Syracuse | 0.8 | 4.7 | -0.9 | 3.5 | -0.5 | -6.0 |
| 61 | Purdue | 0.7 | 3.0 | 0.7 | -4.9 | 0.4 | 1.6 |
| 62 | Air Force | 0.6 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 2.9 | -1.0 | -5.1 |
| 63 | Washington State | 0.6 | 3.8 | 0.8 | -0.4 | -1.3 | -2.3 |
| 64 | California | 0.3 | -2.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 | -0.5 | 1.6 |
| 65 | James Madison | -0.1 | 5.8 | -0.7 | -1.4 | 0.8 | -4.5 |
| 66 | Western Kentucky | -0.1 | 3.1 | -0.9 | -1.4 | 0.4 | -1.4 |
| 67 | Florida Atlantic | -0.2 | -4.3 | 0.0 | 3.0 | -0.9 | 1.9 |
| 68 | Fresno State | -0.2 | 2.8 | -1.2 | -5.8 | -0.2 | 4.1 |
| 69 | Houston | -0.6 | 2.2 | 0.2 | -6.5 | 1.1 | 2.4 |
| 70 | Liberty | -1.9 | -3.4 | -0.5 | -3.6 | -0.4 | 6.0 |
| 71 | Coastal Carolina | -2.0 | -5.4 | -0.2 | 5.0 | 0.1 | -1.5 |
| 72 | Cincinnati | -2.1 | 4.2 | 3.1 | -7.8 | -0.8 | -0.7 |
| 73 | Arizona | -2.5 | -2.1 | -1.9 | 2.6 | 1.8 | -2.8 |
| 74 | Arizona State | -2.6 | -3.0 | 2.3 | -2.0 | 1.4 | -1.3 |
| 75 | Virginia Tech | -2.6 | -5.3 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 | -0.9 |
| 76 | Marshall | -3.0 | 1.0 | -0.2 | -3.5 | -1.2 | 0.9 |
| 77 | UL Lafayette | -3.2 | -2.3 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.5 | -3.4 |
| 78 | Vanderbilt | -3.2 | -3.5 | -2.7 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| 79 | San Diego State | -3.4 | -5.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | -0.7 | 1.7 |
| 80 | Ohio | -3.4 | -3.0 | -1.2 | 5.9 | -2.5 | -2.5 |
| 81 | Appalachian State | -4.3 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 0.0 | -0.6 | -6.3 |
| 82 | Navy | -4.3 | -1.3 | 0.4 | 5.3 | -0.1 | -8.7 |
| 83 | Boston College | -4.3 | -7.6 | 0.1 | -1.2 | 1.0 | 3.4 |
| 84 | Indiana | -4.5 | -2.5 | 2.2 | -3.8 | 0.3 | -0.8 |
| 85 | Army | -5.2 | -2.6 | -0.3 | 3.4 | -0.6 | -5.2 |
| 86 | Rutgers | -5.2 | -5.6 | -1.8 | 3.3 | 1.6 | -2.7 |
| 87 | San Jose State | -5.3 | -4.1 | -1.0 | 1.8 | -2.7 | 0.7 |
| 88 | Wyoming | -5.3 | -7.2 | -0.3 | 4.8 | 0.7 | -3.3 |
| 89 | Georgia Tech | -5.4 | -3.8 | -2.0 | -0.5 | -1.0 | 2.0 |
| 90 | North Texas | -5.5 | -3.5 | -3.0 | -1.0 | 0.7 | 1.3 |
| 91 | Miami (Ohio) | -6.1 | -7.7 | -1.2 | 4.6 | -0.1 | -1.6 |
| 92 | East Carolina | -6.8 | 2.0 | -1.8 | -7.7 | -1.0 | 1.6 |
| 93 | UAB | -7.0 | -0.7 | -0.8 | -1.1 | 0.4 | -4.8 |
| 94 | Temple | -7.1 | -8.3 | -2.3 | 3.8 | 2.1 | -2.4 |
| 95 | Buffalo | -7.4 | -5.4 | 0.2 | -0.7 | -1.3 | -0.2 |
| 96 | Eastern Michigan | -7.5 | -6.9 | -1.9 | -1.2 | 0.9 | 1.5 |
| 97 | Middle Tennessee | -7.7 | -6.3 | -2.5 | -2.4 | -1.8 | 5.2 |
| 98 | Georgia Southern | -7.7 | -3.2 | -1.1 | -3.0 | 1.0 | -1.4 |
| 99 | Colorado | -8.1 | -14.4 | -0.2 | -10.0 | 0.6 | 15.8 |
| 100 | Southern Miss | -8.3 | -4.3 | -2.3 | 2.3 | 1.6 | -5.5 |
| 101 | Virginia | -9.1 | -4.9 | 1.3 | -0.9 | 0.9 | -5.5 |
