College Football Preseason Rankings and Predictions 2022
Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia star in our 2022 college football preseason predictions for win totals, conference champions, and more.
August 24, 2022 - by Jason Lisk
Georgia looks to defend their national title win in 2022 (Jeffrey Vest/Icon Sportswire)
Last season, Georgia finally broke through and beat Alabama in the national title game, avenging an SEC Championship Game loss just a month earlier. That triumph for Georgia came after a long run of being among the nation’s best, but often coming up just short against Alabama.
The Crimson Tide have won three of the last seven national championships and appeared in all but one title game over that span. That recent history is a big reason why you’ll see Alabama appear atop our 2022 college football preseason rankings, just ahead of Georgia.
In this gargantuan post, we’ve compiled all of our preseason rankings and predictions for the 2022 college football season in one place.
Preseason Predictions Menu
You can use the links below to jump to any section you want to read:
- TR Preseason Top 25
- College Football Rankings Highlights
- Conference Champion Odds
- College Football Playoff Odds
- FBS Conference Breakdowns
- Bowl Game Matchup Predictions
- Full Preseason Rankings (All Teams)
- How We Make Preseason Predictions
Golf Pool Picks
Get an edge in your PGA Majors and One And Done pools
2022 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. Alabama at No. 1), along with their associated preseason predictive ratings (e.g. 33.4 for Alabama).
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 | Alabama | 33.4 | 19.2 | 7.1 | -3.9 | 0.3 | 10.6 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 30.4 | 20.2 | 6.2 | 1.1 | -0.7 | 3.6 |
| 3 | Georgia | 28.9 | 25.2 | 5.1 | 0.4 | -2.7 | 1.0 |
| 4 | Clemson | 21.9 | 10.1 | 7.2 | 4.1 | -1.2 | 1.7 |
| 5 | Michigan | 19.5 | 18.3 | 3.9 | 3.8 | -1.1 | -5.4 |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 18.7 | 11.3 | 4.5 | -4.7 | 0.1 | 7.5 |
| 7 | Texas A&M | 17.9 | 10.0 | 3.4 | -1.1 | -1.1 | 6.6 |
| 8 | Notre Dame | 17.2 | 14.3 | 4.1 | 1.1 | -1.2 | -1.1 |
| 9 | Oklahoma State | 15.2 | 13.3 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | -1.1 |
| 10 | Utah | 14.7 | 11.6 | 2.9 | 1.2 | -0.4 | -0.7 |
| 11 | Wisconsin | 14.5 | 11.5 | 3.4 | -0.7 | -0.8 | 1.0 |
| 12 | Southern California | 13.8 | -0.1 | 1.3 | -6.2 | -0.1 | 18.9 |
| 13 | Texas | 13.7 | 6.9 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 2.5 |
| 14 | Tennessee | 13.6 | 9.0 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 0.9 | -0.9 |
| 15 | Baylor | 13.6 | 11.9 | 1.4 | -4.3 | -2.1 | 6.7 |
| 16 | Penn State | 13.5 | 9.8 | 4.0 | 1.2 | -2.7 | 1.2 |
| 17 | Oregon | 13.5 | 5.7 | 2.7 | -3.3 | 0.1 | 8.3 |
| 18 | NC State | 13.0 | 9.9 | 0.2 | 2.6 | -0.9 | 1.2 |
| 19 | Mississippi | 12.3 | 10.0 | 0.8 | -9.2 | -1.1 | 11.8 |
| 20 | Mississippi State | 12.1 | 5.0 | 2.7 | 6.8 | 0.7 | -3.1 |
| 21 | Miami | 12.0 | 5.5 | 1.6 | -0.3 | 1.7 | 3.5 |
| 22 | Michigan State | 12.0 | 9.3 | 1.2 | 2.6 | -0.9 | -0.1 |
| 23 | Kentucky | 11.4 | 7.6 | 2.2 | -2.1 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
| 24 | Louisiana State | 11.4 | 4.2 | 4.6 | -2.1 | 1.2 | 3.5 |
| 25 | Iowa | 11.2 | 7.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 0.6 | -4.1 |
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 year
- PROGRAM: How good a team has been in recent history (excluding last year)
- RETURN: Measure of returning player performance in several key stat areas
- LUCK: 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.
College Football Preseason Rankings Highlights
- Big Three, then a drop. Our 2022 preseason ratings have Alabama at the top yet again, with Ohio State and defending champ Georgia right behind. Then, there’s a full touchdown drop-off to No. 4 Clemson. The Tigers are actually closer in rating to No. 9 Oklahoma State than they are to Georgia.
- Look at ratings, not rankings. People tend to fixate on rankings, but looking at ratings is more important. Clemson is one example, ranked No. 4 but rated a good ways behind the top three. There’s also only 0.3 points difference between No. 12 Southern California and No. 17 Oregon, so the teams in that range can be viewed as one big tier.
