College football consensus top 50

Seven rankings scored into one. Betting markets and analytics models carry the most weight because they carry the least bias: money and math have no attachment to a brand name, while poll voters lean on reputation and preseason expectation.

College football · FBS · 2026 season

Consensus Top 50

6 of 7 sources scoring, across 3 tiers
built 2026-08-28
1 source excluded by the 30-day rule. ESPN FPI (38 days old, past the 30-day limit). Their columns are shown struck through for transparency, but they score nothing and the remaining tiers reweighted around them.
Betting markets · 44.4%Analytics models · 38.9%Official polls · 16.7%
#TeamConsensusFutures44.4%Aug 28Sagarin13.0%2026 preseasonF+13.0%2026 preseasonDRatings13.0%Aug 26FPIexcludedJul 21AP10.0%Aug 17Coaches6.7%Aug 4Spread
1
Ohio State
49.5scoreT1113111
2
2
Notre Dame
48.2scoreT1344345
3.5
3
Oregon
48.1score4222422
2
4
Texas
46.8score3565254
3
5
Georgia
46.1score5638533
5
6
Indiana
46.0score6451666
5
7
Miami
44.1score7776777
1
8
Texas Tech
41.5score91287101212
5
9
Texas A&M
40.7scoreT10810151188
7
10
LSU
40.2score810181391113
10
11
Alabama
39.9scoreT101491181311
5
12
Oklahoma
39.7scoreT129131012109
4
13
Ole Miss
39.3scoreT121511914910
6
14
USC
37.2score1411151413T1414
4
15
Michigan
36.4score15131216151616
4
16
Penn State
34.0score16181422171817
8
17
Tennessee
32.8scoreT17171623162018
7
18
BYU
32.3score2024211220T1415
12
19
Florida
30.9scoreT1716242018RVRV
11
20
Washington
29.9scoreT24191718261719
8
21
Utah
28.9score23291917312121
12
22
SMU
28.2scoreT21253121241920
12
23
Missouri
27.8scoreT21212230212525
9
24
Iowa
27.2score28202019252222
9
25
Auburn
25.4score1922263322RVRV
24.5
26
Louisville
25.4scoreT242729242724RV
5
27
Clemson
23.6score2728233619RV23
13
28
South Carolinaranked by only 5 of 6
21.5scoreT24232823RVRV
8.5
29
Vanderbilt
19.5scoreT2932254129RVRV
16
30
TCU
19.0scoreT2946332938RVRV
18
31
Houston
18.5scoreT31374432352324
21
32
Arizona
17.7scoreT3341342734RVRV
14
33
Illinois
15.2scoreT4230302839RVRV
15
34
Kansas Stateranked by only 4 of 6
13.8scoreT3639272541
14
35
Arizona Stateranked by only 5 of 6
13.3scoreT3145413544RV
13.5
36
Virginia
13.1scoreT3644382632RVRV
22.5
37
Virginia Techranked by only 5 of 6
13.0scoreT33423433RVRV
8
38
Pittsburgh
13.0scoreT3636363936RVRV
11.5
39
Florida Stateranked by only 4 of 6
12.2scoreT33403228RV
8
40
Georgia Tech
10.4scoreT3647434448RVRV
12
41
Nebraskaranked by only 5 of 6
10.3scoreT4531353130RV
14.5
42
Oklahoma Stateranked by only 3 of 6
8.4scoreT36RVRV
3.5
43
Kentuckyranked by only 4 of 6
8.3score4133405040
17
44
Wisconsinranked by only 4 of 6
8.3scoreT4526453743
19.5
45
NC Stateranked by only 5 of 6
8.1scoreT42493738RV
12
46
Minnesotaranked by only 4 of 6
6.1score344240RV
8
47
Mississippi Stateranked by only 3 of 6
5.9scoreT42384649
8
48
Boise Stateranked by only 4 of 6
4.7scoreT474950RVRV
21
49
UCLAranked by only 2 of 6
3.2score3542
7
50
Arkansasranked by only 3 of 6
3.1scoreT47483947
9.5
Betting markets 44.4%Analytics models 38.9%Official polls 16.7%
  • 1Ohio State49.5score
    FuturesT1Sagarin1F+1DRatings3FPI1AP1Coaches1
    Ranked #1 to #3 · spread 2
  • 2Notre Dame48.2score
    FuturesT1Sagarin3F+4DRatings4FPI3AP4Coaches5
    Ranked #1.5 to #5 · spread 3.5
  • 3Oregon48.1score
    Futures4Sagarin2F+2DRatings2FPI4AP2Coaches2
    Ranked #2 to #4 · spread 2
  • 4Texas46.8score
    Futures3Sagarin5F+6DRatings5FPI2AP5Coaches4
    Ranked #3 to #6 · spread 3
  • 5Georgia46.1score
    Futures5Sagarin6F+3DRatings8FPI5AP3Coaches3
    Ranked #3 to #8 · spread 5
  • 6Indiana46.0score
    Futures6Sagarin4F+5DRatings1FPI6AP6Coaches6
    Ranked #1 to #6 · spread 5
  • 7Miami44.1score
    Futures7Sagarin7F+7DRatings6FPI7AP7Coaches7
    Ranked #6 to #7 · spread 1
  • 8Texas Tech41.5score
    Futures9Sagarin12F+8DRatings7FPI10AP12Coaches12