| 102 | Georgia St. | -9.2 | -3.6 | -1.6 | 2.0 | -0.1 | -5.9 |
| 103 | Louisiana Tech | -9.4 | -12.2 | -1.7 | -4.2 | 0.7 | 7.9 |
| 104 | Central Michigan | -9.7 | -8.0 | -1.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | -0.9 |
| 105 | Tulsa | -9.7 | -4.0 | 0.6 | -3.7 | 1.2 | -3.8 |
| 106 | UNLV | -9.8 | -7.9 | -3.9 | 1.2 | -1.0 | 1.8 |
| 107 | Northwestern | -10.1 | -5.6 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 3.8 | -12.3 |
| 108 | Rice | -10.2 | -10.8 | -2.3 | 0.0 | 4.1 | -1.2 |
| 109 | Northern Illinois | -11.0 | -10.3 | -2.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.4 |
| 110 | South Florida | -11.2 | -8.6 | -2.3 | -1.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
| 111 | Ball State | -11.4 | -8.3 | -0.4 | -3.2 | 1.5 | -1.1 |
| 112 | Connecticut | -11.8 | -9.3 | -5.1 | 4.0 | -0.3 | -1.1 |
| 113 | Colorado State | -12.0 | -14.5 | -2.3 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 0.2 |
| 114 | Texas El Paso | -12.2 | -9.0 | -5.0 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 1.0 |
| 115 | Arkansas St. | -12.4 | -8.7 | -2.0 | -2.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
| 116 | Stanford | -12.6 | -3.7 | 0.0 | -3.4 | 1.2 | -6.7 |
| 117 | Utah State | -12.7 | -10.5 | -2.2 | -3.6 | 0.3 | 3.3 |
| 118 | Bowling Green | -13.7 | -11.0 | -6.7 | 0.8 | -0.2 | 3.4 |
| 119 | New Mexico State | -13.8 | -8.9 | -4.9 | 2.8 | 1.7 | -4.6 |
| 120 | Western Michigan | -14.5 | -9.6 | -0.5 | -1.5 | -0.1 | -2.7 |
| 121 | Old Dominion | -15.5 | -7.1 | -3.4 | -3.7 | -0.8 | -0.5 |
| 122 | Texas State | -15.7 | -9.6 | -3.4 | -3.9 | -0.7 | 1.9 |
| 123 | Akron | -15.7 | -12.5 | -7.1 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.1 |
| 124 | Nevada | -15.8 | -14.2 | -1.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 125 | Jacksonville State | -16.0 | -28.2 | -3.8 | -0.9 | -0.5 | 17.3 |
| 126 | Charlotte | -16.7 | -16.2 | -2.8 | -7.9 | 1.0 | 9.1 |
| 127 | Sam Houston State | -17.0 | -14.8 | -4.7 | -0.9 | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| 128 | UL Monroe | -17.3 | -10.2 | -3.9 | -4.3 | 1.5 | -0.4 |
| 129 | Hawaii | -18.4 | -16.2 | -0.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | -3.7 |
| 130 | Florida International | -19.2 | -21.1 | -3.7 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| 131 | New Mexico | -20.5 | -14.6 | -3.7 | -2.0 | 0.5 | -0.7 |
| 132 | Kent State | -21.3 | -3.7 | -1.6 | -6.5 | 0.1 | -9.7 |
| 133 | Massachusetts | -24.2 | -18.6 | -8.5 | 3.2 | 1.0 | -1.3 |
Return to Main Menu
Golf Pool Picks
Get an edge in your One And Done and Majors pools
Learn MoreGet Picks Now
How We Make College Football Preseason Predictions
We have identified a set of team-level metrics that have demonstrated predictive value for projecting a team’s upcoming season results.
