College football analysts Colin Cowherd and Scott Van Pelt said preseason rankings are flawed and often inaccurate following the release of August 2026 polls.
This debate highlights a growing tension between the commercial appeal of preseason hype and the actual performance of teams on the field. As the playoff system evolves, the reliance on early projections can create misleading expectations for fans and stakeholders.
Critics argue that the predictive value of these polls is weak. Texas entered the 2026 season ranked No. 1, and Penn State entered ranked No. 2 [1]. Both programs later suffered losses to unranked teams in dominating fashion during the season [1].
These upsets suggest that the criteria used to establish early rankings may not account for the volatility of the sport. Van Pelt said the lists are pointless, citing a previous instance where a team ranked No. 20 in the preseason polls ended up being the dominant team of the season [2].
Perspectives on the utility of the polls vary across the industry. While some analysts view the inaccuracies as a fundamental flaw in how the sport is analyzed, others describe the rankings differently. The New York Times said preseason college football rankings are harmless fun and not something that needs to be taken seriously [3].
Despite the lack of precision, the polls remain a central part of the preseason cycle. The gap between projected success and actual results—such as the early falls of Texas and Penn State—continues to fuel the argument that the rankings are more about narrative than data [1].
“Preseason rankings are flawed and often inaccurate.”
The disconnect between preseason rankings and actual results suggests that early polls function more as marketing tools than athletic forecasts. When top-tier teams fall to unranked opponents and low-ranked teams dominate, it undermines the credibility of the polling process but increases the dramatic appeal of the 'underdog' narrative in US college sports.