    Ranked #7 to #12 · spread 5
  • 9Texas A&M40.7score
    FuturesT10Sagarin8F+10DRatings15FPI11AP8Coaches8
    Ranked #8 to #15 · spread 7
  • 10LSU40.2score
    Futures8Sagarin10F+18DRatings13FPI9AP11Coaches13
    Ranked #8 to #18 · spread 10
  • 11Alabama39.9score
    FuturesT10Sagarin14F+9DRatings11FPI8AP13Coaches11
    Ranked #9 to #14 · spread 5
  • 12Oklahoma39.7score
    FuturesT12Sagarin9F+13DRatings10FPI12AP10Coaches9
    Ranked #9 to #13 · spread 4
  • 13Ole Miss39.3score
    FuturesT12Sagarin15F+11DRatings9FPI14AP9Coaches10
    Ranked #9 to #15 · spread 6
  • 14USC37.2score
    Futures14Sagarin11F+15DRatings14FPI13APT14Coaches14
    Ranked #11 to #15 · spread 4
  • 15Michigan36.4score
    Futures15Sagarin13F+12DRatings16FPI15AP16Coaches16
    Ranked #12 to #16 · spread 4
  • 16Penn State34.0score
    Futures16Sagarin18F+14DRatings22FPI17AP18Coaches17
    Ranked #14 to #22 · spread 8
  • 17Tennessee32.8score
    FuturesT17Sagarin17F+16DRatings23FPI16AP20Coaches18
    Ranked #16 to #23 · spread 7
  • 18BYU32.3score
    Futures20Sagarin24F+21DRatings12FPI20APT14Coaches15
    Ranked #12 to #24 · spread 12
  • 19Florida30.9score
    FuturesT17Sagarin16F+24DRatings20FPI18APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #16 to #27 · spread 11
  • 20Washington29.9score
    FuturesT24Sagarin19F+17DRatings18FPI26AP17Coaches19
    Ranked #17 to #25 · spread 8
  • 21Utah28.9score
    Futures23Sagarin29F+19DRatings17FPI31AP21Coaches21
    Ranked #17 to #29 · spread 12
  • 22SMU28.2score
    FuturesT21Sagarin25F+31DRatings21FPI24AP19Coaches20
    Ranked #19 to #31 · spread 12
  • 23Missouri27.8score
    FuturesT21Sagarin21F+22DRatings30FPI21AP25Coaches25
    Ranked #21 to #30 · spread 9
  • 24Iowa27.2score
    Futures28Sagarin20F+20DRatings19FPI25AP22Coaches22
    Ranked #19 to #28 · spread 9
  • 25Auburn25.4score
    Futures19Sagarin22F+26DRatings33FPI22APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #19 to #43.5 · spread 24.5
  • 26Louisville25.4score
    FuturesT24Sagarin27F+29DRatings24FPI27AP24CoachesRV
    Ranked #24 to #29 · spread 5
  • 27Clemson23.6score
    Futures27Sagarin28F+23DRatings36FPI19APRVCoaches23
    Ranked #23 to #36 · spread 13
  • 28South Carolina21.5score
    FuturesT24Sagarin23F+28FPI23APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #23 to #31.5 · spread 8.5 · on 5 of 6 sources
  • 29Vanderbilt19.5score
    FuturesT29Sagarin32F+25DRatings41FPI29APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #25 to #41 · spread 16
  • 30TCU19.0score
    FuturesT29Sagarin46F+33DRatings29FPI38APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #28 to #46 · spread 18
  • 31Houston18.5score
    FuturesT31Sagarin37F+44DRatings32FPI35AP23Coaches24
    Ranked #23 to #44 · spread 21
  • 32Arizona17.7score
    FuturesT33Sagarin41F+34DRatings27FPI34APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #27 to #41 · spread 14
  • 33Illinois15.2score
    FuturesT42Sagarin30F+30DRatings28FPI39APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #28 to #43 · spread 15
  • 34Kansas State13.8score
    FuturesT36Sagarin39F+27DRatings25FPI41
    Ranked #25 to #39 · spread 14 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 35Arizona State13.3score
    FuturesT31Sagarin45F+41DRatings35FPI44CoachesRV
    Ranked #31.5 to #45 · spread 13.5 · on 5 of 6 sources
  • 36Virginia13.1score
    FuturesT36Sagarin44F+38DRatings26FPI32APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #26 to #48.5 · spread 22.5
  • 37Virginia Tech13.0score
    FuturesT33Sagarin42DRatings34FPI33APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #34 to #42 · spread 8 · on 5 of 6 sources
  • 38Pittsburgh13.0score
    FuturesT36Sagarin36F+36DRatings39FPI36APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #36 to #47.5 · spread 11.5
  • 39Florida State12.2score
    FuturesT33Sagarin40F+32FPI28CoachesRV
    Ranked #32 to #40 · spread 8 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 40Georgia Tech10.4score
    FuturesT36Sagarin47F+43DRatings44FPI48APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #35 to #47 · spread 12
  • 41Nebraska10.3score
    FuturesT45Sagarin31F+35DRatings31FPI30CoachesRV
    Ranked #31 to #45.5 · spread 14.5 · on 5 of 6 sources
  • 42Oklahoma State8.4score
    FuturesT36APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #34.5 to #38 · spread 3.5 · on 3 of 6 sources
  • 43Kentucky8.3score
    Futures41Sagarin33F+40DRatings50FPI40
    Ranked #33 to #50 · spread 17 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 44Wisconsin8.3score
    FuturesT45Sagarin26F+45DRatings37FPI43
    Ranked #26 to #45.5 · spread 19.5 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 45NC State8.1score
    FuturesT42Sagarin49F+37DRatings38CoachesRV
    Ranked #37 to #49 · spread 12 · on 5 of 6 sources
  • 46Minnesota6.1score
    Sagarin34F+42DRatings40APRV
    Ranked #34 to #42 · spread 8 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 47Mississippi State5.9score
    FuturesT42Sagarin38F+46FPI49
    Ranked #38 to #46 · spread 8 · on 3 of 6 sources
  • 48Boise State4.7score
    FuturesT47F+49FPI50APRVCoachesRV
    Ranked #28 to #49 · spread 21 · on 4 of 6 sources
  • 49UCLA3.2score
    Sagarin35DRatings42
    Ranked #35 to #42 · spread 7 · on 2 of 6 sources
  • 50Arkansas3.1score
    FuturesT47Sagarin48F+39FPI47
    Ranked #39 to #48.5 · spread 9.5 · on 3 of 6 sources
source ranks them higher than consensus lower than consensus widest disagreement not ranked by that source
How the composite is built. Each source is truncated to its top 50 and scored 50 points for first down to 1 for 50th; a team a source does not rank earns nothing from it. Every source is then weighted by its tier share, split within the tier. Tier shares renormalize over the tiers that published this week, so a tier going dark never breaks the ranking, and a tier carrying only one source is capped at 35% because one outlet is not a tier. Ties break on how many sources ranked the team, then its single best rank, then alphabetically. The tiers are ordered by how little bias they carry, not by how famous they are. A betting market is the least biased signal available: it is real money, continuously repriced by people who lose that money when they are wrong, and it has no reason to favour a brand, a conference or a television window. An analytics model is next, objective and results-derived, but it is one method with one set of assumptions, and different models genuinely disagree. Human rankings come last because their known failure modes all point the same way: voters anchor on where a team started the season, they reward reputation and blue-blood brands, they are slow to drop a name team that keeps losing, and they see a fraction of the games they rank. That is not a knock on the AP poll, which is a fine measure of what people believe. It is simply the reason it does not lead here. RV means receiving votes. The AP and Coaches polls publish 25 ranks plus a list of teams receiving votes, so below 25 they still carry real signal. Vote-getters are scored on their vote totals, and teams level on votes share an averaged rank rather than being ordered arbitrarily, but the cell reads RV because that is what the poll actually published. Spread is the gap between a team’s best and worst rank among the sources that rank them; the count under a team name says how many of the 6 scoring sources that is. A source whose data is more than 30 days old is excluded from scoring and shown struck through.
Download the breakdown (PDF)Share imageOne page, every source column. The share image is the ranking only.

Looking for the pros? See the NFL power rankings consensus.