Edge Labs EDGE LABS Market intelligence
MLB CFB NFL
Edge Labs · CFB · Talent vs Record

The talent a roster signed vs what it did.

Every FBS team's recruiting talent (the 4-year composite, and its national rank that season) lined up against its actual record. The gap is the story · who outran the roster they had, and who left blue-chip talent on the field. National rank, record, and the sample behind each, on every team.

Read this first

Talent is a leading indicator and records drift back toward the roster. In our point-in-time test (2020·2025, n>150 each side), teams that outran their recruiting talent fell about 15 win-percentage points the next season, and the ones that underachieved rose about as much. So these gaps tend to close next year. That is a direction the data leans, not a guaranteed pick and not a bet.

+77gap · pts Biggest overachiever · 2025
Kennesaw State
C-USA · talent #137 of 137 · 10-3 (13 g)
thin talent (#137 of 137), went 10-3. Outran the roster.
-72gap · pts Biggest underachiever · 2025
Oklahoma State
Big 12 · talent #28 of 137 · 1-11 (12 g)
top-tier talent (#28 of 137), went 1-11. Left it on the field.

Filters

season · league
Overachiever · won more than the talent rank implied. Underrated roster.
Underachiever · blue-chip talent, thin record. Wasted talent.
Gap = win% minus where the talent rank sits in the field, in percentage points.
All FBS · 2025 · overachievers Talent vs record · biggest gaps first
n=68 teams · 129 ranked
Team Talent rank Composite Record Win% Gap (pts)
Kennesaw StateC-USA #137 / 137 53.1 10-3 (13g) 77% +77
New MexicoMountain West #135 / 137 55.7 9-3 (12g) 75% +74
James MadisonSun Belt #106 / 137 61.9 12-1 (13g) 92% +70
Old DominionSun Belt #128 / 137 58.6 9-3 (12g) 75% +68
NavyAAC #116 / 137 60.9 10-2 (12g) 83% +68
Fresno StatePac-12 #132 / 137 56.3 8-4 (12g) 67% +63
San Diego StatePac-12 #120 / 137 60.5 9-3 (12g) 75% +63
Western MichiganMAC #114 / 137 61.1 9-4 (13g) 69% +52
North TexasAAC #93 / 137 63.2 11-2 (13g) 85% +52
UNLVMountain West #103 / 137 62.2 10-3 (13g) 77% +52
DelawareC-USA #134 / 137 56.0 6-6 (12g) 50% +48
TroySun Belt #117 / 137 60.7 8-5 (13g) 62% +47
Central MichiganMAC #121 / 137 60.3 7-5 (12g) 58% +47
Louisiana TechC-USA #119 / 137 60.5 7-5 (12g) 58% +45
IndianaBig Ten #57 / 137 68.8 13-0 (13g) 100% +41
Florida InternationalC-USA #113 / 137 61.1 7-5 (12g) 58% +41
Georgia SouthernSun Belt #124 / 137 59.8 6-6 (12g) 50% +40
ArmyAAC #123 / 137 60.1 6-6 (12g) 50% +40
VirginiaACC #86 / 137 64.1 10-3 (13g) 77% +39
Boise StatePac-12 #95 / 137 63.0 9-4 (13g) 69% +38
BYUBig 12 #73 / 137 66.5 11-2 (13g) 85% +38
Western KentuckyC-USA #90 / 137 63.8 8-4 (12g) 67% +32
UtahBig 12 #66 / 137 67.6 10-2 (12g) 83% +31
Kent StateMAC #122 / 137 60.1 5-7 (12g) 42% +31
