College Football

2019’s projected 130-team college football rankings, from Alabama through UTEP

Here are the three pieces used to create these projections, along with some more notes at the bottom.

Feb 11, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

NCAA Football: College Football Playoff Semifinal-Orange Bowl-Alabama vs Oklahoma

Jasen Vinlove-USA TODAY Sports

The preseason S&P+ projections are a simple mix of three factors: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. To come up with 130-team projections for all of FBS, I create projected ratings based on each factor. Here’s how the process works:

For recruiting, I create a rating based on these weighted four-year recruiting rankings. The weighting (67 percent this year’s class, 15 percent last year’s, 15 percent the year before that, three percent the year before that) is based on what makes the ratings most predictive.
For returning production, I take each team’s returning offensive and defensive production (which are on different scales) and apply projected changes to last year’s ratings. The ranking you see below is not where they rank in returning production but where they would rank after the projected changes are applied to last year’s S&P+ averages. This piece makes up a vast majority of the overall S&P+ projections.
For recent history, I’ve found that getting a little weird predicts pretty well. This number isn’t a strict five-year average — last year’s ratings already carry heavy weight from the returning production piece. Instead, what you see below is a projection based solely off of seasons two to five years ago. Recent history doesn’t carry much weight in the projections, but it serves as a reflection of overall program health. We overreact to one year’s performance sometimes.

Enough talk. Here are the preliminary projected S&P+ rankings for 2019.

Projected 2019 S&P+ ratings (as of Feb. 11)

