No. 2
The programs that waste the most talent
Stanford’s average results rank over the last five seasons, with the 34th-most talented roster
| Team | Talent rank (1 = most talented) | Results rank | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 34 | 93 | Stanford. talent rank 34, results rank 93 |
| North Carolina | 21 | 65 | North Carolina. talent rank 21, results rank 65 |
| Mississippi State | 29 | 62 | Mississippi State. talent rank 29, results rank 62 |
| Florida | 12 | 45 | Florida. talent rank 12, results rank 45 |
| Nebraska | 23 | 55 | Nebraska. talent rank 23, results rank 55 |
| Michigan State | 35 | 68 | Michigan State. talent rank 35, results rank 68 |
| Auburn | 16 | 48 | Auburn. talent rank 16, results rank 48 |
| Florida State | 18 | 46 | Florida State. talent rank 18, results rank 46 |
| Georgia Tech | 37 | 63 | Georgia Tech. talent rank 37, results rank 63 |
| South Carolina | 21 | 47 | South Carolina. talent rank 21, results rank 47 |
| Miami | 13 | 38 | Miami. talent rank 13, results rank 38 |
| Texas A&M | 6 | 29 | Texas A&M. talent rank 6, results rank 29 |
| LSU | 7 | 28 | LSU. talent rank 7, results rank 28 |
| Wisconsin | 26 | 46 | Wisconsin. talent rank 26, results rank 46 |
| Arizona State | 35 | 54 | Arizona State. talent rank 35, results rank 54 |
| UCLA | 26 | 45 | UCLA. talent rank 26, results rank 45 |
| Kansas State | 62 | 21 | Kansas State. talent rank 62, results rank 21 |
| Boise State | 74 | 35 | Boise State. talent rank 74, results rank 35 |
| Iowa State | 64 | 29 | Iowa State. talent rank 64, results rank 29 |
| Louisville | 47 | 27 | Louisville. talent rank 47, results rank 27 |
| Iowa | 40 | 28 | Iowa. talent rank 40, results rank 28 |
| Utah | 35 | 23 | Utah. talent rank 35, results rank 23 |
| SMU | 42 | 31 | SMU. talent rank 42, results rank 31 |
| Texas Tech | 42 | 35 | Texas Tech. talent rank 42, results rank 35 |
| Michigan | 14 | 13 | talent rank 14, results rank 13 |
| Ohio State | 3 | 2 | talent rank 3, results rank 2 |
| Alabama | 1 | 7 | talent rank 1, results rank 7 |
| Georgia | 2 | 4 | talent rank 2, results rank 4 |
Ten years of rosters against ten years of results. A handful of programs land below the line almost every season, and it isn’t bad luck.
By Mason3 min read
Roster talent is the best single predictor we have in college football. Rank every team by the recruiting pedigree of its roster and you’ve explained about half of how good it will be. The other half is coaching, development, health, scheme and luck.
So I lined the two up. For every FBS team from 2015 to 2025, I took its roster talent and how well it actually played (scoring margin, adjusted for who it played), and drew the line where a team with that roster should land. Then I looked for the programs that keep finishing under it.
Stanford
Since 2015, Stanford’s roster has ranked 26th in the country on average. Its results have ranked 63rd. It finished below the line in eight of ten seasons.
The last five are the hard part to look at. Stanford’s roster ranked between 22nd and 46th from 2021 to 2025. Its results ranked between 90th and 100th, and its records were 3–9, 3–9, 3–9, 3–9 and 4–8.
Florida State
Florida State had a top-seven roster every year from 2015 to 2019. Its results ranked 14th, 11th, 35th, 88th and 61st. In between came a 13–1 season in 2023 that beat its talent by nine points a game, so it isn’t all one direction. Then 2024: the 13th-most talented roster in the country, the 103rd-best results and a 2–10 record.
The rest of the list
Among programs with a top-45 roster on average, these finished below the line most often:
- South Carolina: nine seasons out of ten
- Stanford, Maryland and Nebraska: eight of ten
- UCLA, Florida State, North Carolina, Arkansas and Florida: seven of ten
- USC: a top-eight roster on average, results closer to 30th
Nineteen programs finished below their talent in at least eight of ten seasons. Pure luck would produce about seven.
That’s the part that surprised me. If falling short of your roster were random, a team’s gap one year would tell you nothing about the next. It does: a team that underperforms its talent this year tends to do it again next year. This is a habit, not a coin flip.
It’s also not a blue-blood problem. The most talented rosters in the country, taken together, play slightly above their talent. It’s specific programs.
The other side of the line
Iowa, Utah, Kansas State, Boise State, App State and Ohio beat their talent by five to eight points a game, year after year. You can call it coaching or development or culture. The data can’t tell you which. It can tell you it keeps happening.
This season
Seven games in, a few new names are under the line. Michigan has the 11th-most talented roster and the 60th-best results. Texas A&M is 7th and 45th, Clemson 16th and 52nd. Stanford is still there too: 50th in talent, 115th in results.
Seven games is a small sample. But if you’re wondering which programs will be on this list in five years, the history says to start with the ones already on it.