August 27, 2020 - by Jason Lisk
Nick Saban leads the charge into yet another college football season (Photo by Daniel Dunn/Icon Sportswire)
2020 has been unlike any year we have experienced. In college football, we have a season about to begin where over one-third of the teams will not be participating this fall. Among those who are playing there have sometimes been massive shifts in scheduling and alignment. Notre Dame, for example, is playing a full ACC schedule this year and is eligible to win the conference title. With the Mountain West cancelled, Air Force is playing just two games: against Army and Navy.
There is one familiar constant in this sea of change, though. Clemson and Alabama, again, sit atop the preseason rankings. The two have met in three of the last five championship games. Last year, LSU disrupted the Alabama-Clemson party with a huge year from QB Joe Burrow and the offense. Burrow is on to the NFL, though, as is a lot of talent off that LSU team. That means, at the outset, Clemson and Alabama look like the favorites.
Below are the official TeamRankings 2020 college football preseason rankings and predictive ratings.
If you’d like to learn about the methodology behind our mostly data-driven preseason team ratings, make sure your read our post on How We Make College Football Preseason Rankings.
If you just want to see the 2020 rankings, keep reading to find out how good (or bad) we expect the 77 FBS teams competing this fall to be, starting with the TR Top 25.
Get an edge in your PGA Majors and One And Done pools
Jump to rankings for all FBS teams playing in the fall
The table below presents our 25 highest ranked teams in the preseason (e.g. Clemson at No. 1), along with their associated preseason predictive ratings (e.g. 29.3 for Clemson).
The final five columns of the table show the relative contribution that specific predictive factors and our “market adjustment” made to our final preseason rating for each team. We’ll explain those more below.
TR Rank | Team | 2020 Rating | LAST YEAR | PROGRAM | RETURNING | LUCK | MARKET |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Clemson | 29.3 | 23.3 | 5.8 | 2.5 | -1.3 | -1.0 |
2 | Alabama | 27.1 | 21.5 | 6.7 | -3.3 | -0.8 | 3.0 |
3 | Georgia | 21.8 | 16.6 | 2.9 | -2.1 | -0.5 | 5.0 |
4 | Oklahoma | 19.9 | 13.2 | 4.5 | -3.5 | 1.8 | 4.0 |
5 | Louisiana State | 18.8 | 24.4 | 3.3 | -9.8 | -2.2 | 3.0 |
6 | Notre Dame | 17.8 | 14.6 | 2.7 | -2.3 | -0.3 | 3.0 |
7 | Texas A&M | 16.8 | 8.8 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 2.0 |
8 | Florida | 16.4 | 14.9 | 1.6 | -0.3 | -0.8 | 1.0 |
9 | Auburn | 15.6 | 15.6 | 4.0 | 2.1 | -1.2 | -5.0 |
10 | Texas | 15.1 | 9.4 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 2.0 |
11 | Central Florida | 13.5 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 3.5 | -0.2 | -2.0 |
12 | Oklahoma State | 13.4 | 6.0 | 3.1 | 5.5 | 0.9 | -2.0 |
13 | North Carolina | 10.2 | 6.7 | 0.4 | 4.6 | -1.5 | 0.0 |
14 | Iowa State | 9.8 | 7.2 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
15 | Baylor | 9.1 | 10.8 | 0.0 | -1.9 | -1.8 | 2.0 |
16 | Kentucky | 8.6 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 2.8 | -0.3 | 1.0 |
17 | Tennessee | 8.3 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
18 | Virginia Tech | 8.2 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 1.6 | -0.1 | 2.0 |
19 | Appalachian State | 7.9 | 7.2 | 0.8 | 3.7 | -0.7 | -3.0 |
20 | Miami | 7.7 | 1.8 | 3.0 | -3.9 | -0.3 | 7.0 |
21 | Memphis | 7.2 | 9.4 | 1.6 | -0.5 | 0.8 | -4.0 |
22 | Texas Christian | 7.0 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.7 | -1.0 |
23 | Cincinnati | 6.8 | 6.9 | -2.0 | 1.8 | -1.0 | 1.0 |
24 | Louisville | 6.5 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.2 | -1.0 |
25 | Navy | 6.1 | 8.7 | 0.6 | -1.2 | -2.0 | 0.0 |
We’ve done a lot of research over the years to identify and value team-level stats that are highly correlated with success in the upcoming college football season.