- No non-Power Five in the Top 25. Last year, Cincinnati made it to the College Football Playoff (we had Cincy at No. 11 entering the season). This year, we don’t have any teams outside the Power Five in our Top 25 to start the season. That isn’t much different from the AP poll, where Cincinnati just narrowly got in at No. 23.
- Biggest upward market adjustments. The biggest market adjustment upward is for USC, where head coach Lincoln Riley has moved from Oklahoma and is joined by transfer quarterback Caleb Williams. In recent years, USC has frequently been ranked in the preseason only to flounder in the regular season. We’ll see if the optimism because of the coaching change is warranted.
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 | 40.6% |
| Big 12 | Oklahoma | 29.0% |
| Big Ten | Ohio State | 53.1% |
| Pac-12 | Utah | 24.9% |
| SEC | Alabama | 47.5% |
| AAC | Cincinnati | 26.0% |
| C-USA | Tx-San Antonio | 29.6% |
| MAC | Toledo | 19.8% |
| MWC | Boise State | 29.2% |
| Sun Belt | App State | 24.7% |
Ohio State (Big Ten) is the only team with a greater than 50% chance of winning its conference. Alabama is slightly below that mark.
Meanwhile, the Group of Five conferences are wide open this year. No team has a greater than 33% chance to win its conference.
In-Season Updates
Once the 2022 college football season starts, we update all of our season projections and conference title odds daily on our college football predictions page.
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 eight seasons, here are our playoff-odds estimates for the top 20 teams.
These estimates are based on three things:
- The betting market odds
- The predicted power ratings for each team compared to how past playoff teams ranked
- The 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | SEC | 33% | 68% |
| Ohio State | Big Ten | 33% | 65% |
| Georgia | SEC | 21% | 51% |
| Clemson | ACC | 17% | 35% |
| Oklahoma | Big 12 | 8% | 17% |
| Michigan | Big Ten | 6% | 16% |
| Utah | Pac 12 | 7% | 15% |
| USC | Pac 12 | 6% | 15% |
| Texas A&M | SEC | 2% | 10% |
| Notre Dame | Indep. | 5% | 9% |
| Oklahoma St | Big 12 | 4% | 8% |
| Wisconsin | Big Ten | 2% | 8% |
| Texas | Big 12 | 1% | 8% |
| Oregon | Pac 12 | 3% | 8% |
| NC State | ACC | 4% | 7% |
| Penn State | Big Ten | 2% | 7% |
| Miami | ACC | 2% | 6% |
| Tennessee | SEC | 1% | 5% |
| Baylor | Big 12 | 2% | 4% |
| Mississippi | SEC | 1% | 4% |
It should be no surprise that Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia have the three best odds to make the playoffs. Clemson is a distant fourth, and the gap in power rating between it and the top three is large.
The two top Pac-12 teams, Utah and USC, are fifth and sixth in market playoff odds. They are seen as having a decent path to winning a major conference title, although we are slightly lower on both than the market. While they both do have a path to a 12-1 or better finish as Pac-12 champions, they are also outside our top 8 in power ranking.
Scenarios where one wins the conference title but loses out in a head-to-head comparison to the second team from the SEC or Big Ten are plausible.
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 Links
ACC | Big Ten | Big 12 | Pac-12 | SEC
AAC | Conf. USA | MAC | MWC | Sun Belt | Independents
ACC Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Atlantic | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Clemson | 21.9 | 4 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 6.6 | 1.4 | 40.6% |
| NC State | 13.0 | 18 | 8.6 | 3.4 | 5.2 | 2.8 | 11.0% |
| Florida St | 7.4 | 40 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.5% |
| Wake Forest | 4.6 | 49 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.8% |
| Louisville | 6.7 | 45 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 3.7% |
| Boston Col | 1.7 | 56 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 1.7% |
| Syracuse | 0.4 | 62 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 5.3 | 0.9% |
| Coastal | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Pittsburgh | 10.8 | 26 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 11.1% |
| Miami (FL) | 12.0 | 21 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 12.3% |
| N Carolina | 7.0 | 44 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 6.1% |
| Virginia | 3.3 | 54 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.5% |
| VA Tech | -0.1 | 63 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 1.5% |
| GA Tech | -4.9 | 86 | 3.6 | 8.4 | 2.3 | 5.7 | 0.3% |
| Duke | -14.3 | 116 | 3.2 | 8.8 | 1.2 | 6.8 | 0.0% |
Clemson had an off year last season in its first year without QB Trevor Lawrence. Pittsburgh won the ACC title, marking the first time in seven years that Clemson was not the ACC champion.
Clemson is expected to bounce back this season, but the most likely challengers in the ACC are NC State, Miami, and Pittsburgh.
