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.
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.
| Team | Talent rank | Composite | Record | Win% | Gap (pts) ▼ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma StateBig 12 | #28 / 137 | 71.8 | 1-11 (12g) | 8% | -72 |
| South CarolinaSEC | #13 / 137 | 77.3 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -58 |
| FloridaSEC | #14 / 137 | 76.5 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -57 |
| Virginia TechACC | #31 / 137 | 71.3 | 3-9 (12g) | 25% | -53 |
| CharlotteAAC | #55 / 137 | 69.0 | 1-11 (12g) | 8% | -52 |
| WisconsinBig Ten | #21 / 137 | 74.0 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -52 |
| Boston CollegeACC | #44 / 137 | 70.0 | 2-10 (12g) | 17% | -52 |
| AuburnSEC | #11 / 137 | 77.4 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -51 |
| MarylandBig Ten | #23 / 137 | 73.1 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -50 |
| ArkansasSEC | #47 / 137 | 69.7 | 2-10 (12g) | 17% | -50 |
| StanfordACC | #27 / 137 | 71.9 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -48 |
| Penn StateBig Ten | #5 / 137 | 80.2 | 6-6 (12g) | 50% | -47 |
| PurdueBig Ten | #51 / 137 | 69.4 | 2-10 (12g) | 17% | -47 |
| ColoradoBig 12 | #40 / 137 | 70.6 | 3-9 (12g) | 25% | -46 |
| Florida StateACC | #18 / 137 | 75.7 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -46 |
| UCLABig Ten | #41 / 137 | 70.3 | 3-9 (12g) | 25% | -46 |
| SyracuseACC | #43 / 137 | 70.1 | 3-9 (12g) | 25% | -44 |
| Mississippi StateSEC | #22 / 137 | 73.2 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -43 |
| UCFBig 12 | #24 / 137 | 72.5 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -41 |
| KentuckySEC | #25 / 137 | 72.4 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -41 |
| BaylorBig 12 | #26 / 137 | 72.0 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -40 |
| Michigan StateBig Ten | #39 / 137 | 70.7 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -39 |
| LSUSEC | #8 / 137 | 79.2 | 7-5 (12g) | 58% | -37 |
| KansasBig 12 | #32 / 137 | 71.3 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -36 |
| ClemsonACC | #10 / 137 | 78.2 | 7-5 (12g) | 58% | -35 |
| North CarolinaACC | #53 / 137 | 69.4 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -28 |
| TexasSEC | #4 / 137 | 82.1 | 9-3 (12g) | 75% | -23 |
| AlabamaSEC | #3 / 137 | 83.3 | 10-3 (13g) | 77% | -22 |
| Colorado StatePac-12 | #85 / 137 | 64.2 | 2-10 (12g) | 17% | -22 |
| MissouriSEC | #19 / 137 | 75.2 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | -20 |
| West VirginiaBig 12 | #67 / 137 | 67.4 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -18 |
| Kansas StateBig 12 | #45 / 137 | 70.0 | 6-6 (12g) | 50% | -18 |
| Georgia StateSun Belt | #102 / 137 | 62.6 | 1-11 (12g) | 8% | -17 |
| MichiganBig Ten | #12 / 137 | 77.4 | 9-3 (12g) | 75% | -17 |
| RutgersBig Ten | #58 / 137 | 68.7 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -16 |
| Oregon StatePac-12 | #92 / 137 | 63.3 | 2-10 (12g) | 17% | -16 |
| NebraskaBig Ten | #37 / 137 | 70.8 | 7-5 (12g) | 58% | -15 |
| NorthwesternBig Ten | #49 / 137 | 69.6 | 6-6 (12g) | 50% | -15 |
| TCUBig 12 | #29 / 137 | 71.7 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | -13 |
| OklahomaSEC | #7 / 137 | 79.3 | 10-2 (12g) | 83% | -12 |
| UABAAC | #75 / 137 | 66.3 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -12 |
| USCBig Ten | #20 / 137 | 74.1 | 9-3 (12g) | 75% | -11 |
| South AlabamaSun Belt | #77 / 137 | 66.1 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -11 |
| MiamiACC | #9 / 137 | 78.3 | 10-2 (12g) | 83% | -11 |
| SMUACC | #33 / 137 | 71.3 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | -10 |
| Texas A&MSEC | #1 / 137 | 84.3 | 11-1 (12g) | 92% | -8 |
| LouisvilleACC | #35 / 137 | 71.1 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | -8 |
| LibertyC-USA | #82 / 137 | 65.2 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -7 |
| Ohio StateBig Ten | #2 / 137 | 83.4 | 12-1 (13g) | 92% | -7 |
| TulsaAAC | #84 / 137 | 64.3 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -6 |
| Middle TennesseeC-USA | #96 / 137 | 62.9 | 3-9 (12g) | 25% | -5 |
| Notre DameIndependent | #17 / 137 | 75.8 | 10-2 (12g) | 83% | -5 |
| GeorgiaSEC | #6 / 137 | 79.5 | 12-1 (13g) | 92% | -4 |
| DukeACC | #48 / 137 | 69.6 | 8-5 (13g) | 62% | -4 |
| HoustonBig 12 | #30 / 137 | 71.5 | 9-3 (12g) | 75% | -4 |
| WashingtonBig Ten | #42 / 137 | 70.2 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | -3 |
| Miami (OH)MAC | #61 / 137 | 68.2 | 7-6 (13g) | 54% | -2 |
| Florida AtlanticAAC | #89 / 137 | 63.9 | 4-8 (12g) | 33% | -2 |
| MinnesotaBig Ten | #56 / 137 | 68.9 | 7-5 (12g) | 58% | -1 |
| MarshallSun Belt | #79 / 137 | 65.6 | 5-7 (12g) | 42% | -1 |
| IowaBig Ten | #46 / 137 | 69.9 | 8-4 (12g) | 67% | 0 |
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.