Rk	Team	Conference	Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
1	Alabama	SEC	1	1	1	35.4
2	Georgia	SEC	2	2	7	30.7
3	Clemson	ACC	10	3	3	29.9
4	LSU	SEC	3	4	6	25.8
5	Oklahoma	Big 12	4	6	5	25.0
6	Florida	SEC	6	5	23	24.6
7	Ohio State	Big Ten	5	7	2	24.3
8	Auburn	SEC	7	9	9	22.6
9	Michigan	Big Ten	12	11	12	21.6
10	Mississippi State	SEC	22	8	20	21.4
11	Wisconsin	Big Ten	28	10	8	20.1
12	Notre Dame	Indies	14	14	15	19.1
13	Texas A&M	SEC	8	13	24	18.7
14	Penn State	Big Ten	11	17	11	18.4
15	Washington	Pac-12	18	16	17	17.7
16	Missouri	SEC	38	12	39	17.5
17	Utah	Pac-12	40	15	27	15.4
18	South Carolina	SEC	19	20	46	14.9
19	Miami	ACC	23	25	19	13.9
20	Oregon	Pac-12	13	26	25	13.8
21	Tennessee	SEC	17	28	33	12.9
22	Oklahoma State	Big 12	37	23	22	12.8
23	Michigan State	Big Ten	27	27	21	12.6
24	Boise State	MWC	53	24	30	12.6
25	Iowa	Big Ten	39	22	35	12.5
26	Memphis	AAC	68	18	44	12.3
27	UCF	AAC	62	21	59	11.7
28	Florida State	ACC	15	43	4	10.9
29	USC	Pac-12	16	38	10	10.7
30	Virginia Tech	ACC	26	32	26	10.6
31	Appalachian State	Sun Belt	100	19	58	10.4
32	Stanford	Pac-12	21	39	13	10.0
33	Minnesota	Big Ten	42	31	48	9.5
34	TCU	Big 12	30	41	16	9.2
35	Texas	Big 12	9	51	37	8.9
36	Washington State	Pac-12	61	29	51	8.9
37	Kentucky	SEC	33	33	68	8.8
38	West Virginia	Big 12	45	34	40	8.6
39	Ole Miss	SEC	24	48	18	8.5
40	Baylor	Big 12	36	42	31	8.1
41	Virginia	ACC	44	37	70	7.9
42	Utah State	MWC	97	30	79	7.6
43	Iowa State	Big 12	49	40	69	7.2
44	Cincinnati	AAC	69	35	77	7.1
45	Nebraska	Big Ten	20	58	42	6.6
46	Indiana	Big Ten	41	49	49	6.4
47	NC State	ACC	32	54	29	6.3
48	Arkansas	SEC	25	57	41	6.1
49	Arizona State	Pac-12	31	53	54	5.9
50	BYU	Indies	75	44	65	5.7
51	Fresno State	MWC	93	36	98	5.5
52	Arizona	Pac-12	55	45	60	5.4
53	Vanderbilt	SEC	57	47	78	5.2
54	San Diego State	MWC	86	46	47	4.9
55	Texas Tech	Big 12	64	50	53	4.8
56	Syracuse	ACC	54	52	73	4.6
57	Northwestern	Big Ten	50	56	50	4.2
58	Purdue	Big Ten	35	61	83	4.2
59	Pittsburgh	ACC	51	63	32	3.8
60	California	Pac-12	46	60	64	3.4
61	North Carolina	ACC	29	74	38	3.2
62	Wake Forest	ACC	60	59	67	3.1
63	UCLA	Pac-12	34	68	28	3.1
64	Kansas State	Big 12	65	62	34	3.0
65	Duke	ACC	48	66	56	2.9
66	Temple	AAC	94	55	61	2.2
67	Maryland	Big Ten	47	67	80	2.1
68	Colorado	Pac-12	43	71	72	1.7
69	Troy	Sun Belt	83	64	85	1.4
70	Arkansas State	Sun Belt	95	65	71	1.0
71	USF	AAC	72	72	52	1.0
72	Boston College	ACC	63	75	57	0.7
73	Houston	AAC	74	77	43	0.3
74	Southern Miss	C-USA	80	69	87	0.0
75	Western Michigan	MAC	84	78	66	-0.5
76	Northern Illinois	MAC	101	73	81	-0.6
77	Marshall	C-USA	76	81	76	-1.2
78	Toledo	MAC	71	88	45	-1.3
79	Florida Atlantic	C-USA	70	83	88	-1.3
80	Army	Indies	103	70	108	-1.4
81	Georgia Southern	Sun Belt	110	76	92	-1.5
82	Ohio	MAC	99	82	82	-1.9
83	Nevada	MWC	92	80	110	-1.9
84	North Texas	C-USA	85	79	107	-2.0
85	SMU	AAC	73	85	105	-2.2
86	Louisiana Tech	C-USA	81	84	75	-2.4
87	Louisville	ACC	58	94	14	-2.7
88	Florida International	C-USA	78	86	119	-3.3
89	Georgia Tech	ACC	52	96	36	-3.5
90	Air Force	MWC	111	87	84	-3.5
91	Illinois	Big Ten	56	92	86	-3.8
92	Wyoming	MWC	104	89	100	-4.7
93	Miami (Ohio)	MAC	96	91	99	-4.9
94	Hawaii	MWC	102	90	125	-5.5
95	Tulsa	AAC	98	93	97	-6.0
96	Eastern Michigan	MAC	125	95	112	-6.4
97	Buffalo	MAC	112	97	109	-7.0
98	Tulane	AAC	89	99	106	-7.2
99	UL-Lafayette	Sun Belt	82	101	101	-7.2
100	UNLV	MWC	107	98	122	-7.5
101	Western Kentucky	C-USA	90	103	63	-8.6
102	Texas State	Sun Belt	127	100	127	-8.8
103	UL-Monroe	Sun Belt	128	102	118	-8.9
104	Middle Tennessee	C-USA	87	104	89	-9.3
105	Oregon State	Pac-12	66	105	96	-9.4
106	UAB	C-USA	91	106	74	-9.8
107	Kansas	Big 12	67	109	121	-12.1
108	Rutgers	Big Ten	59	111	95	-12.3
109	Colorado State	MWC	79	113	62	-12.8
110	Ball State	MAC	116	108	115	-12.9
111	Kent State	MAC	105	110	124	-13.7
112	Liberty	Indies	130	107	128	-13.8
113	East Carolina	AAC	77	116	91	-14.4
114	Georgia State	Sun Belt	106	114	114	-15.2
115	New Mexico	MWC	121	115	104	-15.3
116	Coastal Carolina	Sun Belt	129	112	120	-15.6
117	San Jose State	MWC	109	117	116	-16.2
118	Navy	AAC	120	119	55	-16.3
119	Old Dominion	C-USA	118	120	111	-17.6
120	Charlotte	C-USA	123	118	130	-17.8
121	New Mexico State	Indies	126	121	123	-17.9
122	Central Michigan	MAC	108	122	93	-18.5
123	Bowling Green	MAC	113	124	90	-19.4
124	Akron	MAC	122	125	103	-19.9
125	Massachusetts	Indies	117	126	113	-19.9
126	Rice	C-USA	119	123	126	-20.0
127	South Alabama	Sun Belt	115	127	102	-20.8
128	UTSA	C-USA	88	128	94	-21.7
129	Connecticut	AAC	114	129	117	-24.7
130	UTEP	C-USA	124	130	129	-28.5