Big 12 Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Oklahoma | 18.7 | 6 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 29.0% |
| Oklahoma St | 15.2 | 9 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 3.3 | 17.1% |
| Texas | 13.7 | 13 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 3.6 | 14.0% |
| Baylor | 13.6 | 15 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 12.7% |
| Kansas St | 10.1 | 31 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 7.5% |
| Iowa State | 8.1 | 36 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.8% |
| TX Christian | 8.0 | 37 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.4% |
| W Virginia | 7.2 | 41 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.5% |
| Texas Tech | 6.0 | 46 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 5.2 | 3.9% |
| Kansas | -7.6 | 95 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 1.3 | 7.7 | 0.1% |
Oklahoma and Texas are still three years away from joining the SEC. For now, Oklahoma will try to reassert its dominance in the Big 12. Last year, Baylor ended Oklahoma’s six-year run as conference champs.
The Sooners are still the conference favorites, but they will have a new head coach, as Lincoln Riley went west to USC. Oklahoma hired Brent Venables, the former Clemson defensive coordinator (and OU assistant under Bob Stoops), to replace Riley.
Big Ten Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Ohio State | 30.4 | 2 | 10.8 | 1.2 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 53.1% |
| Michigan | 19.5 | 5 | 9.5 | 2.5 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 12.7% |
| Penn State | 13.5 | 16 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 5.8% |
| Michigan St | 12.0 | 22 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.5% |
| Maryland | 4.0 | 51 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 3.6 | 5.4 | 0.7% |
| Indiana | -4.3 | 84 | 3.9 | 8.1 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 0.1% |
| Rutgers | -3.1 | 77 | 4.2 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 6.9 | 0.1% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Wisconsin | 14.5 | 11 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 8.7% |
| Nebraska | 9.0 | 34 | 7.4 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 3.8 | 4.0% |
| Iowa | 11.2 | 25 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 5.0% |
| Minnesota | 8.9 | 35 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 3.2% |
| Purdue | 7.1 | 43 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 2.7% |
| Illinois | -0.7 | 69 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 2.8 | 6.2 | 0.4% |
| Northwestern | -4.6 | 85 | 4.1 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 7.2 | 0.1% |
In what was a theme in 2021, a rival finally broke a stranglehold on the conference crown. In the Big Ten, it was Jim Harbaugh’s Michigan finally breaking through against Ohio State.
The Buckeyes are back as the Big Ten favorites this season, while Michigan will try to stop them for the second straight year. Penn State and Wisconsin are the other likely contenders from the Big Ten.
Pac-12 Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Oregon | 13.5 | 17 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 24.2% |
| USC | 13.8 | 12 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 22.3% |
| Utah | 14.7 | 10 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 24.9% |
| UCLA | 7.7 | 38 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 9.5% |
| Washington | 5.6 | 48 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 6.9% |
| Oregon St | 3.8 | 53 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.1% |
| Arizona St | 1.4 | 57 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 4.9 | 2.7% |
| Wash State | -0.7 | 70 | 5.4 | 6.6 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 1.8% |
| California | -3.2 | 79 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 3.3 | 5.7 | 1.3% |
| Stanford | -0.3 | 64 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 3.2 | 5.8 | 1.6% |
| Colorado | -5.4 | 87 | 3.2 | 8.8 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 0.5% |
| Arizona | -7.6 | 96 | 3.6 | 8.4 | 2.3 | 6.7 | 0.3% |
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.
This year, the top three contenders to end that drought are Utah, USC, and Oregon.
SEC Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Georgia | 28.9 | 3 | 10.8 | 1.2 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 34.0% |
| Tennessee | 13.6 | 14 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 2.4% |
| Kentucky | 11.4 | 23 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 2.2% |
| Florida | 10.2 | 29 | 6.9 | 5.1 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 1.6% |
| S Carolina | 7.7 | 39 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 1.0% |
| Missouri | -0.4 | 66 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 5.7 | 0.1% |
| Vanderbilt | -12.4 | 113 | 2.6 | 9.4 | 0.7 | 7.3 | 0.0% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Alabama | 33.4 | 1 | 11.0 | 1.0 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 47.5% |
| Texas A&M | 17.9 | 7 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 4.6% |
| Mississippi | 12.3 | 19 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0% |
| Arkansas | 10.2 | 30 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 1.1% |
| LSU | 11.4 | 24 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 1.3% |
| Miss State | 12.1 | 20 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 1.3% |
| Auburn | 10.6 | 27 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 1.1% |
Alabama and Georgia met in the national championship game last year, and they still appear to be the class of the SEC. The two of them have over an 80% combined chance of winning the conference.
Nine other teams appear in our Top 30, but their chances of winning a conference title are greatly diminished because of Alabama and Georgia. Texas A&M, for example, might be a favorite in several other power conferences this year.
