College Football Playoffs are Not Dictated by Preseason Polls

Reexamining College Football Preseason Polls and Their Impact on Playoff Outcomes

In recent years, there has been growing skepticism regarding the role of college football preseason rankings and their effect on the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process. As the season unfolds, debates arise on whether early media predictions unduly influence final decisions. In this editorial, we will take a closer look at the matter by comparing human polls with advanced metrics and exploring past seasons as case studies. Our aim is to dig into the subtle parts of the argument while maintaining a neutral tone that evaluates both sides of the debate.

While some critics argue that starting the season with low expectations might weigh teams down, the data reveals a more nuanced story. College football’s preseason polls—considered by some as a fun, albeit nerve-racking, way to stir up fan discussions—may not hold as much sway over final playoff outcomes as many believe.

College Football Preseason Polls: Setting the Stage for a Season

The tradition of preseason polls is deeply embedded in college football culture. Every year, coaches, sports journalists, and fans collectively shape early expectations based on last season’s performance, recruiting triumphs, and roster changes. Though these early rankings are popular, their predictive power over the course of a season is questionable. Critics wonder whether teams like the 2024 Big 12 champion Arizona State, picked to finish last by some, suffer a penalty due to these early rankings.

In many ways, preseason polls serve as both a barometer of public sentiment and a conversation starter for the upcoming season. However, as the season progresses, the initial opinions tend to lose relevance. Early matchups, which can include high-profile games for some teams and weaker contests for others, contribute to confusing bits that the polls may oversimplify. The unpredictable twists and turns of early season play make it tricky to base long-term predictions solely on a preseason ranking.

It is also important to note the psychological impact these rankings might have on teams. Being picked low could either serve as a motivator or place additional pressure on players and coaches. Yet, the data over recent College Football Playoff years suggests that teams starting unranked or ranked low can still overcome those early predictions and end up performing at the highest level.

Analyzing the Role of Advanced Metrics in College Football Playoff Decisions

Beyond the realm of traditional media polls, several advanced metrics have been introduced to offer a more systematic approach to evaluating teams. Programs such as the Massey ratings, Sports Reference’s Simple Rating System (SRS), ESPN’s Football Power Index (FPI), and SP+ have all been used to break down a team’s performance. These computer-based ratings rely on formulas rather than opinions, making them useful counterpoints to human evaluations.

There is a compelling case for considering these advanced metrics because they often reveal little twists that are overlooked by the human eye. For instance, teams with high preseason rankings frequently end up being penalized by the pollsters as the season unfolds. Meanwhile, teams that begin the season unranked sometimes find themselves being overvalued in later evaluations. Advanced metrics suggest that once teams start accumulating wins, their final performance tends to align more with objective measures of strength rather than early ranking expectations.

Below is a table comparing preseason poll positions with the final advanced metrics for a sample of teams in recent seasons:

Season	Team	Preseason Poll Rank	Final AP Poll Rank	Advanced Metrics Rank Average
2024	Arizona State	Last in Conference	Top 10	24 (Computer Average)
2023	Alabama	No. 5	Top 8 (by computers considered snubbed in AP)	Top 8
2022	Texas	Unranked	No. 25	Top 10 (by advanced metrics)
2021	BYU	Unranked	No. 13	36 (Computer Average)

This table highlights the common occurrence of discrepancies. While a human poll might initially pigeonhole a team based on past reputation or perceived reputation, advanced metrics underscore that performance during the season is the key driver. These ratings show that preseason predictions often become less relevant once actual competition begins.

Advanced statistics provide practical insights into the fine points of team performance, thereby diluting any supposed impact of early expectations on the final playoff decisions. Some seasons even illustrate that teams which were undervalued or overvalued by the polls ended up finding their true measure during the play, offering a compelling counterargument to claims of inherent bias built into early assessments.

The College Football Playoff Selection Process: Beyond the Preseason Hype

One of the most debated issues in modern college football is the role the preseason rankings play in shaping the parameters for playoff selections. As football programs prepare for each season, the focus frequently swings from early predictions to final playoff decisions. Yet the selection process is a multi-step procedure, one that takes into account results over the course of an entire season.

The CFP selection committee meets only later in the season, after teams have had the opportunity to accumulate wins and losses that reflect their ability against a broad range of opponents. In other words, while preseason rankings might ignite early debates, the ultimate selection is based on a team’s actual on-field performance rather than early forecasts. The sequence of meetings and discussions among committee members is designed to sort out the tangled issues and ensure that a team’s record and head-to-head results are ultimately the deciding factors.

Some argue that teams might be initially hindered by the stigma of a low-ranked preseason poll. However, our review of several seasons clearly shows that early expectations – whether positive or negative – largely dissolve as reality sets in. The early hype has little bearing on the later decisions made by the committee, and any residual effect is generally marginal.

