College football starts in two weeks but fans need to fill the void until then so media publications are going to release their annual preseason rankings to give them something to talk about. It’s unfortunate because the expectations (and lack of reaching them) set by programs are judged by those arbitrary lists before a down is even played.
SMU head coach Rhett Lashlee put it best in a scathing answer during ACC media days, preseason rankings — especially strength of schedule — are worthless and don’t deserve the amount of attention they get.
“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,” he followed up on social media. “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.”
It’s understandable to group certain teams into the top contenders, the could-be-hot programs, the bowl-game-bounds, and the basement dwellers. But to try and pinpoint the exact position of the supposed Top 25 teams in the country when all we have to go off of is roster makeups, spring games and fall camps is just asking to be wrong.
Preseason college football rankings reinforce useless narratives not true potential
ESPN’s Bill Connelly defended his network’s preseason SP+ rankings and the recent accuracy of the list. To his, and ESPN’s, credit their rankings were relatively spot on when it came to projecting the regular season records attained by their Top 15. Here’s Connelly’s take on the subject:
“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 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.”
Okay, point taken but these projections systems are way off a good chunk of the time too. Last year’s ESPN preseason SP+ rankings handed Indiana the No. 20 spot and the Hoosiers didn’t lose a game on their way to a national championship. Their preseason No. 1 was a Texas team that lost in Week 1 and missed the College Football Playoff entirely.
Clemson and Penn State were projected to win 19.3 combined games and instead returned a meager 13-11 combined record. Under-achievements are expected when rankings gamble on potential breakout candidates like Indiana but these were way off for what can be considered a pair of blue bloods. The randomness factor is also something to consider. Nobody could’ve predicted Drew Allar’s season ending prematurely but the fall off by Dabo Swinney and the Tigers was writing written on the wall for multiple years.
Why CFB rankings shouldn’t start until after Week 1 at the earliest
The solution would be to do away with preseason rankings altogether. Let teams actually play football first before voters determine who the best teams in the country are. Of course, the first one to three weeks have big boys pitted against tiny programs but there are enough typical marquee matchups between Power Conference foes to gauge who are early contenders and who may be pretenders.
Despite a small sample size, there would actually be data from this year to base opinions on — to the glee of Rashlee. The Associated Press votes every week anyways so there shouldn’t be complaints about basing things off Week 1. If that’s what folks are complaining about how can they defend votes based on zero football being played?
Connelly even said it himself, “The results will speak for themselves by the end.” Publishing a preseason list using last year’s results or no results at all doesn’t actually rank anyone no matter how much math is involved. It’s all just numbers until cleats touch grass.
Add us as a preferred source on GoogleFollow