AAC Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Cincinnati | 9.9 | 32 | 9.1 | 2.9 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 26.0% |
| Houston | 9.1 | 33 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 24.1% |
| Central FL | 7.2 | 42 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 18.6% |
| S Methodist | 4.6 | 50 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 11.4% |
| Memphis | 0.6 | 60 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 6.3% |
| E Carolina | -0.8 | 71 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.7% |
| Tulsa | -3.9 | 82 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 2.6% |
| Tulane | -1.4 | 73 | 6.2 | 5.8 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 3.3% |
| S Florida | -5.5 | 88 | 4.4 | 7.6 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 1.8% |
| Navy | -6.6 | 92 | 4.4 | 7.6 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 1.2% |
| Temple | -18.2 | 123 | 3.3 | 8.7 | 1.2 | 6.8 | 0.1% |
Cincinnati made a run to the CFP semifinal last season after going through the American Athletic Conference undefeated for the second year in a row.
This looks like a reloading/rebuilding year for the Bearcats, although they are still the conference favorites. Houston and Central Florida look like the two teams most likely to dethrone Cincinnati in the AAC.
C-USA Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| TX-San Ant | 0.9 | 59 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 29.6% |
| UAB | 0.6 | 61 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 28.2% |
| W Kentucky | -5.8 | 89 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 11.7% |
| North Texas | -7.9 | 97 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 7.2% |
| Fla Atlantic | -9.2 | 99 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 6.8% |
| Middle Tenn | -10.0 | 100 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.7% |
| TX El Paso | -12.3 | 112 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.2% |
| Charlotte | -13.8 | 115 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 3.1% |
| LA Tech | -14.6 | 117 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.2% |
| Rice | -17.3 | 122 | 3.4 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 1.1% |
| Florida Intl | -25.5 | 129 | 3.3 | 8.7 | 1.4 | 6.6 | 0.1% |
UTSA went 12-2 and won Conference USA last season, which was its best finish since moving to FBS in 2012. The Roadrunners are the favorites to repeat in 2022, though Conference USA is usually wide open.
UAB is the other leading contender, while Western Kentucky will need to replace the prolific passing of QB Bailey Zappe, who threw 62 touchdown passes last season for the Hilltoppers.
MAC Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Miami (OH) | -5.9 | 90 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 14.1% |
| Ohio | -10.6 | 106 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 6.5% |
| Kent State | -10.5 | 104 | 5.1 | 6.9 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 6.2% |
| Bowling Grn | -11.9 | 110 | 4.8 | 7.2 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.8% |
| Buffalo | -12.2 | 111 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.1% |
| Akron | -21.6 | 126 | 2.7 | 9.3 | 1.8 | 6.2 | 0.4% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Toledo | -1.2 | 72 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 19.8% |
| Central Mich | -3.2 | 78 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 2.8 | 15.1% |
| N Illinois | -3.7 | 80 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 13.4% |
| W Michigan | -6.7 | 93 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 8.3% |
| E Michigan | -10.0 | 101 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 5.1% |
| Ball State | -12.6 | 114 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 2.2% |
The MAC is the most wide-open conference in FBS this year. No team has over a 20% chance of winning the conference, and there are several potential contenders.
The last two years have produced two unexpected champions in Ball State in 2020 and Northern Illinois in 2021. We have Toledo projected with the best chance to win this season, followed by Central Michigan, Miami-Ohio, and Northern Illinois. But with MAC-tion, you should expect to be surprised.
Mountain West Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Mountain | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Boise State | 5.8 | 47 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 1.9 | 29.2% |
| Air Force | 1.2 | 58 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 16.8% |
| Utah State | -4.0 | 83 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 7.6% |
| Colorado St | -10.3 | 103 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.4% |
| Wyoming | -11.5 | 109 | 4.8 | 7.2 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 1.6% |
| New Mexico | -21.9 | 127 | 2.9 | 9.1 | 1.3 | 6.7 | 0.1% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| Fresno St | 2.2 | 55 | 8.7 | 3.3 | 6.1 | 1.9 | 24.6% |
| San Diego St | -1.7 | 76 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 12.7% |
| San Jose St | -10.3 | 102 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.9% |
| UNLV | -15.2 | 119 | 4.3 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 0.9% |
| Nevada | -15.2 | 118 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 1.0% |
| Hawaii | -18.8 | 125 | 4.3 | 8.7 | 2.3 | 5.7 | 0.3% |
Utah State surprisingly won the Mountain West last year in head coach Blake Anderson’s first season at the helm. The Aggies had only one win in the previous COVID-shortened season.
Boise State had the highest power rating last year despite a 7-5 record, as it went 0-3 in close games. The Broncos are back as the Mountain West favorite in 2022, and they will look to win a title after a two-year run of surprises in the conference.