Your projected conference leaders

NCAA Football: College Football Playoff National Championship-Clemson vs Alabama

Clemson’s Trevor Lawrence

Matthew Emmons-USA TODAY Sports

You can sort by each category above, but here are the top three projected teams in each conference:

AAC: No. 26 Memphis, No. 27 UCF, No. 44 Cincinnati
ACC: No. 3 Clemson, No. 19 Miami, No. 28 Florida State
Big 12: No. 5 Oklahoma, No. 22 Oklahoma State, No. 34 TCU
Big Ten: No. 7 Ohio State, No. 9 Michigan, No. 11 Wisconsin
Conference USA: No. 74 Southern Miss, No. 77 Marshall, No. 79 FAU
MAC: No. 75 WMU, No. 76 NIU, No. 78 Toledo
Mountain West: No. 24 Boise State, No. 42 Utah State, No. 51 Fresno State
Pac-12: No. 15 Washington, No. 17 Utah, No. 20 Oregon
SEC: No. 1 Alabama, No. 2 Georgia, No. 4 LSU
Sun Belt: No. 31 Appalachian State, No. 69 Troy, No. 70 Arkansas State

Projected conference averages

SEC (+18.1, down 0.5 from 2018)
Big Ten (+9.0, up 1.2)
Big 12 (+7.6, down 0.2)
Pac-12 (+7.2, up 1.1)
ACC (+6.6, up 1.3)
AAC (-3.0, same)
MWC (-3.1, down 2.3)
Sun Belt (-6.5, up 1.1)
MAC (-8.9, up 0.4)
Conference USA (-10.3, same)

In January I made revisions to the S&P+ algorithm, discussed here and elsewhere. One of a few tweaks was a conference-wide strength adjustment.

After the ratings are determined, I project previous games based on those ratings, and I track each conference’s average performance versus projection. For the top conference, I found that by the end of the season it was aiming low by two or three points per game per team. For the bottom conference, it was the reverse.
Shifting each team’s rating based on this conference average, and increasing the weight of said adjustment as the season progresses, basically improves against-the-spread performance by about 1 percentage point per season and cuts the average absolute error by somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 points per game.
That doesn’t seem like much, but look at the Prediction Tracker results and note how much of a difference 1 percent and 0.3 points per game could make to your projective ranking there.
It does, however, mean a fundamental shift in how mid-major teams are judged.

For a given season, shifting each conference team in this manner can mean that the best conference in FBS ends up with quite a few teams near the top. For the 2008 season (as presented in the example above), that means a heavy Big 12 presence. And for 2018, it means that the SEC dominated the ratings as much as any conference ever has — as much as SEC fans like to think their league dominates every year.

In the adjusted S&P+ rankings for 2018, SEC teams occupied six of the top nine spots in the rankings. That’s ... significant ... but transitively, it ties together pretty well. No. 1 Alabama’s only loss came to No. 3 Clemson (with wins over five other top-10 teams); two of No. 2 Georgia’s three losses came to teams in the top five; No. 5 LSU lost only to the No. 1, No. 9, and No. 11 teams while beating No. 7, No. 8, and No. 18; etc.

(This adjustment also means that national champion Clemson now ranks third instead of second. That’s awkward, but again, the conference-level adjustment makes S&P+ more accurately predictive overall. Nothing’s going to fit perfectly with our perceptions.)

So if the SEC was easily the best-graded conference in 2018 — far better than it had in any season since 2014 — and only a couple of league teams are on the bad side of the returning production measure, there’s probably no reason to think it will be projected much lower in 2019. And I would figure “10 teams in the top 21” qualifies as “not projected lower.”

What about unit rankings?

Alabama’s Dylan Moses

Marvin Gentry-USA TODAY Sports

Here are the same S&P+ projections, only with projected offensive and defensive ratings included.

