News Article: The 2025 Pre Season College Football Polls Are Out

[BamaMoon]

If you look at the last 4 or 5 national champs, and maybe even further back than that, they've all had elite defenses, particularly in terms of yards/gm. Offensively, I wouldn't classify 2023 Michigan or 2021 UGA as an elite offense. Very good but not great.

Fair point, but it was not UM's defense that stopped us in 2023. I'll stop before I open up a can of worms about our offensive inconsistency!

 

[sanjosecrimson]

I've heard so much crowing from barn fans due to their new QB beating us last year. Do they do anything without us living rent free in their heads?

as often said, without Alabama, auburn is irrelevant.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

as often said, without Alabama, auburn is irrelevant.

Auburn is like Clemson in a lot of ways.

Including the fact that there really are people who have no idea where (what state) either is located.

 

[teamplayer]

as often said, without Alabama, auburn is irrelevant.

I would say they are irrelevant either way.

 

[BhamToTexas]

Penn State is that high because they have a returning senior QB. If they had a new QB like most other top 10 teams, they'd be much lower.

Clemson has a returning QB. LSU has one. Miami has Beck.

Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, ND, Oregon, and Bama all have new starters at QB.

Penn State will be 3-0 when Oregon comes to them. Then they don't play anyone until they go to the horseshoe. They have 2 games.

If Clemson beats LSU they may go undefeated. Their schedule is a joke except for that trip to South Carolina at the end.

Notre Dame actually starts off with a challenge. At Miami, then Texas A&M.

Exactly. People better just get comfortable with PSU and Clemson making the playoffs. It is almost certain this season.

 

[BamaMoon]

Auburn is like Clemson in a lot of ways.

Including the fact that there really are people who have no idea where (what state) either is located.

So, we've heard this for years, but is it really true in 2025?

I could see this being the cause before the advent of the Internet in the 20th century, but, I think very few college football fans today don't know where these schools are. JMO, of course.

I will say that Clemson has been a lot more relevant than Auburn in the last 15 years. Sure, the barn had their "once in a century" team they bought in '10 and they managed to back their way into another NC game a few years later, but Clemson became a dangerous and legitimate team and for several seasons, you couldn't discuss the best teams in college football without talking about them. And many talking heads are talking them up again this year. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

So, we've heard this for years, but is it really true in 2025?

I could see this being the cause before the advent of the Internet in the 20th century, but, I think very few college football fans today don't know where these schools are. JMO, of course.

I will say that Clemson has been a lot more relevant than Auburn in the last 15 years. Sure, the barn had their "once in a century" team they bought in '10 and they managed to back their way into another NC game a few years later, but Clemson became a dangerous and legitimate team and for several seasons, you couldn't discuss the best teams in college football without talking about them. And many talking heads are talking them up again this year. Time will tell, I guess.

They are to my surprise very closely matched statistically All-Time.

Of course AU has played in a much tougher conference but Clemson leads them in almost every category except head to head and Heismans.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Texas ranked No. 1 in preseason AP Top 25 for first time - ESPN

So there's a blue blood who.....has never been the preseason #1 in history.....

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Texas ranked No. 1 in preseason AP Top 25 for first time - ESPN

So there's a blue blood who.....has never been the preseason #1 in history.....

That’s actually shocking to me.

I’ll have to go look back at my old posts to remember what my previous stance on Texas is wrt being a blue blood or not.

I’ve probably said they are because I know they are near the Top 5 in Wins and Winning %

I’ll compare them to us with winsipedia…




No surprise we lead almost every category except for Head to Head and Bowl wins.

Arguments against them would be only being 17th in NCs despite being Top 5-10 in almost everything else and having such a mediocre post season record compared to other blue bloods.

Without context it kind of looks like they are historically choke artists who have always had great teams but can’t reach the Summit as much as they should.

Could also be why they have their reputation of ‘All Hat and No Cattle’… lol

But neither nor there I’m still really surprised they’ve never been preseason #1

EDIT: I found my most recent take on Texas and it looks like I relegated them to outside of Blue Blood Status

I think Texas was at worst on the fringes of being a blue blood until recent times.

"Alabama, tOSU, OU, USC and ND are your Elite Blue Bloods. They are the All-Time best of the best across the board with sustained success across all major statistical categories and in almost all time periods.

Texas, Mich, and Neb - are all teams that at one time obtained Elite Blue Blood status but have fallen on such sustained levels of mediocrity in recent times that they've lost that status and all are unlikely to regain it."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I should have qualified my blue blood comment with the blue font.

Without context it kind of looks like they are historically choke artists who have always had great teams but can’t reach the Summit as much as they should.

Could also be why they have their reputation of ‘All Hat and No Cattle’… lol

But neither nor there I’m still really surprised they’ve never been preseason #1

EDIT: I found my most recent take on Texas and it looks like I relegated them to outside of Blue Blood Status

Because in my opinion, Texas has never - never - been a blue blood. The closest they can qualify is the 1960s, when football was (almost) all-white. I've never taken them seriously, they're basically Michigan, who won games a long time ago.

TEXAS VS AUBURN COMPARED SINCE 1987 (AS OF END OF 2022 SEASON)
Texas 280-144-2 (.657, one national championship)
Auburn 292-147-5 (.658, one national championship)

OVERALL LAST 50 YEARS (EXCLUDES 2023)
Auburn: 387-200-7 (.657)
Texas: 376-186-5 (.668)

So.....is Auburn a blue blood?

 

[dtgreg]

Texas ranked No. 1 in preseason AP Top 25 for first time - ESPN

So there's a blue blood who.....has never been the preseason #1 in history.....

Ole Miss is as much a Blue Blood as Texas.