Sun Belt Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| East | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| App State | 3.8 | 52 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 24.7% |
| Coastal Car | -1.5 | 75 | 7.4 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 11.5% |
| Georgia State | -1.4 | 74 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 10.9% |
| Marshall | -0.5 | 67 | 7.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 12.4% |
| James Mad | -7.1 | 94 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 0.0% |
| Old Dominion | -8.1 | 98 | 4.9 | 7.1 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 3.2% |
| GA Southern | -11.0 | 107 | 4.4 | 7.6 | 2.7 | 5.3 | 1.5% |
| West | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L | Conf W | Conf L | Win Conf |
| LA Lafayette | -0.7 | 68 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 20.2% |
| Troy | -6.1 | 91 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 6.7% |
| S Alabama | -11.5 | 108 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.7% |
| S Mississippi | -10.6 | 105 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 3.2% |
| Arkansas St | -15.7 | 120 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.3% |
| Texas State | -16.1 | 121 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 2.7 | 5.3 | 1.1% |
| LA Monroe | -18.4 | 124 | 3.1 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 5.7 | 0.6% |
| S Alabama | -11.5 | 108 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 0.6% |
| LA Monroe | -18.4 | 124 | 1.7 | 10.3 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 0.0% |
The Sun Belt is on a three-year run of having at least one team finish the season ranked inside the Top 20. Last year, it was Louisiana, who is a Sun Belt co-favorite along with Appalachian State this year.
Independent FBS Football Preseason Predictions 2022
| Team | Rating | Rank | Overall W | Overall L |
| Notre Dame | 17.2 | 8 | 8.7 | 3.3 |
| BYU | 10.4 | 28 | 8.1 | 3.9 |
| Army | -0.3 | 65 | 8.3 | 3.7 |
| Liberty | -3.8 | 81 | 7.3 | 4.7 |
| Connecticut | -25.0 | 128 | 2.4 | 9.6 |
| N Mex State | -26.9 | 130 | 3.1 | 8.9 |
| U Mass | -27.0 | 131 | 2.6 | 9.4 |
Notre Dame will move on without head coach Brian Kelly, who left for LSU, but the Fighting Irish are still in CFP contention. BYU is also a borderline Top 25 program in 2022.
Meanwhile, three of the bottom four teams in our FBS power rankings are also independents.
Bowl Predictions 2022
These are our predictions for bowl matchups for the 2022-23 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 bowl schedule.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peach (Playoff) | 12-31 | Alabama | Clemson | Atlanta, GA |
| Fiesta (Playoff) | 12-31 | Ohio State | Georgia | Tempe, AZ |
| Rose | 1-2 | Michigan | Utah | Pasadena, CA |
| Cotton | 1-2 | Oklahoma State | USC | Arlington, TX |
| Sugar | 12-31 | Texas A&M | Oklahoma | New Orleans, LA |
| Orange | 12-30 | NC State | Notre Dame | Miami, FL |
| Citrus | 1-2 | Wisconsin | Mississippi | Orlando, FL |
| Tampa Bay | 1-2 | Nebraska | Tennessee | Tampa, FL |
| Music City | 12-31 | Iowa | Kentucky | Nashville, TN |
| Tax Slayer | 12-31 | Miami | Florida | Jacksonville, FL |
| Arizona | 12-30 | Fresno State | Miami-OH | Tucson, AZ |
| Tony the Tiger | 12-30 | Pittsburgh | Washington | El Paso, TX |
| Duke's Mayo | 12-30 | No Carolina | Michigan State | Charlotte, NC |
| Alamo | 12-29 | Baylor | UCLA | San Antonio, TX |
| Cheez-It | 12-29 | Florida State | Kansas State | Orlando, FL |
| Pinstripe | 12-29 | Minnesota | Boston College | New York, NY |
| Holiday | 12-28 | Oregon | Virginia | San Diego, CA |
| Texas | 12-28 | Iowa State | Mississippi St | Houston, TX |
| Liberty | 12-28 | TCU | LSU | Memphis, TN |
| Military | 12-28 | UCF | Wake Forest | Annapolis, MD |
| Guaranteed Rate | 12-27 | Penn State | Texas | Phoenix, AZ |
| Birmingham | 12-27 | Virginia Tech | South Carolina | Birmingham, AL |
| First Responder | 12-27 | West Virginia | Houston | University Park, TX |
| Camellia | 12-27 | Louisiana | No. Illinois | Montgomery, AL |
| Quick Lane | 12-26 | Purdue | Toledo | Detroit, MI |
| Hawaii | 12-24 | Air Force | W. Kentucky | Honolulu, HI |
| Gasparilla | 12-23 | Cincinnati | Auburn | Tampa, FL |
| Independence | 12-23 | Army | SMU | Shreveport, LA |
| Armed Forces | 12-22 | Tx-San Antonio | Memphis | Fort Worth, TX |
| New Orleans | 12-21 | App State | UAB | New Orleans, LA |
| Boca Raton | 12-20 | Marshall | Liberty | Boca Raton, FL |
| Famous Idaho | 12-20 | San Diego St | C. Michigan | Boise, ID |
| Myrtle Beach | 12-19 | Georgia State | BYU | Conway, SC |
| Frisco | 12-17 | San Jose St | East Carolina | Frisco, TX |
| Las Vegas | 12-17 | Oregon State | Arkansas | Las Vegas, NV |
| LendingTree | 12-17 | Coastal Carolina | W. Michigan | Mobile, AL |
| Jimmy Kimmel L.A. | 12-17 | Arizona State | Boise State | Inglewood, CA |
| New Mexico | 12-17 | Utah State | North Texas | Albuquerque, NM |
| Fenway | 12-17 | Tulane | Louisville | Boston, MA |
| Cure | 12-16 | Troy | Tulsa | Orlando, FL |
| Bahamas | 12-16 | Fla Atlantic | E Michigan | Nassau, BAH |
2022 Preseason Rankings (All Teams)
Here are our power ratings and rankings for all 131 FBS teams for the 2022 season.
