Way too early Top 25 polls

[peacock]

Not a ton of love for the the Frogs so far.....but it's very early!

ESPN
2. Texas
9. BYU
11. Iowa State
14. Arizona State
15. SMU
16. Kansas State
22. Texas A&M
RV Texas Tech, Baylor, Colorado

2025 Way-Too-Early Top 25: Where do Ohio State and Notre Dame rank?

The season has just ended, but that won't stop Mark Schlabach from ranking the 25 best teams for next season.

www.espn.com

CBS
1. Texas
12. SMU
13. BYU
16. Arizona State
19. Iowa State
22. Texas A&M
24. Texas Tech

College football rankings: Texas, Georgia, Miami lead way-too-early top 25 ahead of 2025 season

Looking ahead to the top teams entering the 2025 college football season

www.cbssports.com

NY Times/The Athletic
2. Texas
9. Arizona State
10. BYU
17. Texas A&M
19. Baylor
23. Kansas State
RV SMU, Iowa State

Way too early Top 25 rankings for the 2025 college football season

Only three SEC teams in the top 10. Ohio State outside of the top five. Florida ranked head of Alabama.

www.nytimes.com

PFF
1. Texas
10. Texas A&M
13. BYU
16. Arizona State
18. SMU
21. Kansas State
23. Iowa State

College Football: Way-too-early top-25 for the 2025 season

Max Chadwick reveals his way-too-early top-25 rankings for college football's 2025 season.

www.pff.com

24/7 Sports
1. Texas
10. SMU
15. Arizona State
17. Kansas State
18. Iowa State
22. Texas Tech

College football rankings: 247Sports debuts top 25 for 2025

The votes are in and these are college football's expected best for next season.

247sports.com

Yahoo
5. Texas
14. Arizona State
15. BYU
17. Texas A&M
18. Kansas State

Way-too-early Top 25 for 2025-26 college football season

With the 2024 season officially over, it's not too early to look ahead to 2025.

sports.yahoo.com

USA Today
2. Texas
10. Arizona State
15. Kansas State
17. BYU
19 SMU
20. Iowa State

Way-too-early 2025 college football Top 25: Ohio State leads, SEC and Big Ten dominate

The 2024 college football season is officially over, so it's time to look ahead to what will happen in 2025. Here's our early Top 25 prediction.

www.usatoday.com

Fox Sports
2. Texas
10. Arizona State
19. Iowa State
20. Texas A&M
22. BYU
23. SMU
25. Colorado

College football rankings: Ohio State, Texas highlight way-too-early Top 25 for 2025 | FOX Sports

FOX Sports' RJ Young offers up his way-too-early top 25 rankings for the 2025 college football season, with Ohio State, Texas, Michigan and Colorado all in the mix.

www.foxsports.com

NCAA
1. Texas
14. Arizona State
15. Kansas State
18. BYU
20. SMU
21. Texas A&M
22. Iowa State
RV Kansas

Way-too-early college football top 25 rankings for the 2025-26 season

Here's a way-too-early look at the top 25 teams for the 2025 season.

www.ncaa.com

The Sporting News
1. Texas
15. Arizona State
16. BYU
19. SMU
21. Kansas State
22. Texas A&M
24. Iowa State

College football rankings 2025: Texas, Ohio State, Georgia lead Way-Too-Early Top 25 | Sporting News

It all starts with Texas, Ohio State and Georgia next season.

www.sportingnews.com

Athlon
1. Texas
13. Arizona State
15. Kansas State
16. BYU
17. SMU
20. Texas A&M
23. Iowa State
28. Texas Tech
29. Baylor
RV Colorado, Kansas, TCU, Utah
TCU
The Horned Frogs are losing a handful of key players on both sides of the ball from a squad that quietly won nine games in '24. The return of quarterback Josh Hoover (3,949 yards and 27 TDs) alleviates some of those concerns.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/way-too-early-top-25-rankings-for-2025#gid=ci02f1893740002623&pid=the-next-tier