Just as importantly, we’ve worked to identify and ignore information that seems like it should help determine how good a team is going to be, but actually doesn’t hold up to rigorous, historical data based testing.
While we encourage you to read our full preseason rankings methodology, here’s a quick explanation of the factors we currently use in our preseason ratings:
In a college football or NFL pick’em pool?
Get an edge with our Football Pick’em Picks
You can see from the relative values in the table above that certain predictive factors are worth more than others. For example, how a team did last season (LAST YEAR) tends to be a very good predictor of how it will do this season.
In comparison, how a team has done over a longer period of recent history (PROGRAM) — more a measure of its success at perennially restocking talent and developing players — also has a predictive impact, but the correlation with upcoming season performance generally isn’t as strong as LAST YEAR.
MARKET, the lone subjective factor of the bunch, can vary widely from team to team. It is an adjustment we make based on team-specific factors that likely represent blind spots in our current preseason ratings algorithm. It deserves an appropriate explanation, which you can also find in our preseason rankings explanation post.
TR Rank | Team | 2020 Rating | LAST YEAR | PROGRAM | RETURNING | LUCK | MARKET |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Clemson | 29.3 | 23.3 | 5.8 | 2.5 | -1.3 | -1.0 |
2 | Alabama | 27.1 | 21.5 | 6.7 | -3.3 | -0.8 | 3.0 |
3 | Georgia | 21.8 | 16.6 | 2.9 | -2.1 | -0.5 | 5.0 |
4 | Oklahoma | 19.9 | 13.2 | 4.5 | -3.5 | 1.8 | 4.0 |
5 | Louisiana State | 18.8 | 24.4 | 3.3 | -9.8 | -2.2 | 3.0 |
6 | Notre Dame | 17.8 | 14.6 | 2.7 | -2.3 | -0.3 | 3.0 |
7 | Texas A&M | 16.8 | 8.8 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 2.0 |
8 | Florida | 16.4 | 14.9 | 1.6 | -0.3 | -0.8 | 1.0 |
9 | Auburn | 15.6 | 15.6 | 4.0 | 2.1 | -1.2 | -5.0 |
10 | Texas | 15.1 | 9.4 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 2.0 |
11 | Central Florida | 13.5 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 3.5 | -0.2 | -2.0 |
12 | Oklahoma State | 13.4 | 6.0 | 3.1 | 5.5 | 0.9 | -2.0 |
13 | North Carolina | 10.2 | 6.7 | 0.4 | 4.6 | -1.5 | 0.0 |
14 | Iowa State | 9.8 | 7.2 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
15 | Baylor | 9.1 | 10.8 | 0.0 | -1.9 | -1.8 | 2.0 |
16 | Kentucky | 8.6 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 2.8 | -0.3 | 1.0 |
17 | Tennessee | 8.3 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
18 | Virginia Tech | 8.2 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 1.6 | -0.1 | 2.0 |
19 | Appalachian State | 7.9 | 7.2 | 0.8 | 3.7 | -0.7 | -3.0 |
20 | Miami | 7.7 | 1.8 | 3.0 | -3.9 | -0.3 | 7.0 |
21 | Memphis | 7.2 | 9.4 | 1.6 | -0.5 | 0.8 | -4.0 |
22 | Texas Christian | 7.0 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.7 | -1.0 |
23 | Cincinnati | 6.8 | 6.9 | -2.0 | 1.8 | -1.0 | 1.0 |
24 | Louisville | 6.5 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.2 | -1.0 |
25 | Navy | 6.1 | 8.7 | 0.6 | -1.2 | -2.0 | 0.0 |
26 | Kansas State | 5.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.5 | -4.0 |
27 | Wake Forest | 5.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 | -2.4 | -1.1 | 7.0 |
28 | Florida State | 4.9 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
29 | Mississippi | 4.8 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.7 | -1.0 |
30 | Air Force | 4.0 | 6.2 | -0.4 | 0.7 | -0.4 | -2.0 |
31 | Virginia | 3.6 | 4.2 | -1.0 | -3.8 | 0.3 | 4.0 |
32 | Houston | 3.4 | -1.2 | 1.0 | 5.1 | 1.4 | -3.0 |
33 | South Carolina | 3.3 | 3.4 | 0.1 | -1.2 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
34 | Pittsburgh | 2.7 | -0.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 2.0 |