| RANK | TEAM | RATING | LAST YEAR | PROGRAM | RETURN | LUCK | MARKET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 33.4 | 19.2 | 7.1 | -3.9 | 0.3 | 10.6 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 30.4 | 20.2 | 6.2 | 1.1 | -0.7 | 3.6 |
| 3 | Georgia | 28.9 | 25.2 | 5.1 | 0.4 | -2.7 | 1.0 |
| 4 | Clemson | 21.9 | 10.1 | 7.2 | 4.1 | -1.2 | 1.7 |
| 5 | Michigan | 19.5 | 18.3 | 3.9 | 3.8 | -1.1 | -5.4 |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 18.7 | 11.3 | 4.5 | -4.7 | 0.1 | 7.5 |
| 7 | Texas A&M | 17.9 | 10.0 | 3.4 | -1.1 | -1.1 | 6.6 |
| 8 | Notre Dame | 17.2 | 14.3 | 4.1 | 1.1 | -1.2 | -1.1 |
| 9 | Oklahoma State | 15.2 | 13.3 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | -1.1 |
| 10 | Utah | 14.7 | 11.6 | 2.9 | 1.2 | -0.4 | -0.7 |
| 11 | Wisconsin | 14.5 | 11.5 | 3.4 | -0.7 | -0.8 | 1.0 |
| 12 | Southern California | 13.8 | -0.1 | 1.3 | -6.2 | -0.1 | 18.9 |
| 13 | Texas | 13.7 | 6.9 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 2.5 |
| 14 | Tennessee | 13.6 | 9.0 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 0.9 | -0.9 |
| 15 | Baylor | 13.6 | 11.9 | 1.4 | -4.3 | -2.1 | 6.7 |
| 16 | Penn State | 13.5 | 9.8 | 4.0 | 1.2 | -2.7 | 1.2 |
| 17 | Oregon | 13.5 | 5.7 | 2.7 | -3.3 | 0.1 | 8.3 |
| 18 | NC State | 13.0 | 9.9 | 0.2 | 2.6 | -0.9 | 1.2 |
| 19 | Mississippi | 12.3 | 10.0 | 0.8 | -9.2 | -1.1 | 11.8 |
| 20 | Mississippi State | 12.1 | 5.0 | 2.7 | 6.8 | 0.7 | -3.1 |
| 21 | Miami | 12.0 | 5.5 | 1.6 | -0.3 | 1.7 | 3.5 |
| 22 | Michigan State | 12.0 | 9.3 | 1.2 | 2.6 | -0.9 | -0.1 |
| 23 | Kentucky | 11.4 | 7.6 | 2.2 | -2.1 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
| 24 | Louisiana State | 11.4 | 4.2 | 4.6 | -2.1 | 1.2 | 3.5 |
| 25 | Iowa | 11.2 | 7.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 0.6 | -4.1 |
| 26 | Pittsburgh | 10.8 | 11.3 | 0.7 | -0.2 | -1.2 | 0.2 |
| 27 | Auburn | 10.6 | 8.8 | 3.8 | -1.9 | 0.3 | -0.3 |
| 28 | Brigham Young | 10.4 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 3.6 | 1.2 | -0.5 |
| 29 | Florida | 10.2 | 5.0 | 4.0 | -3.6 | 0.3 | 4.6 |
| 30 | Arkansas | 10.2 | 9.8 | -1.5 | -4.2 | -1.2 | 7.4 |
| 31 | Kansas State | 10.1 | 7.2 | 0.9 | -0.4 | 0.1 | 2.3 |
| 32 | Cincinnati | 9.9 | 13.5 | 2.5 | -3.2 | -1.6 | -1.2 |
| 33 | Houston | 9.1 | 6.9 | -0.1 | 2.7 | -2.1 | 1.7 |
| 34 | Nebraska | 9.0 | 8.6 | 0.8 | -3.7 | 1.0 | 2.3 |
| 35 | Minnesota | 8.9 | 8.4 | 1.8 | 1.0 | -0.2 | -2.1 |
| 36 | Iowa State | 8.1 | 10.7 | 2.3 | -5.9 | -0.9 | 1.9 |
| 37 | Texas Christian | 8.0 | -1.2 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 2.8 |
| 38 | UCLA | 7.7 | 7.7 | -0.1 | -2.7 | 0.1 | 2.7 |
| 39 | South Carolina | 7.7 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 3.4 |
| 40 | Florida State | 7.4 | 2.8 | -0.5 | 3.3 | -0.7 | 2.6 |
| 41 | West Virginia | 7.2 | 3.6 | 1.7 | -5.2 | -0.3 | 7.4 |
| 42 | Central Florida | 7.2 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 3.2 | -0.9 | -0.2 |
| 43 | Purdue | 7.1 | 9.5 | 0.9 | -1.1 | -0.3 | -1.8 |
| 44 | North Carolina | 7.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 1.4 |
| 45 | Louisville | 6.7 | 4.8 | -1.7 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| 46 | Texas Tech | 6.0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | -0.7 | 1.0 | 2.3 |