Projected 2019 Off. and Def. S&P+ rankings

Team	Proj. S&P+	Rk	Proj. Off. S&P+	Rk	Proj. Def. S&P+	Rk
Alabama	35.4	1	51.2	2	15.8	10
Georgia	30.7	2	43.9	4	13.2	6
Clemson	29.9	3	45.2	3	15.2	8
LSU	25.8	4	38.1	15	12.3	1
Oklahoma	25.0	5	51.5	1	26.5	56
Florida	24.6	6	40.9	8	16.3	11
Ohio State	24.3	7	41.3	6	17.0	14
Auburn	22.6	8	35.9	24	13.3	7
Michigan	21.6	9	38.2	14	16.6	13
Mississippi State	21.4	10	33.8	32	12.4	2
Wisconsin	20.1	11	42.6	5	22.5	33
Notre Dame	19.1	12	34.5	29	15.4	9
Texas A&M	18.7	13	40.9	9	22.2	32
Penn State	18.4	14	31.4	51	13.0	4
Washington	17.7	15	35.8	25	18.2	16
Missouri	17.5	16	39.0	12	21.5	29
Utah	15.4	17	35.3	27	19.9	20
South Carolina	14.9	18	38.0	16	23.1	36
Miami	13.9	19	30.3	60	16.4	12
Oregon	13.8	20	37.5	18	23.7	40
Tennessee	12.9	21	38.7	13	25.7	49
Oklahoma State	12.8	22	41.0	7	28.2	69
Michigan State	12.6	23	25.1	96	12.5	3
Boise State	12.6	24	33.0	41	20.4	22
Iowa	12.5	25	31.8	48	19.3	18
Memphis	12.3	26	40.5	10	28.3	70
UCF	11.7	27	37.7	17	26.0	51
Florida State	10.9	28	28.9	72	18.0	15
USC	10.7	29	35.8	26	25.1	45
Virginia Tech	10.6	30	33.4	36	22.8	35
Appalachian State	10.4	31	32.0	46	21.5	30
Stanford	10.0	32	33.4	37	23.4	39
Minnesota	9.5	33	32.2	45	22.7	34
TCU	9.2	34	28.4	78	19.2	17
Texas	8.9	35	36.2	23	27.3	67
Washington State	8.9	36	37.3	20	28.4	71
Kentucky	8.8	37	29.9	63	21.1	27
West Virginia	8.6	38	37.4	19	28.8	77
Ole Miss	8.5	39	37.1	21	28.6	73
Baylor	8.1	40	34.2	31	26.1	52
Virginia	7.9	41	28.6	75	20.7	23
Utah State	7.6	42	31.8	47	24.2	44
Iowa State	7.2	43	28.1	80	20.9	26
Cincinnati	7.1	44	29.1	71	22.0	31
Nebraska	6.6	45	33.7	35	27.1	64
Indiana	6.4	46	33.0	40	26.6	59
NC State	6.3	47	30.2	61	23.9	41
Arkansas	6.1	48	31.3	52	25.2	46
Arizona State	5.9	49	32.7	43	26.7	60
BYU	5.7	50	29.8	66	24.1	43
Fresno State	5.5	51	26.8	87	21.2	28
Arizona	5.4	52	31.7	49	26.2	55
Vanderbilt	5.2	53	36.9	22	31.7	91
San Diego State	4.9	54	25.7	92	20.9	25
Texas Tech	4.8	55	35.2	28	30.4	83
Syracuse	4.6	56	30.7	59	26.1	54
Northwestern	4.2	57	24.3	100	20.0	21
Purdue	4.2	58	32.9	42	28.7	74
Pittsburgh	3.8	59	29.9	65	26.1	53
California	3.4	60	16.5	125	13.1	5
North Carolina	3.2	61	34.3	30	31.1	88
Wake Forest	3.1	62	29.9	64	26.7	61
UCLA	3.1	63	31.5	50	28.4	72
Kansas State	3.0	64	28.5	76	25.5	48
Duke	2.9	65	26.2	89	23.3	38
Temple	2.2	66	27.6	83	25.4	47
Maryland	2.1	67	29.2	69	27.2	65
Colorado	1.7	68	28.7	73	27.0	62
Troy	1.4	69	25.3	94	23.9	42
Arkansas State	1.0	70	27.6	82	26.6	58
USF	1.0	71	32.4	44	31.4	90
Boston College	0.7	72	27.7	81	27.0	63
Houston	0.3	73	40.0	11	39.7	118
Southern Miss	0.0	74	20.8	116	20.8	24
Western Michigan	-0.5	75	33.2	39	33.7	100
Northern Illinois	-0.6	76	18.9	120	19.5	19
Marshall	-1.2	77	22.1	111	23.2	37
Toledo	-1.3	78	33.8	33	35.0	107
Florida Atlantic	-1.3	79	30.0	62	31.3	89
Army	-1.4	80	31.1	55	32.5	94
Georgia Southern	-1.5	81	29.2	70	30.7	85
Ohio	-1.9	82	33.7	34	35.6	109
Nevada	-1.9	83	28.5	77	30.5	84
North Texas	-2.0	84	31.2	53	33.3	98
SMU	-2.2	85	24.9	97	27.2	66
Louisiana Tech	-2.4	86	24.1	101	26.6	57
Louisville	-2.7	87	26.9	86	29.6	78
Florida International	-3.3	88	29.7	67	33.0	97
Georgia Tech	-3.5	89	30.9	57	34.4	102
Air Force	-3.5	90	28.7	74	32.2	92
Illinois	-3.8	91	31.1	54	34.9	106
Wyoming	-4.7	92	23.0	107	27.6	68
Miami (Ohio)	-4.9	93	25.1	95	30.0	82
Hawaii	-5.5	94	30.9	58	36.3	110
Tulsa	-6.0	95	24.0	103	30.0	80
Eastern Michigan	-6.4	96	23.2	106	29.7	79
Buffalo	-7.0	97	26.7	88	33.7	99
Tulane	-7.2	98	21.5	112	28.7	75
UL-Lafayette	-7.2	99	30.9	56	38.1	114
UNLV	-7.5	100	33.3	38	40.7	121
Western Kentucky	-8.6	101	21.4	114	30.0	81
Texas State	-8.8	102	17.1	124	25.8	50
UL-Monroe	-8.9	103	25.9	91	34.8	105
Middle Tennessee	-9.3	104	21.5	113	30.8	86
Oregon State	-9.4	105	29.3	68	38.7	116
UAB	-9.8	106	19.0	119	28.8	76
Kansas	-12.1	107	20.4	117	32.5	96
Rutgers	-12.3	108	18.7	121	31.0	87
Colorado State	-12.8	109	24.1	102	36.8	112
Ball State	-12.9	110	23.5	105	36.4	111
Kent State	-13.7	111	24.6	99	38.3	115
Liberty	-13.8	112	27.5	84	41.3	123
East Carolina	-14.4	113	20.1	118	34.5	104
Georgia State	-15.2	114	26.1	90	41.3	122
New Mexico	-15.3	115	23.9	104	39.1	117
Coastal Carolina	-15.6	116	28.4	79	44.0	127
San Jose State	-16.2	117	18.2	122	34.4	103
Navy	-16.3	118	25.6	93	41.9	125
Old Dominion	-17.6	119	22.2	110	39.7	119
Charlotte	-17.8	120	14.6	126	32.5	95
New Mexico State	-17.9	121	22.5	108	40.4	120
Central Michigan	-18.5	122	13.7	128	32.2	93
Bowling Green	-19.4	123	27.5	85	46.9	130
Akron	-19.9	124	14.4	127	34.3	101
Massachusetts	-19.9	125	24.7	98	44.7	128
Rice	-20.0	126	18.0	123	38.0	113
South Alabama	-20.8	127	22.5	109	43.3	126
UTSA	-21.7	128	13.5	129	35.2	108
Connecticut	-24.7	129	21.0	115	45.7	129
UTEP	-28.5	130	12.8	130	41.3	124