This has been particularly evident in seasons where teams thought to be underdogs rose through the ranks with impressive performances, eventually securing top playoff spots despite being underrated at the season’s start. Conversely, teams with lofty preseason expectations have sometimes faltered, proving that nothing is set in stone once the games begin.

Case Studies: Lessons from Recent College Football Seasons

By taking a closer look at recent seasons, one can see the evolving relationship between preseason expectations and final playoff outcomes. Several notable examples from 2024, 2023, 2022, and even back to 2014 reveal that the early predictions lose their grip as the season progresses.

2024 Season: Big 12 Upsets and the Arizona State Conundrum

During the 2024 season, Arizona State emerged as a perplexing case. Despite being picked to finish last in their conference, the Sun Devils managed to achieve a top-four College Football Playoff seed. While it might be tempting to argue that early adversities handicapped the team, the final results suggest otherwise. Arizona State’s strong performance throughout the season allowed them to overcome the negative associations of early polls, proving that early low expectations do not necessarily cap a team’s ceiling in the playoff race.

Key takeaways from the 2024 season include:

A team’s ability to overperform despite negative preseason forecasts
Evidence that early buzz fades once teams prove their mettle on the field
An indication that the selection committee considers actual season performance more important than preseason hype

These points help clarify that while preseason narratives may be fun to follow initially, they often have limited long-term influence on playoff decisions.

2023 Season: Alabama’s CFP Snub and the Role of Advanced Metrics

The 2023 season produced one of the more contentious CFP decisions when a 12-1 Alabama team was edged out in favor of a 13-0 Florida State squad. At first glance, critics argued that the early preseason rankings – which had Alabama ranked higher than some of their competitors – contributed to the unexpected decision. However, detailed analysis using predictive metrics provided a more balanced perspective. Advanced metrics placed Alabama among the top eight teams, indicating that the committee might have been influenced more by late-season performance rather than initial impressions.

Several elements from the 2023 season are worth noting:

Advanced ratings revealed a disparity between anticipated and actual performance.
The final decisions by the selection committee reflected end-of-season metrics more than initial rankings.
Teams that began in the top 20 did not necessarily benefit by maintaining that status throughout the season.

These factors highlight that while preseason positions may set the tone, by season’s end the committee is more focused on the direct outcomes of games and head-to-head results rather than lingering early hype.

2022 and 2021 Seasons: Evaluating Unexpected Outcomes

The 2022 and 2021 seasons further demonstrate how initial predictions can be misleading. For example, in 2022, a team like Texas began unranked in the preseason yet produced a top-10 team by advanced metrics, only to finish relatively low in the AP poll due to an 8-5 record that included losses to highly ranked opponents such as Alabama and TCU. Similarly, in 2021, BYU’s leap from an unranked preseason position to a top-15 finish underlined the idea that teams can defy early expectations based on real-world performance.

Observations from these seasons include:

Early opinions often change as teams either build or fail to meet expectations.
Advanced metrics and computer averages provide a more continuous evaluation as opposed to the static nature of preseason polls.
Unranked or low-ranked teams have the potential to surprise both voters and fans, indicating that preseason lists are merely an initial snapshot.

These examples further support the argument that the committee’s final decisions are not significantly swayed by the nerve-racking early assessments, but rather by how teams perform when it counts the most.

Understanding the Interplay Between Human Polling and Advanced Metrics

The debate between human pollsters and computer-driven advanced metrics is one that goes back many seasons. While traditional polling is influenced by factors such as media narratives, past records, and general sentiment, computer models derive their conclusions solely from statistical formulas. In many cases, these numbers help identify subtle details in team performance that polled opinions might overlook.

Consider the following points when comparing the two approaches:

Human polls are subject to bias based on reputation, historical performance, and media hype.
Advanced metrics provide a consistent, objective method of evaluating the quality of teams based on wins, losses, and the quality of opponents.
The discrepancies between human and computer evaluations often reveal that teams starting with high preseason rankings might be punished later if they underperform relative to expectations.

Furthermore, the data shows that teams starting unranked typically experience an initial surge in momentum upon being noticed by computer averages and eventually by opinion polls. In other words, the final outcomes of the season often realign with objective, on-field performance rather than the early anecdotal assessments made before any game was played.

These findings suggest that while human polls offer an entertaining conversation starter for fans, their influence over the final playoff selections is limited. Instead, the selection process tends to rely on a combination of statistically sound evaluations and actual game outcomes to determine which teams earn a spot in the playoff bracket.

The Role of the CFP Selection Committee in Smoothing Out Early Biases

The CFP selection committee, tasked with choosing the teams for the playoff, faces the challenging duty of working through the tangled issues that arise each season. Critics sometimes speculate whether preseason human polls might cloud the judgment of selection committee members. However, the committee’s meetings and final evaluations occur only after teams have had a chance to compile significant win-loss records and prove themselves on the field.