New Mexico StateC-USA #133 / 137 56.2 4-8 (12g) 33% +30
TulaneAAC #63 / 137 67.9 11-2 (13g) 85% +30
Coastal CarolinaSun Belt #110 / 137 61.2 6-6 (12g) 50% +30
IllinoisBig Ten #87 / 137 64.0 8-4 (12g) 67% +30
Missouri StateC-USA #98 / 137 62.9 7-5 (12g) 58% +30
Utah StatePac-12 #108 / 137 61.8 6-6 (12g) 50% +29
Arkansas StateSun Belt #107 / 137 61.9 6-6 (12g) 50% +28
Jacksonville StateC-USA #91 / 137 63.4 8-5 (13g) 62% +28
Texas StateSun Belt #105 / 137 62.1 6-6 (12g) 50% +26
Air ForceMountain West #125 / 137 59.7 4-8 (12g) 33% +25
UConnIndependent #68 / 137 67.4 9-3 (12g) 75% +24
East CarolinaAAC #78 / 137 65.8 8-4 (12g) 67% +23
OhioMAC #76 / 137 66.2 8-4 (12g) 67% +22
RiceAAC #109 / 137 61.5 5-7 (12g) 42% +21
Wake ForestACC #74 / 137 66.3 8-4 (12g) 67% +20
Texas TechBig 12 #38 / 137 70.8 12-1 (13g) 92% +20
South FloridaAAC #60 / 137 68.3 9-3 (12g) 75% +18
MemphisAAC #71 / 137 66.7 8-4 (12g) 67% +18
BuffaloMAC #104 / 137 62.1 5-7 (12g) 42% +17
AkronMAC #101 / 137 62.7 5-7 (12g) 42% +15
Bowling GreenMAC #111 / 137 61.2 4-8 (12g) 33% +14
ArizonaBig 12 #54 / 137 69.0 9-3 (12g) 75% +14
Washington StatePac-12 #88 / 137 63.9 6-6 (12g) 50% +14
TempleAAC #99 / 137 62.8 5-7 (12g) 42% +14
TennesseeSEC #64 / 137 67.9 8-4 (12g) 67% +13
UTEPMountain West #131 / 137 56.7 2-10 (12g) 17% +12
Sam HoustonC-USA #130 / 137 57.7 2-10 (12g) 17% +12
Arizona StateBig 12 #62 / 137 68.1 8-4 (12g) 67% +12
Northern IllinoisMountain West #118 / 137 60.7 3-9 (12g) 25% +11
Southern MissSun Belt #72 / 137 66.5 7-5 (12g) 58% +11
ToledoMAC #59 / 137 68.7 8-4 (12g) 67% +9
NC StateACC #69 / 137 67.0 7-5 (12g) 58% +8
UTSAAAC #80 / 137 65.5 6-6 (12g) 50% +8
VanderbiltSEC #34 / 137 71.2 10-2 (12g) 83% +8
NevadaMountain West #112 / 137 61.2 3-9 (12g) 25% +7
Ball StateMAC #100 / 137 62.8 4-8 (12g) 33% +6
CincinnatiBig 12 #65 / 137 67.9 7-5 (12g) 58% +5
PittsburghACC #52 / 137 69.4 8-4 (12g) 67% +4
Eastern MichiganMAC #97 / 137 62.9 4-8 (12g) 33% +4
Iowa StateBig 12 #50 / 137 69.5 8-4 (12g) 67% +3
Ole MissSEC #16 / 137 75.8 11-1 (12g) 92% +3
OregonBig Ten #15 / 137 76.2 11-1 (12g) 92% +2
WyomingMountain West #94 / 137 63.1 4-8 (12g) 33% +2
Georgia TechACC #36 / 137 70.9 9-3 (12g) 75% +1
National talent rank is across all 129 FBS programs with a composite this season · record is regular season from game results · gap = win% minus the talent-rank percentile, in points · a frequency and a direction, never a pick or a bet.

This is talent intelligence, not a betting edge. The recruiting composite does not beat the spread · we tested it and it lands near a coin flip against the number in every bucket. What it does do is show where a roster's talent and its record pulled apart, and that gap tends to regress. Every number ships with its sample (games behind the record, programs behind the rank). Research, not advice.