And so we begin. My annual college football series typically starts in February, but the effects of the spring portal window — namely, that I didn’t want to write a preview that would be outdated within days — dictated that we wait a bit. But now it’s time. Starting in a few days, we’ll preview one conference per week.
First, however, we must update the numbers. I released initial 2024 SP+ projections in early February, as is customary, but now that almost every team has released official 2024 rosters (still waiting on you, Air Force and Coastal Carolina) and the spring portal dance has mostly slowed to a crawl, it’s time to do it again.
Below are updated SP+ projections for the coming season. A quick reminder: Preseason projections are based on three factors.
1. Returning production. The returning production numbers are based on rosters I have updated as much as possible to account for transfers and attrition. The combination of last year’s SP+ ratings and adjustments based on returning production makes up more than half of the projections formula.
2. Recent recruiting. This piece informs us of the caliber of a team’s potential replacements (and/or new stars) in the lineup. It is determined by the past few years of recruiting rankings in diminishing order (meaning the most recent class carries the most weight). This is also impacted by the recruiting rankings of incoming transfers, an acknowledgment that the art of roster management is now heavily dictated by the transfer portal. This piece makes up about one-third of the projections formula.
3. Recent history. Using a sliver of information from the previous four seasons or so gives us a good measure of overall program health. It stands to reason that a team that has played well for one year is less likely to duplicate that effort than a team that has been good for years on end (and vice versa), right?
(One other reminder: SP+ is a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency. It is a predictive measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football, not a résumé ranking, and along those lines, these projections aren’t intended to be a guess at what the AP Top 25 will look like at the end of the season. These are simply early offseason power rankings based on the information we have been able to gather to date.)
Here are the full, updated rankings:
Minimal changes near the top
More than 20 teams moved up or down at least 10 spots compared to February’s rankings, due to either transfer portal addition/attrition or me getting a much better read on returning production, for better or worse, after official roster releases. Not much changed at the top, though. Alabama and Michigan traded places at Nos. 5 and 6, LSU and Notre Dame traded places at 9 and 10, and the only top-20 teams to move more than one spot were Clemson (from 16th to 14th) and Miami (from 21st to 19th). We certainly understand the balance of power pretty well as we head into the summer months.
That goes for conferences, too. In terms of average projected SP+ rating, the rankings remain the same.
Average SP+ rating by conference
SEC (16.1)
Big Ten (9.9)
Big 12 (5.6)
ACC (5.0)
Sun Belt (-7.1)
Mountain West (-8.4)
AAC (-9.1)
Conference USA (-11.4)
MAC (-12.8)
Top three conferences by average offensive SP+: SEC, Big 12, ACC
Top three conferences by average defensive SP+: Big Ten, SEC, ACC
The Big Ten has easily the worst collective offense of any of the power conferences, and that remains the case despite the addition of good 2023 offenses in Oregon, Washington and USC. The conference’s average offensive SP+ rating is closer to the Sun Belt’s than anyone else’s in what I guess we’ll now call the Power 4, but with six of the top seven projected defenses, it continues to reign supreme on that side of the ball. We might have completely broken geography with this last set of realignment moves, but the Big Ten’s identity remains strong.
An approximate CFP contenders list
It gives me a headache just thinking about the endless strength-of-schedule arguments that await us in the coming era, in which the Power 4 is really a Power 2 (SEC, Big Ten) and Other 2 (Big 12, ACC) and we entrust the College Football Playoff committee to discern between a 9-3 SEC team and a 10-2 ACC team. It’s not going to be pretty.
To help set the table, however, I wanted to briefly dive into win projections and strength-of-schedule rankings. I base SP+ strength-of-schedule ratings on a simple premise: How would the average top-five team fare against your schedule? If you have Florida‘s schedule, which features four projected top-nine teams (and nine top-25s), the average top-five team would produce just a 0.762 win percentage, or about 9.1 wins on average. That’s absolutely brutal, and it’s why, despite fielding what should be a borderline top-30 team, the Gators start out with only a 27% chance of achieving bowl eligibility. If they get to 8-4, give Billy Napier the national coach of the year award.
On the other hand, if you’re an average top-five team with Syracuse‘s schedule — one top-25 opponent, seven opponents projected 71st or lower and a No. 90 SOS ranking — you can expect an average of 11.5 wins (0.956 win percentage).
How different are each conference’s schedules this year? Let’s find out.