| 47 | Boise State | 5.8 | 6.3 | 1.9 | 2.1 | -1.9 | -2.6 |
| 48 | Washington | 5.6 | -0.7 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 49 | Wake Forest | 4.6 | 9.2 | 0.5 | 1.5 | -1.1 | -5.5 |
| 50 | Southern Methodist | 4.6 | 4.6 | -0.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 | -0.5 |
| 51 | Maryland | 4.0 | 1.9 | 0.2 | -0.5 | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| 52 | Appalachian State | 3.8 | 5.2 | 2.2 | -3.2 | 0.1 | -0.5 |
| 53 | Oregon State | 3.8 | 3.9 | -1.5 | 3.3 | 0.1 | -1.9 |
| 54 | Virginia | 3.3 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 0.2 | -4.7 |
| 55 | Fresno State | 2.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | -4.1 |
| 56 | Boston College | 1.7 | -0.8 | 0.7 | 0.3 | -0.4 | 1.8 |
| 57 | Arizona State | 1.4 | 4.9 | 1.6 | -4.9 | 0.2 | -0.3 |
| 58 | Air Force | 1.2 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 2.1 | -1.5 | -3.8 |
| 59 | Texas-San Antonio | 0.9 | 2.7 | -4.4 | 4.6 | -1.4 | -0.6 |
| 60 | Memphis | 0.6 | -2.1 | 1.3 | -0.2 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 61 | UAB | 0.6 | 1.8 | -0.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | -2.0 |
| 62 | Syracuse | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 3.4 | 1.3 | -5.4 |
| 63 | Virginia Tech | -0.1 | -0.7 | 0.4 | -0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 64 | Stanford | -0.3 | -4.5 | 0.9 | 3.6 | 0.8 | -1.2 |
| 65 | Army | -0.3 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | -5.5 |
| 66 | Missouri | -0.4 | -1.4 | 2.3 | -4.0 | 0.7 | 2.1 |
| 67 | Marshall | -0.5 | 1.6 | -0.5 | -1.0 | -0.2 | -0.3 |
| 68 | UL Lafayette | -0.7 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -0.9 | -4.4 |
| 69 | Illinois | -0.7 | 2.1 | -1.5 | 3.0 | -0.6 | -3.8 |
| 70 | Washington State | -0.7 | 2.6 | 1.9 | -5.6 | -3.2 | 3.5 |
| 71 | East Carolina | -0.8 | 1.1 | -3.2 | 3.9 | -0.1 | -2.5 |
| 72 | Toledo | -1.2 | 0.3 | -1.1 | 0.6 | -1.1 | 0.0 |
| 73 | Tulane | -1.4 | -2.9 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 1.2 | -2.9 |
| 74 | Georgia St. | -1.4 | -2.6 | -3.1 | 3.8 | -0.7 | 1.1 |
| 75 | Coastal Carolina | -1.5 | 3.4 | -2.1 | -3.4 | -0.2 | 0.7 |
| 76 | San Diego State | -1.7 | 0.3 | -0.6 | -1.9 | -0.3 | 0.8 |
| 77 | Rutgers | -3.1 | -1.5 | -2.8 | 1.6 | -0.5 | 0.1 |
| 78 | Central Michigan | -3.2 | -1.0 | -2.7 | -1.5 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
| 79 | California | -3.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | -5.8 | -1.7 | 3.3 |
| 80 | Northern Illinois | -3.7 | -4.9 | -1.8 | 5.9 | 1.4 | -4.3 |
| 81 | Liberty | -3.8 | 3.1 | -2.0 | -1.9 | -0.5 | -2.4 |
| 82 | Tulsa | -3.9 | -0.8 | -1.0 | -1.1 | -0.2 | -0.8 |
| 83 | Utah State | -4.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | -5.6 | -0.2 | 0.4 |
| 84 | Indiana | -4.3 | -5.0 | 1.4 | -4.1 | -0.6 | 4.1 |
| 85 | Northwestern | -4.6 | -6.5 | 1.0 | 0.7 | -0.6 | 0.8 |
| 86 | Georgia Tech | -4.9 | -3.7 | -0.5 | -2.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 |
| 87 | Colorado | -5.4 | -3.3 | -0.2 | 1.5 | -0.7 | -2.5 |
| 88 | South Florida | -5.5 | -7.4 | -2.2 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 89 | Western Kentucky | -5.8 | 6.1 | -2.2 | -10.6 | -1.9 | 3.0 |