 

[Power Eye]

It will be very interesting to see how Texas holds up over the next few years under Sark. They are as well positioned as anyone to be extremely successful, but I’m still not sold on Sark as an elite HC. I think there are a lot of coaches who could have mirrored Sark’s success so far.

As for this season, I’m sure Manning will be very good, but take away his last name, and are his expectations from the media any different than Simpson’s, Gunner Stockton’s, or Austin Simmons’? Again, he may be great, but I feel like the media has built these expectations of him based off his name and moderate success filling in for Ewers against bad teams.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Ole Miss is as much a Blue Blood as Texas.

People look at Texas, those who think UT is a big deal, and reason thusly:
- wow, they have four national championships
- they're 5th all-time in wins behind Michigan, Ohio St, Alabama, Notre Dame
- they're 6th all-time in winning percentage among the power teams (excludes St John's and Linfield)
- they have dominant winning records against blue bloods Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and are tied at 2-2 with Ohio State
- they have epic moments like Vince Young's run, Freddie Steinmark and the 69 win over Arky, etc
- they've had 2 Heisman Trophy winners, exceeded only by the other five blue bloods and a few teams that have only one more Heisman winner

But I beg to differ.

1) Three of those national champions are between 1963 and 1970, a span of 8 years - and a long time ago.
Three titles in 8 years isn't a blue blood, it's a period dynasty that isn't long enough to be an era. Don't get me wrong, 3 titles in 8 years is outstanding, although it should be noted that they were blown out in the bowl game in that last title season. Sure, it counts, but if we're going the "but Alabama" route, it matters.

And these national titles were not only in a narrow span, they were a LONG TIME AGO, back before scholarship limitations, parity, or black football players South of the Mason-Dixon line (beyond just a token). Texas, with all their money, had substantial advantages over every other program in the USA probably from around the end of WW2 until the late 70s, but they had one relatively narrow window of dominance during a time the deck was stacked in their favor.

A school with Texas money should have more than four national titles.

2) Texas has a lot of wins - but most were a long time ago.

I noted this with the comparison of Auburn (1973-2022)
Auburn: 387-200-7 (.657)
Texas: 376-186-5 (.668)

During that same time frame, Auburn has a national championship (2010) and two other unbeaten seasons while playing in a conference SUBSTANTIALLY harder than what Texas faced, particularly from 1982-2022.

Texas currently has 961 wins.
2020s - 45
2010s - 71
2000s - 110
1990s - 74
1980s- 73
1970s - 88
1960s - 86
547 wins in 65 years (8.42 wins per season)
1902-59 - 414 wins in 57 years (7.14 wins per season)

So a look at the numbers without context says, "Wow, Texas has been a bigger winner since 1960 than they were prior to 1960." But they aren't. There 414 wins came in only 532 games, meaning they AVERAGED 9.2 games per season; the 547 wins took 857 games, meaning they AVERAGED 13.2 games per year. In other words, prior to 1960, Texas basically went 7.4-1.8 (.808) per season while since they have averaged going 8.4-4.8 (.639) every year. They've run up the wins total post-1970 by playing in a mediocre conference for about 25 of those years and then padded the stats with that gimme wins they got when 12-game seasons became the norm about 20 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, 961 wins is an impressive record. And yes, every big time school was going to see some downdraft once the scholarship limitations kicked in. But contrast Texas with ACTUAL BLUE BLOOD Oklahoma, who have the same number of national championships since 1986.

Oklahoma currently has 950 wins.
2020s - 42 (-3)
2010s - 109 (+38)
2000s - 110 (even)
1990s - 61 (-13)
1980s - 91 (+18)
1970s - 102 (+14)
1960s - 62 (-24)

OU wins since 1960: 577 wins in 787 games (.739)
OU wins pre-1960: 373 wins in 564 games (.699)

So sure, Texas has them by over 100 percentage points when the game is stacked heavily in the Longhorns' favor....and yet from 1955-2005, OKLAHOMA wins SEVEN national championships to four for Texas. No, you can't expect Texas to double Oklahoma's total to be a blue blood....but shouldn't they at least have to have AS MANY?

Yes, Texas leads the head-to-head with Oklahoma by 13 games....but they won 8 of the first 10 (one was a tie), so the series has been almost dead even since 1910. And I'm not a fan of Oklahoma, no, but folks will cry foul if I compare Texas to Alabama and include the Saban years. Back in 1960, Texas still had about 4.5 times as many people as Oklahoma did (it's now more than 7x).

Now - I DO think Sark is the right hire and will do well.

But I also think Texas AT MOST had blue blood status until around 1980 or so. Since then, they have as many national titles as Colorado, Georgia Tech, BYU, Washington, or Auburn.

Seriously - how can anyone say "Texas is a blue blood because of games and titles won a long time ago" but not give serious consideration to teams like Florida, FSU, LSU, or especially Miami?

 

[Ledsteplin]

ESPN's updated FPI ranking. Not sure what a power index is exactly, but looks like more meaningless stuff.

 

[Elefantman]

ESPN's updated FPI ranking. Not sure what a power index is exactly, but looks like more meaningless stuff.

Especially with zero data for this season. Every team should have the same FPI right now. FPI=0 But I'm no where as smart as the "experts" in Bristol, so what do I know.

 

[colbysullivan]

ESPN's updated FPI ranking. Not sure what a power index is exactly, but looks like more meaningless stuff.

View attachment 52215

Power index is basically “how good the teams actually are combined with who would be favored over other teams”

 

[lowend]

I'm not sure anything means anything anymore. It's all a crapshoot until you see how teams gel and how the mercenary players will impact their new schools.