Easily the most interesting tidbit to me here: Alabama’s defense projects 10th overall ... and just fifth in the SEC. After a down year by Bama standards (the Tide were seventh in Def. S&P+), Nick Saban’s squad now has to again replace most of its difference-makers. It’s easy to assume a rebound — Bama hadn’t finished lower than fourth in Def. S&P+ since 2010 and had finished first for four years running — but Saban will need quite a few new starters to play like All-Americans. Lord knows it’s happened before.

(Even with this merely awesome, but not historically amazing, defense, Bama still ranks an easy first overall thanks to an offense that is as loaded at the skill positions as any Bama offense ever has been.)

Stats vs. conventional wisdom

It’s pretty clear at the end of one season who will be picked atop the rankings for the next. In most Way Too Early Top 25s for 2019, Clemson is a virtually unanimous No. 1, Alabama a unanimous No. 2, and Georgia a unanimous No. 3. Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame make up spots 4-6 in some order, and some combination of Florida, Texas, LSU, Michigan, and Oregon rounds out the top 10.

Texas A&M, Washington, and Penn State are is most top-15s, and Utah, Wisconsin, Iowa State, and Northwestern are in or near the top 20.

S&P+ doesn’t disagree much at the top, even if there’s a slightly different order (Clemson’s third).

It thinks more highly of LSU (fourth versus a consensus of about ninth), and it doesn’t punish Auburn for always having a ridiculous schedule — the Tigers are projected eighth as opposed to the Way Too Early consensus of something around 23rd. It values another set of SEC Tigers (Missouri) more highly, too, and it’s more bullish on a couple of Big Ten teams as well (Wisconsin and Michigan State).