| 90 | Miami (Ohio) | -5.9 | -1.9 | -1.0 | -2.1 | -1.3 | 0.4 |
| 91 | Troy | -6.1 | -7.9 | -1.0 | 4.1 | 0.1 | -1.4 |
| 92 | Navy | -6.6 | -3.4 | -0.3 | 1.0 | -1.8 | -2.0 |
| 93 | Western Michigan | -6.7 | -0.9 | -1.2 | -4.3 | 0.7 | -0.8 |
| 94 | James Madison | -7.1 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -7.1 |
| 95 | Kansas | -7.6 | -11.6 | -1.6 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
| 96 | Arizona | -7.6 | -8.2 | -1.0 | 0.1 | 4.9 | -3.4 |
| 97 | North Texas | -7.9 | -5.8 | -1.6 | 3.1 | 0.0 | -3.6 |
| 98 | Old Dominion | -8.1 | -5.7 | -3.8 | 5.7 | 1.3 | -5.6 |
| 99 | Florida Atlantic | -9.2 | -5.9 | -0.2 | 0.3 | -1.3 | -2.0 |
| 100 | Middle Tennessee | -10.0 | -3.5 | -1.4 | 0.5 | -1.3 | -4.3 |
| 101 | Eastern Michigan | -10.0 | -6.1 | -1.3 | 1.3 | 0.2 | -4.2 |
| 102 | San Jose State | -10.3 | -10.1 | -2.4 | 1.7 | -0.2 | 0.8 |
| 103 | Colorado State | -10.3 | -6.8 | -3.0 | -3.6 | 0.3 | 2.8 |
| 104 | Kent State | -10.5 | -7.5 | -2.7 | -2.1 | -0.1 | 1.9 |
| 105 | Southern Miss | -10.6 | -13.6 | -1.5 | 4.6 | 0.2 | -0.3 |
| 106 | Ohio | -10.6 | -11.8 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 0.9 | -1.7 |
| 107 | Georgia Southern | -11.0 | -11.3 | -0.4 | 2.3 | 1.3 | -2.9 |
| 108 | South Alabama | -11.5 | -7.6 | -3.9 | 3.3 | -1.0 | -2.3 |
| 109 | Wyoming | -11.5 | -5.2 | -0.6 | -5.1 | 0.5 | -1.1 |
| 110 | Bowling Green | -11.9 | -12.1 | -5.6 | 9.3 | 1.1 | -4.4 |
| 111 | Buffalo | -12.2 | -8.1 | 0.2 | -1.9 | -1.2 | -1.2 |
| 112 | Texas El Paso | -12.3 | -7.5 | -5.7 | 2.5 | 1.0 | -2.7 |
| 113 | Vanderbilt | -12.4 | -12.9 | -0.5 | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.8 |
| 114 | Ball State | -12.6 | -7.2 | -1.8 | -2.2 | 0.8 | -2.2 |
| 115 | Charlotte | -13.8 | -12.0 | -2.6 | 6.1 | 0.5 | -5.9 |
| 116 | Duke | -14.3 | -13.5 | 0.2 | -2.4 | 1.7 | -0.4 |
| 117 | Louisiana Tech | -14.6 | -8.8 | -1.5 | -2.0 | 1.2 | -3.5 |
| 118 | Nevada | -15.2 | 1.9 | -1.6 | -12.4 | -0.4 | -2.7 |
| 119 | UNLV | -15.2 | -10.5 | -3.5 | -0.5 | 1.2 | -1.8 |
| 120 | Arkansas St. | -15.7 | -13.9 | -1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | -1.6 |
| 121 | Texas State | -16.1 | -13.3 | -3.9 | 0.8 | 0.5 | -0.1 |
| 122 | Rice | -17.3 | -13.7 | -3.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | -1.1 |
| 123 | Temple | -18.2 | -18.1 | -0.3 | 3.5 | 1.6 | -4.8 |
| 124 | UL Monroe | -18.4 | -11.5 | -3.0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | -5.5 |
| 125 | Hawaii | -18.8 | -7.3 | -1.6 | -9.5 | 0.5 | -0.9 |
| 126 | Akron | -21.6 | -18.7 | -5.1 | -0.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 |
| 127 | New Mexico | -21.9 | -15.7 | -3.5 | 1.1 | 1.0 | -4.9 |
| 128 | Connecticut | -25.0 | -20.1 | -6.0 | 0.7 | 2.1 | -1.7 |
| 129 | Florida International | -25.5 | -20.5 | -1.7 | -3.6 | 2.4 | -2.1 |
| 130 | New Mexico State | -26.9 | -17.5 | -5.2 | -2.3 | -0.6 | -1.3 |
| 131 | Massachusetts | -27.0 | -23.5 | -6.1 | 4.8 | 1.6 | -3.8 |
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 Oklahoma is unlikely to lose to a team like Kansas, 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.
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.