Sports Illustrated
1. Texas
10. Arizona State
13. BYU
19. Texas A&M
20. Kansas State
21. SMU
22. Iowa State

Column: 2025 Way-too-early top 25 rankings

The college football season is officially behind us after Ohio State beat Notre Dame on Monday night to claim the national title. Now we're onto 2025 and the sp

www.si.com

College Football Network
10. SMU
13. Arizona State
15. Utah
20. Iowa State
21. Kansas State
22. BYU

2025 Way-Too-Early College Football Top 25 Power Rankings: Where Do Ohio State, Notre Dame Land? | College Sports Network

Top 25's in January are about as accurate NFL Mock Drafts in the summer, but that doesn't mean they aren't entertaining.

collegefootballnetwork.com

Bleacher Report
1. Texas
14. Kansas State
16. Arizona State
17. SMU
19. Iowa State
22. BYU

 

[An-Cap Frog]

FWIW, Josh Pate ranked TCU 21st to end the season...behind ASU, Lou, ISU and Baylor.

 

[Putt4Purple]

Does not mean anything in the whole scheme of things. These ranking are probably less meaningful now especially after NIL. No team brings back half the team from the previous year. A total joke of a guess!

 

[An-Cap Frog]

Does not mean anything in the whole scheme of things. These ranking are probably less meaningful now especially after NIL. No team brings back half the team from the previous year. A total joke of a guess!

I'll take the opposite position...rankings are a big deal. The Big XII was slighted in the polls all season. The final bowls further illustrate this.

BYU ranked behind SMU, a team they beat and had 1 less loss than, and they won their bowl game. Which means after the results of the post season voter still don't think they should have been in the playoffs or even in the conversation.

The better the preseason perception of the conference the more likely a second Big XII team would not be left out of the playoffs.

 

[Wexahu]

I'll take the opposite position...rankings are a big deal. The Big XII was slighted in the polls all season. The final bowls further illustrate this.

BYU ranked behind SMU, a team they beat and had 1 less loss than, and they won their bowl game. Which means after the results of the post season voter still don't think they should have been in the playoffs or even in the conversation.

The better the preseason perception of the conference the more likely a second Big XII team would not be left out of the playoffs.

I would guess that teams in the Big XII and ACC are probably over-ranked rather than "slighted", if in fact rankings are supposed to reflect the true strength of teams.

Look at the odds to win next year's CFP. That's a better representation of how people really feel about teams than how voters are going to rank, say, a 10-1 ACC team that has hardly played anyone with a pulse.

The Big 12 didn't have more than one team in because neither Iowa State or Colorado deserved it, and BYU was leaking oil badly at the end of the season. Their last six games included a 3-point win over 3-9 Okie State, a 1-point win over 5-7 Utah, and losses to 5-7 Kansas and Arizona State. BYU didn't have one less loss than SMU, who also made their conference championship game and barely lost to Clemson on a 50+ yard FG at the buzzer.

 

[CardFrog]

Why would anyone pay attention to these polls is beyond me. Most polls last year predicted BYU would finish near the bottom and OK Lite would win the Big 12. Worthless as the keystrokes it took to produce them. Spit Blood [hundinnen ].

 

[An-Cap Frog]

I would guess that teams in the Big XII and ACC are probably over-ranked rather than "slighted", if in fact rankings are supposed to reflect the true strength of teams.

Look at the odds to win next year's CFP. That's a better representation of how people really feel about teams than how voters are going to rank, say, a 10-1 ACC team that has hardly played anyone with a pulse.

The Big 12 didn't have more than one team in because neither Iowa State or Colorado deserved it, and BYU was leaking oil badly at the end of the season. Their last six games included a 3-point win over 3-9 Okie State, a 1-point win over 5-7 Utah, and losses to 5-7 Kansas and Arizona State. BYU didn't have one less loss than SMU, who also made their conference championship game and barely lost to Clemson on a 50+ yard FG at the buzzer.

I could outline some problems with rankings.

• Too few data points.
• Unequal conference games.
• Wins and losses.
• Margin of victory.
• Game location.
• Talent does not always translate to record.

It's not an easy job to assess rankings.

I was specially referring to final rankings. BYU ended 11-2 SMU ended 11-3. The voters wouldn't even put BYU ahead of SMU even after the post-season. That just shows the perception if the Big XII. Worse than SMU??? I have SMU at 22 and BYU at 13. SMU went to the championship game of a conference that went 2-11 in the post-season. Only the PAC-12 did worse, because only 1 team made a bowl and lost.

 

[MBAFrog]

And here I thought TCU was going to establish itself as the dominate team in the Big12....

 

[Wexahu]

I could outline some problems with rankings.

• Too few data points.
• Unequal conference games.
• Wins and losses.
• Margin of victory.
• Game location.
• Talent does not always translate to record.

It's not an easy job to assess rankings.

I was specially referring to final rankings. BYU ended 11-2 SMU ended 11-3. The voters wouldn't even put BYU ahead of SMU even after the post-season. That just shows the perception if the Big XII. Worse than SMU??? I have SMU at 22 and BYU at 13. SMU went to the championship game of a conference that went 2-11 in the post-season. Only the PAC-12 did worse, because only 1 team made a bowl and lost.

Don't know for sure, but I would guess its not all that unusual for teams for losing a playoff game not being passed by teams that won meaningless bowl games in the rankings. We lost our last game by 50+ points a couple years ago and didn't drop a spot. And I know its not an apples to apples comparison.

Ranking teams IS tough, I think it depends on if you're ranking the teams by actually how strong they are (likelihood of beating good teams, etc) or ranking them strictly on W-L records/results. I think you have to rank them based mostly on W-L records because the games have to matter, but a 11-1 team with single digit wins against a bunch of average teams is very likely going to get beat by an 9-3 team that blows out all the average teams it faced and lost a few nail biters to really good teams....and the former team would be ranked higher.

I know people discredit it, but I think the best way to assess a team's relative strength is just look at Vegas odds. It's the closest thing there is to truth serum. If you think those guys are full of it, go make a truckload of money, because if they are wrong you could.

 

[4 Oaks Frog]

All of this is a load of horse [ Finebaum ]. None of this matters because of the dolla dolla bill.
Some school out of the blue with extremely deep pockets just might buy themselves a championship. Stranger things have happened…

 

[gohornedfrogs]

And here I thought TCU was going to establish itself as the dominate team in the Big12....

Dominate team, or dominant team?

 

[An-Cap Frog]

Don't know for sure, but I would guess its not all that unusual for teams for losing a playoff game not being passed by teams that won meaningless bowl games in the rankings. We lost our last game by 50+ points a couple years ago and didn't drop a spot. And I know its not an apples to apples comparison.

Ranking teams IS tough, I think it depends on if you're ranking the teams by actually how strong they are (likelihood of beating good teams, etc) or ranking them strictly on W-L records/results. I think you have to rank them based mostly on W-L records because the games have to matter, but a 11-1 team with single digit wins against a bunch of average teams is very likely going to get beat by an 9-3 team that blows out all the average teams it faced and lost a few nail biters to really good teams....and the former team would be ranked higher.

I know people discredit it, but I think the best way to assess a team's relative strength is just look at Vegas odds. It's the closest thing there is to truth serum. If you think those guys are full of it, go make a truckload of money, because if they are wrong you could.

As long as that 9-3 team hasn't lost to OU by 21 points...

Isn't Vegas built on public perception and designed to make people place wagers? How did Vegas do with the ACC in bowl games?

 

[Traveling Frog]

We got worse with the players leaving vs coming in. Our season will depend on the development of the younger players.

 

[Wexahu]

As long as that 9-3 team hasn't lost to OU by 21 points...

Isn't Vegas built on public perception and designed to make people place wagers? How did Vegas do with the ACC in bowl games?

My guess is they probably made about 5% on all money placed.

If it was designed to make people place wagers, they'd set inaccurate lines. Say, they'd have made Texas-ASU a pick-em' instead of Texas +13.5. But if they do that the whole world is gonna make a ton of bets and take Texas and then they'd have to move the line so much the other way that they'd be exposed. Public perception plays a part in where they set the lines but how wouldn't it, the betting public at least has some idea on how strong teams are.

If you think Vegas lines are just based on public perception and designed to make people place wagers, and are NOT an accurate reflection of the strength of the teams involved and the most likely outcome, go take a bunch of money from them, because if you're right, you can. But good luck with that.

 

[An-Cap Frog]

My guess is they probably made about 5% on all money placed.

If it was designed to make people place wagers, they'd set inaccurate lines. Say, they'd have made Texas-ASU a pick-em' instead of Texas +13.5. But if they do that the whole world is gonna make a ton of bets and take Texas and then they'd have to move the line so much the other way that they'd be exposed. Public perception plays a part in where they set the lines but how wouldn't it, the betting public at least has some idea on how strong teams are.

If you think Vegas lines are just based on public perception and designed to make people place wagers, and are NOT an accurate reflection of the strength of the teams involved and the most likely outcome, go take a bunch of money from them, because if you're right, you can. But good luck with that.

The job of Vegas is to balance the money on both sides and make money on the vigorish, not to pick winners. I'd say Vegas lines are based on numbers and perception, but I don't know what % of each. Of course, Vegas had OSU at 8.5 and my model said 4.5.

 

[Wexahu]

The job of Vegas is to balance the money on both sides and make money on the vigorish, not to pick winners. I'd say Vegas lines are based on numbers and perception, but I don't know what % of each. Of course, Vegas had OSU at 8.5 and my model said 4.5.

And I'm saying if you think Vegas line are biased for and against certain teams and conferences, bet accordingly and then count your money. And good luck with that.

They aren't perfect and of course every game doesn't turn out as expected, but I think Vegas point spreads are about the closest thing we have to something that cuts through all the bs and internet message board posturing about who is good and who isn't.

 

[An-Cap Frog]

And I'm saying if you think Vegas line are biased for and against certain teams and conferences, bet accordingly and then count your money. And good luck with that.

They aren't perfect and of course every game doesn't turn out as expected, but I think Vegas point spreads are about the closest thing we have to something that cuts through all the bs and internet message board posturing about who is good and who isn't.

I think I could do a lot better at picking teams straight-up than against the line. Only in the betting world does line make sense and straight-up only matters in college football. ND did not lose because they didn't cover the spread they lost because they scored less points. Do I think that OSU 1 and ND 2 are reasonable team rankings? Yes. Again, hypothetically Bama should have beaten OU, but they didn't.

 

[Wexahu]

I think I could do a lot better at picking teams straight-up than against the line. Only in the betting world does line make sense and straight-up only matters in college football. ND did not lose because they didn't cover the spread they lost because they scored less points. Do I think that OSU 1 and ND 2 are reasonable team rankings? Yes. Again, hypothetically Bama should have beaten OU, but they didn't.

Yeah, a lot of outcomes don't turn out as expected, it's sports. We beat Michigan in 2022. If that game was played again with the exact same players and coaches on each team, I bet the line would be about the same and based on what I saw I'd probably lay heavy on Michigan. But TCU won that game and that is all that matters for that week. If your basis for argument is using anecdotes in order to prove something, I'm not going to win this one.

I can do better at picking games straight up than against the line too. It's way easier, you'd just pick the team that would normally be favored and you'd win the vast majority of the time. Did you really just say you'd be better at picking games straight up than against the line? You may not understand at all what I am talking about.

 

[Limey Frog]

SMU:

We need to BTHO SMU next year. Going for two on touchdowns in the fourth quarter when leading by thirty points kind of beat down.

 

[CardFrog]

SMU:

We need to BTHO SMU next year. Going for two on touchdowns in the fourth quarter when leading by thirty points kind of beat down.

Completely agree and candidly I have no issue with what SMU did to us. Their old coach is back we have rolled them for the last decade and we allowed it to happen. If we had a chance to do that to Texas or Oklahoma we would do it with a smile on our face.