We identified these metrics by reviewing a decade’s worth of college football data and applying significance tests to any interesting-looking findings. Then, we built an algorithmic model that takes in these metrics as inputs and computes a numerical preseason predictive rating for every FBS team.
To learn more about our preseason ratings, please read our deep dive about our college football preseason ratings methodology.
Going from Preseason Ratings to Season Projections
A team’s preseason rating signifies how good we think it will be this upcoming season. Figuring out how many games we expect that team to win is more complicated.
To do that, we run thousands of game-by-game computer simulations of the season, using our predictive ratings to come up with implied win odds for each game.
Thanks to randomness, each season simulation plays out differently. Occasionally, an unheralded team gets lucky in a simulation, makes a run and wins its conference.
Over thousands of simulation runs, trends in the results begin to emerge. The predictions in this post represent the averages of the simulations we conducted.
Why Does Our Approach Make Sense?
Despite some limitations, our simulation-driven approach to preseason college football predictions has proved to be far more accurate than many alternatives.
Some college football experts do a decent job of projecting the future performance level of a team, especially one they’ve studied closely. But on the whole, humans often have a poor grasp of the potential impact of probability and randomness over a full college football season. For example, even skilled “college football people” tend to underestimate a great team’s odds of losing to a mediocre or bad team.
It’s true that a team like USC is unlikely to lose to a team like Stanford, but no game is a lock. Over the course of a season, even small loss probabilities can add up to a decent chance of a great team losing at least one game to a significantly inferior opponent.
You can’t discount those probabilities, especially when conference championships can be decided by a single win. Our simulation-driven approach makes sure we never do.
Is it a perfect system? No. When the dust settles at the end of the season, some of our preseason projections will be wrong. Some teams will defy our expectations. Injuries, suspensions and other unexpected events will derail our forecasts for others.
Our goal, however, is the overall accuracy of the system — how well, on balance, it projects how all 131 teams will end up this season.
How To Interpret Our CFB Preseason Predictions
In closing, it’s important to understand how our system generates the results it does, and what the numbers mean. Here are some key details:
We project a lot of fractional wins. That can’t happen in real life. However, we don’t want to reduce precision in the numbers just to make them look pretty. For example, a projected 8.4-win team has better prospects than a projected 7.6-win team. If we rounded those numbers, they’d look the same (a projected eight wins each).Even if we project a team with X wins, it doesn’t mean we’re confident it will end up with that exact number. Let’s say we have a team projected to win exactly 7.0 games. In our season simulations, seven wins might have been the most common outcome, but that team may have ended up with six or eight wins nearly as often and hit five or nine wins occasionally. Since our final projection is an average of those outcomes, it ends up at seven wins, but the odds of the team ending up with exactly seven wins aren’t that high.Projections can change slightly day-to-day, even with no new game results. Because we re-simulate the college football season every day, randomness in simulation results may cause slight fluctuations in team projections even if no new games have been played. Thus, you shouldn’t read too much into tiny differences in the projections. For example, a 0.1% difference in conference champion odds between two teams is practically meaningless.
Return to Main Menu—
If you’re in a college football pool or planning on betting some games this season, check out our Football Pick’em Picks and College Football Betting Picks.
NFL PredictionsNFL TrendsNFL OddsNFL MatchupsNBA PredictionsNBA TrendsNBA OddsNBA MatchupsMLB PredictionsMLB TrendsMLB OddsMLB MatchupsNCAAF PredictionsNCAAF TrendsNCF OddsNCAAF MatchupsNCAAB PredictionsNCAAB TrendsNCB OddsNCAAB Matchups A product ofTeamRankings BlogAboutTeamJobsContact
© 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Statistical data provided by Gracenote.
TeamRankings.com is not affiliated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA®) or March Madness Athletic Association, neither of which has supplied, reviewed, approved or endorsed the material on this site. TeamRankings.com is solely responsible for this site but makes no guarantee about the accuracy or completeness of the information herein.
Terms of ServicePrivacy Policy
