Opening the research record…
Opening the research record…
2026 Preseason v1 · Frozen
An ordinal assessment of roster composition, staff, estimated spending and continuity—made before 2026 game evidence enters the record.
No decimal scores. No result-driven revisions.
| Rank | Move | Program | Reported spend | Roster | Principal risk | View program |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Championship capital | ||||||
| 1 | Ohio StateBig Ten | More than $40M | A+ | Defensive returning-starter losses | ||
| 2 | 5 | OregonBig Ten | More than $40M | A+ | Coordinator transition | |
| 3 | Notre DameIndependent | More than $40M | A+ | Replacing the leading running backs | ||
| 4 | GeorgiaSEC | $30M–$39M | A+ | Pass-rush production | ||
| 5 | TexasSEC | More than $40M | A+ | Offensive-line improvement | ||
| Playoff-grade foundation | ||||||
| 6 | 4 | IndianaBig Ten | $30M–$39M | A- | Replacing Fernando Mendoza | |
| 7 | 1 | MiamiACC | More than $40M | A- | Four new offensive-line starters | |
| 8 | LSUSEC | More than $40M | A- | More than 40 additions to integrate | ||
| 9 | 1 | Texas A&MSEC | More than $40M | A | Quarterback ball security | |
| 10 | 3 | Texas TechBig 12 | $30M–$39M | A- | Will Hammond's ACL recovery | |
| 11 | 2 | AlabamaSEC | $30M–$39M | B+/A | Quarterback uncertainty | |
| 12 | 2 | USCBig Ten | $30M–$39M | A- | Defensive improvement under new leadership | |
| High-upside build | ||||||
| 13 | NEW | Ole MissSEC | $30M–$39M | A- | New offensive tackles | |
| 14 | 2 | TennesseeSEC | $30M–$39M | B+ | Young-quarterback variance | |
| 15 | 5 | OklahomaSEC | $30M–$39M | B+ | Turnovers | |
| 16 | 5 | MichiganBig Ten | $30M–$39M | B+ | Pass protection | |
| 17 | 2 | BYUBig 12 | $20M–$29M | B+ | Less elite depth | |
| 18 | NEW | FloridaSEC | $30M–$39M | B+ | Quarterback uncertainty | |
| 19 | Penn StateBig Ten | $20M–$29M | B+ | Four new starting offensive linemen | ||
| Development edge | ||||||
| 20 | 3 | Virginia TechACC | $20M–$29M | B | Top-end quarterback play unproven | |
| 21 | 2 | MissouriSEC | $20M–$29M | B+ | Fewer dominant units | |
| 22 | 4 | SMUACC | $20M–$29M | B | Coordinator turnover | |
| 23 | NEW | WashingtonBig Ten | $20M–$29M | B | Running-back turnover | |
| 24 | 3 | IowaBig Ten | $20M–$29M | B | Quarterback uncertainty | |
| 25 | NEW | HoustonBig 12 | Under $20M | B | Lower raw-talent base | |
Championship capital
Defensive returning-starter losses
Championship capital
Coordinator transition
Championship capital
Replacing the leading running backs
Championship capital
Pass-rush production
Championship capital
Offensive-line improvement
Playoff-grade foundation
Replacing Fernando Mendoza
Playoff-grade foundation
Four new offensive-line starters
Playoff-grade foundation
More than 40 additions to integrate
Playoff-grade foundation
Quarterback ball security
Playoff-grade foundation
Will Hammond's ACL recovery
Playoff-grade foundation
Quarterback uncertainty
Playoff-grade foundation
Defensive improvement under new leadership
High-upside build
New offensive tackles
High-upside build
Young-quarterback variance
High-upside build
Turnovers
High-upside build
Pass protection
High-upside build
Less elite depth
High-upside build
Quarterback uncertainty
High-upside build
Four new starting offensive linemen
Development edge
Top-end quarterback play unproven
Development edge
Fewer dominant units
Development edge
Coordinator turnover
Development edge
Running-back turnover
Development edge
Quarterback uncertainty
Development edge
Lower raw-talent base
Movement compares this edition with the prior working board. “New” means newly added to the top 25, not a newly evaluated program universe.
Reported spend combines estimated revenue sharing and NIL/collective resources. It is a survey-derived band, not audited payroll.