Every Saturday during the college football season we normally project how that day’s results will reshuffle the AP Top 25. This year we tried something different: predicting the preseason AP Top 25 before any 2025 games are played. With no game results or preseason AP ballots to use as a baseline, this projection leans on context, voter tendencies and the recently released Coaches Poll as a proxy for how media voters might think.
Why the Coaches Poll matters: last preseason, the AP and Coaches polls shared the exact same top seven and mostly mirrored each other across the top 21. That historical overlap gives us a reasonable starting point, even if preseason rankings are necessarily part analysis, part narrative and part vibes. Changes in the AP voting pool, injury updates and offseason moves can shift opinions quickly once ballots start arriving.
Our projected preseason AP Top 25 (with the final 2024 AP ranking where available) and the rationale for each pick:
1. Texas (Final 2024 AP — 4)
– A top billing in the Coaches Poll and sustained hype around talent and roster continuity make the Longhorns strong contenders for the preseason No. 1 spot. Arch Manning’s presence would only amplify support, but the roster alone is compelling.
2. Ohio State (1)
– The reigning champs have less returning experience than some peers but maintain a high floor thanks to their program’s ability to reload. Expect them near the top on most ballots.
3. Penn State (5)
– Likely to receive some first-place votes as in the Coaches Poll, though a few outlier ballots could push them down a spot or two. Stability and proven returning personnel strengthen their case.
4. Georgia (6)
– Program pedigree and recent success keep Georgia high in preseason ballots. They may not lead many ballots, but their floor is very strong.
5. Clemson (14)
– Strong returning talent, familiarity at quarterback with Cade Klubnik and the hire of coordinator Tom Allen give Clemson a high ceiling in preseason voting, possibly inside the top eight.
6. Notre Dame (2)
– Last season’s runner-up faces quarterback uncertainty that could limit unanimous early support. Still, the program’s recent success keeps Notre Dame squarely in top-10 conversations.
7. Oregon (3)
– Losing a program-record number of NFL draftees suggests a slight step back, but recruiting and coaching continuity prevent a big slide in preseason thinking.
8. Alabama (17)
– A year to implement Kalen DeBoer’s vision and a roster with championship expectations should nudge Alabama back into the top 10 of preseason thinking.
9. LSU (NR)
– The Tigers have the talent to contend in the SEC and for a playoff spot; quarterback injury news will be watched closely by AP voters when they submit ballots.
10. Miami (18)
– Carson Beck’s return from elbow surgery and a strong line of scrimmage on both sides put Miami back in early top-10 consideration if offseason health holds.
11. Illinois (16)
– Returning quarterback Luke Altmyer and momentum from a 10-win season make Illinois a logical preseason top-25 entrant as Bret Bielema seeks consistency.
12. South Carolina (19)
– LaNorris Sellers’ development and visible player progress under Shane Beamer make the Gamecocks a team voters will reward with preseason recognition.
13. Arizona State (7)
– Last year’s late-season surge earned the Sun Devils attention; however, perceived AP voter bias toward Power Five programs might nudge them slightly down from some coaches’ placement.
14. Michigan (NR)
– After a down year relative to recent standards, lingering confidence in Michigan’s talent—especially at quarterback—should be enough to bring the Wolverines back into the poll.
15. Florida (NR)
– Talent remains obvious when healthy. Injury concerns and a tough schedule create a split perception among voters; we project Florida in the mid-teens to low 20s range, settling in the middle.
16. Ole Miss (11)
– Lane Kiffin’s consistent roster reloading and new high school talent make Ole Miss a respected preseason pick despite losing some production.
17. SMU (12)
– A smooth conference transition and returning efficient quarterback play make SMU a legitimate top-20 choice for voters valuing roster continuity and recent results.
18. Tennessee (9)
– Losing a quarterback in the portal changes narratives, but overall roster construction and recent success keep Tennessee in preseason top-25 conversations.
19. Indiana (10)
– Curt Cignetti’s turnaround program draws national attention after a big year; voter curiosity and momentum boost Indiana into the poll.
20. Texas Tech (NR)
– Significant offseason investment and strong recruiting momentum place Texas Tech on the radar and back in the preseason AP conversation for the first time since 2008.
21. Texas A&M (NR)
– Perennial preseason recognition based on talent accumulation continues under Mike Elko, even if translating that into a top-25 finish is the season’s real test.
22. Kansas State (NR)
– After a 9-win season that fell short of early expectations, K-State and quarterback Avery Johnson project as a team poised for a bounce-back and preseason votes.
23. Iowa State (15)
– Coming off a program-best 11-win season, the Cyclones should receive preseason respect, though AP voters may weigh coaching and roster changes differently than coaches did.
24. Boise State (8)
– Despite losing a star playmaker, Boise State’s roster strength in the Mountain West earns them a likely preseason nod.
25. Oklahoma (NR)
– Left off the preseason Coaches Poll, Oklahoma still carries enough narrative and offseason attention to break through on the media side of the ball.
Methodology and caveats
– This projection primarily used last week’s Coaches Poll as a baseline, historical alignment between the two polls, roster turnover, injury reports and narrative momentum. Preseason polls are inherently subjective: voter turnover year to year, differing criteria (ceiling vs. floor), injury timing and late recruiting or transfer moves can cause notable divergence once AP ballots are submitted.
What to watch when the actual AP poll is released
– First-place vote distribution and where voters place squads with quarterback uncertainty (Notre Dame, Florida, Tennessee) will tell us whether ballots reward recent success, roster talent or perceived upside.
– Any late injury reports (quarterbacks or other impact players) can shift a handful of ballots and change spots in a crowded top 25.
– New voices in the AP voting panel may introduce different biases and alter how conferences are represented.
Summary
– Predicting a preseason poll without ballots is part art and part educated guess. Using the Coaches Poll as a guide and accounting for talent, coaching stability and offseason developments produces a reasonable projection, but expect variance once media ballots are cast. The early list favors Texas, Ohio State and Penn State at the top, with a mix of returning powers, program momentum teams and a few surprise entrants.
Hopeful angle
– Preseason polls spark debate and storylines rather than settle them. This year’s projected top 25 highlights depth across conferences and several programs with upward trajectories, suggesting an engaging season ahead with multiple programs capable of making defining runs.
Additional editorial suggestions for publishing on WordPress
– Suggested headline: “Projected Preseason AP Top 25: Texas Tops Our 2025 Media Poll Forecast”
– Suggested subhead: “Using the Coaches Poll and offseason developments, here’s our best guess at the AP’s preseason rankings.”
– Meta description: “We project the AP Top 25 for 2025 ahead of the media’s preseason ballot release, explaining the reasoning behind each spot and what to watch once voters submit ballots.”
– Suggested tags: AP Top 25, preseason poll, college football, Texas Longhorns, Ohio State, Penn State, rankings
– Image suggestions: team photos of Texas and Ohio State or a collage of top-10 teams; scoreboard/ballot imagery for visual context.
– Internal links to consider: pieces on the Coaches Poll, early-season schedules for top teams, and injury updates for teams noted with question marks.
Check back after the AP preseason poll drops to compare how voters actually placed teams and to track which narratives influenced the final media ballots.