Average strength-of-schedule rating per conference
SEC 0.828 (equivalent to 9.9 wins for the average top-five team)
Big Ten 0.869 (10.4)
ACC 0.915 (11.0)
Big 12 0.924 (11.1)
MAC 0.960 (11.5)
Sun Belt 0.962 (11.5)
Mountain West 0.964 (11.6)
AAC 0.967 (11.6)
Conference USA 0.969 (11.6)
Averages don’t tell the whole story — strength-of-schedule (SOS) rankings range from first to 37th in the SEC, from 11th to 56th in the Big Ten, from 15th to 90th in the ACC and from 38th to 79th in the Big 12. But averages can still be useful, and the above numbers suggest that getting to the finish line at 10-2 in the SEC will be roughly the same accomplishment as going 11-1 in the Big 12 or ACC. (The Big Ten would fall somewhere in between.)
Let’s look at who has the best odds of doing that.
Odds of an SEC team going 10-2 or better: Georgia 78.6% (fifth in SOS), Missouri 63.3% (37th), Texas 63.2% (14th), Ole Miss 61.4% (24th), Alabama 52.3% (10th), LSU 43.3% (20th), Tennessee 23.4% (21st), Texas A&M 22.4% (22nd), Oklahoma 6.5% (third)
Odds of a Big Ten team going 10-2 or better: Ohio State 85.2% (25th in SOS), Oregon 80.7% (27th), Penn State 72.8% (34th), Michigan 57.2% (17th), Iowa 12.1% (35th)
Odds of a Big 12 or ACC team (or Notre Dame) going 11-1 or better: Notre Dame 44.4% (51st in SOS), Utah 21.1% (79th), Kansas State 20.9% (71st), Florida State 17.1% (32nd), SMU 13.4% (82nd), Clemson 12.4% (30th), Miami 11.5% (58th), Arizona 7.3% (55th), Virginia Tech 6.2% (80th), Oklahoma State 6.0% (52nd), NC State 5.9% (65th)
We’ll call this an approximate contenders list for the expanded 12-team CFP. Georgia, Ohio State and Oregon all start out in great playoff shape, while some combination of high quality and permissiveness from the schedule gives Penn State, Missouri, Texas, Ole Miss, Michigan, Alabama and probably Notre Dame and LSU solid odds as well. After that, the picture gets pretty blurry.
Meanwhile, the Group of 5 is guaranteed to get a bid in the CFP field as well. If we set the bar at 11-1, who’s most likely to clear it?
Liberty again has a pillowy soft schedule, with zero projected top-50 opponents and only two projected higher than 93rd. It does the Flames a major disservice, really, because they should have a borderline top-40 team and could handle something stronger than the second-weakest schedule in the FBS. Combined with last year’s poor showing in the Fiesta Bowl against Oregon, I’m guessing the committee might not smile on an unbeaten Liberty team if a one-loss champion from one of the other conferences is an option. At least, not if that team has a schedule like that of Boise State or Memphis.
Your returning production update
With updated SP+ projections come updated returning production figures. A reminder: While returning production doesn’t correlate with pure quality — sorry, Iowa State and Stanford, but the below list doesn’t mean you’re a national title contender — it does correlate well with improvement and regression, particularly at the extremes.
Last year’s top four teams in returning production (Kansas, Missouri, Florida State and Michigan) improved from a combined record of 35-18 to 48-7, while the bottom four (Kent State, UAB, ECU and Stanford) went from a combined 23-27 to 10-38. It might not matter all that much if you return 65% versus 55%, but if you’re over 75% or 40%, your stock is likely to rise or fall accordingly.
Iowa State might not be a national title contender, but raw experience could make the Cyclones and Oklahoma State Big 12 contenders, at least. It could make Virginia Tech a borderline top-25 team again, too.
In all, the power conferences once again lead the way in returning production. Call it part of the transfer portal effect: Increased freedom of player movement means players gravitate toward bigger schools if they have the opportunity.
That said, it’s the Other 2 leading the way, not the Power 2.
Average returning production by conference
Big 12 (68.0%)
ACC (67.4%)
SEC (63.6%)
Big Ten (62.8%)
AAC (58.0%)
Mountain West (55.7%)
MAC (54.8%)
Conference USA (53.9%)
Sun Belt (51.7%)
The Big 12 has nine teams in the top 50 in returning production and only one lower than No. 75. It also has eight teams projected between 17th and 37th in SP+. It appears Kansas State and Utah will start out atop the favorites list there, but that title race could feature more twists and turns than all the other power conferences combined.