35 | UL Lafayette | 2.6 | 6.7 | -3.2 | 1.8 | -1.8 | -1.0 |
36 | Mississippi State | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | -2.9 | -0.3 | 1.0 |
37 | West Virginia | 2.2 | -3.4 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 2.0 |
38 | Tulane | 1.8 | 3.5 | -1.4 | -2.6 | 0.3 | 2.0 |
39 | Tulsa | 1.7 | -0.9 | -0.1 | 3.1 | -0.3 | 0.0 |
40 | Southern Methodist | 1.7 | 4.5 | -1.4 | -2.1 | -0.4 | 1.0 |
41 | Texas Tech | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.8 | -0.5 | -0.1 | 1.0 |
42 | Boston College | 1.2 | -2.1 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
43 | Missouri | 1.0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | -1.3 | -0.2 | -2.0 |
44 | Duke | 0.9 | -1.7 | 0.6 | -0.6 | 0.6 | 2.0 |
45 | UAB | -0.5 | -7.4 | -2.4 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 5.0 |
46 | Brigham Young | -0.7 | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | -0.3 | 0.0 |
47 | NC State | -1.9 | -7.7 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 1.0 |
48 | Syracuse | -2.8 | -3.0 | -0.6 | -3.3 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
49 | Western Kentucky | -3.0 | -2.2 | -0.2 | -1.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
50 | Georgia Southern | -3.6 | -3.7 | -2.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
51 | Army | -3.8 | -3.8 | 0.1 | -0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
52 | Georgia Tech | -4.0 | -9.4 | 1.2 | 5.5 | -0.2 | -1.0 |
53 | Southern Miss | -4.2 | -4.2 | -1.5 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
54 | Temple | -4.6 | -2.6 | 0.6 | -0.6 | -1.0 | -1.0 |
55 | South Florida | -4.6 | -6.9 | 1.0 | 2.5 | -1.3 | 0.0 |
56 | Arkansas | -4.7 | -7.4 | -0.3 | -0.5 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
57 | Kansas | -6.2 | -7.3 | -3.2 | -1.4 | 0.6 | 5.0 |
58 | Florida Atlantic | -6.7 | 5.5 | -2.0 | -10.3 | -3.9 | 4.0 |
59 | Troy | -7.2 | -8.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
60 | Louisiana Tech | -8.1 | -2.7 | -0.3 | -2.6 | -2.5 | 0.0 |
61 | Coastal Carolina | -8.4 | -8.6 | -3.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 3.0 |
62 | Marshall | -8.9 | -4.2 | -2.3 | -1.9 | -0.4 | 0.0 |
63 | Rice | -9.0 | -10.0 | -4.8 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
64 | Georgia St. | -9.4 | -8.9 | -3.4 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
65 | Liberty | -9.5 | -6.5 | -1.6 | -5.9 | -0.5 | 5.0 |
66 | East Carolina | -9.9 | -10.3 | -3.3 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
67 | Arkansas St. | -9.9 | -6.0 | -0.7 | -3.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
68 | Charlotte | -9.9 | -8.5 | -4.5 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
69 | Middle Tennessee | -11.1 | -6.5 | -1.6 | 0.6 | -0.6 | -3.0 |
70 | UL Monroe | -11.3 | -8.4 | -3.8 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
71 | North Texas | -11.4 | -9.0 | -2.3 | -1.1 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
72 | Vanderbilt | -12.0 | -8.3 | -0.1 | -0.5 | -0.1 | -3.0 |
73 | Texas-San Antonio | -13.8 | -15.5 | -2.1 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 0.0 |
74 | South Alabama | -14.6 | -12.9 | -3.2 | -0.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 |
75 | Florida International | -14.6 | -9.0 | -3.1 | -3.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
76 | Texas State | -21.8 | -14.1 | -6.0 | -2.3 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
77 | Texas El Paso | -29.8 | -20.9 | -5.3 | -4.9 | 1.3 | 0.0 |
Remember, if you’re in a football pool or planning on betting some games this football season, check out our Football Pick’em Picks , NFL Survivor Picks and College Football Betting Picks.
Printed from TeamRankings.com - © 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved.