College Football Preseason Rankings 2019: Clemson, Alabama Lead The Way

College Football Preseason Rankings 2019: Clemson, Alabama Lead The Way

August 22, 2019 – by David Hess

Here are the official TeamRankings 2019 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 2019 rankings, keep reading to find out how good (or bad) we expect all 130 FBS teams to be this year, starting with the TR Top 25.

NFL Week 1 Picks

Betting – Survivor – Pick’em

Start Free TrialGet The Season

The 2019 TeamRankings College Football Preseason Top 25

Jump to rankings for all 130 FBS teams

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. 30.9 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	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
1	Clemson	30.9	25.1	5.2	0.7	-1.5	1.5
2	Alabama	30.8	23.7	6.2	0.1	-1.6	2.5
3	Georgia	28.0	17.0	2.0	5.7	0.9	2.5
4	Michigan	25.3	14.7	4.3	0.7	0.1	5.5
5	Ohio State	22.9	14.2	5.3	-4.1	0.5	7.0
6	Louisiana State	20.8	11.6	3.4	4.3	-1.0	2.5
7	Oklahoma	20.5	15.1	4.9	-1.7	1.1	1.0
8	Florida	19.3	11.7	1.9	4.0	-1.3	3.0
9	Notre Dame	18.8	12.6	2.8	0.1	-1.2	4.5
10	Texas A&M	16.9	12.1	2.0	0.7	0.7	1.5
11	Auburn	16.8	11.1	2.6	-1.9	-0.5	5.5
12	Washington	16.6	9.2	4.1	-2.5	-0.3	6.0
13	Penn State	15.6	12.1	2.3	-2.6	-0.8	4.5
14	Michigan State	15.3	4.7	1.7	4.2	-0.3	5.0
15	Oregon	15.1	4.5	1.1	3.1	-0.6	7.0
16	Utah	15.0	8.1	2.1	4.6	-1.7	2.0
17	Wisconsin	14.6	6.2	3.2	3.4	-0.1	2.0
18	Texas	13.3	8.6	0.8	-1.9	-1.2	7.0
19	Mississippi State	13.1	14.2	2.1	-1.5	-1.6	0.0
20	Iowa	12.7	11.2	1.9	-0.8	-1.1	1.5
21	Miami	12.0	6.5	1.9	-0.3	0.4	3.5
22	Southern California	11.9	1.3	3.3	3.3	0.5	3.5
23	Washington State	11.1	8.8	1.8	-3.4	-0.2	4.0
24	Nebraska	11.0	1.5	0.9	0.8	0.8	7.0
25	Missouri	10.8	11.4	0.1	-1.3	0.6	0.0

2019 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 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:

LAST YEAR: How good a team was last yearPROGRAM: How consistently good a team has been in recent history (excluding last year)RETURN: A composite measure of returning player performance in several key stat areasLUCK: A measure of how likely a team is to improve in higher-variance metrics like turnoversMARKET: An adjustment made if our initial projection is far off the AP Poll and/or betting market

In a college football or NFL pick’em pool?Get an edge with our Football Pick’em Picks

 

The Relative Importance Of Rankings Factors

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.

Nebraska: High Hopes vs. Statistical Profile

As one quick example of our market adjustment, though, take No. 24 Nebraska.

With the team entering Year Two under celebrated head coach Scott Frost, AP voters and betting market odds are expecting a big leap in performance from the Cornhuskers, despite a disappointing last season and a general recent downtrend in the quality of the program.

It’s a big vote of confidence from the media and the market that Frost is a leadership talent and will hit his stride this season, because from a historical data perspective alone, such a big jump in performance would seem to be highly unlikely.

In outlier cases like Nebraska’s, we believe the betting market will do at least as good a job of projecting the “Coach Frost Impact” as we could do on our own.

So instead of doing a bunch of custom research and making our best guesses, we simply make a judgment call to adjust Nebraska’s predictive ratings significantly toward the market consensus.

College Football Preseason Rankings Highlights

Similar to last year, our 2019 preseason ratings have a clear top two teams that are well ahead of the field. Last season we had No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Clemson. This year they’re flipped with Clemson at No. 1, but only by a rating difference of 0.1 points. So it’s a virtual tie.People tend to fixate on rankings, but looking at ratings is more important. Yes, Ohio State ranks No. 5, but the difference between the Buckeyes and the two top contenders is roughly a touchdown on a neutral field. That’s not very close, and it’s about the same difference between Ohio State and No. 13 Penn State.The first real cluster of teams happens at the bottom of the Top 10. No. 7 Oklahoma, No. 8 Florida, and No. 9 Notre Dame are all with two points of No. 6 LSU. In other words, the difference between No. 9 Notre Dame and No. 6 LSU is less than the difference between No. 6 LSU and No. 5 Ohio State.Alabama may be the heavy favorite in the SEC, but the three most likely teams to challenge the Crimson Tide (Georgia, LSU, and Florida) are among the five teams in our Top 25 that benefit most from a returning talent boost. Georgia is the No. 1 ranked team in our RETURN metric this year.We rate Washington, Oregon, and Utah — the three favorites in the Pac-12 — all within 1.6 points of each other on a neutral field.Oklahoma got our biggest luck adjustment upward, meaning that last year’s results could have been a little better even with just average luck in areas such as turnovers. Meanwhile, Utah is in our Top 20 despite the biggest downward adjustment due to luck. The Utes are “saved” by being second-best in terms of returning player continuity in key stat categories.Nebraska, Texas, Oregon and Ohio State got our biggest market adjustments upward. Ohio State has lost a lot of key stat production from departing players, but the Buckeyes also have a track record of reloading. Nebraska and Oregon each enter year two with their current head coaches, so improvements are expected. Texas made a leap forward in Tom Herman’s second season; the Longhorns are dragged down by a low PROGRAM rank because of relatively poor performance from 2015-2017, but the market doesn’t appear to be spooked by that fact.USC, meanwhile, joins Nebraska as one of only two teams that finished last year outside the Top 40 in our predictive rankings, but made the jump into this year’s preseason Top 25. USC’s projected rebound is more traditionally in line with our predictive factors; a recent legacy of performance before last year, an above-average level of returning production, and a hint of likely luck improvement more than make up for USC’s disappointing 2018 rating.

2019 TeamRankings College Football Preseason Rankings (All Teams)

TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
1	Clemson	30.9	25.1	5.2	0.7	-1.5	1.5
2	Alabama	30.8	23.7	6.2	0.1	-1.6	2.5
3	Georgia	28.0	17.0	2.0	5.7	0.9	2.5
4	Michigan	25.3	14.7	4.3	0.7	0.1	5.5
5	Ohio State	22.9	14.2	5.3	-4.1	0.5	7.0
6	Louisiana State	20.8	11.6	3.4	4.3	-1.0	2.5
7	Oklahoma	20.5	15.1	4.9	-1.7	1.1	1.0
8	Florida	19.3	11.7	1.9	4.0	-1.3	3.0
9	Notre Dame	18.8	12.6	2.8	0.1	-1.2	4.5
10	Texas A&M	16.9	12.1	2.0	0.7	0.7	1.5
11	Auburn	16.8	11.1	2.6	-1.9	-0.5	5.5
12	Washington	16.6	9.2	4.1	-2.5	-0.3	6.0
13	Penn State	15.6	12.1	2.3	-2.6	-0.8	4.5
14	Michigan State	15.3	4.7	1.7	4.2	-0.3	5.0
15	Oregon	15.1	4.5	1.1	3.1	-0.6	7.0
16	Utah	15.0	8.1	2.1	4.6	-1.7	2.0
17	Wisconsin	14.6	6.2	3.2	3.4	-0.1	2.0
18	Texas	13.3	8.6	0.8	-1.9	-1.2	7.0
19	Mississippi State	13.1	14.2	2.1	-1.5	-1.6	0.0
20	Iowa	12.7	11.2	1.9	-0.8	-1.1	1.5
21	Miami	12.0	6.5	1.9	-0.3	0.4	3.5
22	Southern California	11.9	1.3	3.3	3.3	0.5	3.5
23	Washington State	11.1	8.8	1.8	-3.4	-0.2	4.0
24	Nebraska	11.0	1.5	0.9	0.8	0.8	7.0
25	Missouri	10.8	11.4	0.1	-1.3	0.6	0.0
TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
26	Central Florida	10.4	10.0	-2.3	1.6	0.2	1.0
27	Stanford	9.8	5.7	3.4	-3.3	0.0	4.0
28	South Carolina	9.6	5.2	-0.4	2.2	0.6	2.0
29	Memphis	9.4	2.0	1.8	3.8	-0.1	2.0
30	Tennessee	9.3	-0.5	2.4	3.6	1.9	2.0
31	Virginia Tech	9.1	-0.9	2.1	4.7	-0.4	3.5
32	Minnesota	8.7	3.7	0.4	5.6	1.0	-2.0
33	Boise State	8.4	7.7	1.9	-4.6	-1.6	5.0
34	Iowa State	8.3	5.6	-0.1	0.1	-0.7	3.5
35	Northwestern	7.9	4.5	1.1	-3.2	-0.5	6.0
36	Florida State	7.4	-3.5	3.1	0.6	0.2	7.0
37	Texas Christian	7.3	2.9	2.5	-1.4	-0.2	3.5
38	Purdue	7.1	4.8	-1.9	-2.7	-0.2	7.0
39	Syracuse	7.0	8.9	-0.8	0.3	-2.4	1.0
40	Cincinnati	7.0	7.3	-1.3	3.1	-0.1	-2.0
41	UCLA	7.0	-1.7	1.3	2.8	0.6	4.0
42	Houston	6.4	-0.7	2.1	2.3	0.7	2.0
43	Indiana	6.4	1.0	0.1	2.4	0.4	2.5
44	Virginia	6.1	5.0	-0.9	1.7	0.3	0.0
45	Kentucky	5.7	9.3	-0.4	-0.8	-0.4	-2.0
46	Oklahoma State	5.2	6.1	2.6	-4.0	-0.6	1.0
47	Arizona State	4.8	4.1	0.4	-2.6	-0.6	3.5
48	Arizona	4.6	-1.8	-0.5	2.6	-0.2	4.5
49	Baylor	4.5	0.2	2.3	2.9	3.2	-4.0
50	Pittsburgh	3.6	3.5	1.3	1.0	-0.2	-2.0
TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
51	Appalachian State	3.5	7.9	0.8	2.8	-0.9	-7.0
52	Army	3.5	5.6	-1.8	0.8	-2.2	1.0
53	NC State	3.3	5.4	1.6	-5.2	-0.4	2.0
54	Duke	2.8	3.7	0.5	-3.8	0.4	2.0
55	Boston College	2.3	4.5	-0.1	0.1	-0.3	-2.0
56	Brigham Young	1.3	2.3	1.2	1.0	0.8	-4.0
57	Texas Tech	1.0	5.8	0.8	-3.7	0.2	-2.0
58	North Carolina	0.6	-4.5	2.3	-0.3	1.1	2.0
59	California	0.4	0.6	1.3	-3.1	0.6	1.0
60	Vanderbilt	0.3	4.0	-0.2	-0.4	-2.1	-1.0
61	Mississippi	0.2	0.7	2.6	-5.8	0.7	2.0
62	Maryland	-0.2	2.9	-1.0	0.1	-0.7	-1.5
63	Wake Forest	-0.2	0.1	-0.2	0.0	0.9	-1.0
64	Utah State	-0.3	11.0	-0.8	-3.2	-2.8	-4.5
65	Air Force	-0.3	-1.1	0.1	0.5	0.2	0.0
66	Fresno State	-0.3	10.5	-3.4	-6.0	-1.5	0.0
67	West Virginia	-0.7	11.4	2.2	-7.0	-1.2	-6.0
68	Colorado	-0.8	-1.2	0.6	-0.3	1.1	-1.0
69	Tulane	-1.1	-3.5	-3.1	1.7	-0.2	4.0
70	South Florida	-1.5	-8.0	1.5	-0.9	0.0	6.0
71	Arkansas State	-1.6	-3.0	-0.5	-1.9	-1.1	5.0
72	Temple	-1.7	2.3	1.1	0.2	-1.2	-4.0
73	Arkansas	-1.8	-6.5	1.6	-2.1	2.3	3.0
74	Western Michigan	-1.9	-6.5	1.3	2.4	0.9	0.0
75	Kansas State	-2.0	0.5	1.1	0.3	0.1	-4.0
TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
76	Southern Methodist	-2.2	-5.6	-2.8	1.3	-0.1	5.0
77	San Diego State	-2.2	-4.4	1.2	3.2	0.7	-3.0
78	Marshall	-2.4	-1.7	-1.5	0.6	0.1	0.0
79	Southern Mississippi	-2.6	-4.3	-0.3	4.4	-0.4	-2.0
80	Florida Atlantic	-2.9	-4.1	-3.0	-0.1	-0.7	5.0
81	Georgia Tech	-3.0	3.6	1.3	-0.5	-0.3	-7.0
82	Ohio	-3.5	4.0	-1.1	-0.8	-1.0	-4.5
83	North Texas	-3.8	-1.5	-4.5	2.9	-0.7	0.0
84	Troy	-4.1	-0.8	-0.8	-3.8	-0.8	2.0
85	Illinois	-4.7	-9.9	-1.2	3.4	1.5	1.5
86	Northern Illinois	-4.8	-3.2	-0.7	2.5	0.1	-3.5
87	Georgia Southern	-5.0	-0.3	-0.6	2.1	-5.2	-1.0
88	Florida International	-5.3	-1.6	-3.5	3.4	-1.6	-2.0
89	Louisville	-5.4	-13.9	2.6	3.2	-0.3	3.0
90	Toledo	-6.2	-0.1	1.3	-0.8	0.4	-7.0
91	Louisiana Tech	-6.5	-6.0	0.2	0.1	0.7	-1.5
92	UL Lafayette	-6.5	-5.6	-3.4	-0.1	0.5	2.0
93	Navy	-6.7	-6.8	1.6	-1.3	-0.2	0.0
94	Tulsa	-6.9	-8.4	-0.3	1.5	0.4	0.0
95	Hawaii	-7.5	-8.5	-4.1	1.7	1.4	2.0
96	Nevada	-7.6	-2.4	-2.3	-0.5	-0.3	-2.0
97	Wyoming	-8.6	-3.9	-2.4	0.1	0.4	-3.0
98	UAB	-8.8	1.0	-2.8	-5.9	-0.1	-1.0
99	Oregon State	-8.8	-11.7	-1.9	4.5	2.3	-2.0
100	Miami (Ohio)	-9.1	-1.8	-3.4	-1.3	-1.2	-1.5
TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
101	Middle Tennessee	-9.8	-2.1	-0.8	-4.0	-0.9	-2.0
102	Buffalo	-9.9	-0.1	-3.2	-6.7	0.1	0.0
103	UL Monroe	-10.7	-9.3	-4.6	1.5	1.7	0.0
104	Rutgers	-10.7	-10.2	-2.4	1.5	0.5	0.0
105	Eastern Michigan	-10.9	-2.2	-3.4	-0.4	-1.4	-3.5
106	Western Kentucky	-11.2	-11.6	1.8	3.2	-0.6	-4.0
107	UNLV	-12.1	-11.2	-2.6	1.9	0.7	-1.0
108	Liberty	-12.6	-10.1	-1.5	4.1	-0.6	-4.5
109	East Carolina	-12.7	-13.9	-1.5	1.3	3.5	-2.0
110	Georgia State	-13.5	-14.1	-2.9	3.5	1.0	-1.0
111	Texas State	-13.5	-14.5	-5.5	5.5	0.9	0.0
112	Kansas	-14.0	-2.6	-4.4	-2.9	-4.0	0.0
113	Ball State	-14.5	-10.8	-3.8	2.4	2.2	-4.5
114	New Mexico	-14.8	-10.8	-1.7	-2.1	1.8	-2.0
115	Colorado State	-14.9	-12.8	-0.8	-3.3	0.0	2.0
116	Charlotte	-16.4	-8.9	-5.4	2.4	-0.4	-4.0
117	San Jose State	-17.2	-12.3	-2.6	-0.6	-0.7	-1.0
118	Coastal Carolina	-17.8	-10.3	-3.7	1.5	1.2	-6.5
119	New Mexico State	-18.2	-17.8	-4.4	2.2	0.3	1.5
120	South Alabama	-18.9	-15.2	-3.5	-3.5	1.3	2.0
121	Kent State	-19.0	-13.1	-3.9	3.1	-0.4	-4.5
122	Old Dominion	-20.2	-12.3	-3.3	-8.3	1.8	2.0
123	Central Michigan	-20.3	-13.3	-1.1	0.9	0.2	-7.0
124	Akron	-20.7	-9.9	-2.1	-2.0	0.2	-7.0
125	Texas-San Antonio	-20.8	-17.2	-2.9	0.5	0.9	-2.0
TR Rank	Team	2019 Rating	LAST YEAR	PROGRAM	RETURN	LUCK	MARKET
126	Bowling Green	-20.9	-15.1	-0.9	-4.9	2.0	-2.0
127	Connecticut	-21.9	-22.5	-2.4	-1.9	1.9	3.0
128	Rice	-23.0	-18.2	-4.4	-1.9	1.5	0.0
129	Texas El Paso	-24.2	-19.3	-5.0	-2.6	2.7	0.0
130	Massachusetts	-24.6	-12.1	-3.3	-8.1	1.0	-2.0

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.

If you liked this post, please share it. Thank you! Twitter Facebook