This timeline allows the committee to sort out the initial biases that might affect early assessments. By the time selections are made, the focus shifts to a team’s performance across the season, including crucial victories, strength of schedule, and head-to-head matchups. The committee’s process is thus designed to find a path away from early speculation and instead prioritize what each team has demonstrably accomplished.

Some points of reassurance in this process include:

The time gap between preseason polls and final selection helps minimize the impact of early over- or under-valuations.
The commission relies on diverse data sources—including both human polls and computer metrics—to ensure a balanced consideration of each team’s performance.
The final decisions are based on a series of meetings and evaluations that account for the small distinctions in performance across the season.

In practical terms, even if a team like Clemson starts in the top 15 or is picked to finish second in their conference, the committee’s decisions are ultimately grounded in the actual win-loss record and the quality of opponents faced. This approach significantly reduces any residual bias that might stem from nerve-racking preseason narratives.

Perceptions Versus Reality: How Early Expectations Evolve Over a Season

The stark difference between early expectations and final outcomes often serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of college football. The early rankings that get fans heated about rival teams or trigger commentary across sports media typically do not withstand the test of time when measured against actual game outcomes. This evolution is partly because of the tricky parts that come with early games, where schedules may be uneven, and results can be heavily influenced by the initial jitters or experimental lineups.

A closer look reveals several important points:

Preseason polls are full of problems when it comes to accurately predicting the whole season’s trajectory because early matchups can be misleading.
Computer averages and advanced metrics provide a more consistent and less biased evaluation as the season continues.
The perceived advantage or disadvantage stemming from early rankings often balances out as teams prove themselves in head-to-head matchups later in the season.

For example, in the 2021 season, Cincinnati’s early positioning ahead of Notre Dame was not the sole reason for their eventual playoff selection—rather, it was a sustained performance throughout the year, including an impressive win over a key rival, that cemented their place. Similarly, teams that started with a modest rating often ended up outperforming early predictions when they demonstrated their true abilities on the field during the critical moments of the season.

This dynamic demonstrates that while initial expectations are fun to debate, they are not super important when it comes to the concrete outcomes that actually shape playoff decisions. The shifting landscape of a college football season makes it clear that long-term performance and adaptability are what count the most.

Examining the Data: Does Preseason Ranking Truly Matter?

It is a common belief among some college football enthusiasts that teams starting with lower preseason rankings are punished in the final CFP selections. However, when we carefully review data across multiple seasons, the evidence points in a different direction. Rather than systematically disadvantaging teams predicted to perform poorly, the selection process seems to show that early expectations tend to be overshadowed by how teams perform during the season’s crucial moments.

Several key findings support this view:

Among teams that started unranked but ended in the AP Top 25, the majority were eventually overvalued by voters compared to computer averages.
The proportion of teams that began in the preseason poll and later experienced a downgrade is roughly balanced by those that started unranked and received a boost in later evaluations.
Historical data reveals that over the past few seasons, the majority of teams finishing in the CFP rankings were those that delivered strong season-long performances rather than those relying on early hype.

For instance, our review of four seasons in the CFP era shows that out of 50 teams finishing ranked in the AP poll that began unranked, a majority were later valued higher by voters when contrasted with advanced computer averages. Conversely, 25 teams that showed up in the computer-based rankings were unranked by pollsters—a statistic that runs counter to the notion that preseason ranking alone sets a team’s limit.

The takeaway is that while early media opinions contribute to the overall narrative of a season, their long-term influence is considerably diluted once the season matures. The selection committee, by relying on both human opinions and systematic metrics, effectively figures a path that minimizes the lasting impact of these early projections.

Fan Perspectives: The Cultural Impact of Preseason Polls

Aside from their role in shaping playoff decisions, preseason polls play a significant part in the culture of college football. To many fans, these early predictions and heated debates are a key aspect of the sport’s charm. The polls ignite spirited discussions among supporters, drive rivalry narratives, and keep the season engaging long before the teams step onto the national stage.

It is important to separate the cultural phenomenon from the real decision-making process that determines playoff spots. While offbeat narratives and media hype add excitement, they are often just a forerunner to the real, on-field performance that ultimately counts. In a sense, preseason polls act as a way to get fans excited about the new season, even if they are not considered critical by the committee when it comes to final selections.

Some points that capture the fan perspective include:

Preseason polls allow fans to predict outcomes, engage in debates, and create early storylines for rivalries.
The rhetoric surrounding these polls often includes playful jabs about which team is “overrated” or “underrated,” adding to the overall entertainment value.
The excitement generated by these early picks can sometimes overshadow the more methodical approach taken later in the season by selection committees and advanced metrics analysts.

Ultimately, while preseason polls are a cherished part of the college football experience, it is clear that they serve more as a fan engagement tool than as a decisive factor in playoff selections. The reality is that the tough competition and performance under pressure during the season are what truly sculpt the final outcomes.

How the CFP Selection Process Minimizes Early Season Biases

One of the most reassuring aspects of the CFP system is its design, which inherently minimizes the possible effects of early season predictions. The selection committee’s decision-making process is structured to look at the entire breadth of a team’s performance rather than relying solely on early season reputations. This approach allows playoff spots to go to teams that consistently perform well and handle the tricky parts of the schedule as they arise.

The comprehensive review process includes several layers:

An initial evaluation that includes both human polls and computer averages
Regular updates through the season as teams play tougher opponents and encounter various challenges
A final series of meetings where historical data and head-to-head records are discussed in detail

The fact that teams like Alabama and Miami, which started in the preseason top 20, ended up facing significant scrutiny by the selection committee proves that early rankings do not guarantee success. Instead, the system is designed to reward teams that can prove themselves over the long haul, regardless of where they started the year.

This structured approach further suggests that while preseason narratives might appear intimidating or even off-putting at the start, they eventually wash out in favor of documented performance. It turns out that finding your way through the season’s maze is less about where you began and more about how effectively you respond to the challenges along the journey.

Balancing Advanced Metrics and Traditional Polls: A Path Forward

Looking ahead, the ongoing debate regarding the predictive power of preseason polls versus advanced metrics suggests that both systems have their merits. Traditional polling offers an accessible and engaging narrative for fans, while advanced metrics provide a reliable snapshot of performance when the stakes are highest. The ideal approach might be a balanced one, where both perspectives are considered in tandem.

Several suggestions for moving forward in this debate include:

Integrating advanced metrics more openly into the playoff selection conversations to provide a clearer picture of team performance.
Maintaining the tradition of preseason polls as a way to spark discussion and maintain fan engagement, without overemphasizing their long-term implications.
Encouraging transparency in the selection process so that the criteria used by the committee are well understood and rooted in measurable performance indicators.

This balanced approach may help address the tangled issues that arise when trying to reconcile early opinions with actual performance. By openly discussing the strengths and limitations of both human polls and computer-generated rankings, stakeholders can work together to create an environment in which playoff selections are viewed as fair and reflective of true team quality.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the most deserving teams—those that manage their way through a season full of twists and turns—are rewarded with playoff spots. Such an approach balances early enthusiasm against the practical demands of consistent season-long performance.

Concluding Thoughts: The Real Influence of Preseason Polls on College Football Playoffs

After evaluating multiple seasons and comparing human opinions with advanced metrics, it becomes evident that preseason polls, while a fun and engaging tradition, are not the decisive element in CFP selections. Although initial rankings stir up excitement and foster lively debates in locker rooms and around televisions, they ultimately diminish in importance once the season is in full swing.

Even though a team’s early rating can be seen as a preliminary indicator of where expectations lie, the selection committee clearly places super important emphasis on real-world outcomes over early predictions. When viewed through the lens of advanced computer averages, many teams that were either overrated or underrated in the preseason managed to capture their true standing by the end of the season.

This outcome is particularly significant for teams that were predicted to underperform. The data shows that many of these teams not only corrected early misjudgments but also emerged as strong contenders, securing playoff spots and proving that initial bias can be overcome with resilience and consistent performance.

In summary, while the fan culture around preseason polls will undoubtedly continue to be a cherished part of college football, it is the documented achievements during the season that truly determine playoff outcomes. The current system, using a mix of human judgment and advanced metrics, shows that the final decisions are based on careful evaluations of performance rather than the nerve-racking early season chatter.

This balanced view, which takes into account both the intangible excitement of preseason predictions and the measurable successes during the season, offers a comprehensive understanding of the CFP selection process. It ensures that the final rankings reflect a team’s ability to find its way through a series of challenging matchups, rather than simply relying on initial perceptions.

As college football continues to evolve—and with discussions about potential playoff expansions and revised selection criteria on the horizon—the dialogue about the interplay between preseason polls and advanced metrics is likely to persist. What remains clear is that while early expectations create engaging narratives, they are ultimately just the starting point in a long and complicated journey. The true test lies in how teams manage their way through the season, overcome overwhelming challenges, and demonstrate their prowess on the field when it matters most.

By embracing both the cultural charm of preseason predictions and the hard numbers provided by advanced metrics, the world of college football can continue to thrive in both fan enthusiasm and competitive integrity. In this way, even after several nerve-racking weeks of early-season debates, the final outcomes stand as a testament to the true spirit of the game—one that rewards performance, perseverance, and the ability to figure a path through every twist and turn on the road to the College Football Playoff.

Originally Post From https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6542825/2025/08/11/college-football-preseason-polls-rankings-playoff/