As a whole, though, advanced stats are a lot more useful in judging who’s overvalued than who’s undervalued.

S&P+ didn’t think highly of Northwestern (68th in 2018) or Syracuse (40th) despite nice win totals, and it doesn’t see much reason to change its mind in 2019 — when the Wildcats are projected 57th, the Orange 56th.

It also suggests we tap the brakes on Nebraska. The Huskers are projected 45th but are receiving plenty of top-25 votes from the humans.

Perhaps the most noteworthy disagreement between humans and this computer:

Texas is 35th???

NCAA Football: Sugar Bowl-Georgia vs Texas

Tom Herman

Derick E. Hingle-USA TODAY Sports

In 2015, Tom Herman’s Houston Cougars enjoyed a magical run. They went 13-1, rolled to the AAC title, and beat Florida State in the Peach Bowl. The numbers were unimpressed. UH ranked just 53rd in (the updated version of) S&P+, looking more like a 10-4 team on paper and propped up by five points per game of good turnovers luck.

In Houston’s 2016 preview, I wrote this:

Houston is going to be good. In 2016, something like a 9-3 record would be considered disappointing. This scenario plays out a lot in this sport, and it shouldn’t a surprise that it’s what the skeptical S&P+ ratings are projecting.

Houston improved to 39th in S&P+ ... and went 9-3. You can defy the numbers once, but it’s really hard to do it twice in a row.

Herman’s team might have something familiar going on heading into 2019.

In 2018, another Herman team defied both expectation and statistics. In his second year at Texas, his Longhorns ranked 32nd in S&P+ and, per second-order wins, had the look of an eight-win team. For every strong performance (namely, wins over Oklahoma and Georgia), there was a dud or near-disaster — a loss to Maryland, near-losses to Tulsa, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, etc. Against anyone but the top teams, they did the bare minimum; it bit them once and nearly did so many other times.

Still, they won 10 games, finishing with a win over a depleted but talented UGA in the Sugar Bowl. From that point forward, they were all but guaranteed to find a spot in everyone’s preseason top 10.

The final piece of the puzzle for Herman in Austin might not be filling in holes on the two-deep. It will be figuring out how to field a team that plays every game like the Sugar Bowl.

S&P+ doesn’t tend to trust teams that perform so inconsistently. Plus, Texas must replace a higher percentage of last year’s production than any other power conference team.

The Horns bring back quarterback Sam Ehlinger and receiver Collin Johnson as headliners, plus the fruits of successful recruiting.
They do not, however, return their leading rusher (Tre Watson), leading receiver (Lil’Jordan Humphrey), three honorable mention all-conference offensive linemen, their top three tacklers on the defensive line, their top two linebackers, and three of their top five defensive backs, including corner Kris Boyd, who led the team in havoc plays (tackles for loss, forced fumbles, and passes defensed).

Herman has signed two straight dynamite classes, and his Horns have what appears to be a manageable schedule for a top-10 team, if they can get by LSU at home. But they’ve got a lot of churn to overcome, and they used a lot of good fortune last year.

S&P+ is going to project them to win about seven games. A Herman team has defied stats a couple of times now, but they haven’t yet done it back-to-back.

OK, there might be one more team that stands out:

Tennessee is 21st???

Tennessee’s Josh Palmer (84) and Ty Chandler (8)

Dale Zanine-USA TODAY Sports

Jeremy Pruitt’s Vols might have more going for them than we realized.

For starters, Pruitt has recruited well. According to the 247Sports Composite, he inked the No. 21 class in FBS in 2018, then one-upped himself and signed the No. 12 class this year, despite what we’ll politely call a lack of proof on the field. Granted, recruiting has never been a problem in Knoxville, but ...
The Vols were crazy-young in 2018. They return more of last year’s production than any P5 team, and it would defy recent history if they weren’t to improve by at least a few points per game.

S&P+ projections are primarily made up of returning production and recent recruiting; Tennessee looks awfully good in both of those areas and therefore gets a potential boost.

There’s an obvious parallel: Georgia was mediocre in Kirby Smart’s first year, then paired heavy returning production with great recruiting to enjoy a major second-year breakthrough in 2017.

Tennessee is starting from a lot further behind. I’m doubting there’s a run to the national title game in the works. Still, Pruitt and his coaches have vastly more to work with in 2019.

See More: